[Senate Hearing 106-390]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-390
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 1906/S. 1233
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Department of Agriculture
Food and Drug Administration
Nondepartmental witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
54-203 CC WASHINGTON : 1999
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
ISBN 0-16-060287-4
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
SLADE GORTON, Washington FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
JON KYL, Arizona
Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
James H. English, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TOM HARKIN, Iowa
SLADE GORTON, Washington BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CONRAD BURNS, Montana RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
TED STEVENS, Alaska
(ex officio)
Professional Staff
Rebecca M. Davies
Martha Scott Poindexter
Hunt Shipman
Galen Fountain (Minority)
Administrative Support
Les Spivey
Carole Geagley (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, February 9, 1999
Page
Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary............... 1
Tuesday, March 2, 1999
Department of Agriculture: Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services.......................................... 123
Tuesday, March 16, 1999
Department of Health and Human Services: Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention......................................... 315
Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug
Administration................................................. 325
Department of Agriculture: Office of the Under Secretary for Food
Safety......................................................... 517
Tuesday, April 27, 1999
Department of Agriculture........................................ 553
Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug
Administration................................................. 617
Material Submitted by Agencies Not Appearing for Formal Hearings
Department of Agriculture:
Alternative Agriculture Research and Commercialization
Corporation (AARCC)........................................ 707
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. 709
Departmental Administration.................................. 712
Economic Research Service.................................... 714
National Appeals Division.................................... 718
Office of the Chief Economist................................ 719
Office of the Chief Financial Officer........................ 725
Office of the Chief Information Officer...................... 728
Office of Civil Rights....................................... 737
Office of Communications..................................... 739
Office of the General Counsel................................ 740
Office of Inspector General.................................. 750
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and
Economics.................................................. 760
Rural Business-Cooperative Service........................... 766
Office of the Secretary for Rural Economic and Community
Develop-
ment....................................................... 768
Rural Housing Service........................................ 774
Rural Utilities Service...................................... 779
Departmental Administration.................................. 784
Office of Chief Information Officer.......................... 789
National Agricultural Statistics Service..................... 820
Economic Research Service.................................... 821
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service................... 837
Agricultural Marketing Service............................... 848
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyard Administration...... 852
Agricultural Research Service................................ 860
Research Activities.......................................... 947
Farm Credit Administration................................... 980
Research, Education, and Economics........................... 983
Federal Administration and Special Research Grants........... 991
Submitted Questions on Government Performance and Results Act:
Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization
Corporation................................................ 1181
Agricultural Marketing Service............................... 1182
Agricultural Research Service................................ 1183
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service................... 1185
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. 1187
Departmental Administration.................................. 1189
Economic Research Service.................................... 1190
Foreign Agricultural Service................................. 1192
Farm Service Agency.......................................... 1194
Food Safety and Inspection Service........................... 1197
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration....... 1200
National Agricultural Statistics Service..................... 1201
National Appeals Division.................................... 1203
Natural Resource Conservation Service........................ 1204
Office of Budget and Program Analysis........................ 1207
Office of Communications..................................... 1208
Office of the Chief Economist................................ 1210
Office of the Chief Financial Officer........................ 1211
Office of Chief Information Officer.......................... 1213
Office of the General Counsel................................ 1214
Office of the Inspector General.............................. 1215
Rural Development............................................ 1217
Risk Management Agency....................................... 1219
Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................ 1223
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Thad Cochran (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Cochran, Bond, Burns, Kohl, Harkin,
Dorgan, Feinstein, and Durbin.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF DAN GLICKMAN, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY:
RICHARD ROMINGER, DEPUTY SECRETARY
KEITH COLLINS, CHIEF ECONOMIST
STEPHEN B. DEWHURST, BUDGET OFFICER
OPENING REMARKS
Senator Cochran. The subcommittee will please come to
order.
Today we begin the hearings on the fiscal year 2000 budget
submitted by the President for agriculture, rural development,
and related agencies.
We are very pleased this morning to have as our first
witness the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Dan Glickman. We
appreciate, Mr. Secretary, your being here with us today and
having those who are accompanying you: Richard Rominger, Deputy
Secretary of the Department of Agriculture; Keith Collins, the
Department's Chief Economist; and Stephen Dewhurst, the Budget
Officer of the Department.
This subcommittee has jurisdiction for all appropriations,
programs, and activities of the Department of Agriculture, with
the exception of the Forest Service which is funded by the
Interior appropriations bill.
The President's fiscal year 2000 appropriations request,
which is before the committee this morning, is $60.6 billion, a
net increase of $5.8 billion from the fiscal year 1999 enacted
level. This excludes the $5.9 billion in emergency spending for
USDA programs provided by the fiscal year 1999 Omnibus
Appropriations Act.
Over three-fourths of the total fiscal year 2000 budget
request, a total of $47 billion, is for appropriations that are
mandated by law. So, the President's total fiscal year 2000
discretionary appropriations request is $13.2 billion, an
increase of $275 million from the fiscal year 1999 level.
The total request is actually understated if you extract
savings from legislative proposals and questionable scoring
tactics. The budget request relies, for example, on the
adoption of new user fee legislation to generate an additional
$532 million in collections for fiscal year 2000. These same
user fee proposals, such as user fees to cover the costs of
meat, poultry, and egg product inspections, have been rejected
by previous Congresses, and I suspect that will be the case
again.
While the appropriations request of the affected agencies
does not reflect the savings from these fee proposals, the
savings, nonetheless, are taken from our bottom line. They're
used in the President's budget as offsets to comply with the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act caps on
discretionary appropriations.
Furthermore, not only does the budget propose to redirect
funds from ongoing programs and activities to fund program
increases and new requirements, the appropriations request
relies on additional savings from legislative proposals to
shift programs to the mandatory side of the ledger, to save
$200 million by funding fiscal year 2000 rural rental
assistance requirements over 2 years, and to double count $180
million in savings used to offset fiscal year 1999
appropriations.
I believe it is fair to say that this subcommittee will not
have the luxury of being able to count on the availability of
this savings or approve many of the proposed shifts in funds
from existing priorities of the Congress. The reality, Mr.
Secretary, is that we will have to operate under more
constrained spending limitations than those in this budget.
We have your statement that you have prepared, Mr.
Secretary, and we will make it a part of the record in full. We
encourage you to proceed to summarize it and make whatever
additional comments you think would be helpful to the
subcommittee, and then we will have an opportunity for
questions from the subcommittee members.
But before hearing your comments, let me yield to the
distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, the ranking minority
member of this subcommittee, whom we welcome in this new
capacity. He has been a member of the subcommittee and has been
a very effective and helpful member in our deliberations.
Senator Kohl.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR KOHL
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Cochran. It is a great
pleasure for me to join you this morning in welcoming Secretary
Glickman, Secretary Rominger, and our other distinguished
guests from the Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Chairman, let say that I look forward to working with
you and all of the members of the subcommittee this year to
develop the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill for the
Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration,
and the other agencies under this subcommittee's jurisdiction.
It is also a pleasure to see you and we look forward to
hearing your remarks, Mr. Secretary, regarding the USDA budget
for the coming year. Programs administered by the Department of
Agriculture touch all of our lives in many ways. In Wisconsin
and across the Nation, farmers, school children, and consumers
from every walk of life rely on your Department for a wide
variety of services ranging from commodities produced on farms
to the commodities served at the dinner table. Rural
communities have come to rely on programs of USDA to meet
housing, utility, and economic needs. The conservation programs
at USDA serve to help us protect our soil, water, and wildlife
resources not only to improve our own quality of life, but the
quality of life of our children and our grandchildren.
U.S. agriculture today faces many challenges. Market prices
continue their volatility and there is no guarantee that the
dairy prices of today will be the dairy prices of tomorrow. I,
in fact, remain very concerned that the problems facing dairy
farmers rest beyond the markets and in part with USDA dairy
programs themselves, such as regional dairy compacts.
One of these programs, the milk pricing laws, for example,
has created an unfortunate cast of winners and losers, with
family farmers having the most at stake. Federal milk marketing
orders must demand equity and simplicity as necessary tools to
eliminate the inherent inefficiencies and unfairness of
arbitrary regional differences. Without reform, Wisconsin will
lose half of our family dairy farmers over the next 5 to 10
years, which of course to me and I am sure to you is an
unacceptable result of a totally failed policy.
The face of agriculture is changing as we witness the
challenge of large corporate interests competing with the
sustainability of small, independent, family-size operations.
American consumers have grown accustom to available and
affordable food items that previous generations could not even
imagine. When Wisconsin pioneers sat down to eat their evening
meal, they had no concept whatever of E. coli, Salmonella, and
any other cause for foodborne illness. They took their chances,
but today we rely on USDA to provide not only the most
bountiful food supply in the world, but also the safest.
So, Mr. Secretary, we are glad to have you here today. We
look forward to your remarks, and we have a few questions to
ask after you make your remarks.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Bond.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BOND
Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very
brief.
I want to join you in welcoming Senator Kohl as the ranking
member. I know he will be great in the leadership team.
But most of all, Mr. Chairman, I begin by commending you
for your knowledge, your dedication, and your hard work on this
committee. You really are the most effective chairman of any of
the appropriations subcommittees. I say that as an admission
against interest. [Laughter.]
And your knowledgeable explanation of the budget
shenanigans that we have to deal with in this committee and
others is very important because we are not going to be making
these savings or shifts. So, we have a tough job to do in this
subcommittee.
As I mentioned to the Secretary, as I was coming in, there
are some real crises. I have got some cattle producers back
home who wonder if it is going to take Patton's 3rd Army to
liberate Europe so Europeans can eat U.S. beef. The Europeans
have not had a good steak in 10 years. [Laughter.]
Senator Baucus and I have finalized the letter to you, Mr.
Secretary, and I think we have about 41 Senators on it, asking
you that you begin now to be ready to retaliate if the May 13th
deadline is not met. I know you have watched, as we have. They
find lots of ways to diddle and dawdle and refuse to take the
steps they need to, and I hope that you are ready on May 13th
or May 14th to pull the trigger and move ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Burns.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BURNS
Senator Burns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just submit
a statement, and I want to hear from our witnesses today.
I think as you look at this budget and look at the
appropriations as requested by the Secretary of Agriculture--
and we want to welcome him this morning. I have got a whole
litany of things here. I will get them to you. You will spend
the rest of the day musing over them.
But I think in my opinion the discretionary funds that the
chairman has talked about this morning--there is nothing wrong
on the farm or ranch today excepting the price. I think that
was noted in a hearing held in the Agriculture Committee. Out
of that emanated what Senator Bond and Senator Baucus are
trying to do.
But here is the challenge ahead of us. Auburn University
Professor C. Robert Taylor noted that farmers are making 4.5
percent return on their equity in the 1990's, while retail food
chains are raking in 18 percent; food manufacturers, 17.2
percent; even agricultural banks at 10.8 percent. The price
consumers paid for food has risen 2.8 percent since 1984, while
prices paid to farmers has declined 35.7 percent. Retailers'
marketing costs have tumbled some 14.9 percent. And then you
wonder why we have got a problem on the farm.
I do not know what we are going to spend our money for, but
I think we should be looking at this problem right here. We
keep talking about this great and wonderful exploding economy,
and if you want to go through farm country and look at the
auctions, they ain't going out of business because they want
to. And this is the problem. This is the problem.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So, instead of doing all of this stuff that does not mean
anything, we had better start concentrating and spending that
money and getting some people down there that are advocates for
the producers so that we can increase that percentage of the
consumer dollar getting back to the people who actually produce
it. That is our challenge, and I think that is the direction in
which we are going to have to proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Burns
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank the Chairman for the prompt and
timely manner in which he has called the first hearing on the
fiscal year 2000 budget for Agriculture, Rural Development and
Related Agencies. I think it is extremely important to get the
ball rolling early this year so that we can have a timely and
effective process for this Subcommittee. I would also like to
acknowledge the presence of Senator Kohl as ranking member of
the Subcommittee this year. I look forward to working with you
both, as well as all the members of the Subcommittee this year
for the benefit of the greatest agriculture producers in the
world--the American farmer and rancher.
Well enough of the niceties, it is time to get down to the
business at hand, a discussion of the budget proposal put forth
by the Administration for the Department of Agriculture. I was
hoping after what we all had to go through last year in this
hearing room with Secretary Glickman, that this year we would
have seen some improvement in the budget proposal put forth
this year. But I guess I was expecting too much.
A year ago I questioned whether there was an advocate for
the producer in the Department of Agriculture, and as I looked
through the budget for the coming year I have found that I no
longer need to ask, the answer is clear. NO, there is not an
advocate in the Department for the producer. Questions and
issues that clearly could have been addressed were left out in
the cold. A solution which would have benefited the man and
woman in the field was left unaddressed, as in the case of
serious crop insurance reform.
Mr. Secretary in my mind that one issue is just the very
tip of the iceberg which I am afraid is about to puncture the
hull of the good ship USDA. The people in their tractors and on
horseback in Montana no longer have faith in the Department to
assist them in any way which will help them move their products
in the market place, or in finding realistic and meaningful
ways to increase the certainty of their future.
So many of the actions that this Administration and the
people within your Department have taken in Montana have placed
additional burdens on these hard working citizens. Although not
related to this budget, just last week the Chief of the Forest
Service went to Montana to remove over 400,000 acres of land
from any future mineral exploration. Although I have not yet
decided if mining in this area is the best thing to do at this
time, I am sure that if you close it for 20 years, as the Chief
has determined, we will not get in there at anytime to do
anything which will assist the people of the state of Montana.
Close it for 20 years and you close it forever, no matter what
sound and scientific technology may be developed for the
extraction of the minerals in this area.
Mr. Secretary, it started with timber, then oil and gas,
now minerals. What is next Mr. Secretary? I can already see the
attack on the recreationalists and those people that graze
cattle on these lands. Although these are public lands and many
special interest groups will argue that these natural resource
providers have no rights to these lands, these same people must
remember that people who make their living off the land are
also citizens of this nation.
Let me get back to the topic at hand however, issues that
are directly related to agriculture production. Last year this
committee appropriated a set sum of funds to provide for the
Department to settle certain lawsuits as a result of
discrimination. I am in favor of assisting anybody who has been
unjustly treated due to their race, religion or sex. However,
it seems that we may have a problem resolving all these
problems.
I want to commend the USDA, Office of Civil Rights, for
their recent action to settle the discrimination suit brought
by African-American farmers against the USDA. However, I firmly
believe that much remains to be done. According to information
posted on the Office of Civil Rights Internet site as of March
1998, Montana had at least 19 cases of discrimination pending
with the USDA, placing Montana in the same category as highly
populated states such as Florida and New York.
One young woman has a case that has been awaiting decision
at various levels of appeal since 1995. She cannot make good
management decisions or create viable farm plans until this
situation is resolved. The stress of this wait has caused
serious medical problems. In another case, a farm family has
lost everything except their dignity. Now, they wait in a
rented house to find out what their future will hold.
These people deserve better than this from an agency that
was supposedly established to help American agricultural
producers. I want to know when the people still in the process
can expect prompt, responsive, and efficient handling of their
complaints, not the foot- dragging, hurry-up-and-wait treatment
they have received up to this point?
As I looked at the budget for the Department, at least two
very striking areas arose in my mind. I can tell you that
numerous other issues came up, but none quite as striking as
the amount of dollars I see being expended in terms of research
and in the area of the Foreign Agriculture Service.
In terms of research I cannot believe that we are content
with what is being done today to assist our producers. It
appears to me that we are doing a great deal to assist those
people in the next couple of layers in getting the product
safely to the consumer. These next couple of layers are the
people that can afford to expend the dollars to assist their
enterprises. But the producer who is out there working in the
field cannot find the assistance from this Department to make
them better producers.
Mr. Secretary, the biggest problem we have right now in the
world of agriculture is getting a fair share of the consumer
dollar back to the producer. Somewhere between the time the
producer sells the product and the time it reaches the table,
there is a serious disconnect. I've talked to the man and woman
on the ground, the processor and all the way to the grocers.
Now according to these people not one of them is making any
money in the food production business. So can somebody tell me
why I spend three times as much for a pound of Wheaties as the
farmer gets paid for a sixty pound bushel of wheat. And why is
it that a rancher out there is selling his steer for $65 a
hundred and I pay over $5 a pound for good steak. Something is
wrong here.
Mr. Secretary, I would like to provide you with some
figures that came up during the recent hearing before the
Senate Agriculture Committee. I quote Auburn professor C.
Robert Taylor, who noted that farmers are only making a 4.5
percent return on equity in the 90's, retail food chains 18
percent, food processors 17.2 percent and even agriculture
banks are getting 10.8 percent. Taylor also brought up the fact
that the price consumers pay for food has risen 2.8 percent
since 1984 while the prices paid to the farmer has fallen by
35.75 and retail marketing costs have tumbled 14.9 percent.
This is where we need to do the work, getting that dollar
back to the producer. And it may fall on this committee to look
at a resolution to this problem. I commit my support and my
efforts to the Chairman and ranking member as well as to the
producer in Montana and the nation to work on this issue with
them in the coming year.
Part of it deals with the fact that our producers cannot
count on the Department to assist them in securing the future.
Research is the vision of the future, and according to this
budget we have a limited vision of what the future is and where
our food will come from. Mr. Secretary, you have heard this
same speech from me for at least the past two years, and as
long as you and your Department treat the best producers in the
world in the manner that you do, you can count on hearing more
and more of the same from me.
Last year I attempted to get some funds to look to the
future and ran into a roadblock in getting the funds for a very
important project. As we continue to see increases in the
interaction between livestock and wildlife we will continue to
see problems arising related to the diseases which wildlife may
carry which could be detrimental to livestock. We already are
experiencing just such a problem in Montana between the bison
and domestic livestock. Yet I could not get the backing of the
Administration to address the issue, but instead have to look
at this competition between established research devoted to
contained livestock. I have to be honest with you that if we
don't address this problem at the root cause that we will need
the research on contained livestock. I hope to work with
members of this committee to see what we can do to address this
potentially dangerous problem this coming year.
I cannot believe, that during this past year when we fought
so hard in Congress to get the Administration to open their
eyes to the plight of the producer in field, as they attempt to
compete on world markets that you would endorse cutting the
budget that will help us compete. The cuts are short sighted
and do nothing to make our producers feel that the government,
the same government they pay taxes to, is helping them in any
way.
I have a difficult time going back to Montana and telling
my producers that this Administration will take care of them
the next round of negotiations on the world trade market. They
have heard that for too long. It appears that when our
negotiators go the trading table they are more than willing to
slide agriculture off the table as it is not a high ticket
enough of an item. The balance of trade cannot reflect a closer
balance when we trade food as compared to high ticket high
technology. It just appears that cutting the deal is more
important than what is contained in the deal. I know this is
not all your doing, but Mr. Secretary by cutting the funds for
the Foreign Agriculture Service does not send a signal that you
are concerned. Additionally, you have a position of authority
in this Administration and you can use your influence to make
sure that the trade negotiators make agriculture an important
share of our international trade.
There appears to be at least one program out there where
there seems to be some success in dealing on foreign markets,
that is the Foreign Market Development Cooperators Program, yet
the Foreign AG Service with your okay, always seems to find a
way to cut or at least reduce the funding for this program. It
just doesn't make sense to me.
I have even heard rumors about the hill that the Department
is in the process of developing language that would remove the
statutory language in the `96 Farm bill for this program. I
can't believe this since it is a program that is basically
being successful in nature. I am a little proprietary in nature
since this is language I had placed in the Farm bill four years
ago.
I am concerned as well with the continuing fight that seems
to be taking place on exporting our beef to the European Union.
I have joined with a number of Senators in sending a letter to
you asking that you be prepared to take whatever measures are
necessary to protect American beef from the unrealistic demands
placed on it by our so called trading partners. We need to
begin to use the muscle we have as a trading partner on the
world market and bring those countries which we count on for
trade to the table to bargain and deal in good faith.
I also have a little problem back in Montana that I know
you Mr. Secretary are familiar with in a very close sense. The
bison continue to leave Yellowstone National Park, and Montana
continues to protect its' investment in the livestock industry.
As you are aware I have always been a strong proponent of the
Animal, Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and I continue
to strongly support their efforts in terms of keeping America
clean from biological agents from outside our borders, but in
terms of the work and effort that they have put into the bison
problem I am having my doubts, as is much of Montana. More
times than not, it appears that they are no longer working with
us but instead they seem to appear to have lost sense of their
mission statement in terms of animal health.
I have taken more than enough time today to discuss my
displeasure both in this Administration and the manner in which
the Department is responding to the needs of producers. I am
sure I will hear the standard answers that I have heard for the
past nine years, but rest assured that I am not going to sit by
and watch the producers in Montana and this country be taken
advantage of any longer. Thank you again Mr. Chairman, I look
forward to hearing from the Secretary, and more importantly
working with you in the coming year for American agriculture.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Burns.
Senator Durbin.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DURBIN
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure
to be a member of this subcommittee. It was my honor to serve
for 12 years in the House of Representatives as a member of
this same subcommittee, going back to the days of Jamie
Whitten, who was my teacher in the art of appropriations.
I also recognize the team at the table here. Though I have
been gone for 2 years, they clearly are still at their posts
and doing their job. Secretary Glickman, thank you for coming.
Mr. Rominger, good to see you again. Mr. Collins, as always I
am sure you will present us with some valuable economic
information based on your research. And the long-suffering
Steve Dewhurst, who has been the Budget Officer for as long as
I can remember, welcome. [Laughter.]
Through thick and thin and changes in Secretaries, you have
been here, and I thank you for your contribution. I welcome you
all and I thank you for the opportunity to be part of this
hearing.
I have a number of issues of interest in the proposed
budget. I see that you have made some substantial cutbacks in
outlays, which undoubtedly will be visited on many different
aspects of this budget. I am concerned about some of the
decreases in the ARS construction account, particularly as it
affects my home State of Illinois in Peoria, as well as in
Champaign-Urbana. I will be submitting some questions on
specific elements there.
I would like to, if I can, focus on one thing in
particular, and I would hope, Mr. Secretary, that you would
reflect on this as well. We are now near the close of the
Clinton administration with 2 years left, and many will want to
leave a legacy in this Department of the kind of foresight and
vision that really will be an inspiration to future
generations. The one issue that has been investigated and
scrutinized at great length for a great period of time is the
whole question of food safety.
If you look back to Government Affairs hearings in the
1970's, hearings that were attended by Senator Percy of
Illinois and others, they talked about the fact that we could
not rationalize the fact that so many different Federal
agencies were in the food safety inspection business. Some
estimate that today there are as many as 12 different Federal
agencies in that business, 6 major agencies, some 35 different
pieces of legislation.
I believe that we are captives of politics at the
congressional level. We are captives of the businesses who are
loathe to see change which they're uncertain of. We are
captives of the unions who have the same fear. And frankly, we
have to do something.
I have worked on legislation in the last session, and I
would like to invite my colleagues to join me this year to try
to come together with one unified, independent food safety
inspection agency that is guided by science, rather than
politics, that can restore any doubt in the mind of the
American consumer that we are doing everything in our power.
Now, I know HACCP has brought us a long way, and I
congratulate you for that. But let us take the next step. Let
us bring this all under one roof. Let us not be afraid of a
turf battle here and really dedicate ourselves in the next 2
years to address it.
I want to also say that I am sorry to see user fees in this
budget again. Every year the budget folks put this in with the
full knowledge that it will never take place. They count the
money and then we have to try to rationalize making up the
difference. It has just become a ritual, and unfortunately it
is a painful one.
I know other Senators, including Senator Kohl, have
addressed the problems in the pork industry. I hope that we can
find a way to look at the point raised by Senator Burns earlier
that the producers many times are the losers. It seems that the
concentration of power in processing and marketing has really
created some serious problems for those who are struggling to
be good producers and ranchers across America.
Finally, a very parochial thing. Thank you, Mr. Secretary
for coming to Chicago last year. When I mention this, most
people are going to chuckle, but we have got a little problem
that is turning into a big problem. Somehow or another a pest
known as the Asian long-horned beetle has arrived in Chicago,
and it is eating up our trees right and left. We are not quite
sure where it came from, but it is a serious threat. And we are
now chopping down trees in every direction. It will take years
for us to replace them. Thank you to the Department of
Agriculture for their interest in this, and I hope we can
continue to work on that.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to make an opening
statement.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Durbin. Thank you.
Senator Feinstein, we welcome you to the committee and
appreciate your attendance at this hearing. We have all made
opening comments welcoming the Secretary, and I will recognize
you now for that purpose.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am delighted to be a member of this committee. I guess I am
the freshman on the committee. But because California has by
far the largest agricultural industry in the United States, it
is a very important one to us, so I am delighted to be here.
I want, in particular, to thank Secretary Glickman for his
response to the citrus freeze in California. The damage to that
crop is to date more than $650 million, and that includes about
$458 million to the orange crop and about $101 million to the
lemon crop. I want to just thank you very much for declaring an
emergency as promptly as you did in the six counties in which
you did, and I want you to know that that is well respected in
California.
The wipe-out, where it took place, is all but total and the
real problem remaining is also one for the workers who do not
have additional jobs, at least for the first 6 months of this
year. So, any help that can be given with respect to food
stamps and those kinds of things is very, very much
appreciated.
I have asked the administration to help provide some
temporary housing and unemployment assistance, as well as some
individual and family grants to those who have lost their jobs.
I would hope that in your remarks you might be able to respond
to that and let us know--I think I put that in writing to you
as well--what might be able to be done in that regard.
I want to quickly--I did not mean to interrupt you----
Secretary Glickman. No. We were asking about food stamps.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Mr. Secretary, I bring to
your attention the growing concern about USDA inspections at
the United States-Mexico border. I know you just recently held
some hearings with respect to the importation of Argentinean
crops into California and the very real concern about pest
controls. I would have to say that the phytosanitary controls
are really one of the major concerns about California
agriculture. As you know, we went through a period of the med
fly in California and we saw that sufficiently deter exports
into other countries. That is now under control.
I feel very, very strongly that controls have to be in
play. We are a huge exporting State now of agricultural
produce. I mean, it is enormous, and if we are going to begin
importing, we have all got to play by the same rules. What is
sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. And if we have
these tight controls in our country, they also have to exist
for crops coming into our country.
I have been told by California agriculture that there is a
serious need for more USDA inspectors at the border to do the
inspections and to safeguard California's ag industry from the
exotic fruit fly pests. I am told that the number of inspectors
at the Otay Mesa, San Ysidro, and Tecate ports of entry is
about one-third of what is recommended by agency guidelines.
Recent infestations in San Diego, in Orange County, and Los
Angeles have really heightened concerns about the need for
additional resources at the border. Since last summer, a 70-
square-mile area of San Diego County has been under quarantine
because of a Mexican fruit fly infestation, and the impact of
these quarantines are now being felt. Australia and Taiwan have
banned export to their countries for the affected crops, not
only for the quarantine area but also a 50-mile buffer zone
around the area.
Now, I note that the administration's budget funds a $6
million increase in the ag quarantine inspection program, and I
am very hopeful, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Secretary, that this can
be addressed, and at the appropriate time, I would like to ask
the distinguished Secretary for a response to this problem and
see if some of that cannot go to quell what is a burgeoning
problem in California.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
Mr. Secretary, we welcome you again and invite you to
proceed.
STATEMENT OF DAN GLICKMAN
Secretary Glickman. Thank you very much. It is an honor to
be here with all of you who I have known well, and particularly
my friend, Dick Durbin, with whom I served in the House for so
many years. Thad, I thank you very much for having me here.
I again want to introduce Rich Rominger from California,
our Deputy Secretary. He has been here many times. Keith
Collins, our Chief Economist, and as Mr. Durbin pointed out,
our venerable Budget Officer, Steve Dewhurst. We believe that
we have the premier budget officer in the entire Government,
and we are delighted that he is here.
I would like to summarize my statement and request that the
entire statement be made part of the record.
There is an interesting dichotomy between the strongest
general economy in a generation and the farm economy. You have
heard it all, from low interest rates, low unemployment,
highest home ownership, lowest inflation, highest job creation.
I mean, it is extraordinary--since the Second World War. So, we
see generally speaking things doing well in the general
economy.
Then you look not only at the farm economy but to some
extent, you look at the natural resource economy. It is not
just production agriculture, but it is energy, it is minerals,
it is the production type of things that go into building
things and making things, and these areas are not so great.
It reminds me of a story. Senator Burns is not here, but it
is a story about a man and his young son going up Constitution
Avenue, and the father wants to buy his son a hotdog. So, he
goes down the street and he sees the vendor, and the vendor is
selling hotdogs and he says, get your hotdogs here: one end
soybeans, the other end beef.
So, the boy says to the vendor, I have been to a lot of
places, but I have never seen a hot dog that is one end
soybeans and the other end beef. And the vendor says, well,
these are tough times, and when you have tough times like this,
it is hard to make both ends meat. [Laughter.]
The fact is that there are those tough times, although
soybeans are not a bad thing, right, Mr. Durbin? [Laughter.]
FARM ECONOMY
The fact is that the farm economy is under stress. Exports
are down about $9 billion from the 1996 peak to $50.5 billion
forecast in 1999. All parts of the economy are affected by
this. California, being the largest exporting State, is being
hit by it, but so are many other States. The real problem, of
course, is Asia, the Asian markets, and the strength of the
dollar.
Net cash farm income is expected to be down from $59
billion in 1998 to $55.5 billion in 1999, and that is
notwithstanding a lot of Federal assistance that this Congress
generously provided. Many producers have faced both low prices
and adverse weather, which is a double hit. I see Mr. Dorgan
has just walked in and his State has probably been hit more
than any other.
So, the outlook for the farm economy is not as promising as
I would like to see.
FARM ASSISTANCE
At the same time, farm assistance that this Congress has
provided has helped. As you recall, the Congress passed, with a
presidential push, a $6 billion emergency assistance program in
1999, about half of that money in direct payments and the other
half of that money in natural disaster assistance, a program
that to some extent I think was started by our colleague from
North Dakota in a far smaller amount that grew because of the
fact the problem was so severe all over the country.
We have also increased loan deficiency payments. There are
nearly $2 billion this year. These are the payments that were
never supposed to trigger because the prices were never
supposed to be low enough, and now we are seeing that they have
triggered for most of the major commodities.
We have provided direct payment to pork producers, using an
authority that we have not used in a very long time. It is not
a lot of money. It is about as much money as we could find out
of our section 32 account, and we targeted it to smaller
producers.
FOOD AID INITIATIVE
The President's food aid initiative is over 5 million
metric tons. I just came back from Russia where we signed an
agreement with the Russians and they are going to be purchasing
and/or being given, under humanitarian assistance, large
quantities of wheat and meat and other products.
The total farm assistance provided by the Government is
estimated to be $18 billion in 1999. So, there is no question,
Uncle Sam, through the good efforts of this Congress, did a
tremendous amount to keep agriculture alive, and many, many
farmers and ranchers would be not surviving without that
assistance.
I will have to tell you that if prices remain at their low
levels, the stresses will keep the workload heavy on our
offices. We are already getting a lot of calls from Members of
Congress about long lines at county offices. But the fact of
the matter is that the emergency assistance, on top of the
normal servicing requirement, has caused delays.
COUNTY OFFICE WORKLOAD
The number of these LDP's I mentioned, loan deficiency
payments, rose from 0 in 1997 to nearly 400,000 in 1998 to
about 1.3 million in 1999, and we do not know the number for
the year 2000 but it is probably going to be a lot. These are
individual visits to our county offices in many cases that have
to take place in order for farmers to get this kind of
assistance. It is an extraordinary change in the amount of work
that is required in every one of these offices.
So, we are looking at our salaries and administrative
expenses to see if there are better ways to handle this
workload, but it is monumental. The 1996 farm bill created this
program to put a floor on prices. It is working pretty well,
but it requires an extensive amount of workload to keep up.
The 1996 farm bill has some shortcomings in dealing with
low prices and disaster related events. We are not trying to
revise course or micromanage farmers in this appropriations
bill, but we have a role to help farmers weather tough times
and adjust to adverse economics. In my judgment, the 1996 farm
bill does not work very well when prices are low. That is the
situation we are in right now.
FARM SAFETY NET
As the President said in his State of the Union address, we
need to find a bipartisan way to improve the farm safety net by
reforming crop insurance. Last year's emergency supplemental
indicates that we need a long-term fix. That was a $6 billion
program. These actions are undependable and are rather costly.
We made a $400 million down payment as a first step to
improving risk management by reducing the cost of farmer
premiums for crop insurance this year by about one-third, 30
percent. So, your farmers who are out there buying crop
insurance this year will pay about 30 percent less for their
premiums as part of the package that you passed last year. We
took a bit of that money and put it in there as kind of a first
step to encourage more people to actually buy crop insurance.
We also issued a white paper on principles and proposals
for crop insurance reform. That has been sent to you. In order
to deal with how to cover crops where there are repeated crop
disasters, multi-year disasters, new crops, all sorts of
different circumstances, we are going to hold three regional
forums this year on the issue of risk management. I would like
to achieve bipartisan agreement with Congress on crop insurance
reform this year.
We have been criticized for not putting a specific amount
in the budget for crop insurance, but to be honest with you,
until we have a reasonable bipartisan understanding of what we
want to do with the program, I did not want to provide a
specific estimate. It could cost anywhere between several
hundred million dollars to several billion dollars a year. I
think we need to figure out how we are going to fix the program
before we put the amount in the budget. But I have said, with
the way the congress and the administration worked together to
put $6 billion in the budget last year, if we can reach
agreement, I believe we can find the money to appropriate the
necessary dollars.
FARM CREDIT
In the area of credit, farmers and ranchers also need
access to adequate credit if they are to remain in business.
This budget provides $3 billion in farm loans and guarantees,
but with a subsidy cost of $52 million less than last year due
to the lowest interest rates in over a generation.
Our farm credit programs are facing an increased demand
this year, and we will shortly be running out of money for some
of those credit programs. We are going to have to review that
situation for a possible fiscal year 1999 supplemental request.
I would also say that one of our major accomplishments is
that we are in the process of settling a major civil rights
class action lawsuit against the Department of Agriculture, and
we are pleased that Congress last year waived the statute of
limitations for claims by black farmers. So, we were able to
accomplish what I believe is one of the most profound things
from the standpoint of justice that this Department has been
able to accomplish for a very, very long time, and we thank you
for your efforts there.
U.S. EXPORTS
I would now like to talk about exports. The events of the
past year have demonstrated that strong export markets are a
critical component of the farm safety net, but they have also
demonstrated that exports alone are not the only safety net. We
have had market disruptions in Asia, in Latin America, in
Russia, and elsewhere.
We increased the programming of export credit guarantees to
Asian markets, sales registrations were up 40 percent last
year, and we are also taking strong efforts on the trade policy
front. This includes exactly what you said, Senator Bond, to
ensure that people comply with their WTO commitments based on
sound science and based upon an international set of rules that
everybody should be following, and also preparing for a new
round of multilateral trade negotiations.
This budget provides a total program level of nearly $6.5
billion for USDA's international programs. This includes $4.5
billion for the heart of our programs, which is CCC export
credit guarantee program. But we will use more than that if
necessary to keep our sales going around the world.
But I repeat, even with all the export promotion efforts
that we have done for many commodities, that is only part of
the safety net, and that is why you do need some domestic
program protection in the event that trade is not as positive
as we would like.
MARKETING AND DOMESTIC PROGRAMS
In the area of marketing, domestic marketing programs are
also important to the economic health of U.S. agriculture.
There are continuing concerns about market concentration, and
we are strengthening enforcement against anticompetitive
practices, particularly in the livestock markets. We are
examining the hog price decline and the Cargill-Continental
merger. We have seen concentration in other aspects of the U.S.
economy, health care, transportation, telecommunications, but
agricultural concentration has been I think in many cases
particularly difficult to cope with in rural America and small
towns where you do not have a lot of competition naturally.
We have asked for budget increases in pest detection,
disease prevention, and border inspections. Senator Feinstein,
I would be glad to talk more about this particular area. I
happen to believe that the highest priority of Government is
protecting our own people from health and safety risks both
from the standpoint of their own physical health and safety as
well as economic health and safety.
We are working on an organic certification program. We have
asked for additional monies for the program. Organic
agriculture is growing rapidly, and we hope to have a
rulemaking out this year to deal with that.
We have also asked for budget increases in the pesticide
data program, which we desperately need as a result of the Food
Quality Protection Act and other statutes.
In the area of rural development, rural Americans should
have the same opportunities for economic growth that exist in
urban areas, and that goes for housing, running water,
electricity, telecommunications, and job opportunities. This
committee deserves great praise for its help in ensuring that
water systems and sewer systems are provided all over this
great country of ours.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
I recall, Senator Feinstein, that I visited the town of
Orange Cove, California, which has one of the highest poverty
rates of any community. USDA provided some assistance--and it
is now one of our enterprise communities. This town never had
the necessary resources. One of our prime functions is to make
sure that towns like this get that assistance.
The rural development budget will support almost $11
billion in loans, loan guarantees, grants, and technical
assistance--and that is $800 million more than last year. But,
due to lower interest rates, the cost to taxpayers will be $400
million lower than last year. So, this is interesting. We are
going to be able to budget $800 million more in the rural
development programs at a cost to the Government of $400
million less. This is not a shell game. This is due largely to
the fact that we have low, sustained interest rates, which
under our budget process has made this benefit possible.
The budget will provide $1 billion in guaranteed and direct
loans to help rural businesses, $4.3 billion in direct and
guaranteed loans to bring single family housing to 50,000 rural
Americans, and a 12 percent increase in funding for the
President's Water 2000 initiative, to help about 1 million
rural Americans have safe drinking water.
RESEARCH AND FOOD SAFETY
Research, obviously, undergirds the future of what we do in
this Department. The budget provides an increase of nearly 10
percent for research from the comparable 1999 level. This is
the first substantial inflation-adjusted increase for these
programs, whether it is research on food safety, research for
preserving our natural resources, or research to help farmers
be more productive. I am sure that we will provide more
specifics on our research programs but I would like to focus on
food safety for a moment. Senator Durbin raised this issue.
The budget includes an additional $67 million, almost two-
thirds of a Government-wide increase of $107 million for food
safety activities aimed at reducing microbiological
contamination of foods. The increases are directed to the
President's Food Safety Initiative and inspection modernization
activities of the Food Safety and Inspection Service.
This is the first year anniversary of HACCP implementation
in large meat packing plants. Recent studies demonstrate there
has been a significant reduction in the prevalence of
Salmonella due to the implementation of HACCP--significant, in
some cases as much as 50 percent. We are working now to bring
the small plants in to HACCP and then, of course, the very
small plants in to HACCP. There are different problems
associated with each, but this budget I think will provide us
help in dealing with that issue.
We are also working to meet the goals of the Food Quality
Protection Act by addressing environmental and public health
risks associated with the use of pesticides.
NUTRITION
In the area of nutrition, the budget reflects full funding
for food stamps, child nutrition, and the WIC program. The
budget restores food stamp eligibility to 15,000 elderly legal
immigrants.
And I say again to Senator Feinstein that one of the
problems we have, of course, in dealing with the issue of a lot
of the folks who are out of work is that because of the rules
against providing food stamps for undocumented workers or
illegal immigrants, our hands to some degree are tied, although
we are working with our colleagues in other agencies on this
point.
Funds are also provided to improve the integrity of our
food programs, evaluate effects of a universal free school
breakfast pilot project and expand the WIC farmers' market
program.
GLEANING AND FOOD RECOVERY
The budget includes a new $15.8 million gleaning and food
recovery initiative. We throw away 95 billion pounds of food
every year into garbage cans. It is not eaten. It is not used.
Hotels, hospitals, restaurants, you name it. It is thrown away.
The Congress passed a law 2 years ago called the Bill Emerson
Good Samaritan Act which says you can donate food without fear
of legal liability. Communities all over the country are doing
this. So, we include this new gleaning and food recovery
initiative to provide community-based grants to help
neighborhood organizations recover edible food and use it to
help alleviate hunger.
I just have a couple more things to cover.
In the area of conservation, USDA's conservation mission
has dramatically expanded as a result of the 1996 farm bill.
That was the strongest conservation farm bill ever in my
judgment, certainly since the 1930's.
The budget protects and strengthens the core conservation
technical assistance and watershed work that NRCS carries out.
It supports implementation of the Administration's Clean
Water Action Plan to protect rivers and streams.
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
It increases funding for the EQIP program, the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, to $300 million.
The budget also funds the Lands Legacy initiative which
will help USDA address the serious problem of prime farmland
loss. The Farmland Protection Program would be reauthorized for
this purpose.
Other conservation and land retirement programs,
particularly the CRP, Conservation Reserve Program, Wetlands
Reserve Program--and those are programs that I know Senator
Cochran has had great interest in--are also continuing to have
a positive impact on the environment.
The budget also supports the administration's global
climate change initiative.
Finally, I want to talk just for a moment about customer
service and program delivery.
CUSTOMERS SERVICE AND PROGRAM DELIVERY
Improving customer service and program delivery remain high
priorities for what Abraham Lincoln called the ``People's
Department''. We were set up to run in a decentralized way. We
have offices all over this country. In some cases, we have done
a great job. In some cases, I think for minority farmers and a
lot of small farmers and there have been some other
traditionally underserved farmers in our farm and rural
development programs, we have not done such a good job over the
years, and improving customer service for all farmers is a high
priority for me and for the Department.
Streamlining and collocating the county-based agencies in
one-stop USDA service centers is a prime focus. We are having
some very good success here under the leadership of Deputy
Secretary Rominger.
Administrative convergence is underway to consolidate
administrative support functions for the county-based agencies
and modernize program delivery.
A common computing environment is being implemented to
improve our efficiencies across the agencies.
And we have tightened our belt to become more efficient in
response to constrained or reduced funding. We at USDA have
22,000 fewer employees today than 1993. The fact is there has
been significant downsizing in the Department of Agriculture,
and we are doing that and we are struggling to keep up with the
continued heavy workload, particularly as we relate to the
responsibilities under the 1996 farm bill. We want to provide a
high level of customer service and if we are not treating our
people out there in the countryside very well, we are not doing
our job.
So, it may be that funds will be needed to meet our
workload and customer service requirements, particularly in
farm program area, and that is something that we will address
if we decide that a supplemental request is necessary in
addition to some of the other things that we may have in mind.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So, our goal is to do the best job we can in delivering the
programs that Congress has put in place under this committee's
leadership. You have taken the lead to do that.
I thank you very much for allowing me to make this
statement.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dan Glickman
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it is a privilege to appear
before you to discuss the 2000 budget for the Department of Agriculture
(USDA).
Even though the Federal Budget is now in surplus for the first time
in 30 years, USDA's 2000 budget is still governed by the constraints
put in place by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Thus, we are faced
with another year of very tight funding. However, we have tried to
provide the necessary resources that will enable USDA to achieve the
basic goals and objectives of its strategic plan as well as focus on
some key Presidential initiatives on food safety, nutrition and food
assistance, global change, and conservation and the environment. And,
as the President indicated in his State of the Union message, we must
work with lawmakers of both parties to create a farm safety net that
will include crop insurance reform and farm income assistance.
The Presidential initiatives that involve participation of USDA
agencies, include:
A continuing Food Safety initiative for improving the Federal food
inspection system from farm-to-table, through increased inspection,
expanded research and consumer education, better surveillance of
foodborne illness, and improved Federal, State, and local coordination.
A Lands Legacy initiative to develop a national program to protect
great places and to provide the tools for localities, States, Indian
tribes, and non-profit corporations and cooperatives to plan Smart
Growth, open space preservation, and land use management. $268 million
of the $1 billion governmentwide program would be provided to USDA.
A Global Change Research initiative aimed at investigating
mitigation tactics to minimize the adverse effects of climate change on
agricultural production, and inventory soil carbon levels, research how
soils absorb carbon, and expand biomass research.
A Climate Change Technology initiative to develop technology for
predicting and adapting agricultural production to global change
impacts and to demonstrate and test various greenhouse gas mitigation
strategies and monitoring mechanisms.
A Clean Water Action Plan to improve water quality on the Nation's
forested lands and to address water quality issues, such as waste
management and grazing practices on private lands. It also includes new
research on hypoxia, pfiesteria, and related problems.
The budget also focuses resources on the following priority areas:
Providing adequate funding for Food Stamp, Child Nutrition, and WIC
Programs, increased funding for program integrity initiatives, a new
gleaning and food recovery initiative, a school breakfast research
pilot, and restoration of food stamp benefits for elderly immigrants.
Meeting the urgent needs for water and housing in rural
communities.
Supporting research to improve the productivity and competiveness
of our farmers, to help solve environmental problems and to provide
safe, nutritious food for all Americans.
Strengthening our risk management programs, providing small farm
assistance, and modernizing farm program delivery.
Expanding domestic and overseas markets through aggressive
promotion and a reduction in impediments and restrictions to trade.
Carrying out an aggressive civil rights policy to correct past
weaknesses and fairly implement new program proposals.
The discipline imposed on the 2000 budget has forced us to make
difficult decisions to restrain, reduce, and redirect resources to
focus on the priority goals we established. We again propose user fees
and contain and absorb certain costs. We are continuing to scrutinize
our employment and business practices. As a part of the Department's
continuing reorganization, we are implementing a field office
streamlining plan which collocates the county-based agencies in one-
stop USDA Service Centers and to consolidate administrative support
functions in a new Support Services Bureau and modernize program
delivery. We are implementing a common computing environment for these
agencies to optimize the use of data and equipment and improve our
efficiencies across the agencies. These efforts, combined with program
reductions and reforms taken in prior years, have made a significant
positive contribution to the current favorable Federal budget
situation.
The President's budget proposes $55.1 billion in budget authority
for 2000 for USDA compared to a current estimate of $67.5 billion for
1999. Budget authority for discretionary spending, which accounts for
about 28 percent of USDA's total budget authority, declines from $15.8
billion in 1999 to $15.2 billion in 2000. The request before this
Committee for discretionary budget authority is $13.2 billion.
The budget again proposes legislation that could affect the
appropriation for the Department, including user fees for the Food
Safety and Inspection Service; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service; and the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration. This proposed legislation will be sent to the
authorizing committees, and the request before this Committee is not
adjusted for the passage of this legislation. Upon enactment of fee
authorizations, we would forward you our revised appropriation request.
However, the appropriations request will include a proposed assessment
on tobacco marketings similar to the expiring marketing assessment
established by the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.
The budget also proposes legislative changes in some mandatory
programs, e.g., restoring food stamp benefits to elderly legal
immigrants, reauthorizing and funding a range of conservation programs,
providing mandatory funding for the Foreign Market Development
Cooperator Program, providing rural development grants and direct
Treasury rate electric loans.
I also want to emphasize the importance that the President and I
have placed on USDA civil rights issues; this priority is reflected in
the budget. The President's budget provides the necessary funding to
continue to carry out the recommendations of the Civil Rights Action
Team (CRAT) as well as the recommendations of the National Commission
on Small Farms which support our civil rights agenda.
farm and foreign agricultural services
The mission of the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services area to
secure the long-term vitality and global competitiveness of American
agriculture, has surely been tested by the tough times farmers and
ranchers are now facing. While planting flexibility provisions of the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act),
strong export and trade policy programs, and other program initiatives
already underway have helped many crop and livestock producers, it is
clear, as the President indicated, that the farm safety net still needs
some reinforcement.
The Administration and Congress worked together last year to
support farmers in areas hit hard by declining prices and successive
years of reduced yields. This year we will continue our efforts to
expand and improve programs which help producers manage risk, and we
look forward to working with Congress to further reform the insurance
programs for crop and livestock producers. We are also working hard to
expand opportunities for small farmers and others who traditionally
have been under served in our farm programs. The class action
settlement with African American farmers I announced last month closes
a painful chapter in USDA's history but does not complete our civil
rights initiative. We still have more to do to ensure all of our
customers and our employees are treated with dignity and respect.
The weakening farm economy has challenged our efforts to improve
customer service while improving efficiency in the Farm Service Agency
(FSA) and the other county-based conservation and rural development
agencies. While additional funding provided in the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1999 (the 1999 Act) allowed FSA to maintain current
staffing levels, the increasing demand for Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC) Marketing assistance loan programs and disaster assistance has
dramatically increased workload and placed new burdens on county staff.
The higher workload, particularly for the marketing assistance
programs, is projected to continue at least through 2000. The need to
find new ways of doing business in the service centers is underscored
by findings of the independent study of county-based agencies conducted
by Pricewaterhouse Coopers. The recently completed study recommends
further steps to improve the efficiency of program delivery and field
office operations of the county-based agencies. It also supports on-
going efforts by the Department to streamline offices, establish a
common computing environment, converge administrative services. We are
currently evaluating the results of this study to determine how best to
take it into account in our on-going efforts.
Farm Service Agency FSA Federal and county staffing since 1993 has
declined by about 6,000 staff years, from over 22,500 staff years at
the end of 1993 to about 16,400 staff years at the end of 1998.
Additional funds appropriated for 1999 in the 1999 Act have allowed the
agency to avoid reductions-in-force this year and to hire additional
temporary staff. The proposed program level in 2000 for salaries and
expenses of $1 billion is estimated to support a ceiling of 5,745
Federal staff years, and 10,048 non-Federal county staff years,
assuming legislation is enacted allowing for CCC to cover a portion of
FSA's computer operations and maintenance costs for the farm programs.
Farm Loan Programs Traditionally, USDA's role in the farm credit
market has been to be the ``lender of last resort.'' Currently, the
Department supplies only about 5 to 6 percent of the credit used by
farmers the rest is supplied by private lenders, including the
federally-chartered Farm Credit System. However, the Department's role
is important because it provides opportunities for farmers who
experience financial difficulty to stay in business, and fills credit
gaps, particularly for socially disadvantaged and beginning farmers.
Because the programs operate at the margin of the credit market,
they are vulnerable to changes in market conditions and sometimes it is
very difficult to predict changes in demand for program assistance.
Right now, there is a great deal of uncertainty as to the impact recent
declines in farm prices and income may have on repayments of past debts
and the willingness of private lenders to make new loans. Even small
changes in these factors can have a proportionally larger impact on the
number of applicants seeking program assistance and the amount of their
requests. USDA is keeping a very careful eye on the situation as it
develops, not only for year 2000, but also for meeting the more
immediate needs in 1999.
The 2000 budget request reflects a fairly optimistic projection one
that envisions a reasonably good supply of farm credit provided by
private lenders. The Administration believes that this is a good
starting point. But, I will not hesitate to request additional funding
if conditions deteriorate and there is evidence that additional program
assistance is needed.
Specifically, the budget request includes about $3 billion in farm
loans and guarantees slightly more than the $2.8 billion available for
1999. Because interest rates continue to decline, thereby reducing the
subsidy costs, the higher program level for 2000 can be supported with
far less budget authority than was necessary in 1999 ($77.3 million
compared to $121.1 million).
For farm operating loans, the 2000 budget includes $1.7 billion in
unsubsidized guarantees, $500 million in direct loans, and $97 million
in subsidized guarantees. This mix reflects a shift to more
unsubsidized guarantees. Favorable interest rates should help more
farmers qualify for such credit and USDA's recent publication of a
final rule for streamlining the guaranteed loan program and
establishing a preferred lender program should encourage private lender
participation.
For farm ownership loans, the 2000 budget includes $128 million in
direct loans, compared to $86 million available for 1999, and $431
million for unsubsidized guarantees, which is about the same as 1999.
In addition, the 2000 budget includes $100 million in loans for the
boll weevil eradication program and $53 million in emergency loans. The
Administration plans to review gaps in the emergency loan program which
deny credit to farmers and agriculture-related businesses that is
otherwise available to non-farmers through the Small Business
Administration (SBA). It intends to propose legislation to eliminate
such gaps.
The 2000 budget also includes $4 million in grants for the State
mediation program, double the amount available in 1999. This program
provides a valuable service in resolving disputes over the
administration of the farm credit and other USDA programs.
Commodity Credit Corporation Changes over the last decade in
commodity, disaster, and conservation programs have dramatically
changed the level, mix, and variability of CCC outlays. CCC outlays are
projected to increase from $10 billion in 1998, to $18 billion in 1999,
and then to decline again to about $12 billion in 2000. The increase in
spending between 1998 and 1999 is accounted for by higher marketing
assistance loan program outlays, expenditures related to the
President's International Food Aid initiative, and by emergency
spending authorized for disaster assistance programs authorized by the
1999 Act. The disaster assistance provision expenditures authorized in
the 1999 Act total nearly $5.9 billion, including $3.1 billion for
market loss payments, $2.4 billion to compensate producers for crop
losses, and $0.2 million for livestock feed assistance. In 2000,
commodity program outlays account for about three-fourths of the total
CCC outlays, with production flexibility contract payments and loan
deficiency payments accounting for nearly all of the commodity program
outlays.
Conservation program outlays account for most of the remaining CCC
expenditures in 2000. The 1996 Act authorized direct CCC funding for
the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) administered by FSA and several
new conservation programs administered by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS).
CRP provides landowners annual payments and half the cost of
establishing a conserving cover in exchange for retiring
environmentally sensitive land from production for 10 to 15 years. The
1996 Act authorized the program through 2002 and set maximum enrollment
in the program at 36.4 million acres. About 30.3 million acres were
enrolled in the program at the end of 1998. The 2000 budget assumes
nearly 6 million acres will be accepted in the 18th signup, conducted
in October through early December 1998. In addition, the continuous,
non-competitive 17th signup has been underway to enroll land in filter
strips, riparian buffers, and similar special conservation practices.
Other conservation programs funded by CCC but administered by NRCS
include the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP), the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
(WHIP), and the Farmland Protection Program (FPP). WRP offers
landowners the opportunity to receive payments for restoring and
protecting wetlands on their properties. For 2000, approximately
200,000 acres are proposed for enrollment resulting in a cumulative WRP
acreage enrollment of 975,000 acres, the maximum enrollment level
mandated by law. This program is a cornerstone supporting the Clean
Water Action Plan. EQIP gives producers incentives to implement long-
term comprehensive farm plans and the budget proposes to increase the
annual program level from $174 million in 1999 to $300 million
beginning in 2000. WHIP provides cost-share assistance to landowners to
implement management practices improving wildlife habitat and FPP
provides for the purchase of easements limiting nonagricultural uses on
prime and unique farmland. Under proposed legislation, WHIP and FPP
would be funded annually through CCC at $10 million and $27.5 million,
respectively, beginning in 2000. FPP is also slated to receive $50
million in discretionary funding from the Vice President's new Lands
Legacy initiative.
Finally, provisions of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act
(the CCC Charter Act) limit CCC expenditures for computer equipment and
cap, at the 1995 expenditure level, total allotments and transfers to
State and Federal agencies under Section 11 of the Act for
administrative support services. These provisions impose significant
restrictions on the availability of CCC funds for transfers and
reimbursable agreements used to fund conservation technical assistance
and other support services for the conservation, commodity, and export
programs.
By 2000 the amount available under the computer cap will be nearly
exhausted preventing needed investment in our streamlining and Service
Center initiatives and prohibiting the Department from investing in
much-needed technology for business process reengineering efforts. USDA
needs these investments to improve service to our customers and reduce
program delivery costs.
The budget for 2000 includes a legislative proposal to raise the
limit on CCC expenditures for computer equipment by a total of $105
million for the period 2000 through 2002. The increase in the multi-
year cap will cover a portion of FSA's computer operations and
maintenance costs for the farm programs, and will be offset by an
equivalent reduction in authorized spending for the Export Enhancement
Program (EEP). Additional reductions in EEP will be proposed to offset
increased spending for EQIP and to offset proposed CCC funding for the
Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program and for a ``quality
samples'' proposal to boost the promotion of U.S. exports.
Risk Management Agency The need for supplemental funding in the
1999 Act for production losses and price declines in the farm economy
certainly provides a chilling example of shortfalls in the program.
Nonetheless, the facts are that since the 1994 reform of the crop
insurance program, producers have had the opportunity to obtain
protection against production losses free of cost, except for a
processing fee, for catastrophic losses and at a subsidized rate for
higher levels of coverage. Over 60 percent of insurable acres has been
covered. There could be a substantial increase in participation in this
crop year due to an additional 30 percent subsidy of premium rates that
is being provided as part of the 1999 supplemental funding.
A key element in the success of the crop insurance program is the
partnership with the private insurance industry, which not only
delivers the program but shares in the risk. This partnership has
resulted in innovative changes such as the development of revenue
insurance. There are 17 private insurance companies of various sizes
participating in the program. They provide delivery, mostly through
their own sales agents who work on a commission basis. Loss adjustment
is usually done by independent contractors. Companies are reimbursed at
a rate of 24.5 percent of premium, which is the maximum fixed by law.
They also may receive underwriting gains for favorable loss experience.
Within USDA, the program is administered by the Risk Management
Agency (RMA) and is carried out through the Federal Crop Insurance
Corporation which has a Board of Directors composed of both Government
and private sector members.
Legislation enacted last year authorized the shift of delivery
expenses paid to private companies from discretionary to mandatory
spending, which also includes premium subsidy and other program costs.
The 2000 budget requests an appropriation of ``such sums as necessary''
for the program's mandatory spending. Such an appropriation is similar
to previous years' appropriations, and provides the assurance of full
funding for increases in sales volume and potential losses.
For discretionary spending, which includes salaries and expenses
for RMA staff, the budget requests $71 million an increase of $7
million over 1999. This increase would allow RMA to strengthen its
efforts in research and development, to extend its risk management
education program, and to enhance its civil rights activities and to
provide public outreach.
The Administration intends to continue working on improving the
crop insurance program. It believes that there is widespread support
for the program because producers appreciate the assurance of risk
protection the program provides rather than the uncertainty of ad hoc
disaster assistance. Further, it believes that such protection offered
on an actuarially sound basis, with producers sharing in the cost, is
consistent with production efficiency. The Administration will do
everything possible to encourage program participation, to correct any
inequities in the structure of premium rates, yield guarantees, or
other program provisions, to make the program user-friendly for
companies and producers alike, and to facilitate new product
development and other program innovations. As a strong first step in
improving and energizing the program, last year's emergency
supplemental has allowed us to make a $400 million down payment this
year in helping farmers meet their crop insurance needs. These funds
will be used to reduce 1999 insurance premiums by 30 percent.
The Administration stands ready to work with the Congress on
improving the safety net for farmers. We have already announced the
Administration's principles and preliminary proposals for strengthening
the farm safety net by reforming the crop insurance program and we plan
to hold 3 regional forums around the country to receive input from
farmers and other interested parties. A white paper on the subject can
be viewed at the USDA website on the internet. Through the forums and
discussions with Congress, the Administration intends to build upon our
proposals to forge a bipartisan agreement on crop insurance reform.
International Trade and Export Programs Developments in overseas
markets during the past year have certainly demonstrated that the
health of the American farm economy is inextricably linked to the
global economy. As markets in Asia, Latin America, Russia, and
elsewhere experienced financial turmoil and their imports of food and
agricultural commodities were cut back, the effects of those
developments were felt throughout rural America.
Strong export markets are an important component of the
agricultural safety net, and we are committed to helping our farmers
and ranchers broaden their access to overseas markets and maximize
export sales. Faced with the challenges posed by last year's
disruptions in global markets, we have responded aggressively by
utilizing our export program authorities to ensure the continued flow
of U.S. agricultural exports. We have expanded substantially the level
of CCC export credit guarantees made available to markets in Asia,
which otherwise would have been unable to obtain financing for their
food and agricultural imports. As a result, sales registrations under
the guarantee programs exceeded $4 billion in 1998, an increase of 40
percent above the previous year.
In July, President Clinton announced his Food Aid Initiative under
which the United States is providing as much as 5 million metric tons
of wheat and wheat products to assist needy countries. Moreover, we
have developed a package of food assistance for Russia, which will
provide over 3 million metric tons of commodities, once fully
implemented.
We also have continued our efforts to open and expand markets
through a wide range of trade policy activities. For example, last
February the United States and Taiwan signed a market access agreement
which provides for Taiwan to lift its import bans and allow access for
U.S. pork, poultry, and variety meats. Upon Taiwan's accession to the
World Trade Organization, Taiwan will cut tariffs and open tariff-rate
quotas on numerous agricultural products.
We continue to prepare for the new round of multilateral trade
negotiations which is set to begin later this year and presents an
opportunity to further strengthen disciplines on agricultural trading
practices. We are pursuing market opening agreements on a regional
basis as well, including negotiations for the Free Trade Area of the
Americas and within the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. And,
we continue to respond to the growing challenges posed by technical
barriers to trade, such as sanitary and phytosanitary barriers that are
not scientifically based.
In order to ensure we are able to continue these activities and our
export promotion objectives can be achieved, our budget proposals
provide an overall program level of nearly $6.5 billion for USDA's
international programs in 2000. For the CCC export credit guarantee
programs, the largest of our export activities, the budget includes
program levels of $4.7 billion for 1999 and $4.5 billion for 2000.
These levels continue the higher level of guarantee programming which
was established last year in response to developments in Asia. However,
the actual level of guarantees to be issued will not be limited by the
budget estimates, but instead will be determined by market conditions
and program demand.
The Department carries out a number of market promotion programs
which play a crucial role in efforts to develop and expand overseas
markets. The Market Access Program (MAP) has been particularly
instrumental in helping small and new-to-market companies build new
markets overseas. To further those efforts, all MAP assistance for
brand promotions is now reserved for small businesses and cooperatives.
For 2000, the budget provides funding for MAP at the maximum authorized
level of $90 million, which is unchanged from 1999.
The Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program, a mainstay of
USDA export promotion efforts since 1954, provides cost-share
assistance to nonprofit commodity and agricultural trade associations
to support market development activities designed to remove long-term
impediments to increased U.S. trade. Beginning in 2000, the budget
proposes that the Cooperator Program be funded by CCC rather than the
FAS appropriation. However, funding for the program will remain at its
current level of $27.5 million per year. This proposal is consistent
with the CCC Charter Act which authorizes the Corporation's funds to be
used for market development activities. By providing a permanent
authorization for CCC funding, the proposed change will provide greater
stability for future program activities and will thereby enhance long-
term planning by program participants.
The budget also includes funding to implement a new market
promotion activity, the Quality Samples Program. Under this initiative,
samples of U.S. agricultural products will be provided to foreign
importers in order to promote a better understanding and appreciation
of their high quality. The program will be carried out under existing
authorities through commodity organizations and agricultural trade
associations, similar to the Cooperator Program, and on a pilot basis
will be funded by CCC at an annual program level of $2.5 million.
The budget provides funding to continue both of the Department's
export subsidy programs the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP) and
the Export Enhancement Program (EEP). In the case of DEIP, the budget
assumes a program level which continues programming near the current
level. For EEP, a program level of $494 million is proposed for 2000,
which is below the authorized level of $579 million. Proposed
legislation to limit EEP programming will be submitted in order to
provide PAYGO savings which are needed to help offset the costs of
other initiatives in the budget which will increase mandatory spending
for agricultural programs. Although EEP will be limited to the $494
million level, the program will remain in place and the awarding of
bonuses can be resumed whenever market conditions warrant. The
Administration will also propose to permit unobligated balances of EEP
funds to be transferred to other foreign food assistance programs, such
as Public Law 480, toward the end of each year.
For Public Law 480 foreign food assistance activities, the budget
provides an overall program level of $987 million. This is projected to
provide approximately 3.2 million metric tons of commodity assistance
to recipient countries. In 2000, this tonnage level is expected to be
supplemented by additional food assistance to be provided under the
Food for Progress Program and section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of
1949.
For the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), the budget provides
appropriated funding of $115 million. This is $25 million below the
1999 enacted level due to the proposal to fund the Cooperator Program
through CCC rather than the FAS appropriation. The budget provides
funding for several new initiatives for FAS, including the opening of a
new Agricultural Trade Office in the southern Africa region and
implementation of a Reverse Buying Missions Program. The latter will
bring buying missions of foreign importers, retailers, and trade
officials to the United States to orient them on the quality and
diversity of U.S. agricultural products. The program will be focused on
markets in which the United States is generally competitive and has a
clear potential for expanding commercial sales.
rural development
USDA's rural development programs provide decent, safe and sanitary
housing as well as amenities such as safe drinking water, waste
disposal, electrical and telephone service. They also provide jobs both
for the construction of projects and employment within those projects,
and for improved employment opportunities that result from the
strengthening of rural economies. Rural America remains diverse. There
are prosperous rural communities centers of local economic activity,
communities that are attractive for recreation or retirement, and some
that have been remarkably successful in bringing in high technology and
other modern day businesses. However, there also are numerous areas
with severe poverty and economic depression places that have lost their
economic base of farming, forestry, mining or other traditional
enterprises. These communities have high rates of poverty, limited
opportunities, and lack even basic necessities. USDA's rural
development programs help alleviate these inequities, so that the
people who live in rural communities may have the same opportunity to
share in the benefits of the Nation's prosperity.
The 2000 budget includes almost $11 billion in loan, grant and
other assistance for rural development. This represents an increase of
almost $800 million over the amount available for 1999. The higher
program level can be supported at about the same cost to the Government
roughly $2.2 billion in budget authority, including $200 million in
budget authority that is being forward financed into 2001 due primarily
to a reduction in subsidy costs for direct loans, which reflects the
overall decline in interest rates.
USDA's rural development programs support a number of long-standing
initiatives of the Administration including the President's
Homeownership Initiative, Water 2000 and the Empowerment Zones and
Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC) Initiative. In 2000, Rural Development
would also contribute to the Smart Growth Partnership by helping to
administer a $50 million loan program which is included in the budget
for the Forest Service.
Over $3 billion in loans and grants ($670 million in budget
authority) would be budgeted under the Rural Community Advancement
Program (RCAP) which allows flexibility to transfer funds among
programs to meet State and local priorities. These priorities must be
based on strategic plans to help guide the development process. RCAP
was authorized in the 1996 Act, but recent appropriations acts have
restricted its full implementation although the 1999 Appropriations Act
provided more flexibility than in prior years. The 2000 budget would
allow RCAP to be fully implemented.
The Administration will propose legislation to provide $15 million,
annually, in grants to the rural communities that were selected in the
second round of the EZ/EC initiative. The 2000 budget also provides for
the targeting of about $200 million in loans and grants under USDA's
rural development programs to the EZ/EC initiative. In addition, a
number of the EZ communities receive certain tax benefits. The EZ/EC
initiative has encouraged communities to develop strategic plans to
meet their goals and objectives. It has created jobs and economic
growth, and has served as a model for non-EZ/EC communities to meet the
challenge of planning for their future.
USDA's rural development programs are administered through State
and local offices, all located within USDA Service Centers. The 2000
budget includes just under $542 million for Rural Development salaries
and expenses. This funding level is approximately $27 million over 1999
and is expected to be sufficient to maintain staffing at current
levels.
Rural Utilities Service The programs administered by the Rural
Utilities Service (RUS) provide financing for electric, telephone, and
water and waste disposal services. These programs have a long history
of significant contributions to rural America literally lighting up
rural households, allowing those households to communicate with the
rest of the world, and bringing running water for indoor plumbing.
While almost all of rural America now have these basic necessities, the
challenges in recent years has been to maintain and upgrade the
facilities that provide service, to ensure that rural America does not
fall behind in the fast-paced world of high-tech communications, and to
address the increasing risks of unsafe or poor quality water.
The 2000 budget would support over $1.6 billion in electric and
telephone loans, which is about $75 million less than 1999. The
Administration will submit legislation to authorize direct electric
loans at a Treasury rate of interest. Under the proposed legislation,
$400 million in such loans would be shifted from FFB directly to RUS.
The 2000 budget also reflects additional direct loan activity under
the Distance Learning and Telemedicine program. This program was
initially designed to provide only grants. However, there has been an
overwhelming request for assistance due to the awareness of rural
communities that the high-tech world of communications offers their
best chance to receive enhanced learning and medical services and
connect to the information-based economy. In order to serve more of
these communities, the program was expanded in 1996 to include loan as
well as grant assistance. RUS expects to see substantial progress in
loan activity. In anticipation, the 2000 budget provides for an
increase in the loan program to $200 million in loans. It also provides
for an increase in grants from $12 million available in 1999 to $20
million in 2000.
The 2000 budget includes $503 million in grants and $975 million in
loans For the water and waste disposal program together representing an
increase of $156 million over the amount available for 1999. The
program will continue to be targeted, under the Water 2000 initiative,
to communities with the most serious needs for assistance which means
that they lack service, are at risk of health due to unclean water or
unsanitary conditions, cannot afford to pay the full cost of service
due to high incidence of poverty.
Rural communities benefit not only directly in terms of the
services their residents receive from the facilities financed by water
and waste disposal loans and grants, but also, in terms of the jobs and
overall economic growth that can result from those services being
provided to commercial users. The secondary impact can, in fact, turn
rural communities around giving them the means to attract industry to
diversify their economies.
Rural Housing Service USDA rural housing programs have played a key
role in providing affordable homeownership and rental opportunities in
rural America since the 1960's. The programs serve very low to moderate
income families who cannot obtain conventional credit and cannot
otherwise afford decent, safe and sanitary housing. Interest and rental
payment assistance reduces the cost of such housing to the families'
ability to pay, based on income and other factors. The overall decline
in interest rates has made it possible to operate the direct
homeownership program at relatively modest cost for 2000, less than 10
percent per dollar of loans. The 2000 budget would support $1.1 billion
in direct (single-family) homeownership loans compared to $965 million
in 1999.
In addition, the 2000 budget would support $3.2 billion in
guarantees $200 million more than in 1999. The loan guarantee program
has operated for only a few years and has proven to be helpful in
filling gaps in the commercial credit market where lenders are
reluctant to make loans on their own. The program offers no interest
payment assistance, so borrowers must be able to pay commercial rates
of interest. However, the subsidy cost of the guaranteed program is
only about 1 percent per dollar of loan guaranteed. The combined total
of $4.3 billion in homeownership loans and guarantees is expected to
serve over 50,000 rural families.
The 2000 budget provides for $100 million in direct loans and $200
million in guarantees for rental housing, $100 million of which would
be contingent on legislation to eliminate the statutory requirement
that 20 percent of the units in projects with guarantees receive
interest payment assistance. The guaranteed program for rental housing
is relatively new and uses other sources of funds and financial
incentives, such as tax credits. Experience has shown, that the program
can be operated without interest payment assistance and still serve low
income families due to the combination of other incentives.
In the direct rental housing program, RHS currently has a portfolio
of about 18,000 projects with approximately 245,000 units receiving
rental assistance payments. In year 2000, it is anticipated that about
41,800 of these units will require renewal at a cost of $603 million.
Some additional units in existing projects will be provided for
servicing purposes and a small number of units are expected to be
provided in new projects, including those for farm labor housing. In
total, the 2000 budget includes $640 million for rental assistance
payments, of which $440 million would be available beginning in 2000.
The remaining $200 million would be available beginning in 2001. The
budgeting of 2000 program needs over 2 years will not affect the flow
of funds to project sponsors or impact occupants in such projects.
RHS also administers several housing programs that serve specific
needs, including farm labor housing, self-help housing for families who
trade their sweat equity for a chance to own their own home, and very-
low income repair loans and grants. The 2000 budget provides for the
continuation of these programs at sightly higher levels than available
for 1999.
In addition, RHS administers a program of direct and guaranteed
loans and a limited amount of grants for essential community
facilities. In recent years, the priority has been to serve children
and the elderly through child care centers and health facilities;
however, a wide range of projects have received this assistance, to
reflect the diversity of State and local priorities. The 2000 budget
would support $250 million in direct loans $80 million more than
available in 1999. Guaranteed loans would remain at the same level as
in 1999 $210 million. In addition, the 2000 budget includes $15 million
for grants, $5 million of which would be used for early warning systems
for hazardous weather conditions.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service Many rural communities need a
more diversified economic base one that will provide good-paying jobs
and withstand the fast-paced challenges of a high-tech global
marketplace. The Administration has undertaken initiatives such as EZ/
EC which requires communities to develop strategic plans in the process
of competing for designation. Implementing these plans, requires
significant financial resources. The primary source of capital must be
the private sector and there are many ways to encourage private lenders
to be more responsive to unmet needs, such as through tax credits and
other incentives. Programs that offer guarantees and, in some cases,
direct loans also contribute to the supply of credit. Within USDA,
these programs are administered by the Rural Business-Cooperative
Service (RBS).
RBS' largest program is the business & industry loan guarantee
program which has operated at a level of about $1 billion for the last
few years, and would be continued at that level in the 2000 budget.
This level of funding is expected to produce almost 38,000 jobs in
rural America. In recent years, the program has had very few losses and
the cost to the Government has been minimal.
The 2000 budget continues the direct business & industry loan
program at a $50 million level. This program is particularly helpful in
filling gaps in the credit market, particularly in areas that are
underserved by private lenders. In addition, the 2000 budget provides
for $52 million for the intermediary relending program $19 million more
than 1999. This program allows intermediaries to develop their lending
capacity. Currently, each dollar loaned to an intermediary circulates
about 3 times over its lifetime. Further, the experience intermediaries
gain in loan making improves their prospects for gaining access to
other sources of funding.
The rural business enterprise grant program would be funded at $36
million about the same as available for 1999. In addition, there would
be $5 million for the new partnership technical assistance grant
program. This program provides communities with assistance for
strategic planning and would help them better coordinate and leverage
Federal, State, and private funding.
The 2000 budget also provides $5 million for rural cooperative
development grants ($3 million more than available in 1999), $2 million
for the appropriate technology transfer program, $700,000 more than the
1999 level, $2 million for cooperative research agreements (the same as
in 1999), and $10 million for the Alternative Agricultural Research and
Commercialization Corporation (compared to only $4 million available
for 1999).
As noted earlier, the Administration will be proposing legislation
to provide mandatory funding of $15 million each year for the second
round of rural EZ/EC's that were announced recently. In 2000, RBS will
also administer a new $50 million loan program in support of the Smart
Growth under the Lands Legacy initiative. Funding for this program is
included under the Forest Service budget and would be administered by
RBS under the authorities used to establish the intermediary relending
program.
food, nutrition and consumer services
America has the most affordable, safest food supply in the world,
thanks to its hard-working farmers and producers. However, with nearly
36 million Americans living in poverty, millions of Americans still
need nutrition assistance. USDA's nutrition assistance programs are
part of the national safety net. Proper nutrition and sufficient food
is as essential to the successful transition from Welfare to work as
child care and health insurance. The importance of nutrition support
does not diminish as families leave welfare. A family working full-time
throughout the year at the minimum wage can lift themselves out of
poverty, but only with the assistance of food stamps. The budget
requests an appropriate level of funding for this effort for Food
Stamps, Child Nutrition, and the WIC program, the Nation's primary
means for carrying out food assistance policy. Over two-thirds of the
$36.5 billion requested will help low-income children, school age or
under, receive the nutrition they need.
The Food Stamp Program is budgeted at $22.5 billion in 2000, which
includes a $1.0 billion contingency fund to cover unforeseen needs, and
is predicated on a participation estimate of some 20.1 million people.
While this level is higher than 1999 estimated participation of 19.7
million, this is just cautious budgeting. The economy is expected to
remain strong. In fact, food stamp participation is down over 9 million
from its peak of 28 million participants in March of 1994. This trend
began before welfare reform was enacted and intensified as welfare
reform began to work. With the strong economy, unemployment is at the
lowest peacetime level since 1957. Increases in child support payments
from absent parents achieved via Administration initiatives are also
helping low-income households reduce dependency on food stamps. The
Department will watch fluctuations in participation levels carefully to
ensure that food stamp eligibles are not denied access to the program
if they or their children still require nutrition assistance.
The budget includes several legislative proposals and initiatives
for the Food Stamp Program. While Americans are committed to a society
where work and responsibility are rewarded, current law does not permit
many immigrants who have been legal residents of the United States
since before welfare reform, to receive food stamps even after reaching
age 65. The Department proposes to level the playing field with
legislation that would allow such humanitarian assistance to these
hard-working, long-time legal resident immigrants who fall on hard
times when they are over age 65.
The budget also includes a small amount of funding for nutrition
education and technical assistance. This will make sure program
eligibles understand how to get nutrition assistance and what
assistance is available if they want it; and it will help educate them
on how to achieve a better diet. Finally, in addition to the continuing
effort to modernize benefit delivery via nationwide use of Electronic
Benefit Transfer, USDA is developing a plan to reduce error. A $6
million increase is requested as part of the plan to crack down on
retailer and participant abuses, as well as reduce program errors
causing overpayments.
For the Child Nutrition Programs, including the National School
Lunch, Breakfast, Child and Adult Care Food, Summer Food Service, and
Special Milk Programs, the current law budget request is $9.6 billion,
about $0.4 billion more than the 1999 level. The request assumes
continued full funding for all of these programs, support for Team
Nutrition and $2 million is requested for Nutrition Education and
Training. The National School Lunch Program touches almost all school
children during the year and can help them achieve a better diet,
especially with this effort in nutrition education. USDA is also
developing an integrity plan to assess and address error in the school
lunch program for which another $2 million is requested. We will
increase USDA's visibility at the State and local level to ensure
program integrity. Finally, the William F. Goodling Child Nutrition
Reauthorization Act of 1998, Public Law 105-336, (the Goodling Act)
authorized demonstration projects in 6 school districts that would
allow the Department to evaluate the effect of providing breakfasts
free to all elementary school children regardless of income. The budget
includes $3 million to pay for the meal costs, and $10 million for a 3-
year evaluation of the effects on participation, academic achievement,
attendance, tardiness, and dietary intake.
For WIC, the budget request calls for an increase of $181 million,
bringing the total to $4.1 billion for 2000. This level of funding will
support a monthly average of 7.5 million participants over the year.
The program is widely credited with reducing anemia and improving other
key indicators of early childhood health. Over 46 percent of the
infants born in America are WIC participants. USDA is working to
implement the changes in the Goodling Act, many of which would increase
program integrity. The Department is also working with the States to
improve program integrity and efficiency, to make sure the program
makes as much difference as it can for needy program recipients.
Further, as part of our Commodity Assistance Program request, the
Department seeks $20 million for the WIC farmers' market program, a $5
million increase. This program brings WIC recipients together with
small, local farm producers and encourages the consumption of fruits
and vegetables, a priority in nutrition promotion.
The budget proposes an increase of $10 million for the Emergency
Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). The Commodity Supplemental Food
Program is funded to maintain the current program levels, although it
is anticipated that caseload will continue to shift toward greater
elderly participation. The Nutrition Program for the Elderly is
increased by $10 million, to $150 million to increase subsidized meals
provided to persons aged 60 or older at low-income elderly centers and
through ``meals on wheels'' programs.
Finally, the Department will also increase its efforts to promote
the new Dietary Guidelines to be issued in 2000 to help all Americans
achieve a better diet via the Center for Nutrition Policy and
Promotion. An important principle of nutrition education is that all
Americans can benefit, whether they participate in nutritious
assistance programs or not. Our concern is greatest for those in need,
but nutrition education helps everyone.
food safety
As the safety of the food supply has become more important to the
success of American agriculture and the health of consumers, the
Department has stepped up its efforts to provide the leadership and
expertise necessary to address the complex domestic and international
food safety issues facing us today.
On July 25, 1996, a milestone was reached in our strategy for
making significant gains in improving the safety of America's food
supply. On this date, the final rule for Pathogen Reduction and Hazard
Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems for meat and
poultry products was published. This rule modernizes a 90-year-old
inspection system and lays out the Administration's commitment to
improve food safety and reduce the incidence of foodborne illness by 25
percent by the year 2000 as stated in the Department's strategic plan.
Two more milestones were reached: in January 1998 when
approximately 300 large plants entered the program, accounting for 75
percent of the volume of meat and poultry production in the United
States; and in January 1999 when over 2,800 small plants accounting for
another 15 percent of meat and poultry production implemented HACCP.
Implementation in large plants has been smooth thanks to the efforts of
both industry and Government. Large plants had approximately a 92
percent compliance rate during the first 9 months of implementation.
Where a few problems did occur, enforcement actions were implemented
and establishments responded by modifying and strengthening their HACCP
plans. As of January 25, 1999, small establishments, defined as having
between 10 and 500 employees, were required to meet the HACCP
requirements. All other establishments must implement HACCP
requirements on January 25, 2000.
Recent results demonstrate that 90 percent of large HACCP
establishments, for which there were adequate data, met the
Government's Salmonella performance standards. Those establishments
that did not meet the standards were required to take immediate
corrective action. Data also indicate that there was a significant
reduction in the prevalence of Salmonella due to the implementation of
HACCP. The performance standards for Salmonella represent the first
time USDA has set microbial standards for raw products on such a broad
scale and is the first step towards a greater reliance on performance
standards for specific pathogens.
These data, while preliminary, indicate that the Administration's
science-based inspection system has already had a significant effect on
the safety of food American families eat by reducing the prevalence of
Salmonella. Salmonella is a potentially deadly bacteria that in the
past had sickened as many as 3.8 million Americans a year and cost
billions of dollars in lost productivity and medical costs annually.
The positive results from the implementation of HACCP underscores
the important role Government plays in promoting public health, but the
final rule is only part of our overall strategy to improve the safety
of our meat and poultry supply. On January 25, 1997, the President
announced the National Food Safety initiative. The initiative includes
seven components for improving the Federal food inspection system from
farm-to-table. Key components include expansion of the Federal food
safety surveillance system, improved coordination between Federal,
State, and local health authorities; improved risk assessment
capabilities; increased inspection; expanded research, consumer
education, and strategic planning. The initiative reflects a high level
of coordination among agencies within USDA, the Department of Health
and Human Services, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). For
2000, the plan is to build on these investments, which Congress has
generously supported in both 1998 and 1999.
For 2000, the budget proposes an appropriated level under current
law of $653 million, a net increase of $36 million over the 1999
current estimate. The budget includes an increase for pay costs to meet
our statutory obligation to provide inspection services and a
programmatic increase to implement our farm-to-table food safety
strategy. The 2000 budget includes increases to help the FSIS
inspection workforce make the transition to a new HACCP environment,
including conversion of 388 current inspection personnel and hiring of
250 new personnel as Consumer Safety Officers. In these new positions,
these employees will be responsible for conducting scientific testing
and inspections through the farm-to-table continuum. Some of these
personnel will be redeployed to cover critical inspection vacancies in
nearly 3,000 very small establishments. These redeployments and
upgrades will increase the professional qualifications of the
inspection workforce and cover a broader segment of the farm-to-table
continuum. In support of the President's Food Safety initiative, the
budget for FSIS includes increases to address food safety risks from
farm-to-table, including: emergency response coordination with the
States in investigating foodborne illness outbreaks; validation of the
ability of State laboratories to meet HACCP pathogen testing
requirements; and pathogen testing in Federal laboratories of State-
inspected product.
The 2000 budget request includes again this year a legislative
proposal which would provide authority to recover the full cost of
providing Federal meat, poultry, and egg products inspection. We
estimate that this proposal would generate approximately $504 million
in new revenues in 2000 and $606 million thereafter. The proposal would
require $149 million in appropriated funding to convert the program to
user fees and to maintain State inspection programs. States
administering their own inspection programs would continue to be
reimbursed by the Federal Government for up to 50 percent of the cost
of administering their programs and the special assistance beginning in
1999.
natural resources and environment
Public awareness and concern for the Nation's natural resources has
continued to grow as we gain a better understanding of soil and related
resource problems and how best to address them. The importance of
maintaining a healthy environment and a strong natural resource base
becomes even more vital when considering the present economic state of
rural America and the uncertainties that will be facing agriculture in
the next century. The need to stem the decline of our important prime
farmlands and address the problem of urban sprawl will require a
greater Federal investment in ``Smart Growth'' programs. Understanding
and demonstrating new methods of mitigating the adverse effects of
global climate change on agriculture is another area to which the
Federal Government should devote more resources. In addition, the
plight of small, limited resource farmers has become more widely known
as we begin to appreciate the vital role they play in American
agriculture and the environmental and economic challenges that they
face.
The Administration has also targeted water pollution as a serious
threat to the environment and has demonstrated its commitment to
addressing this problem with the publication of the President's Clean
Water Action Plan in February 1998. This important document comes 25
years after passage of the Clean Water Act and outlines key Federal
actions that will attempt to address the pollution problems of the next
generation. USDA is called on to play a significant role in helping to
implement this plan.
These initiatives have put more pressure on the Department's unique
conservation partnership and has led to an increased demand for
financial and technical services that we provide to farmers and
communities. The budget request for 2000 recognizes this and proposes
an appropriated funding level of $866 million for NRCS. This includes
$585 million for conservation technical assistance, the program that
constitutes the backbone of the Department's partnership with
conservation districts and farmers, as well as the primary tool by
which the Department addresses many of the Administration's
environmental priorities.
The technical assistance proposal will assist in implementation of
the Administration's Clean Water Action Plan and provides $20 million,
including an $8 million increase, for technical assistance to owners
and operators of animal feeding operations (AFO) to help them develop
and implement waste management plans. Financial assistance that AFO
operators might need to implement the plans will come from a $126
million increase requested for EQIP which is funded through CCC. NRCS
will direct $20 million to competitive partnership grants to enable
locally- based organizations, such as conservation districts or
watershed councils, to provide coordination of locally-initiated
conservation efforts in problem identification and goal setting.
Finally, an additional $3 million is provided for monitoring work to
help target resources and document baseline conditions and performance.
In support of the Administration's Global Climate Change
initiative, the budget includes an increase of $12 million to develop
accurate baseline soil carbon data and to determine the impacts of
Federal programs on soil carbon stocks at the national, regional and
field levels. In addition, NRCS will devote $3 million to fund
demonstration and pilot projects to test various carbon sequestration
and greenhouse gas mitigation strategies and monitoring mechanisms.
Another Administration priority is the need to protect productive
farmland and preserve open space. The President's Lands Legacy
initiative will seek to accomplish this through a $50 million increase
in discretionary spending for NRCS' Farmland Protection Program (FPP).
Since funding authority for this program was fully expended in 1998,
the NRCS budget also proposes new CCC legislative funding authority of
$27.5 million. These two sources of funding for FPP will help meet the
high demand for this program and ensure that solutions to problems of
urban sprawl and loss of prime farmland are achieved.
Rural America is now facing serious economic hardships as a result
of the declining farm economy. Nevertheless, farmers must still meet
numerous environmental challenges and this places the greatest burden
on the smaller operators. To address this, the budget includes $5
million to more fully implement the Debt for Nature program which will
provide technical and financial assistance to financially strapped USDA
borrowers who also have lands that require conservation treatment. At a
time when many of these small operators are facing foreclosure, this
program will offer some financial relief while at the same time
implementing state-of-the-art conservation stewardship practices.
Funds will again be limited in the watershed planning and
construction area where allocations will be made only to those projects
that demonstrate cost effectiveness and clear environmental need. We
will also work closely with our partners to get a better understanding
of the overall condition of the more than 10,000 project dams that have
been installed with USDA funding over the past 50 years. Many of these
older projects are now approaching the end of their projected life span
and concerns about public safety are being raised. NRCS will devote $1
million to providing educational assistance to communities on the need
to inspect and possibly repair older dams.
Finally, the Department's 2000 budget will continue to support the
315 authorized Resource Conservation and Development areas. This
ongoing program will continue to improve State and local leadership
capabilities in planning, developing and carrying out resource
conservation programs.
research, education, and economics
The 2000 budget represents the Administration's first comprehensive
set of recommendations for investments in agricultural research and
related technology since the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act was enacted in June 1998. The Research Reform Act
called for a major infusion of funding in research and technology in
areas that will enable American agriculture adapt to changing
conditions in the global economy and in the domestic production
environment. The 2000 budget proposes total funding for the four REE
agencies of $2.1 billion, an increase of over 10 percent from the
comparable 1999 level and the first substantial increase for these
programs since 1992. Advances in research and technology are the keys
to many of the most challenging problems we face in agriculture today
and provide the basis for solutions to tomorrow's problems. The
proposals put the Department in the ranks of the Federal Government's
leading science agencies.
The REE budget proposal reflects the priorities outlined in the
Research Reform Act. Mandatory spending of $120 million in 2000, and
$600 million over the next 5 years is provided for the Initiative for
Future Agriculture and Food Systems under Section 401 of the Research
Reform Act, for competitive research, education, and extension grants
to address critical and emerging agricultural issues. Grants of up to 5
years will be awarded to address priority research topics targeting
enhanced agricultural productivity, food safety and human nutrition,
and natural resource management. Mandatory funding is also available
under the Fund for Rural America, where approximately one-half of the
$60 million total is to be provided for a wide range of research and
education activities in 2000.
The 2000 budget of $881 million for the Agricultural Research
Service (ARS) includes a $51 million net increase for ARS research
programs above the comparable 1999 enacted level. Within that total,
the agency will fund increases of $76 million in support of major
Presidential Initiatives and other high priority research projects. In
addition, $10 million is provided to partially offset increased pay
costs. Of the total increase, $35 million will be funded through
savings achieved from the termination of lower priority projects at
select locations.
The discretionary budget request for CSREES of $948 million is up
by $24 million or 2.6 percent, with a shift within this total to
programs where funds are distributed competitively to address the most
critical needs of the agricultural community. The 2000 budget proposes
an increase of $81 million for the National Research Initiative (NRI),
a 68 percent increase over the 1999 appropriated level. NRI supports
both fundamental and mission-linked research through a competitive,
peer-reviewed process that is open to all of the Nation's top
scientists, including those at land-grant institutions. The proposed
increase will target a wide range of environmental, economic, human
health, and nutrition concerns through additional investments in
breakthrough research that aims to address the most pressing concerns
faced by the agricultural community.
The 2000 budget for the Economic Research Service (ERS) and the
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), in total, $140
million, up $6 million from comparable 1999 levels. Increases are
proposed to support important departmental initiatives while reductions
reflect the cyclical funding needs for the Census of Agriculture and
the proposal to fund food program studies through the Food and
Nutrition Service.
The budget includes $120 million, an increase of about $25 million,
for REE research and education in support of the President's Food
Safety Initiative. Of the total, about $7.3 million is provided to ARS
for pre-harvest food safety research to study animal pathogen
resistance to antibiotics, reduce pathogen infestation in animal waste,
and examine the risks associated with the transmission of zoonotic
pathogens from animals to humans. The ARS budget includes an increase
of $4.4 million for post-harvest research to enhance detection and
measurement of microbial pathogens during handling, distribution, and
storage of fresh fruits and vegetables to determine the sources of
contamination and risks of disease transmission. An increase of $3
million provided in the Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service (CSREES) budget for competitive grants for integrated
research and extension, food safety activities grants will complement
the ARS research efforts. The extension programs carried out by CSREES
will provide the necessary training to small retail establishments in
helping them to implement HACCP. Additionally, about $21 million of the
total of $200 million proposed National Research Initiative (NRI)
competitive grants will go for food safety related projects. An
increase of about $0.5 million is provided to support activities
carried out by ERS in collaboration with other Federal and USDA
agencies to assess the costs of foodborne illness and the economic
implications of different options to improve food safety. An increase
of $2.5 million is included in the NASS budget for a baseline survey of
good agricultural practices of fruit and vegetable growers.
The ARS budget also contains an increase of $8 million for research
to reduce the incidence of emerging diseases and exotic pests that
threaten the safety and competitiveness of the U.S. food supply at home
and abroad. Of the total, about half will be used for developing
diagnostic tests, vaccines, and other preventive measures to control
emerging and infectious diseases afflicting animals. The remaining
amount is provided for research on emerging and exotic plant diseases,
insects, and weeds that negatively impact crop quality and yield.
An increase of $3 million is provided in the ARS budget for genetic
research aimed at enhancing U.S. agricultural competitiveness by
improving the quality of plant and animal food products. The increase
is provided to enhance crop production through research on genetic
vulnerability of plants to pests and diseases and to improve the
quality and safety of animal products through more accurate information
on genes responsible for animal diseases and parasites.
The ARS budget also includes a $20.3 million increase in support of
the President's Human Nutrition initiative. The overall goal of the
initiative is to promote health and reduce health care costs by
identifying the relationship between diet and health and to improve the
scientific basis for more effective food assistance programs.
An increase of $3.0 million will support the development and
application of new technology and management practices to replace the
traditional pest controls that are at risk of being restricted or
prohibited due to the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). Of
the total, about half of the amount is provided for technical and
administrative support to the Office of Pest Management and Policy
which is responsible for coordinating all pest control activities in
the Department and collaborating with EPA on all pesticide-related
issues. Additional funding is also provided in the CSREES budget in
support of FQPA, including $10 million in new funds for long- term
development and implementation of innovative pest management systems
for major acreage crops, fruits, and vegetables, and $3 million in new
funds for the development of alternative pest controls for fruit and
vegetable crops to replace the pesticides at risk of not meeting the
new regulatory requirements. The budget includes a proposal for a new
$5 million program of integrated research and extension grants for
development of practical management alternatives and technologies for
commodities affected by the methyl bromide phase-out. Additional
funding is also provided for a number of programs aimed at preserving
the Nation's natural resource base. An increase of $11 million is
provided in the ARS budget for research and development of viable
management strategies to achieve sustainable ecosystems. Specific
efforts will include reducing nutrient build-up and transport to
control hypoxia and harmful algae blooms, developing an Integrated Pest
Management system for invasive weeds such as melaluca, leafy spurge,
and yellow star thistle, and developing integrated strategies and
technologies for conservation and restoration of ecosystems.
An increase of $15 million is provided for ARS global change
research activities, with particular emphasis on utilizing management
and conservation strategies to store carbon in soil, mitigating the
impacts of climate change on agriculture and food availability, and
developing new technology for predicting effects of global change on
management and conservation of natural resources. The ERS budget is
increased by $1 million for global climate change work, including
identifying the economic implications of various alternatives for
reducing greenhouse gases. Funds are also proposed to support USDA
participation in the U.S. Global Change Research Program National
Assessment activities in which several agencies collaborate to provide
better understanding of potential climate changes for the Nation and to
examine options for adaptations to these changes. An additional $2
million is provided for ARS research to develop measures to control
particulate matter in compliance with EPA's new ambient air quality
standards mandated by the Clean Air Act.
An increase of $2 million is proposed in the ARS budget so that the
National Agricultural Library can enhance the availability and delivery
of information to rural areas through the Internet. Additional support
is provided to land-grant universities to establish ``Centers of
Excellence'' on subjects of critical importance to the agricultural
community, including food safety, pest management, water quality, and
agricultural productivity.
The budget also includes $45 million for facility construction and
modernization projects at 7 ARS locations, a reduction of $12 million
from 1999. Of the total amount, $13 million is provided to support the
first phase of a new addition to the Beltsville Human Nutrition
Research Center and other small projects at the Beltsville Agricultural
Research Center. Additional funding is also provided for modernization
projects at ARS regional research centers, including $6 million for the
Southern Regional Research Center at New Orleans, Louisiana; $4 million
for the Eastern Regional Research Center at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
$3 million for the Western Regional Research Center at Albany,
California; and $2 million for the National Center for Agricultural
Utilization Research, at Peoria, Illinois. Additional funding totalling
$8 million is also provided for continued modernization of the Plum
Island Animal Disease Center in New York and $9 million for
construction of a relocation facility for the Western Human Nutrition
Research Center in Davis, California.
Increases are also proposed in the CSREES budget for two innovative
efforts to empower communities to reduce hunger and improve nutrition
at the grass roots level. One of my highest priorities as Secretary is
fostering partnerships between the public, private, and non-profit
sectors to improve community food security, help individuals move
towards self-sufficiency, and increase the amount of excess, wholesome
food that is distributed to hungry Americans rather than discarded.
Such coordinated efforts are particularly important at a time when
nonprofit feeding organizations throughout the Nation are reporting an
increased demand for food, particularly among working poor families.
For these reasons, $776,000 is proposed to increase technical
assistance to local anti-hunger and nutrition activities. In addition,
as part of that initiative, $15 million is requested to increase the
amount of excess food distributed by nonprofit feeding organizations by
awarding grants to expand community infrastructures for food recovery
and gleaning activities. The goal is to increase food recovery by 33
percent or 500 million pounds, which would provide approximately
500,000 low-income individuals with 3 pounds of nutritious food a day.
An increase of $2 million above the 1999 level is also proposed to
support nutrition education programs aimed at assisting individuals
below poverty levels in improving basic nutrition and resource
management practices.
An increase $4 million is proposed in the CSREES budget for
competitive research, extension, and education grants to support the
Small Farms initiative. The main goal of the Initiative is to enhance
agricultural production on small farms by developing and facilitating
networks between small farmers and trained professionals in the public
and private sectors.
Stable funding is provided for CSREES' higher education programs to
continue ongoing efforts to support graduate and undergraduate
education aimed at improving instructional capabilities in food and
agricultural sciences. Funding is also held constant for the 1890
Capacity Building Grants Program which supports partnerships between
the 1890's Historically Black Colleges and Universities and USDA
agencies to improve research and instruction programs at these schools.
The budget also continues to support the recommendations proposed by
CRAT. Proposed increases include an additional $4 million for 1890
facilities projects for building renovation and construction, an
increase of $3 million to support 30 additional extension agents on
Indian reservations in 19 States, and an increase of $1.4 million to
expand extension capacity at the 30 Native American land-grant
institutions.
In addition to the food safety and global climate change increases
noted previously, the ERS budget includes increases to support economic
analysis on other priority issues. The budget includes additional funds
to enhance commodity market analysis, particularly through alliances
with the land-grant university system, and electronic dissemination of
this and other ERS analysis to producers, processors, and others that
use the information. An increase is also included to assess the varying
information needs of different types of farming operations, how well
USDA and private information services meet the needs of small farmers,
and what modification of the Department's current information programs
are needed to better serve small farmers. Finally, an increase is
provided to support research on electric utility deregulation in order
to assess the potential impacts of deregulation on the competitiveness
of rural businesses, communities, and households.
The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) is also an
important source of information that is relied upon by a wide range of
participants in the agricultural economy. The changes brought about by
the 1996 Farm Bill make reliable and timely information about
production, supply and prices even more critical to participants in
agricultural markets. The budget request for NASS reflects a net
decrease of $3 million, which includes a $9 million reduction due to
the cyclical funding needs of the Census of Agriculture. The budget
includes increases for a number of priority NASS efforts.
An increase is included to establish a permanent office in Puerto
Rico in collaboration with the Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture to
enhance collection of agricultural-related data. Funding is requested
to conduct the decennial Agriculture Economics Land Ownership Survey
which provides comprehensive data that are used to assess changes in
farm structure, farm financial health, land ownership patterns, and
landlord contributions to agricultural production. An increase is
included for increased data collection to assist in the setting of safe
pesticide use standards and in defining good agricultural practices to
promote food safety. Lastly, an increase is requested to expand
coverage of the program to measure chemical usage on cropland
information vital to understanding stresses on cropland and
environmental changes.
marketing and regulatory programs
The Marketing and Regulatory Programs facilitate domestic and
international marketing of U.S. agricultural products by: (1) reducing
international trade barriers and assuring that all sanitary and
phytosanitary requirements are based on sound science; (2) protecting
domestic producers from animal and plant pests and diseases; (3)
monitoring markets to assure fair trading practices; (4) promoting
competition and efficient marketing; (5) reducing the effects of
destructive wildlife; and (6) assuring the well-being of research,
exhibition, and pet animals. Consumers, as well as farmers, ranchers,
handlers, processors, and other marketers in the agricultural sector,
benefit from these activities.
The budget includes an increase of $13 million for the Agricultural
Marketing Service (AMS) for a number of important activities. It would
be used to: (1) expand market news reporting; (2) finalize the National
Organic Program; (3) enhance the rapid response capability of the
Pesticide Data Program (PDP) necessary to support the Department's
responsibilities to meet EPA's data requirements for agricultural
pesticide residues under FQPA; and (4) expand the operating program for
microbiological testing of fruits and vegetables to support the
President's Food Safety initiative.
For the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the
budget proposes a number of significant changes in priorities, but only
a $10 million overall increase in appropriations for the salaries and
expenses account. Program successes in brucellosis eradication will
allow a redirection to higher priority activities such as improved
animal and plant health monitoring to reduce the likelihood of
dangerous and costly infestations. APHIS anticipates that all 50 States
will reach brucellosis Class ``Free'' Status by the end of 1999. The
budget proposes increased cost sharing from beneficiaries of Wildlife
Services activities, particularly in States which support less than
half of the program costs. Also, savings in the APHIS budget for boll
weevil eradication can be achieved because FSA has established a
successful loan program to assist producer-operated foundations to
eradicate this menace to our agriculture. These reductions enable
budget priorities to increase in the following areas: (1) detection and
exclusion of pests and diseases including fruit flies, emerging plant
pests, invasive alien species and Agricultural Quarantine Inspection at
the borders where upwards of 85 million passengers potentially carry
banned agricultural products into the United States; (2) more timely
and accurate surveillance information on animal health; (3) emergency
preparedness against acts of bioterrorism; and (4) important data
gathering and risk analysis used in negotiations concerning sanitary
and phytosanitary trade barriers and restrictions on genetically
engineered products entering world markets. In addition, legislation
will be proposed to increase license fees on the entities regulated
under the Animal Welfare Act to recover the field level costs of
administering the Act and to increase biotechnology permit fees to
recover the cost of providing such services.
The budget requests no net increase for the Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards Administration. The one-time appropriation of
$2.5 million in 1999 to restructure the Packers and Stockyards (P&S)
activities is being used to strengthen P&S programs' ability to
investigate anti-competitive practices and provide greater flexibility
and efficiency in enforcing the trade practice and payment protection
provisions of the Act. In 2000, a similar amount of funds would be used
to: (1) hire additional staff to monitor and analyze packer competitive
practices and the implications of structural changes in the meat
packing industry; (2) expand poultry compliance resources; (3) install
electronic filing equipment to reduce financial reporting costs for
stockyard owners and packing house operators, (4) develop new cost-
saving methods of grain inspection, (5) develop specific tests for
grain varieties, and (6) develop automation techniques for mycotoxin
testing. Legislation for new license fees from livestock marketing
firms will be proposed to recover the cost of administering the Packers
and Stockyards Act and to increase fees for grain inspection to recover
the cost of developing grain standards.
departmental management activities
Although few support activities have high visibility, they are,
nevertheless, vital to USDA's success in providing effective customer
service and efficient program delivery. The 2000 budget proposes a
number of increases for USDA's central offices and management functions
to strengthen Departmentwide management oversight, leadership,
coordination, and administrative support in keeping with the
Department's Strategic Plan Management Initiatives to: ensure that all
customers and employees are treated fairly and equitably, with dignity
and respect; improve customer service by streamlining and restructuring
the county offices; create a unified system of information technology
management; and improve financial management and reporting.
The request reflects a number of priority funding increases to
continue activities to improve civil rights enforcement throughout
USDA. In recent years the Congress has increased funding specifically
for civil rights activities within Departmental Administration. I
appreciate this support and these activities will continue. The 2000
budget includes an increase of $3.9 million to build on these
improvements. I want to be sure that we have the necessary resources to
meet our Strategic Goal of ensuring that all employees and customers
are treated fairly and equitably with dignity and respect. The funds
will support additional staffing in the Office of Outreach to
strengthen and expand leadership and coordination capabilities and
expand outreach to minority and limited resource farmers; additional
staffing for the Office of Civil Rights to handle increased workload in
discrimination complaints and enhance complaints tracking to provide
increased accountability; and additional staffing for the Office of
Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization to support an ongoing
project to create new jobs in rural America.
The budget also includes an increase of $7 million for the
Department's Socially Disadvantaged Farmers Outreach Program. The
program, authorized by Section 2501 of the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, is designed to assist socially and
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in participating in USDA programs
and be successful in their operations by providing outreach and
technical assistance. The proposed increase will enable support of
approximately 35 projects that will serve more than 10,000 small
producers with the goal of turning them into solvent enterprises and
stemming the continual reduction of the number of minority farmers and
ranchers.
The challenge of providing improved customer service with improved
efficiency as resource constraints are tightened remains a major focus
of the Department's county-based agencies including FSA, the RD mission
area, and NRCS. An initial administrative convergence plan has been
developed to create the Support Services Bureau (SSB) which combines
the administrative structures of these agencies into one unit to
deliver better services to local customers and employees, provide a new
consistency in administrative policy and operations, make better use of
limited resources, and help preserve limited budget resources for
program delivery. Thus, the budget includes funding for the new
consolidated organization, SSB, to provide administrative services,
including information technology activities, to these agencies. The
salaries and expenses of the new bureau will be financed through direct
appropriations and transfers from the serviced agencies.
The new SSB will support the Department's ongoing Service Center
Implementation initiative. In 2000, a total program level of $90
million is proposed to continue Service Center Implementation
activities, including further development and implementation of the
common computing environment (CCE). One of the keys to success of
improved customer service, while streamlining the field structure, is
the replacement of the aging business and technology systems of the
field service agencies. A collective re-engineering of business
processes for administrative services and program delivery is underway,
along with testing information technology alternatives. Common
information shared by the partner agencies will reduce the redundant
requests made of program participants, as well as customer office
visits and paperwork burden, and ease workload for internal staff. CCE
will enable the county-based agencies to: optimize the data, equipment,
and staff sharing opportunities at the USDA service centers; overcome
the extreme limitations of the current legacy information systems; and
enhance customer service.
The Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) provides policy
guidance, leadership, and coordination in USDA's information management
and technology investment activities. The proposed increase for 2000
includes $2.4 million to enhance USDA's infrastructure security and
OCIO's emergency response capabilities; continue oversight of the
Department's Service Center Implementation initiative; and continue
implementation of critical Clinger-Cohen activities including further
development of the Department's Information Technology Capital Planning
and Investment Control program, the USDA Information Architecture, and
workforce planning activities to ensure USDA maintains a highly
qualified IT workforce.
Supplemental funding of $37.8 million was provided to OCIO in 1999
to support an aggressive program of remediation activities to address
Year 2000 computer and embedded chip problems in the Department. I
appreciate this support provided by the Congress and we are diligently
working to ensure uninterrupted delivery of USDA programs and services
in 2000.
The Office of the Chief Financial Officer provides overall
direction and leadership in the development of modern financial
management structures and systems in the Department. The budget
proposes an increase of $2 million to restore the Department's
financial credibility and accountability including successful
implementation of legislative mandates such as the Government
Performance and Results Act, debt collection and cost accounting.
Increases in the Department's Working Capital Fund will enhance
implementation of our new USDA-wide financial accounting system.
The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) provides critical legal
support and advice to the Department and its agencies. An increase of
$3.5 million is proposed to strengthen OGC's ability to provide timely
response to requests for legal assistance, especially in the areas of
trade practices, natural resources, and general law. Funds area also
included to provide information technology improvements to enhance the
efficiency of the office.
The Department's Office of Communications (OC) plays a critical
role in disseminating information about USDA's programs to the general
public. The request includes an increase of $1.2 million to enable OC
to utilize new technology to reach audiences in a more timely and
effective manner, and to lead Department-wide communications outreach
efforts to reach underserved populations.
The request includes additional funds to continue the ongoing
implementation of the USDA Strategic Space Plan for the Washington
Metropolitan area. This plan has been tailored to meet the needs of
USDA based on the projected staff levels at the Washington Headquarters
and to provide a safe, efficient workplace for our employees. Occupancy
of the Beltsville facility is scheduled to be completed during 1999.
The work required in the renovation of the South Building includes fire
protection systems, abatement of hazardous materials such as asbestos;
replacement of old, inefficient heating, ventilation and air
conditioning systems; upgrade of electrical and plumbing systems;
improved accommodations for disabled persons; and accommodation of
modern telecommunications systems. The construction contract for Phase
1 of the modernization was awarded in July 1998. The design for Phase 2
is substantially complete and the 2000 request includes funds for the
construction of Phase 2.
The Department's Hazardous Waste Management program provides
leadership and funding for compliance with the requirements of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act,
the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act, the Oil Pollution Act and
the Pollution Prevention Act for facilities and lands under USDA's
jurisdiction. An increase of $7 million is requested to minimally
comply with necessary investigative and cleanup activities to protect
human health and the environment and support increased efforts to
identify and bill other responsible parties in the cleanup of hazardous
waste sites.
office of inspector general
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducts and supervises
audits and investigations relating to programs and operations of the
Department, reviews and makes recommendations on existing and proposed
legislation and regulations, and recommends policies and activities to
promote economy and efficiency and to prevent and detect fraud and
mismanagement in USDA operations. The budget includes an increase of
$3.1 million to maintain these activities and enhance the information
technology capabilities of OIG.
That concludes my statement, I am looking forward to working with
the Committee on the 2000 budget so that together we can meet the needs
of our clients.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Secretary, we appreciate this overview
of the budget submitted for the Department of Agriculture, and
we will endeavor to work closely with you and the Department to
help solve these problems in agriculture and make sure that we
put the money where the problems are and help ensure that the
programs are administered efficiently and effectively.
CROP INSURANCE REFORM
In that connection, I noticed that you mentioned some farm
bill shortcomings and specifically addressed the problem of
crop insurance reform as something that needs to be undertaken.
It is troubling, therefore, to observe that there is no money
in this budget request for crop insurance reform. A white paper
is not going to be enough in my judgment to solve the problem.
We all know a good bit about the problem, but we need to have
some more definitive work and proposals from the administration
to consider in the Congress and specifically a budget request
that will provide funds to help fund a crop insurance reform
effort. What is your reaction to my comment on that?
Secretary Glickman. Well, Senator, I think it is a fair
question. I would say this, that this is a multi-billion dollar
problem. We talked about whether we should put a placeholder in
the budget and then find enormous offsets other places in the
budget to pay for it, perhaps significantly reducing existing
farm program payments or other parts of the USDA budget. And we
decided, no, because we are really talking about a replacement
for the disaster programs that we have every year.
In the late summer/early fall, this Congress responded with
first $4 billion. The President vetoed the bill, and Congress
responded with $6 billion of emergency payments, disaster
payments that were not heretofore budgeted because they were,
in fact, true emergencies.
While the crop insurance issue is not a classic emergency
from the standpoint of the budgeting requirements, we have
taken the position that, in effect, it is very much like that.
So, we want to work with Congress to see if we can come up with
a substantive legislative proposal that would effectively more
truly replace the ad hoc disaster assistance proposals, and if
we do that, I am confident that we will come up with the
offsets that will pay for it.
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Cochran. I noticed also that you mentioned the
possibility of a supplemental for programs, specifically loan
programs where there are not enough monies available now to
meet loan application requests that are coming in for farm
operating loans or ownership loans, guaranteed and direct
loans. There is not included in this budget request any
supplemental requirements for fiscal year 1999 even though, as
you state, the need is obvious, and I think you said shortly
some of these programs will be running out of money.
How much is needed for these farm operating and guaranteed
loan programs, and are there other needs for which will be
submitted in a supplemental request? If so, when will it be
submitted, and how much will it request?
Secretary Glickman. I am going to ask Mr. Dewhurst to
respond specifically, but I would say this, that we will run
out of funding for emergency loans fairly soon.
The funding for farm loans did increase from $2 billion in
fiscal year 1998 to $2.8 billion in 1999 to $3 billion in 2000.
Demand is outrunning our funding.
Funding for guaranteed operating and ownership loans will
be exhausted in the next few weeks. What is happening is a lot
of producers and a lot of banks are turning to us to help
refinance existing debt as prices fall. We are either the
lender of last resort or our guaranteed program has become
extremely popular with banks who might not heretofore have
wanted to use us in some of these loans.
But perhaps Steve may want to comment more specifically on
that.
Mr. Dewhurst. Well, as the Secretary said, we are looking
at the needs for supplemental appropriations with the hope that
we will be sending something forward in the executive branch in
the next few days. There are essentially four program areas we
are looking at. One is the one that Senator Cochran brought up,
which is farm credit. It is clear to us that with respect to
emergency loans, as well as with respect to guaranteed
operating and ownership credit, there are shortages in all of
those areas. The current estimate of need could be as much as
$1 billion in loan authority, which translates into roughly
$100 million in budget authority to finance them.
But I want to emphasize that one of our problems is these
numbers keep changing and we are trying to get the best numbers
we can to make sure we cover the problem.
We are also looking at the emergency conservation program.
As you know, that program runs through the Farm Service Agency
and provides farmers with some cost-share money to put land
back in productive condition following natural disasters. We
are working with a tentative estimate of about $30 million in
that area. At the moment the largest single need that we see is
in Puerto Rico due to Hurricane George. There is an $8 million
requirement in that territory alone because of hurricane
damage.
We are also looking at the emergency watershed program. The
Natural Resources Conservation Service works with local
jurisdictions to clear channels and restore streams after
natural disasters. They have given us an initial estimate of
roughly $100 million, but we are still looking at that.
Finally, there's rural development. We have some housing
needs due to natural disasters again in Puerto Rico, as well as
a number of other States where storms have damaged USDA
financed rural housing, and there may be a need for us to
provide some additional loans and grants to help restore that
housing. That is a fairly small area. We think it might amount
to $6 million in loans and grants.
So, those are four areas we are looking at. We do hope to
have something forward the next few days, but we are trying to
get the best numbers that we can.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Senator Kohl.
LONG-TERM DAIRY PRICES
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
Mr. Secretary, dairy farmers in my State of Wisconsin and
across much of the Nation have recently benefitted from good
prices. However, we are very concerned about projections for
dairy prices in the coming months. I would like you or perhaps
Mr. Collins to provide your views on the near and long-term
prices dairy farmers may expect to receive.
Secretary Glickman. Well, if they were going up, I would do
it, but I am going to have Mr. Collins respond. [Laughter.]
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Glickman. I think last year I did do it.
Senator Kohl. They were going up.
Mr. Collins. Mr. Kohl, as you did comment, we have had an
unusual situation over the last couple of months. The basic
formula price in December was $17.34 per 100 pounds of milk
which was an all-time record high. I do not think many people
expected that to continue; at least not many economists
expected that to continue.
In 1998, we had some serious weather problems that affected
milk production around the country, California in particular,
having wet weather in the spring and then drought during the
summer. We only had a very small increase in milk production at
a time when cheese demand was strong and milk fat demand was
strong.
Over the last 3 months of 1998, though, things have started
to change. Milk production was up 2 percent. That is the first
sustained increase we have had in milk production since 1995.
As a result of that, we are now seeing more cheese production,
and we have seen cheese prices drop rather dramatically. They
were record high, $1.90 a pound in December. They fell all the
way to $1.25 the third week in January, and they went up a
little bit last Friday to about $1.32.
But as we look out, we are probably going to see a basic
formula price, when we announce it on March 5th, dropping to
the range of between $12 and $13 per 100 pounds, down from the
$17.34 record in December, and I think we announced about
$16.28 last week for the January basic formula price.
Just to finish this, for the year as a whole, we would see
the basic formula price average about $12.75 per hundredweight
in 1999 which would be down from about $14.20 in 1998. But it
would be better than what we had in 1997 when it was only
$12.05, and producers will face lower feed costs than they did
in 1997. So, we should have a year about between the last 2
years of 1997 and 1998.
Senator Kohl. All right. So, we are expecting a serious
decline in prices this year relative to last year.
Mr. Collins. Yes, sir.
EMERGENCY FUNDING
Senator Kohl. Last fall, Mr. Secretary, Congress provided,
as you know and stated, nearly $6 billion in emergency funds to
bolster farm prices. Included in that amount was $200 million
to help dairy farmers. In fact, Mr. Secretary, I have written
you a letter, as you know, on this matter.
Since Congress has already acted and an economic disaster
for dairy farmers is expected in the near term, can you assure
dairy farmers in Wisconsin and other States that that money
will be available and will be used to offset the effects of the
crisis that we expect?
Secretary Glickman. Yes. This $200 million fund needs to be
out there sometime mid to late spring. We have not yet
finalized the formula for doing it, but the appropriations bill
requires us to spend $200 million and I am advised that it has
got to be spent this fiscal year. So, that means the money must
and will be spent.
The other thing I would tell you is that without knowing
exactly what we are going to do on dairy, we did do the $50
million hog program which was kind of a special program. On
that one, we targeted it to basically smaller and mid-size
producers. While we have not finalized the dairy program yet,
it would be my hope that there would be some targeting in this
area as well.
MARKET CONCENTRATION
Senator Kohl. All right. Mr. Secretary, you have noted in
your remarks your commitment to the small farmer and ongoing
efforts at USDA to help ensure that highly concentrated market
power in the hands of a few will not serve to the detriment of
the American farmer or the American consumer. Mr. Secretary, if
concentration within the U.S. agriculture sector continues to
grow, what do you see as the long-term consequences of this
concentration?
Secretary Glickman. That is a question that I am very
worried about. It is the question that I get when I am out in
the country more than any other question. It has to do with the
structure of agriculture, particularly in the livestock sector,
particularly in poultry and hogs, but there is also a lot of
concern about ownership on the slaughter side, the beef side of
the picture.
Now, we have, to use the colloquial expression, beefed up
our enforcement and our staffing functions of the Grain
Inspection and Packers and Stockyards Administration. It is in
our budget to provide more resources to do both studies and to
take on cases. These cases, antitrust cases, are very
complicated and they are intensely litigious.
One of the first things that I did when I came on board is
we sued IBP, the largest meat packing company in the world, for
preferential pricing practices. We got a result which was
partially positive, partially negative, but it is something
that we need to do more of, which is to challenge unfair
practices where they exist. We have our own statute, the
Packers and Stockyards Act, which was adopted as basically an
unfair practices statute.
We also created a National Commission on Small Farms. It
has made several recommendations that we have implemented.
I would also point out that in recent weeks the White House
has put together a team of us and the Department of Justice to
examine larger consolidation issues involving agriculture.
Senator Harkin and others have been asking that we do that as
well.
But there is some additional money for enforcement of our
Packers and Stockyards Act.
CONSERVATION FARM OPTION
Senator Kohl. Mr. Secretary, Wisconsin is a State rich in
natural resources. In fact, by reasonable accounts, modern day
conservation was born in Wisconsin.
Today, however, we face serious challenges to water quality
and soil degradation from many sources, including agriculture.
I note the budget request calls for increases in many important
conservation programs, but at the expense of some others. For
example, we note that the Conservation Farm Option program is
not funded at all, even though farmers in Wisconsin have been
asking for this program since passage of the 1996 farm bill.
Can you explain why you chose new conservation programs
over ones not yet funded, such as the Conservation Farm Option?
Secretary Glickman. I believe, if I am not mistaken,
Congress cut the funding for this program last year. So, quite
frankly, the administration made its priorities based on a lot
of factors, including that. But we think the Conservation Farm
Option is an important program and we certainly would not
resist Congress putting money into it.
Senator Kohl. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Kohl.
Senator Bond.
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I am glad to hear you are going to be
focusing on the concentration issues because those are of great
concern to us.
I appreciate also your strong support for research which is
the future.
I would share the chairman's concern about the failure to
come forth with a plan, any plan, on crop insurance and begin
to make a realistic budget set-aside for that. To be quite
harsh, Pro Farmer I read says, basically USDA has punted on
crop insurance reform. They have laid the entire matter at the
feet of Congress. I do not want to be harsh, but there is that
view.
SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST
I would point out one other thing that we are concerned
about. When you talk about the supplemental requests, I hope
that you will also be providing us with your suggested offsets.
The President has said we are going to save Social Security by
devoting the surplus to it, and certainly we would not expect
to have supplemental requests that are not funded.
With respect to the program you addressed, disaster
assistance, Congress did provide $2.4 billion to compensate for
crop losses and it was signed 100 days ago. There are some who
do not think the $2.4 billion is enough. But we still do not
have a signup and farmers are asking when they can have the
assistance in hand.
What is the target for getting that ready?
Secretary Glickman. The signup did actually start I think
last week, February 1.
Senator Bond. We do not have the information. Our offices
do not have it. I mean, that is what we are hearing from back
home. They do not have that.
Secretary Glickman. Well, we will make sure that the
Missouri State office has all the information by this
afternoon.
But the signup started. Again, this is different than the
first part of the $6 billion program of assistance where we
just could send checks based upon previous farm programs. In
this case, farmers have to come in to the county offices and do
the appropriate amount of paperwork and provide proof of loss.
We are trying to minimize paperwork as much as possible. We
just added some California relief based upon the freeze as
well, and then you have to allocate the total dollars based
upon the total amount of applications. But we need to get that
relief out this spring, late winter or early spring certainly.
Senator Bond. Well, we appreciate your doing that, and I
would put in a good word for the USDA organization in our
State. They are doing a good job.
COTTON LOAN DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS
On a parochial matter, I need to call to your attention to
the fact that there are over 1,000 appeals awaiting decisions
in response to a USDA mistake inadvertently in implementing the
cotton loan deficiency payments down in the Boothill in
southeast Missouri. Apparently the local FSA did not get word
from Washington, and we need FSA to allow form CCC-709 to be
amended. You have been hearing from a lot of people about that.
It is one of those technical difficulties. If you can get that
solved, you will be a hero in the Boothill and we all will. We
appreciate your looking at that.
FOOD QUALITY PROTECTION ACT
One final challenge for you that I offer up to you for any
comments you have. On the off chance that you have some
influence over Administrator Browner at the EPA, since Congress
does not seem to have any, I would ask if you are able and
willing to speak the language of science and agriculture in EPA
regarding the implementation of the Food Quality Protection
Act. Is USDA participating? Are you making the science and the
agricultural knowledge that you have available in a meaningful
way in the discussions at EPA with respect to FQPA?
Secretary Glickman. The answer is yes. And Senator, I am
going to ask Deputy Secretary Rominger to comment on this, but
let me just make a couple of points.
One is that the Deputy Secretary and I met with Carol
Browner last week for almost 2 hours to discuss the practical
implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act. This is a
concern out in the countryside: Is USDA engaged as we deal with
pesticides and organophosphates and other things that either
have to be removed or usage changed or modified? I am extremely
comfortable with our relationship with the EPA and Carol
Browner. In the countryside sometimes when I say that, people
kind of say, well, we are hearing other things, but it is not
true.
The other thing. This is a statute that is extremely
complicated. It is a statute--at least in the initial
implementation--which is basically a child-based statute. That
is, the things to be removed from the marketplace are those
things that affect children as they consume foods like apple
juice and other kinds of things.
So, it does require a great deal of good, sound, objective
science, and we have the best scientists in the world at our
Agricultural Research Service and they will be used. I can
promise you that.
Senator Bond. Well, Mr. Secretary, we are delighted to hear
that assurance, but as you know, I am from Missouri and so the
only thing we have got to say is, show us and we will look
forward to seeing----
Secretary Glickman. Perhaps the Deputy Secretary may want
to respond.
Senator Bond. OK.
Secretary Glickman. He has been more involved in it too.
Mr. Rominger. We are involved with EPA. We have been
involved and we will continue to be involved. I co chaired the
advisory committee that we set up. I co chaired it with the
Deputy Administrator of EPA. And that was a 50-person advisory
committee and agriculture is well represented on that
committee. We had several meetings last year. We will be
scheduling another meeting soon.
Our scientists are involved in this reassessment and EPA
will soon be coming out with the first of what we call the
refined assessments. They put out some preliminary risk
assessments. That did not include our information, but they are
now using our information and will be coming out with some
refined assessments. We believe those assessments will look
much better from an agricultural viewpoint, although I think we
all recognize there are going to be some uses of some of these
materials where we are going to have to look at ways to
mitigate some of the exposures that are out there.
Senator Bond. Well, I thank you. We just expect that sound
science be used. We will be counting on you and we will be
watching.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Bond.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Cochran. Senator Harkin.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
being a little late.
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. Secretary, I understand you made some statement earlier
about a supplemental. Could you just cover that for me briefly?
I hate to have you go over it.
Secretary Glickman. Well, we have not yet made a formal
request to OMB for supplementals. So, I want to make it clear.
But what I did say was in the area of farm loans we are
close to running out of emergency loan money. We also have
needs in guaranteed loans and some of our direct loans. It
could be as high as $1 billion worth of loans, which has a
budget exposure of about $100 million. We do not have the
absolute final numbers yet. Steve says it will be about a week
or so. But that would be one of the things we would need to
have.
The reason for that is that the utilization of our loan
programs keeps going up because, as you know, we are the lender
of last resort. More and more banks come to us because they
want our guarantee. Prices have not been so hot. The collateral
has not been as good, and so people have been coming to us in
greater numbers.
Then Steve mentioned a few other things such as emergency
conservation, emergency watershed, and rural development. Most
of that is related to disasters in Puerto Rico and some other
natural disasters.
I would mention one other thing. The fact of the matter
is--and I said this before--that when we passed the 1996 farm
bill, we did not expect prices to tumble--well, some did not
expect prices to tumble quite as aggressively. Nobody would
ever want that to happen. That triggered the loan deficiency
payment.
Senator Harkin. That is right.
Secretary Glickman. And we anticipated initially virtually
no applications for LDP's. We will have 1.3 million
applications for LDP's. Mind you, that is farmer X going into
the local office and saying, I need this program and I need
this assistance. Some are saying that that could increase if
soybean prices fall and other kinds of things happen. So, in
many parts of this country, we are faced with a situation now
where there are lines of farmers seeking assistance. There is a
waiting period. People are not getting their program payments
as fast as they would like. And this is not just only in the
FSA. It is also in the NRCS because of the increased workload
required under the 1996 farm bill as well.
Now, I do not know if that is going to be part of a
supplemental or not, but I did want to tell you that--and a lot
of these problems have been created in the last 2, 3 months.
They have really become much worse.
Everybody hopes prices will move back up. It is hard to
plan a budget anticipating declines. Nobody wants to see that,
but we have got to serve people because as problematic as some
of the provisions of the 1996 farm bill are, this LDP provision
does protect people against catastrophic reductions in market
prices, and we have got to be out there providing those
payments.
Senator Harkin. I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary. Again, I
urge you to do that with all dispatch. I am hearing more and
more from out in Iowa that the farmers' balance sheets, when
they go into the local bank, just do not add up because of
these depressed prices and the forecasts. So, I think you are
going to have a big demand for this coming up. So, I just hope
that you would send a supplemental request up here as soon as
possible, knowing that it takes us a while to get things done
here too. But I would think February, March--man, we have got
to hurry and get that done. But I appreciate your focusing on
that and I just hope that does come up here.
PSEUDORABIES PROGRAM
Let me again compliment you, Mr. Secretary, on responding
as vigorously as you have been to the problems in the pork
industry. First of all, I again commend you for what you have
done on the pseudorabies program. That is three bangs for the
buck there. Not only do you get rid of some hogs--it helps
market prices--but you help more States to become pseudorabies
free. That saves farmers a lot of out-of-pocket money. And
third, it enhances our exports especially to Canada where I
know you have also done some great work in getting the
Canadians to back off of their quarantine. I believe that has
already happened, if I am not mistaken.
Again, I compliment you for that, to get that done, which
you have done also with Argentina in getting more exports to
Argentina. Both the Canadian and the Argentine issue you have
handled very well, and we really appreciate it very much.
MARKET CONCENTRATION
On the issue beyond that of concentration and stuff, I
think our authorizing committee is really going to have to
really take a look at this and see what we want to do about
this whole issue of concentration. Again, it comes back to the
price reporting. If you are going to have a market that
operates, it seems to me it has got to be transparent. I have
always said for a free market to operate, you have got to have
a lot of players and it has got to be transparent. Otherwise,
you do not have a free market. So, what do we have now in
agriculture? A few players and no transparency. How can that be
a free market?
So, I am hopeful that we can do something to provide for
price reporting. Now, we had that in the bills last year and it
did not make it. I am hopeful that we can get something done on
it soon. Some people say, well, it may not do that much. Well,
I am not so certain. It may do quite a bit. I mean, anything.
If it adds up to just a few pennies a pound, that is not bad.
Everything helps to get that price of pork up and give the
farmers a little bit better shake.
I just saw the article in the Wall Street Journal the other
day that said that IBP's profits for the fourth quarter
quadrupled. I am preaching to the choir, but I mean, you know
how that rubs farmers. Their profits quadrupled and here
farmers in December in Iowa got the lowest prices for their
pork than they got even in the depression. If you factor in
inflation, they got lower prices for their pork than what my
father used to tell me about 4 cent hogs, nickel hogs. That is
true.
We figured this out, Mr. Chairman. We had 8 cent hogs in
December. Well, in the depression, the lowest was 4 cent hogs.
But if you factor back for inflation, take that 8 cents back,
in 1933 prices, it would have been two-thirds of a penny a
pound. That is just mind-boggling when you think about it.
All the things you are doing, I am just saying, Mr.
Secretary, are good and it is moving us in the right direction.
If we can get the price reporting and get your help on this
concentration issue to move that ahead also.
On the cash assistance, now you did do something that you
have not done for a long time, and that is give direct cash
assistance to pork farmers. That is good. To the small ones,
they needed that. But I know the pot is not an endless pot
there. I assume we cannot expect any more. I do not know. Can
you speak to that? I do not know how much more we could expect
on that.
Secretary Glickman. Certainly it would not be prudent to
expect any more out of that particular pot of money. This is
section 32, a statute that was passed in the depression. Most
of that, of course, is what we use to buy product that is in
surplus supply for our commodity distribution programs, such as
the National School Lunch Program.
The language in one of the parts of that legislation says
that I can basically go out in the marketplace and buy surplus
commodities or can use the authority of the program to make
payments to farmers. I think the section indicates that one of
the things I can do is reestablish farmers' purchasing power by
making payments in connection with the normal production of any
agricultural commodity for domestic consumption. Determinations
by the Secretary as to what constitutes diversion and what
constitutes normal channels of trade and commerce and what
constitutes normal production for domestic consumption shall be
final. A different era. [Laughter.]
But section 32 is primarily used to purchase commodities.
So, we used about $50 million worth of it for direct payments
to farmers. We have been criticized in some sectors for not
coming up with enough money, but quite frankly, we have got to
reserve most of that for the purchases for our programs, our
nutrition programs.
Senator Harkin. Sure, sure.
SBA RURAL ASSISTANCE
Last, Mr. Secretary, I remember back in the 1970's--I may
be off a little bit. Have your people research this. SBA got
involved with helping farmers with USDA. I do not exactly know
how that arrangement was set up. Some of your historians or
something could tell you that. I will get my staff looking at
it too. But SBA came in in the 1970's and helped farmers out,
and it was some kind of a joint effort between SBA and USDA.
Now, what I am thinking about here and what I am getting at
is that not only farmers are hurting, but we have got a lot of
retail stores in our small communities and stuff that are
facing the same kind of balance sheet problem as farmers. And
it is not just implement dealers. It is a lot of other
ancillary type of businesses that relate to the rural sector.
Now, they are going to their banks and their banks are saying,
gee, you are not looking too good here.
So, while it may take a while for us--I hope not. We hope
that prices come up very rapidly, but we have to be realists
about this and understand it may take some time. Is there any
kind of arrangement that can be made with SBA--and I do sit on
the Small Business Committee. Senator Bond heads that
committee--to see if there may not be some role for SBA to play
not so much for farmers but with these retail businesses in
these small communities and for USDA to work with them on it.
I just throw that out there. I do not know.
Secretary Glickman. Well, I think it is a good suggestion.
James Lee Witt, head of FEMA, who has done a tremendous job of
dealing with disasters, tells me that SBA has much more
authority, lending authority in the case of disasters, in terms
of who they can lend to than we do. For example, we cannot make
a business loan as much as they can. They cannot lend to
farmers. There is a regulatory kind of hold there. He has
repeatedly said it is something that may need to be fixed
legislatively.
I would have to say that we did announce, actually earlier
this week, a new rule making it easy for banks to become
preferred lenders from the standpoint of participating in our
guarantee programs. They would not have to go through a lot of
the paperwork. It was alleged--and it was a fair allegation--
that we put banks through much greater hoops than SBA did in
terms of qualifying for accelerated assistance, and we did make
some changes there this week.
Senator Harkin. I appreciate that.
I just think, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary, if there is some
way that we--I am going to have a look at that. I think it was
1977 or 1978 or somewhere in that range. It had to be because
that is about when I got here and I remember that. The 1977
drought my staff tells me. So, we ought to see if there is some
model there that we can use. That is all I suggest to you.
But, again, thank you for all the help you have been to our
pork farmers. I appreciate it.
Secretary Glickman. We will research that as well.
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Secretary, one area that you mentioned in your remarks
and that I have a great interest in as well because of our
State's dependence upon rural communities and infrastructure in
small towns, and the problems that go along with trying to
sustain that infrastructure, is the availability of money for
water and sewer systems. That is very important in our State
and throughout the country.
I am curious to know whether we are taking into account in
the administration of these programs the deterioration of some
of the systems that have been in place for a number of years
now. In our State, we are seeing maintenance problems develop,
the need to replace parts of systems that are just flat worn
out. Are we doing anything in the administration of these
programs to try to deal with those problems and help rural
communities refinance or modernize these systems? We still have
some areas where they do not have systems, and I am not
suggesting that we ignore those, but this maintenance problem
and the deterioration of existing systems is getting severe in
a number of areas in our State.
Secretary Glickman. The short answer is yes. The repair and
modernization of old systems is one of the priorities. But I
will have to tell you I am going to go back and talk to our
Under Secretary Jill Long Thompson to see about the specific
targeting in this area. Once you get a system that is 20 or 25
years old, built with our money, it may need a heavy dose of
repair, and if we have this extra money this year because of,
as I said, the interest rate phenomenon, it may be appropriate
for us to examine some sort of a major repair initiative. I
would like to talk to her about it. She may have something in
mind there.
FOREIGN MARKET DEVELOPMENT COOPERATOR PROGRAM
Senator Cochran. One area in your statement you did not
talk about was the change in the funding of some of the
marketing programs overseas. The Cooperator program for
example, instead of funding it through the Foreign Agriculture
Service, you are proposing legislation to shift that to the
Commodity Credit Corporation. The budget proposes some other
changes of that kind.
Are we at a point now where the decision is being made that
exporters and the private sector can do this on their own, or
is the Department of Agriculture just slowly backing out of its
partnership with farmers and exporters to try to increase
market share abroad and make sure our export programs are being
treated fairly in foreign markets?
Senator Bond talked about the beef problem in the European
Community.
It seems to me that rather than doing less in this area, we
need to look for ways to do a better job and a more aggressive
job expanding markets and increasing market opportunities
overseas.
Secretary Glickman. Well, again, I think it is a fair
question, and the answer is no. It is not an intention to do
less. The fact is that it is a dog-eat-dog, competitive world
out there, particularly when prices are so weak.
I would like Mr. Dewhurst to respond specifically to your
question on the funding of this program.
Mr. Dewhurst. Well, as you have said, the discretionary
budget in the Department is under great pressure, and one of
the proposals made in this budget is to take the FAS Cooperator
program which has been funded on the discretionary side of the
budget and ask the Congress to pass some legislation which
would have the effect not of cutting the program, but of simply
moving the funding for it to the mandatory side of the budget,
funded out of the Commodity Credit Corporation from year to
year.
The logic for that is simply that the Cooperator program is
part of our overall export portfolio and the vast majority of
that portfolio is already financed out of the Commodity Credit
Corporation. So, it seemed a logical step to move the
Cooperator program over there and the truth is it would just
relieve some pressure on the discretionary budget.
COCHRAN FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM
Senator Cochran. There is one program that you usually
mention but you did not this year, and I wonder if there is any
problem. Did you fund the Cochran fellowship program in this
budget request? [Laughter.]
Secretary Glickman. I certainly hope so. [Laughter.]
Mr. Dewhurst. It is unanimous we did.
Secretary Glickman. Yes.
Senator Cochran. I think Mr. Dewhurst said it is unanimous
you all hope you did. [Laughter.]
Secretary Glickman. As a matter of fact, I have to tell you
that I have met personally several Cochran fellows. I am going
to go back to South Africa next week. The Vice President has a
joint meeting with Mr. Mbeki. It is one of the places where we
have used the program most aggressively. The budget numbers are
actually up slightly, or am I wrong?
Mr. Dewhurst. The Budget is about the same. We have $3.5
million requested in appropriations for that program which is
the same level as fiscal year 1999. We also add some Commodity
Credit Corporation funding to that program and some funding we
get from AID over in the State Department, so that the total
program is $6.3 million in the 2000 budget.
Senator Cochran. That is good.
Tell me about your South African experience.
Secretary Glickman. Well, there was a young man who came
over to this country to learn about viticulture and went back
to South Africa and now operates I think a successful vineyard.
That is just one example of how this program created an
entrepreneur in South Africa, and I am sure it is replicated in
other places.
Senator Cochran. With close business ties to the United
States now.
Secretary Glickman. That is correct.
Senator Cochran. Well, I think that is the purpose, to try
to help develop closer relationships between people who are
getting involved in agriculture and agribusiness operations,
developing ties with them, letting them know how our system
works, free enterprise, the market-oriented economic system.
Hopefully this means closer cooperation and friendlier
relations throughout the world, particularly in developing and
emerging democracies.
Eastern Europe is another example of an area where the
program has been very popular, and we have had a large number
of people come from Poland and other countries to the United
States, spend a few weeks or several months, or for whatever
period the program allows these individual applicants to
participate. And then they take with them these experiences,
and it has a catalytic effect in their home communities. That
is what we have learned in the past.
We appreciate your support.
Mr. Rominger.
Mr. Rominger. I just wanted to add that it is a very
popular program. The Minister of Agriculture from Romania was
just here this week, and that was one of the things that he
asked about, whether they could participate in the program
because they have heard about it and would like to participate
as they try to move more to a market oriented economy.
Senator Cochran. That is good to hear.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Well, thank you very much for your attendance and your
cooperation with the committee and the presentation that you
made so we can more fully understand this budget request.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Cochran
usda information management systems/support services bureau
Mr. Secretary, your prepared statement indicates that the statutory
cap on Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) expenditures for computer
equipment will be nearly exhausted by 2000 ``preventing needed
investments in the Department's streamlining and Service Center
initiatives and prohibiting the Department from investing in much
needed technology for business process re-engineering efforts''.
The budget requests an appropriation of $74 million for computer
investments of the proposed new support Services Bureau, that the
remaining $16 million in CCC expenditures under the existing cap be
transferred to the Bureau, and that legislation be passed to raise the
limit on CCC expenditures for computer equipment by a total of $105
million for the next three fiscal years.
Question. Would the $16 million in available CCC funds be greater
had the Department not proposed to reduce these funds in order to pay
for the cost of waiving the statute of limitations for certain
discrimination cases filed against the Department?
Answer. The 1996 Farm Bill set a cap of $275 million for CCC-funded
ADP obligations for fiscal years 1997 through 2002. Subsequently, the
Agricultural Research, Extension, and the Education Reform Act of 1998
reduced the CCC ADP cap to $193 million. The fiscal year 1999
Appropriations Act again reduced the CCC ADP cap to $188 million. If
the cap had not been reduced from $193 million to $188 million, instead
of $16 million remaining under the cap at the end of 1999, there would
be $21 million remaining under the cap at the end of 1999.
Question. If so, how much money from the CCC would be used?
Answer. All of the $21 million remaining under the cap would be
used in fiscal year 2000 for CCC ADP expenditures.
Question. Mr. Secretary, does this not violate your commitment to
me that any funds used from the CCC computer account to pay for the
waiver of the statute of limitations would not have to be made up in
future year appropriations?
Answer. The funds remaining under the CCC cap on ADP expenditures
would be insufficient under either the current or prior cap.
Legislation lifting the cap would be needed in either case. We are
proposing to fully offset the increase of $105 million in the current
cap by an equivalent reduction in the level of funding authorized for
the Export Enhancement Program in fiscal years 2000 to 2002.
Question. Please tell us about the importance of your
administrative convergence initiative and the fiscal year 2000 $74
million appropriations request for a new Support Services Bureau.
Answer. Since 1993, the county-based agencies (Farm Service Agency,
Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Rural Development
mission area) have been implementing streamlining plans to cut red tape
and collocate field offices, with the goal of providing ``one-stop
service'' for customers. The next phase of this streamlining involves
converging the administrative organizations of these agencies. An
initial administrative convergence plan has been developed to create
the Support Services Bureau (SSB). This plan combines the
administrative structures of these agencies into one unit to deliver
better services to local customers and employees, provide a new
consistency in administrative policy and operations, make better use of
limited resources, and help preserve limited budget resources for
program delivery. The SSB will provide human resources, civil rights,
financial management, information technology and administrative
services. The salaries and expenses of the new bureau will be financed
through direct appropriations and transfers from the serviced agencies.
The Secretary has named an acting Director of the SSB to develop
implementation plans so that the new consolidated organization will be
operational by October 1, 1999.
The $74 million appropriations request provides funding for the
Service Center Modernization Initiative (SCMI). The SCMI supports the
on-going change management, customer service, business process
reengineering, and enabling technology projects. For the past several
years, this effort has been funded by individual appropriations to the
partner agencies. However, fiscal year 2000 agency budgets do not
include funding for this initiative. This account will replace those
individual funding sources and provide for improved management and
accountability as this initiative moves forward with major activities
to reengineer business processes, acquire a common computing
environment, and create ``one-stop service'' for customers.
foreign market development cooperator program
Question. In past years, this Administration proposed that the
Foreign Agricultural Service directly fund certain costs supported by
the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), proposing that the Foreign
Market Development Cooperator Program be reduced to offset these and
other increased appropriations requirements. Now, the President's
fiscal year 2000 budget proposes that the Cooperator Program be funded
by the CCC rather than the FAS appropriation to provide stability for
future program activities. Why is there a reversal in position, both as
to which costs should be borne by the CCC and the level of funding for
the Cooperator Program?
Answer. It is correct that several recent President's budgets
proposed that funding for certain FAS activities be shifted from CCC to
the FAS annual appropriation. These proposals were primarily related to
funding for the operating costs of the CCC Computer Facility, which
supports FAS' data processing activities, as well as for other FAS
information resources management (IRM) costs. These proposals were
based on the view that it is more appropriate to support these types of
expenditures through discretionary funding, in this case the FAS
appropriation, rather than through mandatory funding such as CCC.
At the same time, it is entirely appropriate to fund market
development activities, including those carried out through the Foreign
Market Development Cooperator Program, through CCC. In fact, the Market
Access Program, which also helps to build foreign markets, is already
funded through CCC. In addition, the CCC Charter Act specifically
authorizes the use of CCC funds for market development activities, such
as those supported by the Cooperator Program. A permanent authorization
for CCC funding of the Cooperator Program, would provide stability to
the program and enhance long-term planning as noted in the question.
It should be pointed out proposals in past years' budgets to reduce
funding for the Cooperator Program were prompted in part by large
carryover funding balances in the program and were a means of reducing
those balances. Also, there was a concern that perhaps the program had
become static and less effective. As a result of changes adopted by FAS
in recent years, including implementation of a competitive application
process, it is fair to say that those concerns have now abated to a
considerable extent. Consequently, the 2000 budget continues funding
for the program at this year's level.
year 2000 (y2k)
Question. I note that the Department of Agriculture continues to be
listed as a Tier Two agency (``making progress, but with concerns'') in
OMB's most recent quarterly Y2K report to the Committee. The concerns
cited continue to be: (1) the need to increase the pace of work to meet
government-wide goals; and (2) the need to work out many ``data
exchanges'' issues.
What is being done by the Department to address these concerns?
Answer. USDA currently projects near total compliance for mission
critical systems by the March 31, 1999 government-wide implementation
deadline. We are now tracking 353 mission critical systems, of which 76
percent are compliant. Of the 263 mission-critical systems being
repaired, 257 (98 percent) are now renovated, 241 (92 percent) are now
validated and 219 (83 percent) are now compliant. There are 44 mission-
critical systems scheduled for repair which have not completed the
entire repair process. Of these, 22 have completed testing and are on
schedule for implementation, six are in renovation and 16 are in
validation. All are expected to be implemented by March 31, 1999. There
are 35 systems remaining to be replaced. Of these, 20 are in final
testing. Fifteen are in development. All but six are expected to be
implemented by March 31, 1999.
For data exchanges, USDA has inventoried its data exchanges and has
identified exchanges with federal, state, local government, private
sector, and foreign federal and private partners. Departmental agencies
are actively engaged in dialog with their partners to ensure
compliance. Overall, USDA is responsible for 467 data exchange files
representing 1,480 exchange partners. 98 percent of the 467 USDA data
exchanges identified have been renovated; 96 percent of the 1,480
partners have been contacted, 80 percent have written agreements on
date format and 22 percent of partners have successfully tested
exchanges.
Of the 331 federal exchanges, the National Finance Center (NFC) is
responsible for 262, representing 682 partners, primarily payroll and
finance offices. USDA tracks these exchanges individually because of
their importance to payroll, personnel and the Thrift Savings Plan.
USDA agencies are continuing to work with their partners to test
exchanges, including end-to-end testing.
USDA agencies are also working with their private sector partners
to ensure compliance. Certifications and contingency plans are being
received from some companies. Follow-up is being done with those
companies who have not reported. Some company reports indicate a deep
level of commitment to successful processing in 2000. In addition,
contingency plans indicates companies have a clear plan for maintaining
business continuity through the date change
Question. How would you characterize the status of the Department's
activities to achieve Year 2000 compliance?
Answer. USDA has given strong management attention to Year 2000
compliance and is working to ensure the uninterrupted delivery of
Department programs and services. Mission critical systems are well on
their way to compliance, as noted above. Significant attention is being
given as well to non-mission critical systems, embedded technologies,
facilities, and telecommunications. We will continue to do testing and
we are devising business continuity and contingency plans.
Question. The Fiscal Year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act provides
contingent emergency funding for Year 2000 computer conversion
activities. USDA has already received two allocations totaling $37.8
million of the emergency funds reserved for non-defense activities.
Has the Department completed a full assessment of its Y2K
requirements? What additional funding do you estimate to be required?
Answer. Assessment of Y2K requirements are continuing. While
mission critical systems have been identified and virtually all will be
compliant by March 31, 1999, assessment of embedded systems and
telecommunication systems are ongoing. Additional funding is likely to
be required for system remediation, testing, independent verification
and validation, technical assistance and business continuity planning
Question. Has OMB allocated the full amount requested by the
Department to date? If not, what did USDA request over and above the
allocations provided? Why were these requests not met?
Answer. The majority of USDA requests were supported by OMB. In
some isolated instances there was a determination that the request went
beyond basic Y2K requirements and should be addressed through base
level appropriations.
Question. Do you anticipate to request additional emergency funding
allocations to cover the full amounts estimated to be required?
Answer. As USDA identifies new requirements, supplemental funds
will be requested.
Question. Does the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request any
additional funding for the Department's Y2K compliance activities? How
much is requested, by agency?
Answer. Agencies have identified $10,186,000 for Y2K compliance
activities for fiscal year 2000. I will provide a breakdown of these
costs by agency.
[The information follows:]
USDA Year 2000 Fiscal Year 1999-2000 Costs
[Dollars in thousands]
Agency Total Fiscal Year 2000 Costs
Foreign Agricultural Service.................................. $70
Farm Service Agency--KC....................................... 2,130
Farm Service Agency--HQ.......................................
Risk Management Agency........................................
Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services........................ 2,200
Food and Nutrition Service....................................
Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services.........................
Food Safety and Inspection Service............................ 85
Food Safety................................................... 85
Agricultural Marketing Service................................ 30
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.................... 2,196
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.......
Marketing and Regulatory Programs............................. 2,226
Forest Service................................................ 200
Natural Resources Conservation Service........................ 110
Natural Resources and Environment............................. 310
Agricultural Research Service................................. 205
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service... 280
Economic Research Service..................................... 60
National Agricultural Statistics Service...................... 100
Research, Education and Economics............................. 645
Rural Development.............................................
Offices.......................................................
Departmental Administration................................... 500
National Appeals Division.....................................
Office of the Chief Financial Officer--NFC.................... 1,000
Office of the Chief Information Officer....................... 2,920
Office of Communications...................................... 300
Office of the Chief Economist.................................
Office of the Inspector General...............................
Office of Budget and Program Analysis.........................
Office of the General Counsel.................................
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal.................................................. 4,720
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
TOTALS.................................................... 10,186
Question. To what extent, if any will the Department require
additional funding in future years to replace base information
technology resources diverted from non-Y2K mission critical elements?
Answer. The Department has deferred IT investments to the maximum
extent possible. The Department has worked to leverage investments
required by Y2K to support modernization objectives. Necessarily,
however, some projects have had to be deferred as Y2K efforts took
priority. Base level resources will be rededicated to continuing these
efforts after we have satisfied the Year 2000 requirements.
Question. What is being done to make sure that state-operated
systems essential to the uninterrupted deliver of Federal programs,
such as Food Stamps, are Year 2000 compliant?
Answer. Food and nutrition programs are vital to the availability
of food for millions of Americans, and a priority for USDA. The Food
and Nutrition Service (FNS) is tracking and reporting Year 2000
progress from its 50 state partners, Guam, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico
and the District of Columbia for the Food Stamp Program (FSP) and the
Supplemental Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
The role of the states in the delivery of Food Stamp, WIC and Child
Nutrition Program is to administer the programs, determine eligibility
and provide benefits and necessary service to the public.
The Special Nutrition Program Directors in the FNS Regional office
have contacted State agencies which administer School Lunch Program and
other Child Nutrition Programs to determine the status of their
preparations for the Y2K conversion and their plans for additional
compliance activity and for back-up systems to cover possible Y2K
related systems failures. FNS is coordinating with the Department of
Education on developing a Y2K status report for state education systems
which include school food service. FNS has concentrated information
outreach to state agencies and local cooperators through professional
conferences and newsletters.
States must certify to FNS that they are Year 2000 compliant in
three areas: software, hardware, and telecommunications. States
reporting that they will not be compliant by March 31, 1999 must
certify in writing that they have a working contingency plan in place
which will assure the delivery of benefits to FSP and/or WIC
recipients.
FNS will be closely monitoring those states reporting Year 2000
compliance after March 31, 1999. FNS will offer technical assistance to
states requiring help and will follow up with on-site reviews for those
states reporting that they will not be compliant until after March 31,
1999.
assistance to hog producers
In early January of this year, $50 million in direct cash payments
under the Section 32 Program were extended to small hog producers to
help them weather the current economic crisis. The statutory authority
used to make these payments I understand has been used on only four
other occasions in the past. It authorizes the Secretary to
``reestablish farmers' purchasing power by making payments in
connection with the normal production of any agricultural commodity for
domestic consumption''.
Question. Will you also exercise this authority to provide
assistance to producers of other commodities in similar circumstances?
Answer. In the event of future economic crises, we will consider
all the options available to us for assisting producers, including the
authority use of section 32 to reestablish farmers' purchasing power.
Question. What assistance have you extended to hog producers to
date and how has this additional assistance been funded?
Answer. We have been very busy the past few months addressing the
pork industry's very critical situation. On January 8, Vice President
Gore announced that the Department of Agriculture will provide $50
million in direct cash payments to small, family hog farmers. This is
the first time in nearly four decades that USDA has made such payments.
Since February 1998, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has
purchased more than 123.9 million pounds of pork worth $116.5 million
to provide nutritious food for Federal food assistance programs. AMS
has improved its live hog market reports for 1999, and at meetings with
major hog slaughterers and processors, I have encouraged greater
voluntary cooperation with AMS market news reports. The Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service accelerated its voluntary pseudorabies
eradication program, helping to remove up to 1.7 million hogs from the
market.
An emergency transfer of $80 million will pay farmers fair market
value for lost hogs, as well as cover the cost of destruction,
disposal, and transportation costs. The president had established an
interagency working group to look at concentration issues at different
stages of production. The work is led by the White House National
Economic Council and USDA, and it includes representatives from the
Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice. We want to be
sure that, at a minimum, we have a baseline of information to examine
the effects of the changes that are going on in the industry and an
analytical basis for comparing what is going on in the hog industry to
that of other industries. And, the Administration successfully opened
two new markets for U.S. hogs and pork in late 1998. Canada eliminated
the quarantine and testing requirement for U.S. hogs originating in 33
States free of the disease and Argentina began allowing entry of U.S.
pork with certain controls. The Argentine market is expected to be
worth between $5 to $10 million annually. In addition, as you know,
USDA announced the a 50,000 tons of pork will be included in the food
aid package for Russia.
Question. Will additional assistance to these producers be
provided?
Answer. Currently we do not know. However, we will continue to
monitor the situation closely, and there are several Bills pending that
provide for additional assistance to hog producers.
Question. Mr. Secretary, the USDA has announced that 1.9 million
head of hogs will be rendered/slaughtered because of the accelerated
pseudorabies eradication program. This will require may hog processing
plants to work overtime including weekends. Has the Department issued
the Food Safety Inspection Service a waiver for overtime pay for
Federal inspectors beyond the first shift of overtime? If not, why?
Answer. FSIS has not issued a waiver for the collection of
inspector overtime beyond the first shift. FSIS would be unable to
absorb the cost of performing the additional inspection services being
requested.
tobacco assessment
Question. Mr. Secretary, your prepared statement indicates that the
``appropriations request will include a proposed assessment on tobacco
marketings similar to the expiring marketing assessment established in
the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.'' We do not find this proposal
in the President's budget. Has this proposal been submitted to the
Congress? Please explain. Also explain why this will be an
appropriations proposal and not a legislative or tax proposal.
Answer. I understand that the President's Budget documents mention
that a tobacco assessment will be proposed, but the actual language for
the proposal was omitted from the appropriations language submitted
with the budget. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) plans on
sending proposed provisions for this assessment in a budget amendment
or alternatively in the form of proposed legislation supporting the
proposal in the budget. The proposal would provide for collection of
$60 million in marketing assessments on price supported tobacco and
similar imported tobacco in fiscal year 2000. The portion of the
assessment placed on producers would be held at levels near those of
the expiring marketing assessment while purchasers and importers would
be required to pay a higher rate.
The intent of the proposal is to place this assessment in the
appropriations language or provide some alternative mechanism to permit
the collection to offset discretionary spending for the budget
scorekeeping purposes. We recognize that an approach using only
appropriations language restricts the assessment collections to the
fiscal year which does not correspond precisely with the marketing year
for flue-cured tobacco.
credit programs
Question. Primarily due to low interest rates, the subsidy cost of
appropriations required to support agriculture, and rural development
and housing programs are projected to be less in fiscal year 2000. This
has enabled the Administration to propose program level increases for
farm credit and rural development and rural housing programs at the
same or less cost than in fiscal year 1999. For example, the budget
proposes a $3 billion loan level for farm assistance, $183 million more
than the loan level supported by the fiscal year 1999 appropriations,
but at a lower subsidy appropriation ($77 million versus $121 million).
If farm and rural credit programs were held at fiscal year 1999
program levels, what savings in subsidy costs requirements for these
programs would result from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2000?
Answer. If the farm credit programs were held at the fiscal year
1999 program level, the subsidy cost for the program would increase $22
million in fiscal year 2000. Subsidy rates have dropped for most of the
loan programs or in a few cases risen by less than one percent.
However, due to the combination of the mix of loan levels for the
various programs in fiscal year 1999 versus fiscal year 2000, and the
differences in the subsidy rates for the various programs which range
from less than one percent to over 15 percent, the net effect of
funding the fiscal year 1999 loan levels at the fiscal year 2000
subsidy rates would be an increased subsidy cost in fiscal year 2000.
On the other hand, the cost of funding the Rural Development loan
programs at the fiscal year 1999 program level using the fiscal year
2000 subsidy rates would be $124 million less than the current fiscal
year 1999 subsidy costs for these programs. It should be noted that
overall for the Rural Development mission area, the proposed fiscal
year 2000 program level is about $800 million higher than the fiscal
year 1999 level ($10.2 billion versus $10.9 billion), at a cost of $181
million less than in fiscal year 1999 ($2.2 billion versus $2 billion.)
Question. How much of this savings is allocated to program level
increases for USDA credit programs in the President's budget and how
much is used to offset other proposed discretionary program increases?
Answer. There is no direct connection between the savings in the
credit programs and increases in other discretionary programs. The
President's budget was developed to be consistent with certain spending
ceilings, and all programs had to compete for funds. However, the
process did not pit specific programs one against one. Rather, savings
or increases in any one program affected the amount that was available
for all other programs. Further, decisions on program levels were based
to the extent possible on demonstrated need rather any allocation of
funds that remained available. It is noteworthy to add that USDA's
credit programs in most part are budgeted at or above their 1999 level,
which suggests strong support for these programs in light of some very
tight budget constraints.
special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children
(wic)
Question. The President proposes an increase in funding for the WIC
program for fiscal year 2000 to cover food and administrative cost
increases, as well as participation increases. What is the basis of
each of these assumptions?
Answer. FNS inflates the food cost estimate using the inflation
rate of the Thrifty Food Plan index (from the Food Stamp Program) which
is projected by OMB. FNS adjusts the Nutrition and Administrative
Services by OMB projections of the State and Local Consumption,
Expenditures and Investment Price index projections provided by OMB. As
for participation, we believe that an average of 7.5 million
participants will be assisted in 2000. Although participation is around
7.4 million right now, over the past year or so the program has already
achieved 7.5 million participants in some months.
assumptions supporting the wic request
Question. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget proposes to
increase the WIC appropriation from $3.924 billion for fiscal year 1999
to $4.105 billion for fiscal year 2000. The President's budget
indicates that the out-year requirements for the WIC program will
remain at the $4.105 billion level for each of fiscal years 2001 to
2004. What assumptions are these out-year projections based on, with
respect to program participation levels and food package and
administrative costs?
Answer. The WIC budget projections for 2001 to 2004 do not reflect
specific detailed assumptions regarding participation levels and per-
person food costs. Rather, the out-year estimates are merely a
straight-line of the fiscal year 2000 request.
dod wic program for overseas personnel
Question. I understand the Secretary of Defense has the
discretionary authority to carry out a program to provide special
supplemental food benefits to members of the armed forces on duty at
stations outside the United States and to eligible civilians serving
with, employed by or accompanying the armed forces outside of the U.S.
Has the Department of Defense (DOD) discussed the delivery of WIC
benefits to its personnel stationed overseas?
Answer. Yes, as you may know, DOD's authority to run a WIC-type
program may be found at 10 U.S.C. 1060a.
cost of wic for overseas dod personnel
Question. What additional funding would be required to deliver WIC
benefits to DOD and civilian personnel stationed overseas? What number
of persons do you estimate would be eligible for these benefits?
Answer. I am told that DOD has estimated that for fiscal year 2000
the post exchange system would deliver WIC commodities for an average
of about $29 per recipient per month. This compares favorably with the
stateside cost estimated to be about $33 in 2000. Overall, they believe
participation could be somewhere in the 32,000 range, so it is
reasonable to anticipate a food cost of around $11 million a year. In
general, the non-food costs of running a WIC type program for DOD
overseas--nutrition education, referrals for medical care, and client
and store management--are largely already included in existing, funded
activities. Let me look into this and provide some additional detail
later.
DOD faces uncertainties in predicting likely participation
overseas, just as USDA does for the WIC program stateside. As for
participation of military family members overseas, DOD has estimated
that based on pay levels and family configurations for persons posted
overseas, there are as many as 31,173 income eligible infants and
children under the age of 5 in households of military personnel posted
overseas. Assuming that nutritional risk is the same as for the regular
Stateside WIC program, i.e., about 81 percent of income eligibles would
have nutritional risk, the outside maximum participation could be
31,782. Actual participation could be lower, DOD reports, because this
figure does not take into account spousal incomes; it includes some
family members who are not, in fact, living overseas; and it assumes
100 percent participation.
dod wic delivery system overseas
Question. Is there a delivery system in place for the provision of
these benefits?
Answer. As we understand it, the delivery system is essentially in
place. Since medical services are provided, DOD apparently believes
that it already can determine which women, infants and children are at
nutritional risk; they provide some nutritional guidance; and they
provide medical services. Food packages would be prescribed and then
provided through the DOD post exchange system. Adding food packages to
DOD's existing activity would drive home the nutritional messages and
help assure good nutritional outcomes, just like it does for the
regular WIC program. DOD says that this will help focus the military
medical and family support services more directly on helping these
needy families, and the post exchanges would make sure the right foods
were available, substitutions were not allowed, etc.
responsibility for wic benefits for dod overseas
Question. Who would be responsible for the cost of delivering these
benefits--USDA or DOD?
Answer. Current statute would appear to permit use of funds from
DOD or USDA. USDA could fund the food portion of the DOD WIC program if
USDA appropriations language explicitly provides such authority.
Nutrition services and administration costs are the responsibility of
DOD.
difference in natural versus refined sugar
Question. Are you aware of any new scientific evidence that
indicates that all forms of sugar are metabolized by the human body in
the same way, that is, the human body cannot distinguish the difference
between the sugar contained in fruit and sugar found in other forms,
such as refined crystals of honey?
Answer. I am told that the Dietary Guidelines Review Committee is
going to take a look at the recommendations made for sugar that will
appear in the Dietary Guidelines 2000. I am not aware that there is new
information in the area, but will be interested to see any
recommendations that come from the Review Committee.
As far as how sugar is metabolized, it is my understanding that the
cells use principally glucose, so that almost all the sugars must be
digested down to glucose before it is absorbed by the cells and then
metabolized. So, I think it is generally correct to say that the body
cannot distinguish the source of glucose when it is metabolized. Let me
follow-up with a little more technical information on this.
As far as digestion goes, I don't know that it would be correct to
say that each type of sugar is digested in exactly the same way. In any
case, nutritionists generally prefer that people acquire sugars from a
variety of fruits, vegetables and grains--foods with no added sugars--
because such foods provide other important vitamins and minerals.
Almost all the sugars must be converted to glucose before they are
used by the cells for energy, i.e., metabolized. The products of
digestion of sugars, ``natural'' or ``added,'' as well as
carbohydrates, are approximately 80 percent glucose, and 20 percent
fructose and galactose. The fructose and galactose are absorbed into
the blood stream and then converted into glucose by the liver, so that
more than 95 percent of sugars are present in the blood as glucose.
Consequently, it appears reasonable that the body cannot distinguish
the source of glucose or fructose when it is metabolized and used to
produce energy.
sugar in the wic package
Question. What is the total allowable sugar content of the WIC food
package?
Answer. USDA does not set limits on the total amount of sugar
allowed in a WIC food package. Federal WIC regulations do limit the
total amount of sugar permitted in WIC adult breakfast cereals to no
more than 6 grams of total sugars per dry ounce of cereal, including
both naturally occurring and added sugars.
Sugar occurs naturally in many foods, including WIC foods such as
milk and fruit juices. Sugar is added to many foods, including WIC
foods such as adult breakfast cereal and peanut butter. With seven
different WIC food packages and choices within them, calculating the
total sugar content of the packages would be complicated and a little
speculative. However, USDA's Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion
(CNPP) recently completed a comprehensive review of how well the WIC
packages meet the needs of the WIC target population. A final report is
expected to be available soon, which I will be glad to share with
Members of Congress. The report provides some ideas on sugar, so I will
ask for some additional information on the topic.
There are seven WIC food packages, each designed to supplement the
nutritional needs of different categories and ages of participants. The
types and amounts of foods vary among the food packages and choice of
foods in the packages may also be exercised at the State and clinic
levels, and of course, by the client when she redeems the WIC vouchers
in the store.
While the sample sizes in existing data sources used for the WIC
package study were not ideal, they were adequate to estimate that WIC
foods provide about 1 teaspoon of added sugar to the diets of women and
children a day. One teaspoon is about 4 grams of sugar. Total daily
added sugar intake from all foods for WIC children and women ranged
from about 12 to 23 teaspoons per day, with older children and women
toward the high end of the range. Each target subgroup consumed more
added sugar than recommended in their total diet. However, total
calorie consumption did not appear to be a problem in this review.
WIC foods include: iron-fortified infant formula, special infant
formulas and certain medical foods, iron-fortified dry infant cereal,
infant juice high in vitamin C, 100 percent fruit and/or vegetable
adult juice high in vitamin C, hot or cold adult breakfast cereals high
in iron and low in sugar, milk, cheese, eggs or dried egg mix, peanut
butter, dry beans or peas, canned tuna, and carrots. Further, fresh
fruits and vegetables are available through the WIC farmers' market
program, where it is available.
civil rights settlement
Question. It is my understanding that settlement payments under the
class action discrimination lawsuit against USDA will be paid from the
settlement fund for members of the class who choose option A. For those
who chose option B, any damages they are awarded will be paid by USDA.
I also understand that USDA may incur other costs of the settlement.
Please provide an estimate of the total costs to the Department for
the settlement. Break down the costs by agency, the fiscal year the
cost will be incurred, a description of the cost, and whether the
President's budget accommodates these costs and, if not, how the costs
will be paid.
Answer. All settlements under the Consent Decree, both tracks A and
B, are to be paid from the Judgement Fund described in 31 USC Sec 1304.
The Farm Service Agency (FSA) administers all of the programs covered
by the class action suit so FSA will incur most of the administrative
costs. The costs will be incurred during fiscal year 1999 and fiscal
year 2000, and it is anticipated that they will be taken from budget
allocations. At this time we do not know the number of farmers who will
choose to participate in the Consent Decree nor can we determine the
number of farmers who will choose to opt out of the Consent Decree and
engage in negotiated settlements. Given the above it is difficult to
estimate what the cost will be. We will provide an estimate of the
costs to the Subcommittee once more information is available.
civil rights office additional resources
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget requests additional resources
for the Office of Civil Rights to handle the increased workload in
discrimination complaints. Would you please give us a status report on
this--the reduction you have made over the past two years in the
backlog of discrimination complaints, the additional workload resulting
from the waiver in the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Act of the
statute of limitations for certain complaints filed, and the level of
new complaints filed with the Office.
Answer. There were 1,088 program discrimination complaints in the
backlog. All of those cases have been resolved with the exception of 10
cases where complainants did not accept a resolution offer, eight cases
that are being resolved through further investigation, and the class
member cases. Of the 497 new cases filed since November 1, 1997, 285
have been resolved and 212 remain active.
There were 2,142 cases in the employment backlog. Of those, over
1,500 have been resolved. Of the 1,234 new employment cases filed, 236
have been closed and 998 remain active.
As a result of the waiver of the Statute of Limitations the Office
of Civil Rights currently has 194 eligible cases under review. It is
anticipated that several hundred additional cases will be submitted for
Statutes of Limitation processing.
developing technologies for use in agriculture
Question. Mr. Secretary, I understand that you and the
Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) signed a Memorandum of Understanding indicating your intention
to cooperate in developing technologies for use in agriculture. It is
my further understanding that NASA has designated the Stennis Space
Center in Mississippi as the lead site for agriculture application
research in remote sensing. Can you tell me of any progress that has
been made in implementing this Memorandum of Understanding?
Answer. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and NASA signed a
Memorandum of Understanding in 1998 to enhance agriculture applications
research in remote sensing. The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) has
promoted joint efforts between the Stennis Space Center and the Remote
Sensing and Modeling Laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland, in cooperation
with Purdue University at West Lafayette, Indiana. Through a grant from
the Stennis Space Center, we are developing more advanced remote
sensing technologies for agricultural applications. The Remote Sensing
and Modeling Laboratory has also developed a Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) grant with 3DI, a small company based in Maryland, to
evaluate remote sensing applications in the Mid-Atlantic States; a
prominent NASA scientist has also been stationed with this laboratory
to assess the capabilities of remote sensing to detect drought and crop
water stress conditions. In addition, six ARS locations (Phoenix,
Arizona; Shafter, California; Ames, Iowa; Beltsville, Maryland;
Lincoln, Nebraska; and Lubbock, Texas) have a cooperative project with
Resources 21, a private company, in which remotely-sensed crop growth
and production data has been successfully collected from five sites
throughout the United States in 1998. USDA continues to coordinate and
develop new opportunities to interact with NASA, the United States
Geological Survey (USGS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) with the goal of reducing the cost and increasing
the performance of future Landsat-type satellites which could provide
remote sensing data that can be used to improve the management and
protection of agricultural lands.
Question. I understand that Dr. Miley Gonzalez, Under Secretary for
Research, Education, and Economics, has had some input and
conversations with NASA personnel and with representatives of some
commodity organizations about research and application programs in
remote sensing technologies for crop production. Could you please
provide for the record a summary of the current plan to move forward
with NASA in a joint effort?
Answer. Dr. Gonzalez hosted a meeting on January 27, 1999, that
included representatives from the National Cotton Council; American
Soybean Association; Integrated Technology Development; NASA's Stennis
and Goddard Space Centers; the Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service (CSREES); and ARS. The focus of the meeting was
to develop an integrated strategy for transferring the benefits of
remote sensing techniques to food and fiber producers. Dr. Gonzalez
agreed that USDA--Research, Education, and Economics (REE) is willing
to provide leadership to a remote sensing initiative in partnership
with other interested parties to determine the critical needs and
priorities for successfully commercializing remote sensing. A major
workshop will be held during the summer of 1999 to launch the
initiative on the applications of remote sensing to agriculture. A
planning committee will be identified with representatives from NASA,
CSREES, ARS, and private industry.
global change research and initiatives
Question. Please explain the importance of the President's Global
Change Research and Climate Change Technology initiatives for U.S.
agriculture.
Answer. The USGCRP was created as a Presidential Initiative in 1989
and formalized in 1990 by the Global Change Research Act of 1990. The
Global Change Research Program provides a well-founded scientific
understanding of the Earth system to ensure the availability of future
resources essential for human well-being, including water, food, fiber,
ecosystems, and human health. The U.S. Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP) provides the foundation for improving predictions of seasonal
to-interannual climate fluctuations (which can bring excessively wet
and dry periods) and prediction of long-term climate change. The USGCRP
also sponsors research to understand the vulnerabilities to changes in
important environmental factors, including changes in climate,
ultraviolet (UV) radiation, and land cover. Scientific knowledge is
essential for informed decision making and to ensure the social and
economic health of future generations.
USDA has been a part of the USGCRP since its inception, with the
research focus on understanding terrestrial systems and the effects of
global change (including water balance, atmospheric deposition,
vegetative quality, and UV-B radiation) on food, fiber, and forestry
production in agricultural, forest, and range ecosystems and examines
how agricultural and forestry activities can contribute to a reduction
in greenhouse gases. USDA research provides policy-makers and
agricultural producers with useful, scientific data and information.
Although listed under a global change banner, this research is
integral to USDA's critical mission--ensuring an adequate and
affordable supply of food and fiber while protecting the resource base
for future generations. For example:
--Interactions between terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere.--
Understanding the controls on gaseous exchanges between plants
and the atmosphere will improve our ability to manage
production because it is these very exchanges that determine
net crop yield.
--Methane generation and nitrous oxide release.--An improved
understanding of processes controlling the uptake and release
of these radioatively active trace gasses is also of benefit in
other sectors of the agricultural enterprise as it will help to
resolve multiple agricultural management problems resulting
from climate change.
--Soil properties.--Although much emphasis is being placed on the
potential for forest, range and agricultural soils to serve as
carbon sinks, this very characteristic of soils has always been
a critical consideration in agriculture. Losses in soil carbon
are related to losses in soil fertility, reduced efficacy of
added fertilizers, reduced moisture holding capacity, reduced
capacities for pathogen management, and increased soil losses
due to erosion.
--The relationship of climate with production.--The relationship
between weather, climate and production losses from forest and
range fires, insects, and plant pathogens has long been
documented. The improved understanding of climate variability
that results from global change research will enhance our
ability to both predict weather events at the local and
regional scales and to develop response strategies that will
balance agricultural demands with those of other sectors.
--Contributions of agricultural sources of methyl bromide to
stratospheric ozone depletion (and possible alternatives and
substitutes for this fumigant).--We already know that methyl
bromide causes damage to the earth's ozone layer. Our research
in this arena is necessary to diversify our options for
environmentally-friendly pathogen control.
In fiscal year 2000, USDA is requesting a $34.1 million increase in
it global change research programs. Of this increase, $23.7 million is
focused on increasing our carbon cycle research program. As part of an
interagency effort, USDA will collaborate with other Federal agencies
to conduct research to better understand how agricultural practices
affect the net carbon balance and develop methods which will assist
farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners to increase carbon
sequestration. Special emphasis will be given to measurement of the
effects of management and conservation practices on carbon storage in
cropland and grazing lands.
Climate Change Technology Initiative.--In the fiscal year 2000
budget, the President is proposing a 34 percent increase for R&D in
energy efficiency technology and renewable energy; A new Clean Air
Partnerships Fund to boost state and local efforts to reduce greenhouse
gases and air pollution; a five year-year package of tax incentives to
spur clean energy technologies; substantial new funding to focus on
ways farmers and forests can reduce and offset greenhouse gas
emissions. USDA's CCTI programs focus on carbon sequestration and
biomass demonstration projects, and on developing new technology for
predicting and adapting to global climate impacts.
Carbon Sequestration ($3.0 million, NRCS; $3.0 million, FS).--NRCS
will carry out pilot projects for delivery of carbon enhancing
conservation systems. Pilot projects will be conducted on croplands,
grazing lands, and animal feeding operations, using existing financial
and technical assistance programs. FS will: develop and demonstrate the
following: pathways for optimizing biomass standing stock for carbon
sinks: low impact harvest options and soil management techniques that
conserve carbon and increase water production capacity; and management
options for improving direct sequestration of carbon in forest soils.
Biomass (FS, $3.0 million; ARS, $3.0 million).--FS will develop and
demonstrate management practices for short-rotation woody crop
production systems that provide near zero net carbon release and are
sustainable across a range of geobiological systems. FS will identify
barriers, economic benefits, and management regimes for farmers to grow
tress for energy and carbon sequestration. ARS will develop databases
for determining the potential of selected pastures and rangeland
renovation practices, growth of biomass crops such as switchgrass, and
conventional forage production systems for storing soil organic carbon.
Technology for Predicting and Adapting to Global Climate Impacts
($4.0 million, ARS).--ARS will focus on the development of new
knowledge and modeling technology designed to help agriculture adjust
to a changing climate. ARS will develop models at basin and ecosystem
scales and using remotely sensed data will be developed. Climatic and
weather phenomenon (such as El Nino) simulation models will also be
developed to determine the effects of climate change on insects, crops,
water resources, rangelands, etc. Field experiments will be established
to generate response functions for range, pasture and crops to changes
in carbon dioxide, temperature, and water availability related to
climate change impacts.
u.s. agricultural exports
Question. What actions have been taken by this Administration over
the past year to help U.S. farmers and ranchers by maximizing export
sales and expanding their access to overseas markets?
Answer. In response to weakened foreign demand, we have taken a
number of important steps over the last year to bolster exports and
maintain access to key foreign markets. In response to the Asian
financial crisis, we increased substantially the level of export credit
guarantees made available by CCC. Sales registrations under the
programs during fiscal year 1998 were 40 percent higher than the year
before. We anticipate this expanded level of programming will continue
in both 1999 and 2000.
We are implementing the President's Food Aid Initiative, under
which 5 million metric tons of wheat and wheat products are being made
available for donation overseas. Also, we have developed and are
carrying out a major package of food assistance for Russia in order to
assist that country and maintain access for our products. Russia is an
important market for U.S. grains, poultry, pork, and beef, and we want
assist it regain its status as a commercial purchaser.
Over the long term, the best means of ensuring expanded access to
overseas markets for our farmers and ranchers is through the
negotiation of improved market access and a reduction in trade
barriers. Therefore, we have worked vigorously to open and expand
markets through a wide range of trade policy activities. Last February,
the United States and Taiwan signed a market access agreement which
provides for Taiwan to lift its import bans and allow access for U.S.
pork, poultry, and variety meats. Upon Taiwan's accession to the World
Trade Organization, it will cut tariffs and open tariff-rate quotas on
numberous agricultural products.
We also have begun preparation for the new round of multilateral
trade negotiations which is set to begin later this year. These
negotiations present an important opportunity to strengthen disciplines
on agricultural trading practices and gain improved access to world
markets for our products. We have pursued trade liberalization on a
regional basis as well. These activities include negotiations for the
Free Trade of the Americas and within the Asia Pacific Economic
Cooperation forum.
economic concentration
Question. Mr. Secretary, in your oral remarks you commented on
issues related to profits of certain meat packers relative to the price
received for live cattle. What are the Department's estimates of the
fixed costs that packers have (such as labor, equipment, and overhead)
and their proportional share of overall operating costs, including the
price of cattle purchased?
Answer. Recent research by the Economic Research Service analyzed
Census of Manufacturers data on 1992 cattle-only slaughter plant costs
in four broad categories. It found livestock and meat purchases
accounted for 86 percent of total costs; labor and all other materials
between 5 and 6 percent each, and capital about 3 percent.
public law 480 program funding
Question. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget proposes to
reduce funding for the Public Law 480 Titles I and II programs, and to
eliminate funding for the Title III program. The fiscal year 2000
request is estimated to support 3.2 million metric tons of commodity
assistance to recipient countries, versus 3.6 million in fiscal year
1998 and 5.4 million in fiscal year 1999. The fiscal year 1999 level
includes 1.8 million metric tons of assistance for Russia funded by the
transfer of CCC funds to Public Law 480 Title I.
The justification for elimination of Title III funding is that
funds from the Titles I and II programs can be transferred if required.
In addition, the USDA budget summary indicates that it is proposing to
transfer unused Export Enhancement Program (EEP) funds to foreign food
assistance programs, such as Public Law 480, toward the end of the
year.
Why is the Administration proposing to reduce Public Law 480 for
fiscal year 2000 and to use mandatory funds to ``back-fill'' the
program if necessary?
Answer. It should be noted that the reduction in Public Law 480
programming proposed for 2000 is exaggerated because of the Title I
assistance being programmed to Russia this year. If the assistance to
Russia, which results from some extraordinary circumstances, is
excluded from this year's Public Law 480 program level, the reduction
is considerably less. Nevertheless, as noted, the President's budget
does include a reduction in funding for Public Law 480 for 2000. This
is due to the very constrained targets that have been established for
discretionary spending government-wide in conjunction with efforts to
balance the Federal budget. A higher program level for Public Law 480
might have been preferred, but it was not possible given the spending
targets that must be complied with.
The proposal to authorize the use of unobligated Export Enhancement
Program (EEP) funds for certain food aid activities is designed to
provide greater flexibility to program managers so they may respond to
changing program needs and world events during the course of the year.
Clearly, there is a tremendous need for foreign food assistance at the
present time.
At the same time, funding authorized for EEP has barely been used
in recent years. It seems prudent, therefore, to authorize alternative
uses for that funding, particularly when discretionary funding is so
tight. Farm groups in recent years have called on the Department to use
EEP funding for other purposes if it is not being fully used for EEP
bonus awards; this proposal responds to their concerns.
The funding proposed for Public Law 480 programs in the budget does
not specifically assume that unobligated EEP funds will be used to
support Public Law 480 programming in 2000. Nevertheless, for the
reasons just cited, it would be extremely useful if the authority do so
when circumstances warrant were provided by Congress.
Question. The authorizing statute has always permitted the transfer
of funds between titles of the Public Law 480 program. Why is the
Administration now proposing to eliminate specific funding for Title
III grants and to fund these grants by the transfer of funds from
Titles I and II of the program?
Answer. No additional funding was requested for Title III
activities because of tight budget constraints and a higher priority
placed on funding other U.S. foreign assistance activities,
particularly the development assistance activities administered by the
Agency for International Development. As noted in the question, program
managers could consider a transfer of funds from either Title I or
Title II should a particular country's food aid needs be appropriate
for Title III. However, such a decision would only be made during the
course of the fiscal year, and the budget does not assume that it will
or will not occur.
forestry incentives program
Question. I understand that OMB has proposed that the additional
$10 million in emergency appropriations for the Forestry Incentives
Program appropriated in the 1999 Appropriations Act should all be given
to one state, Florida. Others states have indicated a need for these
funds. Is this true or will these funds be available to address the
needs of other states?
Answer. It was determined that assistance should be provided to
other States as well as Florida based on an agreement between the
Department and OMB. $9 million in Forestry Incentives Program (FIP)
funds were allocated to 17 States to address reforestation needs caused
by wildfires and other natural disasters in 1998. Florida's $3 million
State allocation was the largest. A $1 million reserve is being
retained for future assistance, primarily for tree planting needs in
Florida.
Question. When does the Department plan to distribute these funds?
Answer. The Department distributed these funds to the States on
February 16, 1999.
lower mississippi delta region
Question. In fiscal year 1999 the Committee included a general
provision in the bill providing the Secretary of Agriculture the
authority to transfer up to $26,000,000 of the total discretionary
spending appropriated by the act for programs and activities for the
benefit of the Lower Mississippi Delta region.
What monies are currently being used for programs and activities of
benefit to the Delta region?
Answer. The counties in the Lower Mississippi Delta Region have
received significant funding from a variety of Rural Development
programs in prior years, including $100 million in fiscal year 1996,
$134 million in fiscal year 1997 and $164 million in fiscal year 1998,
and this does not include the housing programs. The counties in the
Delta Region are one of the targeting priorities for Rural Development
funding and because of the widespread poverty throughout the region
these counties do very well in competing for funds.
We do not plan to use the authority because of the other critical
needs that need to be addressed with the funding appropriated for those
uses.
Question. Has the Department worked with other Federal Departments
and agencies to bring government-wide attention to the special needs of
this region as the Committee encouraged in the fiscal year 1999
Conference Report? Has the Department consulted with local
organizations, such as the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Center,
Inc.?
Answer. the Office of Community Development (OCD) within Rural
Development provides technical assistance to a group called the
Southern EZ/EC Forum. The Forum originally consisted of the rural and
urban Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities in Arkansas,
Mississippi, and Louisiana. OCD encouraged the Forum in 1997 to expand
to cover the EZ/ECs in the states of Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, and
Tennessee. The expanded Forum joined with the Lower Mississippi Delta
Development Center to form a regional initiative to revitalize the 219
counties that were the subject of the Lower Mississippi Delta
Development Commission Report issued in 1990. These organization have
been joined by the Enterprise Corporation of the Delta, and the
Foundation for the Mid-South to form the Delta Initiative Partnership.
This partnership agreement was signed in April, 1998 in the presence of
the Vice President, Secretary Glickman, and Secretary Slater.
In July 1998, OCD cooperating with the Department of Transportation
in organizing a conference in Memphis, Tennessee to organize a Federal
interagency working group to focus resources on the 7 states and 219
counties that were the subject of the original Delta Commission.
Signatories to that Memorandum of Understanding are Secretary Slater,
Under Secretary Jill Long Thompson and representatives form the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of the
Interior, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of
Commerce, Department of Labor, Department of Education, the Small
Business Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
In addition, the Department has worked closely with the Mississippi
Department of Economic and Community Development, HUD, Fannie Mae, the
Fannie Mae Foundation, Bank of America, LISC, Mississippi Home
Corporation (Housing Finance Authority), Children's Defense Fund, non-
profit organizations, the Housing Assistance Council, and a number of
others to provide financial and technical to the Lower Mississippi.
Question. Mississippi's State Director for Rural Development has
contacted my office about two projects that he plans to recommend to
the agency to be funded from the $26 million available for transfer.
(The Children's Defense Fund has presented a grant to Meyersville for
the renovation of a church which serves as City Hall and to provide
teen health services for children. Meyersville has no capacity to
provide matching grant monies. The Mississippi Department of Education
along with Fannie Mae and Rural Housing plan to provide housing for
teachers in West Tallahatchie county.)
How do you predict the Department will handle these recommendations
given this authority to transfer money for the funding of projects in
the Lower Mississippi Delta area?
Answer. The Department does not plan to use this transfer
authority. With limited resources it is unfortunately not possible to
fund many eligible projects. Rural Development staff is working with
the appropriate people in Mississippi to identify possible alternative
resources which might be tapped for these projects.
workload study
Question. USDA contracted with PricewaterhouseCoopers to conduct a
study of the farm and rural program delivery system of the Farm Service
Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and Rural
development. This study was scheduled to be completed on September 18,
1998.
What findings were reported on the three agencies studied?
Answer. The study provided findings on a wide range of topics
concerning the organization, operation, workload, clientele demands and
purposes of the county based agencies. While the detailed findings are
too voluminous to adequately summarize, highlights include the
following. The study concludes there are some imbalances between
program authorities or legislative mandates, funding limitations, and
agency business strategies which constrain the agencies' ability to
deliver programs and meet customer demands. The study also found that
recent changes in legislation and reduced funding and staffing have led
to some structural problems impeding efficient and effective service
delivery. It noted that USDA cannot effectively respond to trend
changes in customer demand when constrained to locating offices
according to political boundaries.
The study noted opportunities to improve efficiency by minimizing
``back-office'' activities. The findings were supportive of the
administrative convergence initiatives. Likewise, the study concluded
that the Department's Service Center Initiatives will succeed in
achieving some efficiencies. However, the report concludes that further
efficiencies from administrative convergence and service center
initiatives could be gained by removing the current ``smoke stack''
structure in the county based agency delivery system. Another finding
was that there is a critical need for information technology
improvements. FSA county offices were found to probably be somewhat
more disadvantaged than NRCS and RD although IT capabilities varied.
Few substantive findings were reported about agency workload, although
FSA was cited as the only county based agency with a formal work
measurement system at the time of the study. The report recommended
development of workload measurement system for all the county based
agencies. (And NRCS is putting a system in place this year.)
The Department is still reviewing the study findings and
recommendations and while not all of the recommendations appear
feasible or well founded, the Committee should be aware that important
elements of the fiscal year 2000 budget are consistent with the
contractor's findings. These include the proposed Support Services
Bureau to implement administrative convergence for these agencies and
the proposal to increase the limitation on CCC spending for ADP which
was one of the imbalances cited by the study which has contributed to
inadequate resources for IT.
Question. How will the Department use these findings? Are these
findings incorporated in the President's fiscal year 2000 budget
request? If not, why?
Answer. As stated earlier, the Department is still reviewing the
study findings and recommendations and while not all of the
recommendations appear feasible or well founded, the Committee should
be aware that important elements of the fiscal year 2000 budget are
consistent with the contractor's findings. These include the proposed
Support Services Bureau to implement administrative convergence for
these agencies and the proposal to increase the limitation on CCC
spending for ADP which was one of the imbalances cited by the study
which has contributed to inadequate resources for IT.
nrcs' strategic planning
Question. NRCS briefed my staff on its progress with the
development and implementation of the agency's strategic planning
process. What is the status of the other [county-based] agencies'
progress in implementing the strategic planning process?
Answer. NRCS has made significant progress in use of the internet
in charting performance goals, indicators, workload, and
accomplishments. FSA and RD are similarly using the internet
effectively to broaden public access to program information and
application materials. The county-based agencies are all actively
exploring further opportunities to improve services while reducing
costs through streamlining, restructuring, and modernizing technology.
RD management initiatives, for example, focus on quality customer
service in support of the USDA initiative to improve customer service
by streamlining and restructuring county offices, while the FSA
performance plan notes progress in collocating offices, developing a
common communications and computing platform, and converging
administrative structures of the county-based agencies at the county,
state, and headquarters levels. USDA is completing an overview of the
annual performance plan and will shortly be submitting the agency plans
and overview to Congress.
Question. Will the workload study contracted with
PricewaterhouseCoopers affect this process? If yes, how?
Answer. The study provides direction for reforming the existing FSA
workload measurement system and supports efforts in the other agencies
to establish or upgrade existing measurement systems. The study also
recommends development of a common workload measurement system for the
service centers. We are incorporating recommendations of the study
where appropriate in order to improve the usefulness of the workload
measurement system in allocating staff, restructuring offices, and in
other management determinations. Beyond workload issues, while we have
no current plans to merge the field operations of the agencies, as
recommended in the study, the study clearly supports the management
initiatives included in the strategic plans of the agencies to capture
efficiencies through administrative convergence, streamlining, and
modernization.
workload study
Question. Please make a copy of the PricewaterhouseCoopers study
available to the Committee.
Answer. The completed study consists of several volumes. We will
provide a copy to the Committee.
farm service agency office staffing
Question. Mr. Secretary, your prepared statement indicates that the
Farm Service Agency (FSA) has been downsizing its staff since 1993.
Staffing has declined by about 6,000 staff to about 16,400 staff years
at the end of 1998. The proposed program level for salaries and
expenses in fiscal year 2000 is an estimated $1 billion to support a
ceiling of a total of 15,793 federal and non-federal county staff
years. You say there will be no reductions in force in fiscal year
1999. Why the decline in staff years, from 16,400 in 1998 to 15,793 in
2000 given the increased funding requested (+$80 million) in fiscal
year 2000.
Answer. First, the increase in funding requested is $40.5 million
from the 1999 enacted level, not $80 million. Although the fiscal year
2000 budget request is an $80.0 million increase from the fiscal year
1999 President's Budget request, it is a $40.5 million increase from
the enacted fiscal year 1999 appropriation. This is worth noting
because the $40.0 million enacted as part of the emergency provisions
of the 1999 Appropriations Act is being used to support essentially the
same level of staffing in fiscal year 1999 as the 16,400 staff years
you cite for fiscal year 1998. Next, most of the $40.5 million increase
being requested for fiscal year 2000 is for pay and related costs of
existing personnel. FSA has several sources of funds other than new
appropriations to support staffing levels, including funds carried
forward from the prior year under authority of a general provision in
the annual appropriation act. The total available funds for non-Federal
county office activities in fiscal year 2000 includes no funds carried
forward from the prior year, whereas in fiscal year 1999, FSA has $32.1
million in fiscal year 1998 carryover balances to finance fiscal year
1999 staffing costs. Therefore, there is a reduction of $32.1 million
in total available funds for staffing in fiscal year 2000, which means
that the net increase in funding is actually only $8.4 million. Given
the pay cost needs previously cited, this requires a staffing
reduction.
Question. How many offices have been closed because staffing
reductions left only 1 to 2 employees in the office in 1998?
Answer. There were 34 offices closed in 1998 which had 2 employees
or less.
Question. How many will be closed in 1999?
Answer. There are no office closings currently scheduled for fiscal
year 1999, but if the economics of maintaining certain small offices is
disadvantageous to efficient program delivery, then some closings
likely will be done, which is a normal occurrence.
Question. Where are these offices located by county and state?
Answer. Once the Agency further analyzes the impact of workload
estimates and identifies the criteria for determining the most
efficient use of office staffing and considers the impact of
prospective administrative and program efficiencies on county office
operations, FSA will be in a better position to identify specific
locations of any closures. Congressional delegations will be advised
before any closures are effected.
Question. Does the Department intend to inform Congress of any
additional staff reductions?
Answer. Yes, FSA will inform Congress of any additional staff
reductions. However, FSA needs every available employee in order to
operate under its current heavy workload. Any significant staff
reductions will be done only as a consequence of funding constraints.
Question. Why have we not been informed of the prior staffing
reductions in 1998 and those planned in 1999?
Answer. Both the fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 President's
Budget submissions included clear references to staffing reductions. In
the fiscal year 1998 Explanatory Notes, FSA's fiscal year 1998 Budget
included estimates for relatively large numbers of buyouts and RIF's to
occur in fiscal year 1998 in order to inform Congress of staffing
reductions planned for that year. These references are found on pages
18-65 and 18-66. Use of unanticipated carryover balances in fiscal year
1998 mitigated the actual number of separations that were ultimately
necessary. The original plan to RIF 855 county personnel and 255
federal personnel in fiscal year 1999 was also indicated in the fiscal
year 1999 Explanatory Notes on pages 18-48 and 18-50. As you know, the
$40 million enacted under the emergency provisions of the 1999
Appropriations Act allowed FSA to avoid those budgeted staffing
reductions.
fsa office staffing
Question. The Congress appropriated an additional $40 million for
FSA for salaries and expenses to maintain staffing levels to meet
increased workload demands expected from the emergency farm aid
provided for fiscal year 1999. In the prepared statement, you indicate
that this appropriation allowed the agency to avoid reductions-in-force
this year and to hire temporary staff. Is the $40 million sufficient to
deliver payments to farmers in a timely manner?
Answer. The emergency funding of $40 million included in the 1999
appropriations act has allowed FSA to maintain approximately the same
staffing level in 1999 as in 1998, with some increase in temporary
staffing early in the fiscal year, which could not be sustained with
available funding. However, it did not provide for significant
additional staff to handle the large workload increases associated with
the new emergency disaster assistance programs or other market-driven
workload. The additional programs have strained FSA delivery in many
States. This has compounded backlogs associated with the increased
activity in loan deficiency payments, marketing loan assistance, other
assistance activities stemming from low prices, and disaster
assistance.
Question. Were you able to increase FSA Federal and non-Federal
county permanent staff? If so, by what number of full-time equivalents?
Answer. No, we have not been able to increase FSA permanent
staffing because of budget levels and five years of downsizing.
However, the agriculture economic crisis beginning in 1998 accounted
for a significant short-term increase in temporary non-Federal county
office employees towards the end of fiscal year 1998 and into the first
quarter of fiscal year 1999. Federal employees have remained at
essentially constant levels throughout this same period. [Actual
employment follows:].
FSA NON-FEDERAL COUNT STAFFING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Years (as of 09/30/98)
Items -------------------------------
1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permanent Employees..................... 9,522 9,425
Temporary Employees..................... 2,522 4,111
-------------------------------
Total Employees................... 12,670 13,536
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSA FEDERAL STAFFING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Years (as of 09/30/98)
Items -------------------------------
1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permanent Employees..................... 5,633 5,635
Temporary Employees..................... 335 328
-------------------------------
Total Employees................... 5,968 5,963
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. I have heard that employee reductions of ``right-sizing''
occurred even though the additional monies were appropriated. It was
the Committee's understanding that this would prevent additional staff
reductions beyond those expected. Did reductions occur, and if so, what
were they?
Answer. FSA began a right-sizing initiative in October of 1998 that
references relative imbalances of employees to the workload needs in
individual states. Between October, 1998 to December, 1998, the Agency
reduced 94 county employees through the process of lowering FTE
ceilings in overstaffed locations, attrition, and the implementation of
additional shared-managed field offices. This selective process
reflects prudent management and allows the hiring of employees at
understaffed locations within available funding.
Question. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request proposes
a program level of $1 billion, estimated to support a ceiling of 5,745
Federal staff years and 10,048 non-Federal county staff years. This
proposal is contingent on the passage of legislation which would allow
for the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to cover a portion of the
Farm Service Agency's computer operations and maintenance costs for the
farm programs. Since the passage of this language does not fall under
this Committee's jurisdiction, the salaries and expenses account may
possibly have a shortfall if this proposal is not authorized. What
shortfall in funding for FSA salaries and expenses will occur if this
legislation is not authorized?
Answer. That has not been determined because the size of any
shortfall would depend entirely on what the Agency decides it could
forego in essential ADP systems and equipment maintenance costs and for
automated program delivery application costs that service producers.
Without the requested CCC ADP cap increase, FSA would have no baseline
funding for its basic ADP operations for farm programs because these
have historically been funded by the CCC for CCC programs administered
through FSA. The existing cap will be exhausted by the beginning of
fiscal year 2000. Therefore, assuming $35 million would be available
annually by increasing the cap for a 3-year period, the shortfall could
range from a highly unrealistic zero-where no maintenance contracts are
renewed on ADP equipment for example--to $35 million, where the agency
would decide that it basically cannot operate without minimum essential
ADP support costs and would reduce personnel in order to fund these
costs.
Question. What additional Federal and non-Federal county staff year
reductions will result from this shortfall?
Answer: I would refer you to my previous answer.
fsa staffing plan
Question. Why hasn't the Department revised its FSA staffing plans
that were initially based on the 1994 reorganization plan since
installation of the information technology system has not yet occurred?
Answer. Despite our inability to get oversight and Congressional
approval of the equipment needed for the Common Computing Environment
(CCE), which would allow us to more closely align personnel to the 1994
plan, we have to do the best we can for the time being with the
resources we are given. Until the mid-part of fiscal year 1998, when
the economic crisis in agriculture began to drive FSA workload upward,
FSA had managed to basically balance workload with staffing due to the
lower workload requirements of the 1996 Farm Bill, despite the lack of
a CCE. This is no longer the case, unless commodity prices improve
dramatically. The need for a CCE for the county based agencies remains
a top USDA priority.
ccc computer cap increase
Question. The CCC computer cap increase is contingent on savings
gained from a reduction in the authorized level for the Export
Enhancement Program (EEP). This savings is not likely to be scored by
CBO. Do you have an alternative PAYGO offset?
Answer. We do not have a specific alternative offset identified at
this time, however, if necessary we will work with the Congress to
attempt to identify potential offsets.
fsa increased workload
Question. In the past year what sort of increase in workload have
you seen at the Federal and non-Federal staff level?
Answer. With low grain prices and several years of disaster
conditions, county office workload has increased in the areas of loan
deficiency applications, marketing assistance loans and the
implementation of about $6 billion in new disaster assistance program
legislation. Also, the depressed economic conditions in the
agricultural sector of the economy are forcing many farmers who
normally obtain commercial credit to seek direct operating and other
loan assistance, thereby increasing the workload of the federal farm
loan program staff that is already stretched too thin, especially in
performing loan servicing functions.
Question. What portion of this workload increase results from the
administration of disaster payments and loan deficiency payments?
Answer. Compared to the fiscal year 1999 workload estimates
included in the Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget, FSA is
projecting a need for an additional 562 FTE's to assist with loan
deficiency payments, 946 FTE's to assist with the disaster activity,
and 32 FTE's for additional workload associated with the non-insured
assistance program.
Question. Is there enough staff to handle this workload?
Answer. Clearly, there is not. FSA faces the probability of program
delivery failure during fiscal year 1999 without additional resources.
Present county office employees, already dealing with heavy workload
demands, are under extreme stress trying to keep current and attempting
to minimize delays in accepting producer applications and finalizing
payments.
watershed projects
Question. Under the Public Law 534 and Public Law 566 programs, the
federal government provides local sponsors with 100 percent cost share
for the construction of flood control projects. The sponsors are
responsible for acquiring the necessary land rights and for operating
and maintaining structures based on a signed agreement. In many states
the sponsors across the country have carried out their responsibilities
with funds obtained through local taxes. However, some areas have not
been able to do this, like Mississippi. USDA has proposed in the fiscal
year 2000 budget request that $1 million be used for educational
assistance to notify watershed sponsors about the need to inspect and
rehabilitate the aging dams built during the past 50 years. Please
explain how this educational assistance will be implemented.
Answer. The issue of the aging watershed infrastructure is a
growing concern because of potential safety and health risks to the
public. Between the 1940's and 1960's local sponsors, with assistance
from USDA, constructed over 10,000 flood control dams that were
designed to last 50 years. In the next 10 years (2000-2010) over 1,300
of these dams will exceed their design life and require major
renovation or breaching. In addition, many of these dams and others of
newer design are in a higher risk category due to downstream
development and will also require major work.
In order to make the public and sponsors aware of these issues,
USDA will utilize appropriated funds from the Watershed Operations
account to conduct multi-state seminars, develop educational materials,
produce videos and printed materials and send letters to sponsors
informing them of their responsibilities as owners of dams built under
the Small Watershed Program. We would utilize conservation partners
such as state dam officials and private contractors for the majority of
these efforts.
Question. Is this the only option considered in the fiscal year
2000 budget request to working with these communities to address this
problem nationwide?
Answer. Yes, the sponsors of dams built under the Small Watershed
Program are responsible and liable for operation and maintenance, as
well as compliance with all state and federal laws involving dam safety
and environmental permits. As a condition of federal funding, the
sponsors entered into a contract with the agency to operate and
maintain the structures. Since USDA presently has no statutory
authority to provide financial assistance for rehabilitation, the
fiscal year 2000 budget proposes to provide educational assistance.
Question. Does the Administration have a proposal so that sponsors
can obtain funding to improve the conditions of these structures?
Answer. No. However, USDA is exploring ideas on how to assist in
addressing the problem within current authorities.
Question. I understand that the Department's position has been that
should federal funds be provided to those states that did not maintain
their structures, inequities would exist with sponsors in communities
in states who fulfilled their responsibilities by providing local
funding for maintenance.
Has the Department assessed the number of projects that have not
been maintained? If yes, please list the states where projects exist,
the number of projects per state, and cost associated with the
maintenance of these projects.
Answer. The issue of the aging watershed infrastructure is
primarily related to dams exceeding their design life, but operation
and maintenance of all structures is a part of the issue. The
Department has not completed a detailed study of the condition of each
of the more than 10,000 dams built under the Small Watershed Program
since the dams are not owned, operated nor maintained by the
Department. The cost to do such a study would be considerable, perhaps
as much as $10-$12 million.
However, it is my understanding that USDA/NRCS is currently
conducting an assessment of rehabilitation needs of dams built under
the Small Watershed Program in a number of states. This assessment,
which is only a compilation of known rehabilitation needs, will
hopefully provide stakeholders with some valuable information on how to
proceed in the future. I will provide additional information on this
assessment for the record.
[The information follows:]
RAPID ASSESSMENT OF KNOWN DAM REHABILITATION NEEDS
[Includes only dams built under Public Law 534, Public Law 566, Pilot
Projects, and Resource Conservation and Development authorities of USDA]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Dams
Needing Estimated Cost
State \1\ Immediate \2\ (millions)
Rehabilitation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................... 71 $24
Arkansas.............................. 77 21
Colorado.............................. 49 28
Georgia............................... 334 92
Illinois.............................. 36 11
Indiana............................... 41 18
Iowa.................................. 284 20
Kansas................................ 97 20
Kentucky.............................. 101 20
Mississippi........................... 608 34
Missouri.............................. 244 21
Nebraska.............................. 294 4
New Mexico............................ 17 23
New York.............................. 53 2
Ohio.................................. 46 7
Oklahoma.............................. 190 53
Pennsylvania.......................... 7 1
Tennessee............................. 43 13
Texas................................. 283 84
Virginia.............................. 16 10
West Virginia......................... 34 53
Wisconsin............................. 42 3
---------------------------------
Total for these states only..... 2,967 562
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These 22 states have 10,188 of project dams
\2\ Does not include Operations and Maintenance costs.
rural development
Question. For the guaranteed multifamily housing program, the
budget proposes to eliminate the statutory requirement that 20 percent
of the loans guaranteed must receive interest assistance. This
legislative change would allow for the program's expansion to $200
million, which is $125 million over 1999.
Should this statutory requirement not be adopted, what additional
funding will be required to hold the program level at the fiscal year
1999 level for fiscal year 2000 and how many rental units would be
built at this funding level?
Answer. Assuming that the proposed legislative change is not
enacted, in fiscal year 2000, $359,000 in budget authority will be
required to maintain the Section 538 rural rental housing guaranteed
loan program at its fiscal year 1999 program level of $74,839,000. This
amount of budget authority represents a decrease of $1,961,000 from the
1999 level of $2,320,000. A program level of $74,839,000 will build
approximately 2,010 new apartment units in fiscal year 2000.
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request proposes a total of
$640 million for rental assistance, of which $440 million will be
available in 2000 and $200 million will be available in 2001. This
sounds like some sort of budget gimmick, Mr. Secretary.
A. Why has the Department proposed to fund this program over two
years when it has not done so in past years?
Answer. The Administration's proposal reflects full funding of the
rental assistance needs for fiscal year 2000. As you note, the budget
authority for this funding is spread out over two years, specifically
$440 million for fiscal year 2000 and $200 million for fiscal year
2001. The way payments are made under the program--in five year
contracts--allows this form of budgeting. This is a reflection of the
true cost of the program, which is expressed in the Administration's
baseline estimates.
B. Will this proposal affect the delivery of this assistance? If
not, why?
Answer. Rental assistance payments are made under five-year
contracts, and budgeting these payments over two years will not affect
the flow of rent reductions for the tenants who occupy RHS Section 515
and Farm Labor Housing complexes.
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget also proposed legislation
authorizing $400 million in direct Treasury rate electric loans. This
proposal would possibly replace the need for increased funding for the
highly subsidized direct 5 percent and municipal rate loans.
A. What demand is there for direct Treasury-rate electric loans?
Answer. RUS began fiscal year 1999 with a backlog of loan
applications from electric distribution borrowers totaling $1.2
billion. Based on past experience, we anticipate receiving
approximately $800 million additional applications during fiscal year
1999. The fiscal year 1999 appropriations provides $700 million in
funding for distribution borrowers. This means RUS will begin fiscal
year 2000 with a backlog of approximately $1.3 billion in loan
applications for distribution borrowers. We believe there will be a
large demand for Treasury rate loans to augment, not replace, the
municipal rate and hardship rate loans in order to meet the capital
requirements of the electric distribution borrowers. There will be a
continuing need for hardship loans in the future.
B. If this legislative proposal is not adopted, what is the
anticipated program level need for direct and municipal rate loans for
fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 Budget includes $50 million for direct
5 percent interest rate loans, $250 million for municipal rate loans,
$300 million for guaranteed loans and $400 million for treasury rate
loans for a total of $1.0 billion.
early warning system
Question. Please explain the fiscal year 2000 Budget request for $5
million to fund the early warning system community facility grants that
would allow rural areas to reduce the loss of life resulting from
inadequate warnings of hazardous weather.
Answer. The request for $5 million is to finance the installation
of radio towers, where necessary, and transmitters connected to the
NOAA National Weather System radio service which would trigger warnings
of approaching hazardous weather. Many rural areas are without early
warning of rapidly approaching weather systems such as the storms that
hit Mississippi, Tennessee and other areas in January of this year. It
has been demonstrated that if sufficient warning had been available in
sites devastated by tornados in the past several years, hundreds of
lives can be saved and an equal number of injuries avoided. We estimate
the total cost of providing coverage to 95 percent of the rural areas
in need to be about $50 million.
conservation initiatives
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes a $15
million increase in the Conservation Operations account of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service. This funding will help support the USDA
share of the Administration's global climate change initiatives. An
increase of $3 million will be used to fund demonstration and pilot
projects to test various carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas
mitigation strategies and monitoring mechanisms.
How is this different from the research projects on the greenhouse
effect that have been ongoing for years now?
Answer. The $15 million budget request is a substantial increase
which will allow the agency to begin to develop a soil carbon database
that represents actual local soil carbon levels under the various
management and conservation systems that farmers and ranchers apply
across the nation. This effort will establish the foundation for models
and inventories that can track actual changes in soil carbon stocks,
and anticipate changes that might result from potential conservation
policies. NRCS' ongoing research projects on the greenhouse effect,
funded at $1.5 million in earlier years and at $1.2 million in fiscal
year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, focused on the impacts of climate on
the soil environment.
Question. How will these projects, if funded, help our nation's
farmers in the conservation area?
Answer. The proposed pilots will test and demonstrate not only
carbon planning and monitoring methodologies under development, but
they will also test and assess an array of policy and programmatic
delivery options to help structure future policies and programs to more
efficiently enhance carbon sequestration. This, in turn, will increase
rainfall infiltration and water-holding capacity, and improve soil
fertility, microbial activity and soil structure. These factors improve
water quality, reduce erosion, reduce the amount of fertilizer inputs
required to produce a crop and increase resistance to drought.
digital earth
Question. The Administration's fiscal year 2000 request also
proposes an increase of $5 million as a part of the Administration's
``digital earth'' vision to enable access and standardization of
geospatial data supporting Federal, State and local governmental
programs. What is this initiative? Why is an increase proposed and how
will these funds be used?
Answer. This initiative is designed to make geospatial data
accessible to governments, businesses, academia, and citizens for use
with innovative tools such as a geographic information system (GIS) to
address everyday and long-term community issues. Geospatial information
is key to helping communities analyze complex economic, social and
environmental concerns in making more informed decisions and adopting
strategies to support issues such as land-use planning, water quality,
emergency response planning, environmental management and urban sprawl.
NRCS would use the $5 million to develop cooperative agreements and
grants with state and county governments to develop geospatial data.
The agreements would have two primary purposes. The first would be to
develop geospatial data layers such as hydrography, roads, watersheds,
county boundaries, township boundaries, land parcels, and public land
surveys at a resolution acceptable for use at the local level. The
second purpose is to assist the state or county in establishing an
internet web-server in compliance with FGDC Clearinghouse standards.
These public access web-servers can provide geospatial data to the USDA
county-based offices and to the public as part of the overall National
Spatial Data Infrastructure.
debt for nature
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes a $5 million
legislative proposal to help implement the ``Debt for Nature'' program.
This program will provide technical and financial assistance to USDA
borrowers with serious cash flow problems who also have lands that
require conservation treatment. Will you please explain how the
Department will implement this new program?
Answer. The Debt for Nature program is not a new program but it has
never been fully carried out. The $5 million is being requested to
provide financial and technical assistance to financially stressed
participants to help them establish conservation and wildlife measures
that may be required in their conservation plan. The program will be
implemented jointly between FSA and NRCS with NRCS being responsible
for technical decisions related to the program and FSA being
responsible for administrative policy and loan-servicing. The agencies
will work together to establish policies, procedures and direction
regarding planning, implementation and training.
Question. Another new program is proposed in the fiscal year 2000
budget request--a $50 million discretionary Farmland Protection
Program. This supplements the mandatory program which ran out of money
last year. The Administration also requests funding authority of $27.5
million for 2000 for the mandatory program.
At a time when discretionary money is scarce, why is the
Administration proposing to supplement the existing Farmland Protection
Program with discretionary money? Why not an additional $50 million
increase in mandatory funds?
Answer. In response to the nationwide surge of public interest in
preserving landscapes and communities, the Administration is proposing
the Lands Legacy initiative which would be funded from the Land and
Water Conservation Fund. As part of the Lands Legacy initiative, $50
million in discretionary funds are proposed for the Farmland Protection
Program. Additional mandatory funds for the Farmland Protection Program
would require an offset from the other mandatory programs funded by the
CCC account.
Question. In your statement, you say the program is slated to
receive $50 million in discretionary funding from the Vice President's
new Lands Legacy Initiative. What does this mean?
Answer. One billion dollars are proposed in the Vice President's
Lands Legacy initiative to strengthen the federal government's role as
a partner with state and local efforts to build livable communities.
Most of the programs in this initiative focus on urban revitalization
and sustainable development. The Farmland Protection Program is one of
the components and would address urban sprawl issues affecting
strategic agricultural land. It also is a valuable tool to enhance
other sustainable development priorities of communities.
Question. Does this request include technical assistance as well as
financial assistance?
Answer. Yes. Included in the $50 million Farmland Protection
component of the Lands Legacy initiative is $2 million (4 percent) for
technical assistance.
food quality protection act
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently writing
regulations to implement the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). It is
very important that this law is implemented in such a way that it does
not negatively affect our nation's farmers.
Last year, Vice President Gore issued a directive that EPA and USDA
work together to implement FQPA. In fact, report language was included
in the fiscal year 1999 conference report concurring with the Vice
President's memorandum and directing USDA to keep us abreast of its
activities with EPA. USDA has determined chemical field data over the
years for farmers and this Committee has provided the needed resources
to collect that data on chemical use.
Question. When do you plan to give us a report on your activities
with EPA to implement FQPA?
Answer. The report is now being completed by the Department and
will be provided to you in March. The report will describe our on-going
activities and additional activities planned for fiscal year 2000.
Question. Does EPA use the data that USDA has collected when
determining how farmers use crop protection products?
Answer. The data are critically important to EPA and are used by
EPA in assessing possible pesticide risks. The data are equally
important for planning workable risk mitigation measures. When
cancellation of a chemical or certain uses of a chemical is the only
viable approach to reducing risk to acceptable levels, USDA data and
our land grant partners will be of central importance in the process of
developing transition strategies.
Question. What role has the Department played in the implementation
process of this law? How closely have you worked with EPA?
Answer. EPA Administrator Browner and I met on February 5, 1999, to
discuss several aspect of FQPA implementation including the need for
science-based data. We agreed that it was critical for all risk
assessments and regulatory decisions to make full use of sound science
and the best possible data. USDA data concerning pesticide use patterns
and residue levels along with food consumption constitute critical
information.
Question. Are you aware that EPA plans to release ``Interim/
Preliminary'' Re-registration Eligibility Documents (REDs) to the
public on the internet using default assumptions?
Answer. One of the first actions of the Tolerance Reassessment
Advisory Committee (TRAC) was to agree to a pilot effort to make the
EPA risk assessment process more transparent and to involve more
stakeholders. Until now, only the chemical registrants had the
opportunity to review draft risk assessments and influence the
decision-making process at the early stages of review. Growers and
others believed that their interests were not adequately represented at
certain critical decision points. Early examination of the assessments
will allow for early identification of the needed revisions and
substitution of actual data to replace default assumptions.
Question. If I understand this correctly, EPA has not finalized the
nine-science policies currently being developed by the Tolerance
Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC) that will be used to implement
FQPA. It concerns me that EPA plans to release these REDs prior to the
finalization of these policies since it could eventually impact the
outcome of the regulations. Did EPA consult with the Department before
this decision was made to release this preliminary information prior to
the finalization of the science policies?
Answer. As outlined above, the decision was made as part of the
TRAC process. As you know, Deputy Secretary Rominger co-chairs that
Advisory Committee with the EPA Deputy Administrator. It should be
noted that the preliminary risk assessments are publicly available
under the Freedom of Information Act. Because not all stakeholders in
the review process routinely sought copies under FOIA, TRAC
participants that it was reasonable to make access more convenient for
all.
Question. Why is the preliminary information being publicly
released? Wouldn't it be more prudent to wait until the science
policies are completed.
Answer. Because many of the science policies will not be finalized
for some months, the process of refining the risk assessments will
include a sensitivity analysis to determine the impact of alternative
policy choices on the assessments. These will be shared with the public
and should assist all interested parties in establishing final
policies.
The Vice president in his April 8, 1998 directive to EPA and USDA
concerning implementation of FQPA set forth the following principles:
(1) Regulatory decisions should be based on the best science and
data that are available.
(2) EPA should continue to seek peer review and public review of
its methods and approaches for analyzing potential risk under the new
law.
(3) In translating sound science into regulatory approaches, EPA
and USDA should ensure that the decisions and positions of the two
agencies are transparent to affected constituencies.
(4) Approaches must be clearly and fully communicated in a manner
that facilitates informed review by all affected constituencies.
Question. The TRAC process has two more scheduled meeting. The
development of the most sound science and data have not been finalized,
and EPA has historically allowed the registrants of chemicals to review
draft REDs prior to them being released to the public. However, this is
not the case. Based on this information, doesn't the release of the
REDs go against the principles set forth by the Vice president in the
April 8, 1998, directive to EPA and USDA concerning implementation of
FQPA?
Answer. Release of the preliminary risk assessments, with the
careful understanding that the assessments are preliminary and draft
conclusions are theoretical, answers the Vice President's directive for
transparency in the risk assessment process.
Question. How do you propose we proceed in stopping this premature
release of the REDs to the public?
Answer. EPA and USDA have stressed that preliminary risk
assessments do not represent final conclusions and often are based on
outermost assumptions. These caveats need to be stressed in future
releases of preliminary risk assessments.
honey
Question. Section 1122 of the fiscal year 1999 Agriculture
Appropriations Act provides for the reinstatement of marketing loans
for honey producers. Congress approved this program because honey
producers, like those of many other commodities, faced disastrously low
prices. Yet, the Department has delayed implementing this program for
months, well beyond the harvest time. These delays have rendered this
loan program virtually useless. When Chairman Skeen and I learned of
the Department's misperception of our intent in implementing the
program, we wrote you to clarify this issue, hopefully ending the
delays. However, not only have we not received a reply to our letter,
the regulations implementing this program remain unpublished. What is
the status of these regulations?
Answer. We anticipate the final rules implementing the honey
program will be published within several weeks, and that eligible
producers will be able to obtain honey recourse loans by requesting
loans through a period ending 60 calendar days after publication of the
regulation in the Federal Register.
Question. How does the Department justify the delays in
implementing this program which was mandated by Congress, while
assisting producers of other commodities more expeditiously and without
specific mandates to do so?
Answer. Many decisions needed to be made in regard to the Honey
program which required additional research and legislative
interpretation. For instance, the Appropriation's Act required that the
program be operated on a no-net-basis, and that repayment of the loans
would include interest and administrative costs. The research required
to define a no-net-cost loan which included administrative costs
delayed the implementation of the program. Additionally, loan rates,
regulations, and operating procedures for field offices also had to be
developed to adequately administer the program.
disaster/market loss assistance
Question. The disaster program enacted in the Omnibus
Appropriations Act provides the Department with tremendous flexibility
to design a disaster program which was fair to all commodities in all
parts of the country. While I appreciate the magnitude of your
responsibility, I also understand that this was suppose to be an
emergency program. Do you consider the six months that it will take
between passage of these funds and when producers will likely receive
their checks as an acceptable time to deliver ``emergency'' funds?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 omnibus appropriations bill created
seven new programs for the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to
administer, and of those, the most complex is the crop loss disaster
assistance program (CLDAP)--the $2 billion earmarked for assisting
farmers who have suffered crop losses over multiple years before 1998
or who had losses only in 1998. It is far more complex than past
natural disaster assistance programs. Consequently, and due to the
heavy demand from farmers, USDA is taking longer than we anticipated to
implement it fully. Nonetheless, I want to assure you that getting
these payments out as expeditiously and as fairly as possible is a top
personal priority for me.
Question. It is my understanding that as of last week, county
offices did not have the necessary forms for producers to apply for
these disaster funds. Further, it is my understanding that many county
offices may not have the necessary computer software to process these
applications today. How does the Department justify this?
Answer. Applications have been available in the county office and
on the internet since the first week of signup and manual forms were
available to calculate 1998 single year payments for noninsurable and
uninsured crops. However, information was not available for each
producer to enable the county offices to calculate an estimated 1998
single year payment for insured crops without asking the producers for
production information. A significant amount of time has been devoted
to providing county offices with producer loss information from RMA and
FSA's national data base to reduce the burden on producers of having to
provide the information for the disaster programs and to determine
eligibility for multi-year payments. Millions of RMA and FSA records
are being downloaded to county offices. We believe that the start up
time was essential to provide better service to the producers.
Question. Milk prices to farmers are expected to decline about 30
percent over the next several months. When will you announce the plan
for disbursing the $200 million in dairy market loss assistance funds?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 appropriations act requires that the
assistance be made ``as soon as practicable'', but does not specify
what form the assistance should take, nor how the funds should be
distributed. The law does stipulate however, that the payments shall
not affect any regulatory decision on milk marketing order reform. A
full range of possibilities for efficient use of the funding is under
consideration. The expected record decline in the February basic
formula price and the resultant record decline in farmers' milk checks
in April has accelerated the Department's development of the program.
The program may be announced in March.
Question. In fiscal year 1999 Agriculture Appropriations Act, there
was emergency feed assistance funding. According to reports from
farmers, the deadline date has been extended twice already this year.
When can farmers expect to receive this assistance?
Answer. On November 12, 1998, USDA announced the Livestock
Assistance Program (LAP) and began taking applications on November 23,
1998. To accommodate the extremely high demand for LAP, USDA extended
the sign up for this program and now plans to close enrollment on March
25, 1999. USDA will issue payments shortly thereafter. We estimate that
the $200 million Congress appropriated for livestock assistance will be
heavily over-subscribed and USDA, consequentially, will be able to pay
only a portion of the total request.
Question. It is my understanding that producers who apply for USDA
disaster loans have had their loan proceeds reduced by the amount of
crop insurance indemnity payments they have received. Is this true?
Answer. Yes. The amount of a Farm Service Agency (FSA) emergency
loan received by a family farmer is reduced by the amount of crop
insurance payments that have been received.
Question. How does this help producers who need these loan proceeds
to finance their operation?
Answer. A family farmer who receives crop insurance indemnity
payments and a FSA emergency loan has been totally compensated for
their loss by the combination of a loan and direct payments. Additional
financing needs can be met with either a loan guarantee or a direct
loan from the FSA.
commodity prices
Question. Mr. Secretary, one of the factors which led Congress to
pass the agriculture assistance package last year was the state of
commodity prices for almost every crop. Current estimates do not appear
to be much better for 1999. The President's budget makes no specific
recommendations on how to improve the current crop insurance system to
give farmers price risk protection. Further, any change in the law
enacted by Congress will not likely be able to help farmers for the
1999 crop. What changes do you specifically propose to improve crop
insurance?
Answer. On February 1, 1999, the Department released a white paper
entitled ``Strengthening the Farm Safety Net: The Administration's
Principles and Preliminary Proposals for Reforming Crop Insurance.'' A
copy of this paper is submitted for the record. The Administration
proposes a dialogue with the Congress with regard to strengthening crop
insurance in several key areas. Briefly, these are:
--Speed new, more flexible risk management tools to market by
providing incentives to commercial insurers to develop
insurance policies that meet the needs of producers.
--Make the level of protection under the catastrophic insurance
coverage and the Non-insured Assistance Program (NAP) more
meaningful in terms of replacing farm income in disaster years.
--Increase the incentives for producers to purchase higher levels of
insurance protection.
--Cover multi-year disasters so that the cumulative effects of several
disasters within a short number of years are mitigated.
--Extend insurance protection to livestock.
--Improve the NAP program by making the determinations more flexible
than is possible with the current area trigger.
--Provide better information and services to farmers and ranchers so
that they will better understand and manage the risks that
confront them.
Question. How can the rating inequities that disadvantage southern
farmers be eliminated?
Answer. Premium rates are calculated by the Federal Crop Insurance
Corporation (FCIC) from the experience it has accrued in a county. High
premium rates result from high losses paid in the past. For many
reasons, losses have been claimed by producers in the South more
frequently and at much greater levels of crop loss than has been
observed in other sections of the country. While some may view the
resultant high premium rates as an inequity, insurance principles
dictate that the premium rate be commensurate with the level of
expected losses.
Many in the South allege that the insurance experience on which the
present rates are based is not representative of the ``good'' farmer--
that it is based on producers who deliberately made false reports of
losses. FCIC did eliminate losses attributed to persons identified
under its former Non-standard Classification System from the experience
used to calculate premium rates for the remaining producers. However,
losses still remain higher than is typical for other areas and crops.
USDA is willing to work with the Congress to find a solution to
this persistent problem. If farmers are aware of individuals who are
inflating losses, we would appreciate such information. Insurance fraud
will not be tolerated, as it costs all producers.
Question. The Budget makes no recommendations for offsets to pay
for any changes to crop insurance statutes. I understand that several
billion dollars will be necessary. How does the Department propose to
pay for these improvements?
Answer. In its white paper ``Strengthening the Farm Safety Net,''
the Administration states its intentions to seek a consensus among
producers, the Congress, and other stakeholders as to the nature of the
changes needed. Once that consensus is built, agreement will be needed
on the difficult task of finding the best way to finance those
improvements. We plan to work with Congress in a responsible manner
regarding this issue.
Question. What other action outside of crop insurance does the
Department propose to improve commodity prices?
Answer. While crop insurance is the centerpiece of the
Administration's effort to improve the safety net for farmers, the
Department is looking at a broad range of other ideas, including
allowing farmers to extend the due dates on market assistance loans and
paying for on-farm storage facilities. There are a number of additional
proposals, most requiring Congressional action, some of which may have
been debated in the not too distant past which may be worth a
reexamination such as modification of the caps on marketing loan rates.
And, perhaps, there is interest in recent proposals by members of
Congress to develop additional short to intermediate term land
retirement programs which could be tailored to address multiple
objectives including crop disease contract and investments benefits
which would be removing crop acreage from production. Many of these
efforts would involve significant costs.
Strong export markets are another important component of the
agricultural safety net and are critical for the support they lend to
domestic commodity prices. In response to weakened foreign demand, we
have taken a number of important steps over the last year to bolster
exports and maintain access to key foreign markets. In response to the
Asian financial crisis, we increased substantially the level of export
credit guarantees made available by CCC, and sales registrations under
the program during fiscal year 1998 were 40 percent higher than the
year before. We anticipate this expanded level of programming will
continue in both 1999 and 2000.
We are implementing the President's Food Aid Initiative, under
which 5 million metric tons of wheat and wheat products are being made
available for donation overseas. Also, we have developed and are
carrying out a major package of food assistance for Russia in order to
assist that country and maintain access for our products. Russia is an
important market for U.S. grains, poultry, pork, and beef, and we want
to assist it in regaining its status as a commercial purchaser.
Over the long term, the best means of ensuring expanded access to
overseas markets for our farmers and ranchers is through the
negotiation of improved market access and a reduction in trade
barriers. Therefore, we are working vigorously to open and expand
markets through a wide range of trade policy activities. Most note
worthy of these is our preparation for the new round of multilateral
trade negotiations which is set to begin later this year. These
negotiations present an important opportunity to strengthen disciplines
on agricultural trading practices and gain improved access to world
markets for our products.
dairy
Question. In January 1998, the Department published its proposed
rule for the Federal Milk Marketing Order system. Sixty-one members of
the Senate and 238 members of the House of Representatives have written
you to oppose your endorsement of the so-called option I-B and
supporting the implementation of option I-A.
Congress thoroughly debated the elimination of class-I
differentials during consideration of the 1996 farm bill and rejected
their elimination. In addition, Congress mandated the release of the
final proposal for early this year in order to ensure Congress has the
opportunity to review the proposal while it is in session.
Question. How do you justify the adoption of option I-B when the
Department's own analysis showed that option I-B would reduce farmer
income?
Answer. In January 1998, USDA issued a proposed rule that
consolidated the current 31 Federal milk orders into 11 orders, set
forth two options for replacing the Class I price structure, and
proposed replacing the BFP. USDA indicated a preference for the Class I
price surface identified at option I-B when the proposed rule was
published because as stated in the proposed rule ``It is expected that
the additional market orientation offered by option I-B will promote
market efficiencies and lead to better allocation of resources over
time.'' Since option I-B lowered farm income relative to the current
Class I price structure, USDA also proposed several transition
alternatives that would have phased in the option I-B price surface
over several years, lessening the effects of adopting option I-B on
farm milk prices and farm income.
Question. Do you still support option I-B, given the Congressional
support that has been expressed for option I-A?
Answer. All the comments are being considered in arriving at the
final decision.
Question. What is the timetable for publication of the final
proposal?
Answer. The final decision on Federal order consolidation and
reform, which will be released on or before April 4th, will be based on
the comments received on the proposed rule.
detailees
Question. Provide a list, by USDA agency, of each employee detail
or assignment (by employing agency, title, and position) in each of
fiscal years 1998 and 1999 to date for a period of up to 30 days, and
identify the agency to which that detail or assignment was made and the
purpose of the detail assignment. Provide this same information for
employee details/assignments made for a period of more than 30 days,
and indicate the dollar amount of reimbursement made to the employing
agency for each detail/assignment.
Answer: We will provide that information for the record.
[The information follows:]
DETAILED FOR MORE THAN 30 DAYS--FISCAL YEAR 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Position/agency Detailed to Date/length Purpose Reimbursed
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Digdo (GIPSA)............ APHIS.................................... 15 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $3,837
Michael Haley (GIPSA)............ APHIS.................................... 15 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $3,934
James Ledoux (GIPSA)............. APHIS.................................... 20 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $2,993
Bradley O'Neal (GIPSA)........... APHIS.................................... 15 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $3,118
Robert Simpson (GIPSA)........... APHIS.................................... 2 days...................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $411
Dan White (GIPSA)................ APHIS.................................... 2 days...................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $441
Sylvia Magbanua (NASS)........... Office of Civil Rights................... 28 days..................... Civil Rights training program.......................... ...........................
N. Blair (FS).................... Office of the Secretary.................. 10/6/97 to11/6/97........... Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
G. Renteria (FS)................. Office of the Secretary.................. 11/3/97 to 11/20/97......... Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
M. Warren (FS)................... Natural Resources and Environment........ 10/01/97 to 10/24/97........ Support................................................ ...........................
Special Assistant to Adm. (FSA).. White House.............................. 10/01/97 to 9/30/98......... Personnel liaison for all White House personnel of $73,638 Est. Reimb. limited
Cabinet agencies and Boards and Commissions within by 3 U.S.C. 112)
assigned portfolio.
Computer Specialist (FSA)........ OSEC/Modernizatio n of Admin. Processes 01/19/98 to 5/09/98......... To provide Agency expertise to MAPP project managers... $20,519 Est.
Program MAPP).
Management Analyst (FSA)......... U.S. Environmental Protection Agency..... 10/01/97 to 11/22/97........ Assisted in the Information Resources Management Policy $15,409
area involving contract resources.
Confidential Assistant to Rural Development, Office of Community 10/01/97 to 9/30/98......... To assist the Empowerment Zone initiative in helping $88,500 Est.
Administrator (FSA). Development. the program/communities achieve economic and
sustainable development.
Confidential Assistant to Office of Communications, Photography 10/01/97 to 9/30/98......... Provide Agency expertise to the Photography Division... $52,000 Est.
Administrator (FSA). Division.
Director, Performance Engineering NASA, Ames Research Center............... 02/01/98 to 5/23/98......... Provides assistance on the planning, technical $33,000 Est.
and Analysis Group (FSA). guidance, and direction of the Independent
Verification and Validation (IV&V) facility
operations..
Robert Cummings (FAS)............ Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.. 2 years 6/97--6/99.......... Work on agricultural trade issues...................... Non-reimbursable
Nancy Hirchhorn (FAS)............ The World Bank........................... 1 year 7/97--7/98........... Articulate USDA interests on project activities........ Non-reimbursable
Stephen Huete (FAS).............. Inter-American Development Bank.......... 1 year 8/97--8/98........... Articulate USDA interests on project activities........ Non-reimbursable
David Schoonover (FAS)........... Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.. 2 years 6/97--6/99.......... Work on agricultural trade issues...................... Non-reimbursable
Ragiv Rastogi (RUS).............. Foreign Agricultural Service............. 39 months................... ....................................................... $252,549
Thomas Bennett (RHS)............. Natural Resources Conservation Service... 1 yr. to date Temporary Test Laboratory Peoplesoft)............................ ...........................
Promotion.
LaJaycee Brown (RHS)............. White House.............................. 180 days.................... Communications-Schedule C.............................. ...........................
Marylan Chapman (RHS)............ Under Secretary's Office................. 120 days.................... Women in Agriculture Initiative........................ ...........................
Cheryl Cook (RHS)................ Office of the Secretary, Assistant 45 days..................... Administrative Convergence-Schedule C.................. ...........................
Secretary for Administration.
Carolyn Cooksie (RHS)............ Farm Service Agency...................... 2 years..................... Minority Farming....................................... ...........................
Stan Gray(RHS)................... Office of the Secretary, Chief 3 months to date............ Business Process Reengineering......................... ...........................
Information Officer.
Debbie Matz (RHS)................ Farm Service Agency...................... 2 years..................... Loan Resolution Task Force--Political Appointee........ $110,000
Debbie Matz (RHS)................ Office of the Secretary, Assistant 5 months.................... Deputy Asst. Secy for Administration-Political $96,411
Secretary for Administration. Appointee.
Mary McNeil (RHS)................ Office of Congressional Relations- 2 years to date............. Communications-Schedule C.............................. $120,089
Intergovernmental Affairs.
Angela Morrall (RHS)............. Office of the Secretary, Assistant 40 days..................... Civil Rights Implementation Team (CRIT)................ ...........................
Secretary for Administration.
Charles Wehrwein (RHS)........... Housing & Urban Development.............. 90 days..................... Housing Initiative..................................... $25,000
Karen Murray (RBS)............... Extension Service........................ 9 months to date............ Partnering............................................. $52,000
Carolyn Parker (RBS)............. Office of the Secretary, Assistant Secre- 2 months to date............ Civil Rights Outreach.................................. $73,733
tary for Administration Office of
Outreach.
Carolyn Parker (RBS)............. Deputy Administrator, Office of Assistant 9 months.................... Civil Rights Implementation Team....................... ...........................
Secretary.
Vivian Peters (RBS).............. Foreign Agricultural Service............. 120 days to date............ Scheduler-Schedule C................................... $50,997
Samantha Speight (RBS)........... White House.............................. 180 days.................... Scheduler.............................................. ...........................
K. Basu (FSIS)................... Food & Ag Council........................ 2/98--2/99.................. Civil Rights Assistance................................ Agreement developed
P. Cohen (FSIS).................. DOJ/Criminal Division.................... 12/97--6/98................. Assistance in the development of strategic plans for None determining if detail
projects. benefits FSIS)
M. Eldakdoky (FSIS).............. FAS...................................... 3/96--5/31/98............... Food technology support................................ Detail benefits FSIS
J. Gettleman (FSIS).............. DA: Appeals & Grievances Staff........... 1/98--4/7/98................ Senior Staff Assistance................................ None--just received SF-52--
determining if detail
benefits FSIS
F. Gwozdz (FSIS)................. ARS...................................... 1/97--5/98.................. Staff Assistance....................................... Detail benefits FSIS
C. Romeo (FSIS).................. Office of Under Secretary for Food Safety 10/97--3/98................. Unclassified Duties.................................... Detail benefits FSIS
L. Wright (FSIS)................. Departmental Administration.............. 3/97--12/97................. To work on a CRIT...................................... Detail benefits FSIS
Stephen Balson (FNS)............. USDA/OCFO................................ 10/01/96 to 9/30/98......... FISVIS................................................. $118,362
Lawrence Blim (FNS).............. USDA/OCFO................................ 10/1/96 to 9/30/98.......... FISVIS/Accounting Standards Manual..................... $105,593
Renee Brown (FNS)................ Under Secretary/FNCS..................... 10/6/97 to 1/13/98.......... Secretarial Support.................................... $5,732
Kathleen Crampton (FNS).......... USDA/OCFO................................ 10/1/96 to 9/30/98.......... FISVIS................................................. $91,752
Daniel Dager (FNS)............... Under Secretary/FNCS..................... 10/1/96 to 3/24/98.......... Budget & Legislative Support........................... $33,582
Bruce Klein (FNS)................ US Congress/Joint Econ Committee......... 10/20/97 to 2/20/98......... Analytical Support..................................... $30,152
Jane Manley (FNS)................ Under Secretary/FNCS..................... 10/6/97 to 12/20/97......... Secretarial Support.................................... $8,537
Sharon Phillips (FNS)............ USDA/FSIS................................ 4/21/97 to 1/17/98.......... Secretarial Support.................................... $16,711
Ismael Tercero (FNS)............. DHHS..................................... 10/1/96 to 10/13/97......... Tribal Health Programs................................. $1,542
Velma Brooks (NRCS).............. FISVIS................................... 10/1/97 to 9/30/98.......... To provide clerical assistance......................... $38,703
Rebekah Davis (NRCS)............. FAS...................................... 1/20/98 to 5/20/98.......... To provide research and writing support................ $7,000
Pam Folson (NRCS)................ USDA/DAMS................................ 6/29/97 to 9/3/98........... Provides support to the Office of the Senior Policy $37,417
Advisor for Service Implementation and to serve on
Team I of the Admin. Convergence.
Lois Loser (NRCS)................ USDA/NSD................................. 9/29/97 to 6/20/98.......... Provides technical support and is Acting Branch Chief.. $68,032
Robert Reaves (NRCS)............. USDA/Administrati ve Management Serv- 6/22/97 to 3/1/98........... Provides leadership and direction to staff, assign $43,427
ice. work, set goals, participates in Departmentwide and
Governmentwide multi-organization project.
John Sutton (NRCS)............... FAS/ICD/DRD.............................. 8/21/97 to 8/31/99.......... Detailed to acting Branch Chief NTE 2 years............ $95,529
Joan Conway (ARS)................ FAO...................................... 9/97-- Present.............. Special Management Intern Program...................... --
Robert Harmon (ARS).............. FSIS..................................... 7/96-- Present.............. Training and to provide support to Microcomputer $25,613
Support Section.
Stephen Heller (ARS)............. NIST..................................... 10/97-- Present............. To exchange high level expertise and knowledge related $59,228
to leading edge technology.
Al Kemezys (ARS)................. MAPPS.................................... 8/96--12/97................. Provide support for MAPPS.............................. $75,222
Adrienne Labega (ARS)............ Metro Area Reemployment Center........... 8/97-- Present.............. Nonreimbursable--medical accommodation................. ...........................
Carl Momberger (ARS)............. MAPPS.................................... 11/96-- Present............. Provide technical expertise on MAPPS................... $96,033
Anne Riordan (ARS)............... USDA, Procurement Policy Division........ 11/97-- Present............. Provide support to Phase II of USDA Procurement --
Modernization Project.
Charlotte Sorrentino (ARS)....... Office of the Secretary.................. 7/97-- Present.............. Provide administrative support......................... Reimbursement being
requested
James Spurling (ARS)............. Under Secretary for Research, Education, 8/97-- Present.............. Mission Support........................................ --
and Economics.
Mitch Geasler (CSREES)........... Under Secretary for Research, Education, 10/97-- Present, half time. Mission Support........................................ ...........................
and Economics.
Mary Humphreys (CSREES).......... Under Secretary for Research, Education, 10/97--9/98................. Secretarial support, Secretary, Research, Education, Reimbursement requested
and Economics. and Economics.
Dafina Williams (CSREES)......... Under Secretary for Research, Education, 11/97--11/98................ Secretarial support, Under Secretary, Research, Reimbursement requested
and Economics. Education, and Economics.
Audrae Erickson (ERS)............ USTR Office of Agricultural Affairs 3 months.................... Agricultural Trade..................................... ...........................
(White House).
Paul Flaim (ERS)................. President's Council on Sustainable 8 months.................... White House Committee on Sustainable Development....... ...........................
Development (White House).
Christian Foster (ERS)........... FAS...................................... 9 months.................... To work as an agribusiness policy analyst with USAID/ $111,490
Global Bureau.
Keith Fuglie (ERS)............... Council of Economic Advisers White 9 months.................... Senior Economist for Agriculture and Natural Resources. ...........................
House).
Carl Mabbs-Zeno (ERS)............ USDA/FAS/ICD............................. 1 month..................... To work under the Environment and Natural resources $10,650
project.
Sara Mazie (ERS)................. USDA/REE/OSEC............................ 10/1/96--Present............ Mission Support/Budget Coordination.................... ...........................
Toni Bradly (NASS)............... Office of Civil Rights................... 120 days.................... Civil Rights enforcement support....................... ...........................
Jorge Garcia-Pratts (NASS)....... CSREES................................... 261 days.................... USDA Liaison to the University of Puerto Rico.......... $95,000
Craig Kirby (AMS)................ Assistant SecretaryMRP................... 9/22/97 to present.......... Provide support to the Asst. Secy...................... ...........................
Mark Kreaggor (AMS).............. MAP, then PACC........................... 10/1/97 to.................. Assist MAP and PACC with Time & Attendance BPR Project. $8,000
Kevin Clarke (APHIS)............. OCIO..................................... 10/1/97 to Present.......... USDA Enterprise Network design team.................... ...........................
Evelyn Davis (APHIS)............. OCIO..................................... 11/1/97 to 9/30/98.......... Assist with USDA Program............................... $69,909
Walter Moczydlowsky (APHIS)...... OCIO..................................... 10/1/97 to Present.......... USDA Enterprise Network design team.................... ...........................
Karen Murray (APHIS)............. OCFO..................................... 10/1/97 to 9/30/98.......... Assist with USDA financial systems development......... $77,382
Patricia Peer (APHIS)............ Assistant Secretary-MRP.................. 12/21/97 to Present......... Provide support to the Assistant Secretary............. ...........................
Frank Sanders (APHIS)............ OCFO..................................... 10/1/97 to 9/30/98.......... Assist with USDA financial systems development......... $61,999
Joe Taylor (APHIS)............... OPPM..................................... 2/97 to 9/98................ VISA card implementation............................... ...........................
Mary Carmouche (GIPSA)........... APHIS.................................... 73 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $7,340
Michael Caughlin (GIPSA)......... FAS...................................... 10/1/97--7/1/98............. Agribusiness Advisor................................... $97,500
John Cox (GIPSA)................. APHIS.................................... 115 days.................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $6,183
Roy Johnson (GIPSA).............. APHIS.................................... 147 days.................... APHIS Medfly........................................... still on detail
William Napoleon (GIPSA)......... APHIS.................................... 73 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $13,642
Wanda Pitiman (GIPSA)............ APHIS.................................... 73 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $7,976
Steve Reams (GIPSA).............. APHIS.................................... 147 days.................... APHIS Medfly........................................... still on detail
Mark Reimer (GIPSA).............. APHIS.................................... 73 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $8,686
George Wright (GIPSA)............ APHIS.................................... 37 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $2,425
Marci Hilt OC)................... DA....................................... 5 months.................... Civil Rights Action Team (CRAT)........................ $38,995
Barnedia Talley (OCFO)........... ASA...................................... 3 months.................... Civil Rights Implementation Team....................... $9,000
Frances Trout (OCFO)............. OSEC..................................... Being Negotiated............ Travel Assistance...................................... ...........................
Jeff Knishkowy (OGC)............. Office of Acting Assistant Secretary for 1/13/97 to 1/31/98.......... Provide assistance to the Civil Rights Action Team to ...........................
Administration. include implementation of recommendations.
John Lom (OGC)................... U.S. Trade Representative Office......... 10/20/97 to 3/19/98......... To better serve USDA in dealing with international ...........................
trade disputes and related matters.
Lauretta Miles (OIG)............. USDA/Office of the Secretary............. 1/18/98 to 6/20/98.......... To provide six month detail assignment to perform $17,000
clerical duties.
Robert Franco (DA)............... OPM...................................... 2/17/97 to NTE 2 yrs........ Develop SES Recruitment Strategies..................... $116,495
J. Phelps (DA)................... OCFO..................................... 12 months................... Financial Info. Systems Vision project FISVIS)......... $48,000
C. Bailey (FS)................... Office of the Secretary.................. 10/1/97 to 1/2/98........... Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
A. Brown (FS).................... Office of the Chief Financial Officer.... 10/1/97 to 9/30/98.......... FS Liaison............................................. $71,000
J. Comanor (FS).................. Natural Resources Conservation Service... 10/1/97 to present.......... Support................................................ $70,000
J. Dudley (FS)................... Office of Operations..................... 10/1/97 to 3/27/98.......... FS Liaison............................................. $47,116
M. Fletcher (FS)................. Office of the Secretary.................. 10/12/97 to 1/2/98.......... Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
C. Franz (FS).................... Modernization of Administrative Proces- 10/1/97 to 1/2/98........... Civil Rights Action Team............................... $88,000 est.
ses.
J. Gavin (FS).................... Office of the Chief Information Office... 10/1/97 to 3/31/98.......... Support................................................ $31,000
M. Hamilton (FS)................. Office of the Secretary.................. 10/1/97 to 11/30/97......... Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
T. Harwood (FS).................. Hazardous Waste Management............... 10/1/97 to present.......... FS Liaison............................................. $123,300
J. King (FS)..................... Office of the Chief Financial Officer.... 10/1/97 to present.......... FS Liaison............................................. $88,000
Z. Okrak (FS).................... Office of the Chief Financial Officer.... 10/1/97 to present.......... FS Liaison............................................. $74,000
B. Preston (FS).................. Natural Resources and Environment........ 10/1/97 to Present.......... FS Liaison............................................. C.
Pytel (FS)....................... Assistant Secretary (ADM)................ 10/1/97 to 1/3/98........... Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration... $38,212
V. Ross (FS)..................... Office of the Secretary.................. 10/1/97 to 12/31/97......... Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
G. Sundstrom (FS)................ Hazardous Waste Management............... 10/1/97 to present.......... FS Liaison............................................. $85,860
B. Velde (FS).................... Hazardous Waste Management............... 10/1/97 to present.......... FS Liaison............................................. $96,484
K. Waldvogel (FS)................ Hazardous Waste Management............... 10/1/97 to present.......... FS Liaison............................................. $83,656
S. Yaddof (FS)................... Cooperative State Research, Educ. And 10/1/97 to 1/31/98.......... Support................................................ $25,000
Ext. Srvc..
J. Zeller (FS)................... Office of the Secretary.................. 10/1/97 to 11/7/97.......... Civil Rights Action Team............................... Detailed for More than 30
Days
Special Assistant to White House.............................. 10/01/96 to 09/30/97........ Personnel liaison for all White House personnel of $71,071 (Reimb. limited by
Administrator (FSA). Cabinet agencies and Boards and Commissions within 3 U.S.C.112)
assigned portfolio..
Supervisory Computer Specialist OSEC/Modernizati on of Administrative 10/01/96 to 9/30/97......... To provide Agency expertise to MAPP project managers... $85,042
(FSA). Processes Program MAPP).
Supervisory Systems Accountant Alternative Agricultural Research and 03/09/97 to 5/03/97......... To develop the format for the AARC financial statements $17,816
(FSA). Commercialization Corporation (AARC). for fiscal year 1997 and provide guidance on
accounting principles as they ralate to government
corporations.
Confidential Assistant to Adm. Rural Development Office of Community 04/11/97 to 9/30/97......... To assist the Empowerment Zone initiative in helping $31,025
(FSA). Development. the program/ communities achieve economic and
sustainable development.
Computer Specialist (FSA)........ OSEC/Modernization of Administrative 01/19/97 to 9/30/97......... To provide Agency expertise to MAPP project managers... $45,748
Processes Program MAPP).
Management Analyst (FSA)......... Office of the Chief Information Officer.. 02/24/97 to 8/18/97......... To assist in the development and implementation of $45,270
USDA's Information Systems Technical Architecture and
Information Technology Capital Planning, and
Investment Control projects.
Robert Cummings (FAS)............ Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.. 6/97--6/99.................. Work on agricultural trade issues...................... Non-reimbursable
Nancy Hirschhorn (FAS)........... The World Bank........................... 7/97--7/98.................. Articulate USDA interests on project activities........ Non-reimbursable
Stephen Huete (FAS).............. Inter-American Development Bank.......... 8/978/98.................... Articulate USDA interests on project activities........ Non-reimbursable
David Schoonover (FAS)........... Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.. 6/976/99.................... Work on agricultural trade issues...................... Non-reimbursable
Ragiv Rastogi RUS)............... FAS...................................... 39 months................... ....................................................... $252,549
David Adams (RHS)................ Office of the Secretary, Assistant 60 days..................... Civil Rights Implementation Team (CRIT)................ ...........................
Secretary for Administration.
Victor Agresti (RHS)............. Department of Justice.................... 90 days..................... In advance of his permanent reassignment............... $20,000
Joyce Allen (RHS)................ Office of the Secretary, Assistant 60 days..................... Civil Rights Implementation Team (CRIT)................ ...........................
Secretary for Administration.
Steve Anaya (RHS)................ Office of the Secretary, Assistant 90 days..................... Civil Rights Action Team CRAT)......................... ...........................
Secretary for Administration.
Tracey Anderson (RHS)............ Office of the Secretary, Assistant 60 days..................... Civil Rights Implementation Team (CRIT)................ ...........................
Secretary for Administration.
Mark Brad Benson (RHS)........... Center for Rural Pa...................... 3-1/2 years................. Partnering Intergovt Pers ActIPA)...................... ...........................
Terry Bishop (RHS)............... Office of the Secretary, Assistant 60 days..................... Civil Rights Implementation Team (CRIT)................ ...........................
Secretary for Administration.
Edith Brown (RHS)................ Office of the Secretary, Assistant 60 days..................... Civil Rights Implementation Team (CRIT)................ ...........................
Secretary for Administration.
Rhonda Brown (RHS)............... Office of the Secretary, Assistant 5 weeks..................... Civil Rights Implementation Team (CRIT)................ ...........................
Secretary for Administration.
Helen Cordero (RHS).............. Office of the Secretary, Assistant 60 days..................... Civil Rights Implementation Team (CRIT)................ ...........................
Secretary for Administration.
Angela Corley (RHS).............. Office of the Secretary, Assistant 120 days.................... Civil Rights Implementation Team (CRIT)................ ...........................
Secretary for Administration.
Mary Fox (RHS)................... Office of the Secretary, Assistant 60 days..................... Civil Rights Implementation Team (CRIT)................ ...........................
Secretary for Administration.
Leonard Hardy, Jr. (RHS)......... Office of the Secretary, Assistant 90 days..................... Civil Rights Action Team CRAT)......................... ...........................
Secretary for Administration.
Carlton Lewis (RHS).............. Office of the Secretary, Assistant 90 days..................... Civil Rights Implementation Team (CRIT)................ ...........................
Secretary for Administration.
Jacquiline Micheli (RHS)......... Office of the Secretary, Assistant 60 days..................... Civil Rights Implementation Team (CRIT)................ ...........................
Secretary for Administration.
Mary Parker (RHS)................ Office of the Secretary, Assistant 60 days..................... Civil Rights Implementation Team (CRIT)................ ...........................
Secretary for Administration.
S. Leanne Powell (RHS)........... White House.............................. 180 days.................... Women's Issues Program-Schedule C...................... ...........................
John Soles (RHS)................. Rural Center, NC......................... 4 years..................... Partnering Intergovt Pers ActIPA)...................... ...........................
Joseph Taggert (RHS)............. Office of Congressional Relations- 11 months................... Communications-Schedule C.............................. ...........................
Intergovernmental Affairs.
Quinton Wilform (RHS)............ Office of the Secretary, Assistant 150 days.................... Civil Rights Implementation Team (CRIT)................ ...........................
Secretary for Administration.
James Coyle (RBS)................ USDA National Service.................... 7 months.................... America Reads and Gleaning............................. ...........................
Amy Donoghue (RBS)............... Extension Service........................ 120 days.................... Partnering............................................. $11,000
Stephen Balsan (FNS)............. USDA/OCFO................................ 10/1/96 to 9/30/98.......... FISVIS................................................. $108,424
Jordan Benderly (FNS)............ DOJ...................................... 10/1/96 to 1/3/97........... Financial Crime Enforcement............................ ...........................
Lawrence Blim (FNS).............. USDA/OCFO................................ 10/1/96 to 9/30/98.......... FISVIS/Accounti ng Standards Manual.................... $77,420
Gail Brown (FNS)................. Under Secretary FNCS..................... 10/1/96 to 10/5/97.......... Deputy Under Secretary Administrative Support.......... $3,754
Donna Buntrock (FNS)............. Under Secretary FNCS..................... 10/1/96 to 2/24/97.......... Administrative Suppport................................ ...........................
Kathleen Crampton (FNS).......... USDA/OCFO................................ 10/1/96 to 9/30/98.......... FISVIS................................................. $83,316
Daniel Dager (FNS)............... Under Secretary FNCS..................... 10/1/96 to 3/24/98.......... Budget & Legislative Support........................... $29,120
Dorothy Ford (FNS)............... Under Secretary FNCS..................... 10/1/96 to 9/21/97.......... Legislative Support.................................... ...........................
Donna Hines (FNS)................ USDA/Office of Comm...................... 10/1/96 to 9/30/97.......... Americorp Program Activities........................... ...........................
Kelly Jackson (FNS).............. Under Secretary FNCS..................... 10/1/96 to 8/9/97........... Secretarial Support.................................... $16,698
Sharon Phillips (FNS)............ USDA/FSIS................................ 4/21/97 to 1/17/98.......... Secretarial Support.................................... $21,667
Ismael Tercero (FNS)............. DHHS..................................... 10/1/96 to 10/13/97......... Tribal Health Programs................................. $40,111
C. Baker (FSIS).................. DA: Policy Analysis & Coordination Cen- 2/978/97.................... Honor Awards Ceremony.................................. Agreement developed
ter.
D. Barnes (FSIS)................. Office of the Secretary.................. 11/954/97................... Clerical Support....................................... Unsure if agreement
developed Resigned
M. Eldadoky (FSIS)............... FAS...................................... 3/965/31/98................. Food technology support................................ Detail benefits FSIS
F. Gwozdz (FSIS)................. ARS...................................... 1/975/98.................... Staff Assistance....................................... Detail benefits FSIS
A. Kirk (FSIS)................... DA: Policy Analysis & Coordination Cen- 2/968/97.................... Clerical Support....................................... Detail benefits FSIS-
ter. Resigned
M. Penner (FSIS)................. NRCS..................................... 12/962/97................... Office of Civil Rights Work Group...................... Detail benefits FSIS
T. Powell (FSIS)................. OP....................................... 5/12/979/30/97.............. Clerical Support....................................... Agreement developed
Dawn Frobish (ARS)............... USDA-OIRM................................ 8/961/97.................... Provide fiscal and accounting support.................. $42,185
Robert Harmon (ARS).............. FSIS..................................... 7/96--Present............... Training and to provide support to Microcomputer $25,613
Support Section.
Eliot Herman (ARS)............... National Science Foundation.............. 10/965/97................... Cell Biology & Molecular Biology Program Manager to $64,560
gain skills in competitive grant process.
Al Kemezys (ARS)................. MAPPS.................................... 8/9612/97................... Provide support for MAPPS.............................. $75,222
Adrienne Labega (ARS)............ Metro Area Reemployment Center........... 3/97--7/97.................. Nonreimbursable--medical accommodation................. ...........................
Carl Momberger (ARS)............. MAPPS.................................... 11/9610/98.................. Provide technical expertise on MAPPS................... $96,033
Michelle Snowden (ARS)........... Purchase Card Implementation Team........ 4/963/97.................... Response to an EEO settlement agreement................ $62,369
Charlotte Sorrention (ARS)....... Office of the Secretary.................. 7/97--Present............... Provide administrative support......................... Reimbursement being
requested
James Spurling (ARS)............. Under Secretary for Research, Education, 8/97--Present............... Mission Support........................................ ...........................
and Economics.
Linda Wilson (ARS)............... MAPPS.................................... Fiscal year 1997............ Provide support for MAPPS.............................. ...........................
Tammara Wright (ARS)............. USDAOffice of the Secretary, Civil Rights Fiscal year 1997............ Civil Rights Task Force................................ $21,938
Task Force.
Josephine King (CSREES).......... Office of the Secretary.................. 10/969/97................... Secretarial Assistance................................. fiscal year 1997 $38,352
fiscal year 1998 $2,694
John Dunmore (ERS)............... FAS...................................... 9/962/97.................... Technical Assistance Turkey............................ $39,860
Lowell Dyson (ERS)............... ARS/NAL.................................. 2/97--8/97.................. File Automation........................................ ...........................
Ann Effland (ERS)................ USDA Civil Rights Task Force............. 12/962/97................... Civil Rights Task Force................................ ...........................
Audrae Erickson (ERS)............ USTR Office of Agricultural Affairs 3 months.................... Agricultural Trade..................................... ...........................
(White House).
Paul Flaim (ERS)................. President's Council on Sustainable 4 months.................... White House Committee on Sustainable Development....... ...........................
Development (White House).
Keith Fuglie (ERS)............... Council of Economic Advisors White 3 months.................... Senior Economist for Agriculture and Natural Resources. ...........................
House).
George Gardner (ERS)............. USDA/FAS/ICD............................. 1 year...................... To work under the Africa RSSA projet................... $84,575
Carl Mabbs-Zeno (ERS)............ USDA/FAS/ICD............................. 1 year...................... To work under the African RSSA Project................. $119,921
Sara Mazie (ERS)................. USDA/REE/OSEC............................ 10/1/96 Present............. Mission Support/Budget Coordination.................... ...........................
Sharon Sheffield (ERS)........... USDA/FAS................................. 5 months.................... To provide research and analysis of trade and $40,375
agricultural policy developments in the countries of
the NiS/Baltic region, pertaining to their accession
to the WTO.
Teri Wray (ERS).................. USDA/PACC/MAP............................ 6 months.................... To serve as Customer Service Liaison, Executive Order $26,347
on Customer Standards for MAP.
Sylvia Magbanua (NASS)........... Office of Civil Rights................... 137 days.................... Civil Rights training program.......................... ...........................
Linda Becker (APHIS)............. FSIS..................................... 4/97--7/97.................. Assist with Merit Promotion............................ $11,409
Phuong Callaway (APHIS).......... BAD...................................... 7/29/97 to 10/29/97......... Learning Assignment.................................... $11,000
Joyce Key (APHIS)................ ASA-CRAT................................. 4/14/97-6/6/97.............. Complaints Backlog..................................... ...........................
Craig Lambert (APHIS)............ ASA-CRAT................................. 4/1/97 to 7/31/97........... Complaints Backlog..................................... ...........................
Kevin McGrath (APHIS)............ ASA-CRAT................................. 4/14/97 to 5/30/97.......... Complaints Backlog..................................... ...........................
Doris McLaughlin (APHIS)......... ASA-CRAT................................. 7/1/97 to 8/31/97........... Complaints Backlog..................................... ...........................
Linda Moore(APHIS)............... ASA-CRAT................................. 6/97--7/97.................. Environmental Justice/Native American Programs......... ...........................
Ed Psaltis (APHIS)............... ASA-CRAT................................. 4/7/97--8/1/97.............. Complaints Backlog..................................... ...........................
Mary Royster (APHIS)............. OHRM..................................... 9/1/97 to 10/10/97.......... Assist with USDA Ethics Program........................ ...........................
Christopher Sikes (APHIS)........ ASA-CRAT................................. 4/7/978/1/97................ Complaints Backlog..................................... ...........................
Joe Taylor (APHIS)............... OPPM..................................... 2/97 to 9/98................ VISA card implementation............................... ...........................
Rosemary Witcoff (APHIS)......... ASA-CRAT................................. 9/1/97 to 10/10/97.......... Complaints Backlog..................................... ...........................
Clerance Abrom (GIPSA)........... APHIS.................................... 92 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $5,796
Mary Carmouche (GIPSA)........... APHIS.................................... 95 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $9,423
Michael Caughlin (GIPSA)......... FAS...................................... 10/1/96 to 9/30/97.......... Agribusiness Advisor................................... $127,000
Stuart Conser(GIPSA)............. APHIS.................................... 90 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $9,385
John Cox (GIPSA)................. APHIS.................................... 115 days.................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $6,183
William Digdo (GIPSA)............ APHIS.................................... 86 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $20,621
Robert Fuller (GIPSA)............ APHIS.................................... 70 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $7,438
Michael Haley (GIPSA)............ APHIS.................................... 116 days.................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $28,518
Ray Hollis (GIPSA)............... APHIS.................................... 47 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $8,820
David Johnson (GIPSA)............ APHIS.................................... 45 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $7,817
Roy Johnson (GIPSA).............. APHIS.................................... 99 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... still on detail
Jeff LaHaie (GIPSA).............. APHIS.................................... 109 days.................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $14,117
James Ledoux (GIPSA)............. APHIS.................................... 103 days.................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $14,679
Phillip Meachem (GIPSA).......... APHIS.................................... 63 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $7,739
William Napoleon (GIPSA)......... APHIS.................................... 95 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $17,513
Bradley O'Neal (GIPSA)........... APHIS.................................... 99 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $19,294
Wanda Pitiman (GIPSA)............ APHIS.................................... 88 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $9,485
Steve Reams (GIPSA).............. APHIS.................................... 116 days.................... APHIS Medfly........................................... still on detail
Mark Reimer (GIPSA).............. APHIS.................................... 88 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $10,329
Linda Remondet (GIPSA).......... APHIS.................................... 63 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $7,537
Larry Rice (GIPSA)............... APHIS.................................... 91 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $14,835
Rayfield Riley (GIPSA)........... APHIS.................................... 63 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $13,329
Robert Simpson (GIPSA)........... APHIS.................................... 116 days.................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $15,908
Howard Suter (GIPSA) APHIS.................................... 92 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $10,722
Gregory Tomas (GIPSA)............ APHIS.................................... 54 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $14,096
Vince Volpe (GIPSA).............. APHIS.................................... 84 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $15,747
Dan White (GIPSA)................ APHIS.................................... 116 days.................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $17,041
James Winters (GIPSA)............ APHIS.................................... 84 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $12,764
George Wright (GIPSA)............ APHIS.................................... 103 days.................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $6,574
Marci Hilt (OC).................. DA....................................... 7 months.................... Civil Rights Action Team (CRAT)........................ $50,337
Albert Jaeger (OC)............... DA....................................... 7 months.................... G-7 Conference......................................... $66,058
Dale Alling (OCIO) RHS...................................... 180 days.................... Program Analysis....................................... $30,000
Franklin Johnson (OCIO).......... MAP...................................... 1 year...................... TOBI Project........................................... ...........................
Chris Arrington (OCFO)........... ASA...................................... 6 months.................... Modernization of Admin. Processes project.............. $19,000
Gary Barber (OCFO)............... ASA...................................... 6 months.................... Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
Martha Joseph (OGC).............. NRCS..................................... 10/1/96 to 3/31/97.......... Assist with Wetlands Reserve Program................... $23,362
Jeff Knishkowy (OGC)............. Office of Acting Associate, Assistant 1/13/97 to 1/31/98.......... Provide assistance to the Civil Rights Action Team to ...........................
Secretary for Administration. include implementation of recommendations.
Vincent Vukelich (OGC)........... GSA,OGPA................................. 5/5/97 to 9/4/97............ Assisting in developing governmentwide guidance $22,184
regarding implementation of policies in statutes,
Executive Orders and regs.
Joyce Fleishman (OIG)............ Department of Transportation Office of 10/1/96--4/11/97............ To serve as Principal Deputy Inspector General for $79,864
the Inspector General. Department of Transportation.
Robert Franco (DA)............... OPM...................................... 2/17/97 to NTE 2 yrs........ Develop SES Recruitment Strategies..................... $116,495
J. Phelps (DA)................... OCFO..................................... 4 months.................... Financial Info. Systems Vision project (FISVIS)........ $20,600
Pam Folson (NRCS)................ USDA/DAMS................................ 6/29/97--9/3/98............. Provides support to the Office of the Senior Policy $37,417
Advisor for Service Implementation and to serve on
Team I of the Admin. Convergence.
Lois Loser (NRCS)................ USDA/NSD................................. 9/29/97 6/20/98............. Provides technical support and is Acting Branch Chief.. $68,032
Robert Reaves (NRCS)............. USDA/Department Administrative Management 6/22/97 3/1/98.............. Provide leadership and direction to staff, assign work, $43,427
Service. set goals, participates in Departmentwide and
Governmentwide multi-organization project.
John Sutton (NRCS)............... FAS/ICD/DRD.............................. 8/21/97 8/31/99............. Detailed to Acting Chief NTE 2 years................... $95,529
C. Bailey (FS)................... Office of the Secretary.................. 3/27/97 to 9/30/97.......... Civil Rights Action team............................... ...........................
C. Brannon (FS).................. Office of the Secretary.................. 4/1/97 to 6/30/97........... Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
A. Brown (FS).................... Office of the Chief Financial Officer.... 10/1/96 to 9/30/97.......... FS Liaison............................................. $69,000
J. Dudley (FS)................... Modernization of Administrative Pro- 10/1/96 to 9/30/97.......... FS Liaison............................................. $95,266
cesses.
M. Fletcher (FS)................. Office of the Secretary.................. 4/1/97 to 6/6/97............ Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
C. Franz (FS).................... Modernization of Administrative Pro- 10/1/96 to 9/30/97.......... FS Liaison............................................. $86,000 est.
cesses.
J. Frey (FS)..................... Office of the Secretary.................. 7/1/97 to 8/8/97............ Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
D. Gentry (FS).................. Office of the Secretary.................. 8/4/97 to 9/30/97........... Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
L. Goldman (FS).................. Office of the Secretary.................. 4/1/97 to 6/30/97........... Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
R. Grand (FS).................... Natural Resources and Environment........ 3/16/97 to 8/8/97........... FS Laison.............................................. ...........................
S. Hague (FS).................... Natural Resources and Environment........ 2/2/97 to 9/30/97........... FS Laison.............................................. ...........................
M. Hamilton (FS)................. Office of the Secretary.................. 7/1/97 to 9/30/97........... Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
T. Harwood (FS).................. Hazardous Waste Management............... 1/5/97 to 9/30/97........... FS Liaison............................................. $81,734
F. Johnson (FS).................. Office of Information Resource Management 10/1/96 to 11/24/96......... Computer Specialist.................................... ...........................
J. King (FS)..................... Office of the Chief Financial Officer.... 10/1/96 to 9/30/97.......... FS Liaison............................................. $86,000
S. McCourt (FS).................. Natural Resources and Environment........ 10/1/96 to 3/14/97.......... Communications Liaison................................. ...........................
B. McDonald (FS)................. Office of the Secretary.................. 6/1/97 to 8/31/97........... Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
S. Medlyn (FS)................... Publice Affairs Specialist............... 10/1/96 to 12/7/96.......... Office of Communication................................ ...........................
J. Morris (FS)................... Office of the Secretary.................. 4/1/97 to 7/19/97........... Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
Z. Okrak (FS).................... Office of the Chief Financial Officer.... 10/1/96 to 9/30/97.......... FS Liaison............................................. $72,000
B. Preston (FS).................. Natural Resources and Environment........ 10/1/96 to 9/30/96.......... FS Liaison............................................. ...........................
C Pytel (FS)..................... Assistant Secretary (ADM)................ 3/16/97 to 9/30/97.......... Acting Deputy Assistant, Secretary for Administration.. $70,563
G. Renteria (FS)................. Office of the Secretary.................. 6/2/97 to 8/1/97............ Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
V. Ross (FS)..................... Office of the Secretary.................. 3/27/97 to 9/30/97.......... Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
S. Segovia (FS).................. Office of the Secretary.................. 7/1/97 to 9/30/97........... Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
G. Sundstrom (FS)................ Hazardous Waste Management............... 10/1/96 to 9/30/97.......... FS Liaison............................................. $83,544
T. Sherwood (FS)................. Office of the Chief Financial Officer.... 10/1/96 to 9/30/97.......... FS Liaison............................................. $56,000
F. Shon (FS)..................... Office of the Secretary.................. 3/27/97 to 6/27/97.......... Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
P. St. Peter (FS)................ Office of the Secretary.................. 7/1/97 to 11/21/97.......... Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
D. Stennis (FS).................. Office of the Secretary.................. 4/1/97 to 7/19/97........... Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
L. Turner (FS)................... Natural Resources and Environment........ 10/1/96 to 7/17/97.......... Support................................................ $15,000
B. Velde (FS).................... Hazardous Waste Management............... 9/30/97.................... FS Liaison............................................. $93,909
K. Waldvogel (FS)................ Hazardous Waste Management............... 10/1/96 to 9/30/97.......... FS Liaison............................................. $79,239
M. Warren (FS)................... Natural Resources and Environment........ 10/1/96 to 11/8/96.......... Support................................................ $4,127
S. Yaddof (FS)................... Coop. State Research, Educ. and Ext. 5/1/97 to 9/30/97........... Support................................................ $31,000
Srvc..
J. Zeller (FS)................... Office of the Secretary.................. 7/7/97 to 8/23/97........... Civil RightsAction Team................................ ...........................
Reginald Pasteur (AMS)........... ASA-CRAT................................. 3/974/97.................... Complaints Backlog..................................... ...........................
Charles Rush (AMS)............... FAS...................................... 6/30/97 to 7/29/97.......... Career Enhancement opportunity......................... ...........................
Judy Hawkins (GIPSA)............. APHIS.................................... 29 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $2,929
Kenny Layne (GIPSA).............. APHIS.................................... 28 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $2,827
Lynn Luster (GIPSA).............. APHIS.................................... 28 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $3,078
Robert Starr (GIPSA)............. APHIS.................................... 30 days..................... APHIS Medfly........................................... $4,263
Lauretta Miles (OIG)............. USDA/Office of Small and Disadvantaged 10/14/97 11/14/97........... To provide 30-day detail assignment to perform clerical ...........................
Business Utilization. and administrative duties.
Ghulan Sambal (RHS).............. Office of the Secretary, Assistant 30 days..................... Civil Rights Implementation Team (CRIT)................ ...........................
Secretary for Administration.
Cherry Smith (RHS)............... Office of the Secretary, Assistant 21 days..................... Civil Rights Implementation Team (CRIT)................ ...........................
Secretary for Administration.
Vermell Wheeler (RHS)............ Office of the Secretary, Assistant 30 days..................... Civil Rights Implementation Team (CRIT)................ ...........................
Secretary for Administration.
Jada Johnson (FNS)............... OSEC..................................... 1/21/97--2/21/97............ Secretarial Support.................................... ...........................
G. Crawley (FS).................. Office of the Secretary.................. 6/1/97 to 6/30/97........... Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
J. Comanor (FS).................. Natural Resources Conservation Services.. 9/1/97 to 9/30/97........... Support................................................ ...........................
G. Dyer (FS)..................... Office of the Secretary.................. 6/1/97 to 6/3/97............ Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
S. Dykes (FS).................... Office of the Secretary.................. 4/28/97 to 5/25/97.......... Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
G. Edmondson (FS)................ Assistant Secretary, ADM................. 10/1/96 to 12/26/96......... Support................................................ ...........................
J. Gavin (FS).................... Office of the Chief Information Office... 9/29/97 to 9/30/97.......... Support................................................ ...........................
N. Hall (FS)..................... Office of the Secretary.................. 3/24/97 to 4/18/97.......... Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
S. Hooper (FS)................... Office of the Secretary.................. 3/27/97 to 3/31/97.......... Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
L. Lewandowski (FS).............. Policy Analysis and Coordination Center.. 10/1/96 to 10/31/96......... Purchase Card Automation Project....................... ...........................
L. Lewandowski (FS).............. Policy Analysis and Coordination Center.. 3/3/97 to 3/31/97........... Purchase Card Automation Project....................... ...........................
L. Peressini (FS)................ Office of the Secretary.................. 6/1/97 to 6/30/97........... Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
C. Reynolds (FS)................. Office of the Secretary.................. 5/1/97 to 5/30/97........... Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
S. Risbrudt (FS)................. Office of the Secretary.................. 10/1/96 to 10/18/96......... Support................................................ ...........................
J. Synder (FS)................... Natural Resources and Environment........ 10/1/96 to 10/31/96......... Support................................................ ...........................
J. Synder (FS)................... Office of the Deputy Secretary........... 11/1/96 to 11/12/96......... Support................................................ ...........................
M. Warren (FS)................... Natural Resources and Environment........ 9/29/97 to 9/30/97.......... Support................................................ ...........................
J. Worley (FS)................... Office of Civil Rights................... 10/1/96 to 10/31/96......... Support................................................ ...........................
J. Zeller (FS)................... Office of the Secretary.................. 9/15/97 to 9/30/97.......... Civil Rights Action Team............................... ...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Provide a list of advisory committees, panels,
commissions and task forces funded in each of fiscal years 1998, 1999
(planned) and 2000 (planned), by agency, and the amount of funds
allocated for each.
Answer. I am providing a table that lists planned activities funded
in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, and proposed activities as
well as assumed funding for fiscal year 2000.
Question. Please provide a list of the advisory committees, panels,
commissions and task forces proposed to be funded for fiscal year 2000,
by agency, and the amount of funds assumed for each.
Answer: Information on the fiscal year 2000 costs of these
committees was provided in response to question 61.
[The information follows:]
USDA ADVISORY COMMITTEES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Committee Title 1998 1999 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOD, NUTRITION AND CONSUMER SERVICES
National Advisory Council on Maternal, Infant and Fetal $30,000 $50,000 $50,000
Nutrition......................................................
FOOD SAFETY
National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection...... 49,318 60,000 64,000
National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for 36,000 75,000 40,000
Foods..........................................................
-----------------------------------------------
Total, Food Safety........................................ 85,318 135,000 104,000
===============================================
RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS
Forestry Research Advisory Council.............................. 21,862 25,100 26,100
National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and 252,430 \1\ \1\
Economics Advisory Board.......................................
Strategic Planning Task Force on Research Facilities............ 148,367 64,050 ..............
USDA/Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities.......... 11,750 18,900 19,500
USDA/American Indian Higher Education Consortium................ .............. 57,800 59,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, CSREES............................................ 434,409 165,850 104,600
===============================================
National Genetic Resources Advisory Council..................... 14,950 16,000 16,500
Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee........................... 10,206 123,600 123,600
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, ARS............................................... 25,156 139,600 140,100
===============================================
Census Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics............. 34,647 25,000 26,000
===============================================
Total, REE.................................................. 494,212 330,450 270,700
MARKETING AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS
Advisory Committee on Foreign Animal and Poultry Diseases....... 17,457 21,000 18,900
General Conference Committee of the National Poultry Improvement .............. 11,300 9,930
Plan...........................................................
National Wildlife Services Advisory Committee (formerly the 17,490 118,100 18,100
National Animal Damage Control Advisory Committee).............
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, APHIS............................................. 34,947 50,400 46,930
===============================================
National Organic Standards Board................................ 27,781 50,000 50,000
Federal Grain Inspection Advisory Committee..................... 25,113 30,000 31,000
===============================================
Total, MRP................................................. 87,841 130,400 127,930
===============================================
FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee for Trade................ 14,120 14,120 14,120
Ag. Tech. Adv. Comm. For Trade in:
--Animal & Animal Products.................................. 14,110 14,110 14,110
--Fruits and Vegetables..................................... 14,110 14,110 14,110
--Grains, Feed, and Oilseeds................................ 14,110 14,110 14,110
Sweetners and Sweetner Products................................. 14,110 14,110 14,110
Tobacco, Cotton, and Peanuts.................................... 14,110 14,110 14,110
Emerging Markets Advisory Committee............................. 14,000 14,000 32,700
Edward R. Madigan Agricultural Export Excellence Award Board.... .............. 14,110 15,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, FAS............................................... 98,670 112,780 132,370
===============================================
National Drought Policy Commission.............................. .............. 443,000 157,000
Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranch- ers......... .............. 26,640 28,000
National Drought Policy Commission.............................. .............. 443,000 157,000
Advisory Committee on Risk Management........................... .............. 60,000 60,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, RMA............................................. .............. 503,000 217,000
===============================================
Total, FFAS................................................. 98,670 642,420 377,370
===============================================
NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
Task Force on Agricultural Air Quality Research................. 42,000 50,000 50,000
National Commission on Small Farms.............................. 58,400 36,000 25,000
USDA/1890 Task Force............................................ 4,000 15,000 15,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total, NRE.................................................. 104,400 101,000 90,000
===============================================
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ECONOMIST
Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture............... 17,205 275,000 275,000
DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION
Secretary's Small Business Advisory Committee................... .............. 30,000 25,000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Advisory Committees............................. 917,646 1,694,270 1,320,000
Contingencies/Reserve........................................... 82,354 105,730 480,000
===============================================
TOTAL, ADVISORY COMMITTEES.................................. 1,000,000 1,800,000 1,800,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Agriculture Research, Extension, and Education Act of 1998, Public Law 105-185, exempts this committee
from the USDA Advisory Committee limitation.
USDA ADVISORY COMMITTEES FUNDED FROM FOREST SERVICE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Committee Title 1998 1999 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Mountains.................................................. $11,750 $11,750 ( \1\ )
Allegheny National Forest:
--Northern.................................................. 250 250 ( \1\ )
Southern.................................................... 250 250 ( \1\ )
California Spotted Owl Federal Advisory Board............... 27,333 .............. ( \1\ )
Committee of Scientists......................................... 297,757 14,400 ( \1\ )
Committee of State Foresters.................................... 13,550 .............. ( \1\ )
Intergovernmental Advisory Committee to the Regional Interagency 158,265 158,265 ( \1\ )
Executive Committee............................................
Lake Tahoe Basin Advisory Committee............................. .............. 20,000 ( \1\ )
National Urban and Community Advisory Committee................. 197,691 131,000 ( \1\ )
Provincial Interagency Executive Committee Advisory Committee... 713,299 749,825 ( \1\ )
Wildcat River Advisory Committees:..............................
Brule River Study Committee................................. .............. .............. ( \1\ )
Carp River Study Committee.................................. .............. .............. ( \1\ )
Little Mainstee River Study Committee....................... .............. .............. ( \1\ )
Ontonagon River Study Committee............................. .............. .............. ( \1\ )
Paint River Study Committee................................. .............. .............. ( \1\ )
Preque Isle River Study Committee........................... .............. .............. ( \1\ )
Tahquamenon River Study Committee........................... .............. .............. ( \1\ )
Sturgeon River (Ottawa National Forest) Study Committee..... .............. .............. ( \1\ )
Sturgeon River (Hiawatha National Forest) Study Committee... .............. .............. ( \1\ )
Whitefish River Study Committee............................. .............. .............. ( \1\ )
White River Study Committee................................. .............. .............. ( \1\ )
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL FOREST SERVICE........................................ 1,420,145 1,085,740 ( \1\ )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data not currently available. USDA ADVISORY COMMITTEES FUNDED FROM USER FEES
USDA ADVISORY COMMITTEES FUNDED FROM USER FEES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Committee Title 1998 1999 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advisory Committee on Universal Cotton Standards................ $34,500 $11,000 $11,000
Burley Tobacco Advisory Committee............................... 30,543 41,712 41,712
Flue-Cured Tobacco Advisory Committee........................... 27,583 36,453 36,453
National Advisory Committee for Tobacco Inspection Services..... 37,531 46,341 46,341
Plant Variety Protection Advisory Board......................... .............. 14,800 14,800
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL, USER FEES............................................ 130,157 150,306 150,306
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Gorton
disaster assistance
Question. Last year, Congress provided nearly $6 billion in
agriculture relief in the form of payments to farmers due to disaster
and poor foreign market conditions. What, in the President's budget,
assures us that another disaster package won't have to be established
again this year?
Answer. Last year's assistance package is helping to maintain farm
income and limiting financial hardship for many producers. At least in
the short term, prices are too low for farmers to make a decent living
without additional government support beyond what is provided for in
the Farm Bill. Unfortunately, exports and prices will probably remain
at low levels in 1999, causing increased farm financial stress, and
family farmers may need additional financial support. More money will
be needed in 1999 to provide direct and guaranteed loans. Funds are
nearly exhausted for some key credit programs, and we will be
submitting a request for supplemental funds soon.
With regard to the budget for fiscal year 2000, our request was
formulated in the context of continued constraints on Federal spending
under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and thus reflects some difficult
choices. We recognize recovery will occur at a very gradual pace over
the next several years, and we are committed to making the utmost use
of available authorities and program resources to help producers
through these tough times. And we are committed to working to
strengthen the farm safety net to help farmers prosper in good times
and bad without the need for repeated ad hoc assistance.
Question. What in this budget provides what you've referenced as a
`safety net' for farmers?
Answer. While improvements to the crop insurance program are key to
strengthening the safety net, the budget provides for a broad range of
programs which help farmers manage risk. We are requesting significant
levels of funding for commodity, credit, insurance, and export
programs. Each of these programs, as well as many programs in the other
mission areas of the Department, contributes significantly to the
safety net for farmers and ranchers.
exports
Question. Farmers in the State of Washington rely heavily on export
for survival, and in the past year, most national farm organizations
have made it quite clear that in order to increase the prices paid for
U.S. commodities, additional markets and more avenues for exports need
to be available. Why then, has the Administration cut export programs?
Answer. During the past year, USDA has responded vigorously and
creatively to developments in world financial and commodity markets. As
a result, the level of programming for many of our export activities
has increased substantially. For example, in response to the financial
crisis in Asia, USDA expanded the level of CCC export credit guarantees
made available. As a result, sales registrations under the guarantee
programs were 40 percent higher during 1998 compared to the previous
year. The expanded level of guarantee programming is expected to
continue in both 1999 and 2000.
This fiscal year, USDA has greatly expanded the level of foreign
food assistance programming, and the overall level of U.S. foreign food
assistance will total as much as 10 million metric tons this year. This
increase results from the President's Food Aid Initiative under which 5
million metric tons of wheat and wheat products will be made available
to needy countries. It also reflects a major package of food assistance
for Russia which will total more than 3.1 million metric tons,
including 1.5 million metric tons of wheat to be made available under
the President's Food Aid Initiative.
These actions demonstrate that the Department is responding to
changing conditions in overseas markets and is applying resources as
needed to maintain access to those markets. Although the budget shows a
reduction in the overall program level for USDA international
activities in 2000, this is primarily due to the sizeable increase in
food aid programming during 1999. For 2000, the budget assumes food aid
programming will return to a more traditional level. On the other hand,
the 2000 budget provides a total program level of $6.5 billion for USDA
international activities; this is considerably higher than the actual
level for 1998 of $5.7 billion. Thus, the program level for 2000 is
approximately $800 million above the level of just last year.
Question. What are USDA's plans for increasing foreign markets for
U.S. commodities?
Answer. USDA is committed to moving forward with greater reform in
world agricultural trading practices in the next round of world trade
talks which is set to begin later this year. Our goals for the upcoming
WTO negotiations include: elimination of export subsidies;
substantially cutting, and where possible eliminating, tariffs on farm
products; tightening rules on domestic subsidies; reforming state
trading enterprises, and tightening rules on technical barriers that
unjustifiably restrict trade. In addition, we will continue to work to
resolve the contentious bilateral trade issues that hinder our exports,
such as the EU ban on U.S. beef, restrictive Canadian import policies
for livestock and wheat, and unfair Chinese restrictions on U.S. wheat.
In addition to the export credit guarantee and foreign food
assistance activities mentioned above, USDA continues to carry out
other important export promotion and market development programs,
including the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program and the
Market Access Program. For 2000, the budget proposes the implementation
of two new market development activities. The first is a program of
Reverse Trade Missions which will bring buying missions of foreign
importers, retailers, and trade officials to the United States to
orient them on the quality and diversity of U.S. agricultural products.
The second is a new Quality Samples Program under which samples of U.S.
agricultural products will be provided to foreign importers to promote
a better understanding and appreciation of their high quality.
regional research programs
Question. For the past three years, all regional research programs
have been eliminated in the President's budget. Explanations in the
past have noted that these programs are zeroed out in order to focus on
`national research programs of significance'. What research programs
are considered `national research programs of significance'?
Answer. The Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Request for the Cooperative
State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) reflects the
Administration's commitment to improving the science base for
agriculture through the competitive grants programs of the National
Research Initiative and targets high priority activities such as small
farms, water quality, food safety, sustainable agriculture, global
change, and improved pest control programs. In keeping with the
Administration's goal to focus on these high priority research
programs, projects earmarked for specific institutions were proposed
for elimination. Alternate funding from formula programs, State and
local governments, and private sources could be use to support aspects
of this program deemed to be of a high priority at State and/or local
levels.
food safety
Question. I understand that the Food Safety and Inspection Service
has announced a plan to test moving their food inspectors out of the
Federal slaughter and processing plants and moving them into retail
such as into grocery stores. Grocery stores are already under
inspection by FDA and the State and local public health departments.
This doesn't seem very efficient or productive given that other areas
are in greater need of food safety inspection. For example, I
understand that there is a greater need for inspection at ports of
entry instead of in grocery stores. Does the budget for USDA reflect
FSIS' desire to implement such a program in grocery stores, or does
USDA intend on focusing on the problems surrounding some imported
foods?
Answer. The 2000 budget for the Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) includes an increase of $10.8 million to help the FSIS
inspection workforce make the transition to a new Hazard and Analysis
and Critical Control Point (HACCP) environment, including the
conversion of 638 positions to Consumer Safety Officers. In these new
positions, inspection personnel will be responsible for conducting
scientific testing and inspections throughout the farm-to-table
continuum. FSIS intends to redistribute its resources in ways that
permit FSIS to more efficiently and effectively verify that the
industry meets its responsibility to produce safe and wholesome
products. Some personnel will be redeployed to cover critical
inspection vacancies in very small establishments. If it appears that
inspection sources should be increased at import re-inspection
locations, FSIS managers will assign personnel as needed.
food quality protection act
Question. A consistent concern relayed to me by the agriculture
community in Washington state is the implementation of the Food Quality
Protection Act and USDA's involvement with EPA. How has USDA been
working in conjunction with EPA and what are the Department's
predictions regarding implementation and the potential loss of tools
necessary for production?
Answer. We have established a close working relationship with EPA.
One of the most important procedures that we have established with EPA
involves the development of Transition Strategies. When final risk
assessments indicate that a chemical or a use of a chemical must be
canceled to meet the stringent new FPA standards, USDA will take the
lead in the development of the Transition strategies. These strategies
will be developed in partnership with EPA and with broad stakeholder
involvement. We are doing our best to meet our regulatory obligations
under FQPA while making sure that we have the pest control tools
necessary for production.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Burns
e. coli testing
Question. FSIS has been testing ground beef for E. coli 0157:H
since 1996. Out of 26,088 samples, they have found only 25 positive.
How much is it costing USDA to look for something they only find 0.09
percent of the time, or less than once in every one-thousand samples
tested? None of these samples were connected to an outbreak or illness-
so what is the value of this testing?
Answer. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) spends
approximately $10.4 million per year on testing meat and poultry
products for 9 potentially deadly pathogens, including E. coli O157:H7,
Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Listeria. The testing program for E.
coli O157:H7 began after the tragic outbreak of foodborne illness
associated with this pathogen in the State of Washington. USDA
estimates that over 10,000 illnesses per year result from consuming
foods contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. As the Washington outbreak
demonstrated, the most susceptible to this pathogen include children,
the elderly, and the immune compromised. Testing programs like that for
E. coli O157:H7 assists us in controlling deadly pathogens by
identifying contaminated product in time to remove it from the market
before it can cause foodborne illness.
Question. Most of these 26,000+ samples were collected from grocery
stores. How can testing at grocery stores for E. coli 0157:H7 or any
pathogen contribute to the protection of the public's health if the
consumer has already eaten the food by the time you get test results
back?
Answer. The testing program is targeted to detect contamination
problems at the retail level, because many retail stores further
process ground beef after receiving it from a federally inspected
facility. Detection and removal of pathogen-contaminated foods at any
point of distribution will serve to protect the public from foodborne
illness. In addition to removing contaminated product from the market,
knowledge of food contamination problems promotes corrective actions on
the part of producers, and serves to prevent future foodborne health
hazards.
Question. Shouldn't the testing be done before the food reaches the
stores?
Answer. Currently, the FSIS collects approximately 60 percent of
the samples from retail stores and approximately 40 percent of the
directly from processing plants. Further, FSIS conducts a variety of
monitoring programs for several foodborne pathogens in ready-to-eat
products, and all of these monitoring samples are collected at the
processing plant level prior to distribution at the retail level.
Question. FSIS has announced a plan to test moving food inspectors
out of the Federal slaughter and processing plants and moving them into
retail such as into grocery stores. Grocery stores are already under
inspection by FDA and the State and local public health departments.
This doesn't seem efficient or productive given the other areas are in
greater need of food safety inspection. For example, Senator Collins
and the Government Accounting Office have identified a real need for
increased inspection of imported foods at the ports of entry. Why not
put these inspectors there is a need rather than where you will just be
duplicating effort?
Answer. Traditionally, FSIS has assigned the great majority of its
resources to inspection activities within slaughter and processing
plants. Consistent with the modernization and farm-to-table
initiatives, FSIS intends to redistribute its resources in ways that
permit FSIS to more efficiently and effectively verify that the
industry meets its responsibility to produce safe and wholesome
products. If it appears that inspection resources should be increased
at import re-inspection locations, FSIS managers will assign personnel
as needed.
Question. Do you have any data to show that grocery stores need
more inspection that imported foods?
Answer. FSIS is developing a plan for redeploying some inspectors
currently assigned within establishments to monitor, sample, and verify
the safety and wholesomeness of meat and poultry in the storage,
transportation, and retail sale stages of the food production chain.
FSIS has held a number of public meetings to gain input from the public
on the plan and proposed inspection models. Once the plan is pilot
tested and evaluated, FSIS will share the results with the public. The
Agency will not make any changes to inspection procedures until it has
adequate data, public input and has completed a thorough rulemaking
process. If it appears that inspection sources should be redeployed
differently, FSIS managers will assign personnel as appropriate.
Question. Recently there have been several errors made by FSIS in
relation to its testing program and recalls. For example, there was a
recall that may have actually been a mistake since the laboratory in
Florida could not ``find'' the E. coli 0157:H7 after they said it was
in the meat: in another case, FSIS issued a press release listing the
wrong products, telling consumers to return products that were not even
contaminated to their grocery stores. Most recently, FSIS issued a
``policy clarification'' that literally backfired--it had the opposite
effect of making industry abandon E. coli testing programs that were
designed to protect the consumer. What are your plans for addressing
these problems?
Answer. We are working closely with the industry to ensure that the
implementation of the E. coli O157:H7 testing program is accurate and
effective in improving the safety of the products we regulate.
yellowstone bison
Question. APHIS has continued to promote a ``low-risk definition''
was regards to bison from Yellowstone National Park which migrate into
Montana. The definition has not been agreed upon by the State of
Montana due to APHIS's lack of willingness to get the U.S. Animal
Health Association's (USAHA) concurrence on the definition or to agree
to financially compensate producers if restrictions are placed on the
movement of Montana livestock as a result. How does USDA plan to
address the issue of ``low-risk definition''?
Answer. In a collaborative effort between the National Park Service
and APHIS, the low-risk bison definition was developed in the interest
of minimizing lethal control of bison while obtaining the optimum safe
balance between maintaining a viable bison herd in the Park and
protecting Montana cattle from the threat of brucellosis. Since the
original definition was proposed, additional data has been collected
from the Yellowstone bison which provides new information about the
risk of brucellosis in bison. In light of this data, we plan to meet
with representatives of the National Park Service and the Montana
Department of Livestock to determine whether the definition of low-risk
needs amending. If the definition is amended, the revised definition
will then be presented to USAHA for consideration. APHIS remains
committed to working cooperatively with the State of Montana and other
cooperative agencies towards a resolution of the brucellosis problem in
Yellowstone National Park.
brucellosis
Question. Does APHIS still support the goal of eradicating
brucellosis nationally and what role do the State veterinarian play in
this goal?
Answer. APHIS has a firm continued commitment to eradicating
brucellosis caused by Brucella abortus in the United States. In 1997,
an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) for brucellosis was initiated. According
to the EAP, all activities involving brucellosis surveillance and
management of new cases are conducted as an emergency action. Personnel
and fiscal resources are made available where needed to achieve the
goal of eradication. The EAP is still in place, and APHIS continues to
actively pursue elimination of the disease.
The Brucellosis Eradication Program in the United States has been a
State-Federal cooperative program, and State Veterinarians have worked
with APHIS to eradicate brucellosis in their states. State
veterinarians have the responsibility of protecting the health of
livestock in their state, and they may take whatever additional steps
they feel are necessary, beyond those set as minimum standards in the
Brucellosis Uniform Methods and Rules, to ensure the health of
livestock in their state.
Question. We understand Federal officials are considering the
relocation of disease-exposed bison from Yellowstone National Park to
the State of South Dakota or the Congressional delegation of South
Dakota about this proposal?
Answer. APHIS is not aware of any plans to relocate disease-exposed
bison from Yellowstone National Park to South Dakota. In addition,
APHIS would be opposed to any such action, unless the bison had
completed a quarantine and testing protocol as outlined for the Bison
Quarantine Facility in the Brucellosis Uniform Methods and Rules, and
the above named officials had been notified and approved of the legal
movement of these animals.
wildlife transmission of disease
Question. How does the USDA look to address the issue of wildlife
transmission of diseases to domestic livestock?
Answer. APHIS is working cooperatively with State and Federal
wildlife agencies to investigate, study, and evaluate disease
conditions in wildlife; to conduct risk analyses to determine the risk
to domestic species and other wildlife populations; and to conduct
pathological studies in wildlife populations. Recent examples of
wildlife disease conditions in which APHIS has been involved include
tuberculosis in white-tailed deer in Michigan; brucellosis in feral
swine and the bison of Yellowstone National Park; chronic wasting
disease in elk; and VVND in cormorants. State wildlife agencies have
expressed an interest in APHIS providing assistance in disease
management issues (including disease surveillance and diagnostic
support) involving wildlife and advice in handling wildlife infected
with zoonotic diseases.
Question. Are there currently any discussions between the
Department of the Interior and USDA to address this issue in the coming
years, due to the increased amount of land that the Federal Government
is managing in addition to the increased numbers of wildlife having
interaction with domestic livestock in these areas?
Answer. Discussions are ongoing with the Department of Interior
(DOI) to address wildlife issues. APHIS, the Agricultural Research
Service (ARS), and DOI are working collaboratively to determine and
prioritize research needs in the area of wildlife disease management.
APHIS also works with the DOI's Natural Park Service in the management
of brucellosis-affected and exposed bison in Yellowstone National Park
and DOI's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the management and capture
of wild horse on BLM land. APHIS provides veterinary advice for the BLM
program in which wild horses are captured from 10 states and provided
for adoption. APHIS will continue to work with DOI on collaborative
efforts regarding the disease management of wildlife.
canadian compliance with livestock testing
Question. A number of international trade disparities exist, among
them unfair testing requirements on livestock for diseases like
brucellosis, anaplasmosis, bluetongue, vesicular stomatitis and
tuberculosis between the U.S. and Canada. What does USDA plan to do
about Canadian compliance on livestock testing?
Answer. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify this issue.
Differences in animal health status between the United States and
Canada do exist and offer legitimate reasons for requiring testing and/
or certifications. Canada is free of 4 of the diseases including
brucellosis, anaplasmosis, bluetongue, and tuberculosis, while the
United States is not free of these diseases. Canada's import
requirements for these diseases are in accord with the international
standards, which is the OIE International Animal Health Code. There are
no requirements for vesicular stomatitis testing for livestock exports
to Canada.
The United States continues to work with Canada to eliminate as
many animal health requirements as possible. In December 1998, the two
countries reached an agreement that addressed several animal health
issues. In this agreement, Canada confirmed that 26 states are eligible
for consideration under the restricted feeder cattle requirements.
Information on participation in this program was sent to all the
states. Another significant point in the agreement was Canada's
commitment to amend their animal health regulations to allow for
recognition of regions or zones. This will allow for recognition of
States that are free of certain diseases such as tuberculosis or
bluetongue. Canada will need to revise their regulations to do this.
Canada has committed to completing the regulatory process within 2
years.
eu ban on u.s. beef exports
Question. Another major livestock concern is the non-scientific
trade barriers the EU has employeed to ban U.S. beef and their non-
compliance with the WTO. What role will the USDA take in encouraging
the EU to comply with WTO rules. Additionally, if they will not comply
what will the USDA do to make certain the EU takes the United States
seriously as a trading partner?
Answer. The United States has strongly indicated to the EU that we
expect the EU to comply with the WTO rulings on the Hormones case by
the May 13 deadline. We have emphasized to the EU the importance of
this issue to our beef industry as well as to the integrity of the WTO
SPS Agreement. The European Commission has adopted a ``Communication on
Options Regarding the WTO Decision on the EU Hormone Ban''. We view
this paper as a positive move on the part of the Commission, and were
encouraged to see that one of the options put forward was the removal
of the ban coupled with a suitable labeling scheme. To that end,
Ambassador Barshefsky and Secretary Glickman proposed a beef labeling
system to the EU as a way of resolving this issue. We will work with
the EU on resolving this issue, and will be prepared to take the
necessary action if an acceptable resolution is not reached.
export restrictions
Question. Restrictions on the export of agricultural commodities
should be eliminated except in extreme cases of war or multi-national
security. Non-tariff trade barriers and those that are not
scientifically based must be removed in order for the U.S. to compete
in the world market. What will USDA do to ensure the U.S. remains a
viable trading partner?
Answer. The Administration has made clear that commercial exports
of food and other human necessities should be excluded from future
unilateral sanctions as a matter of general principle and is in support
of legislation to accomplish that goal. With regard to lifting current
sanctions, the Administration is considering a recent request for
export of agricultural commodities to Iran. Commercial and foreign
policy considerations are being assessed as the decision-making process
moves forward. Recently, the Administration took a modest first step to
lift sanctions on the sale of ``foodstuffs'' to private entities in
Cuba. USDA will continue to work within the Administration to support
the lifting of unilateral sanctions on food where this step is
appropriate.
USDA, working with the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
(USTR), the Department of State and other U.S. governmental agencies,
actively monitors our trading partners' technical standards to assure
that they comply with international agreements. Technical issues, such
as sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) standards, are discussed in
bilateral and multilateral fora and are generally resolved at either
the technical or political level depending on the issue.
The Department's SPS Technical Working Group meets every week to
document new issues and to receive updates on outstanding barriers that
either threaten or are currently impeding U.S. agricultural exports.
Most of the issues addressed by the group are highly technical and
require follow-up by subject experts from various regulatory agencies.
For example, the TWG was actively involved in resolving Egypt's
proposed mandatory pre-shipment testing and certification program for
apples that would have slowed U.S. apple exports to this small, but
growing market. In contrast, high profile and time-sensitive technical
issues that can have a significant impact on trade, such as Mexico's
proposed rule on avian influenza, are normally dealt with outside of
the TWG and are elevated to higher levels within the Department.
state trading enterprises
Question. U.S. producers are concerned that the Canadian Wheat
Board (CWB) is unfairly subsidizing its farmers and thus presenting
them with an unfair advantage in the world market. State Trading
Enterprises undercut competitors without concern for profit or loss and
thus produces inefficiencies, distorts trade and diminishes prices for
all producers. What will USDA do to eliminate State Trading
Enterprises?
Answer. We are considering several approaches for dealing with
exporting STEs in the next round of WTO agriculture negotiations,
including increasing the transparency of STE operations and expanding
competition by seeking the removal of statutory monopoly export
authority and statutory monopsony purchasing authority. Additionally,
as countries agree to open their markets to imports, importing State
Trading Enterprises have also come under increased scrutiny. While the
importing STEs in many cases are among our best customers, the ability
of importing countries to use control over their STEs to restrict
imports is a serious issue that must also be addressed through the WTO.
canadian pesticide advantages
Question. Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards have long been a
point of contention between the United States and Canada. While
Canadian producers are allowed to use certain chemicals on their
commodities and market them in the United States, U.S. producers are
not allowed to even purchase those same chemicals. What action does
USDA plan to take to ensure American producers have the same advantages
as Canadian producers?
Answer. In the December 4, 1998 Record of Understanding between the
United States and Canada, both sides agreed to meaningful commitments
to help level the playing field on chemical use. Details on the Action
Plan for Pesticide Trade Issues will be submitted for the record.
In addition, USDA has coordinated with FDA and EPA to respond to
claims by U.S. producers regarding Canadian wheat entering the United
States with prohibited chemical residues. As a result, FDA and EPA have
researched the registration and monitoring status of 22 chemicals of
concern. FDA has agreed to collect 30 samples of Canadian wheat
entering the United States and evaluate them for residues of all
chemicals it has the ability to test for. The data, which should be
available in 2-3 months, will indicate whether additional monitoring of
Canadian wheat is warranted.
[The information follows:]
U.S. Canada Record of Understanding Action Plan for Pesticide Trade
Issues
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Canadian
Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) will work with growers
and registrants in both countries to accelerate bilateral harmonization
using the five year North American Initiative developed by the NAFTA
Technical Working Group on Pesticides as the framework. As a result of
these efforts, there will be great potential for faster and
simultaneous access to a wider range of pest control products for both
major and minor crops in both countries. However, the success of this
initiative hinges on the full and active participation of growers and
registrants in both countries.
EPA and PMRA will continue to cooperate with respect to U.S.
implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act.
EPA and PMRA are committed to work together to develop a harmonized
policy for movement of treated seeds by December 1999.
EPA and PMRA will investigate mechanisms to improve links with
state/provincial/territorial officials as a way of providing improved
information sharing and a heads up mechanism for potential pesticide/
trade issues.
Canadian canola growers have requested Canadian registrants to
agree voluntarily to remove canola/rapeseed claims from labels of
registered canola seed treatments containing lindane by December 31,
1999. All commercial stocks containing lindane for use on canola and
lindane treated canola seed would not be used after July 1, 2001. This
is contingent on registrants requesting voluntary removal. EPA, PMRA,
growers and registrants will continue to work together to facilitate
access to replacement products.
For those specific canola registration reviews undertaken by the
EPA on an accelerated basis, EPA and the PMRA will share work on
evaluation of pesticide products to the furthest extent possible.
EPA and PMRA will request U.S. and Canadian canola associations to
prioritize pesticide registration needs from a list of pesticides now
available in either country which are pending approval in the other
country. The associations, in consultation with pesticide registrants,
would also be asked to identify alternatives to pesticides such as
organophosphates (OPs) or others with risk concerns. The resulting list
will then be a basis for a longer term strategy to assure adequate,
reduced risk pest control tools for canola growers and will fit with
current NAFTA efforts to promote a coordinated approach to Integrated
Pest Management for canola.
For dry beans (pulses), lentils, and flax (crops grown in rotation
with canola), EPA and PMRA will request that growers, in consultation
with pesticide registrants in the United States and Canada, identify
and prioritize pest control tools and needs for purposes of identifying
grower priorities for the agencies. EPA and PMRA will jointly explore
efforts to share work on evaluation of pesticide products.
On May 6, The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada, in conjunction with EPA and PMRA, will convene a
high level meeting with Chief Executive Officers of North American
pesticide companies to encourage companies to take advantage of the
pesticide joint review process and to encourage industry's role in
harmonization goals.
USDA and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will jointly conduct a
study of pesticide price differentials within the United States and
Canada to be completed within 6 months.
country-of-origin labeling
Question. The USDA stamp on foreign products is a detriment to the
producers because foreign countries get the benefit of the grade stamp,
without having to pay for it. America's producers need the protection
of country of origin labeling to assure that the USDA label really
means just that--produced in the U.S. It is a detriment to the consumer
because they deserve to know that they are buying American and that
they are buying absolutely the safest food supply in the world, which
is grown by American farmers and ranchers. What does USDA plan to do
about other countries reaping the benefits of the USDA label?
Answer. As directed by the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999, we are conducting
a study on the potential effects of mandatory country of origin
labeling on imported beef and lamb muscle cuts. As part of this study
we will review the regulations and policies governing USDA grading of
imported meat. The report will be submitted to Congress in April, as
directed.
grain company mergers
Question. Mergers such as the Cargill/Continental proposition are a
major threat to producers as they have a great potential to create
reduced competition and anti-trust. Cargill is currently the world's
second largest grain company. Their acquisition of Continental makes
them an even larger power. Grain producers are already faced with an
extremely depressed market and do not need another problem to deal
with--fewer marketing avenues and reduced competition. What action does
USDA plan to take on agricultural consolidation?
Answer. USDA shares your concern about the potential for mergers
and concentration to reduce competition in agricultural markets. I have
written to Attorney General Janet Reno strongly urging the Department
of Justice to review carefully Cargill Incorporated's plan to acquire
continental Grain Company's grain trading business. They need to
determine whether the acquisition will notably increase concentration
in agricultural and allied industries, causing potential adverse
economic effects on farmers, ranchers, and consumers.
packer concentration
Question. For major packers control 79 percent of the meat packing
industry in the United States. The vast majority of livestock producers
sell their feeder calves to feeder markets, which are highly
concentrated. What action will USDA take on the packer monopoly?
Answer. USDA has stepped up enforcement activities under the
Packers and Stockyards Act by the Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration. GIPSA will continue to investigate issues of
major competitive significance in the livestock, meat packing, and
poultry industries. Where anti-competitive practices are found in
violation of the P&S Act, GIPSA will pursue appropriate remedies
aggressively.
mandatory price reporting
Question. Price reporting would increase market transparency as
well as present producers an accurate view of the market situation each
day. It is of utmost importance to have this data accessible to
producers so that they may take advantage of the best possible market
opportunities available at the most opportune time. What action will
USDA take to ensure producers have mandatory price reporting data
available?
Answer. In the near future, the Administration will be submitting
legislation to the Congress to provide the Secretary of Agriculture the
discretionary authority to require the reporting of pricing data for
livestock transactions.
predator control
Question. $175,000 for predator control under APHIS was cut from
Montana Wildlife Services. Montanans are dependent on this funding to
operate aircraft for world depredation. If funding is not restored
Montana's livestock producers will lose well in excess of the $175,000
that was taken due to predator loss. How does USDA plan to compensate
producers for predator loss as a result of this funding cut?
Answer. The budget does not specifically identify where the
reductions will need to be taken if APHIS is not successful in
increasing the cost sharing for its many efforts in Wildlife Services.
fort keogh research station
Question. $1 million was cut from the Fort Keogh Research Station
in Miles City. This experiment station caries out extremely valuable
research on sustainable environment, an area close to this
administration's heart. Range research, which comprises most of the
studies carried out at this station, promotes a sustainable environment
more than any other research method. Research dollars are of utmost
importance to educate producers and provide them with new ideas and
avenues to market their products. In a depressed market they must find
new marketing alternatives. Research and education dollars are a
necessity to ensure they receive up-to-date and pertinent information.
How does USDA plan to give farmers the necessary advantage to market
their products with cuts like these?
Answer. Large amounts of public and private research and
cooperation have made US agriculture the marvel of the world. We intend
to continue that effective research partnership by investing public
research dollars in critical areas, such as sustainable environment
where there is a significant public interest and where private industry
is unlikely to take the risk. The Administration advocates a broad
range of funding mechanisms in support of university-based agricultural
research, education, and extension. These mechanisms, including formula
programs, competitive grants, special grants and projects, and other
programs--such as Smith-Lever 3(d)--are interdependent and jointly
contribute to the success of our knowledge-based system of agriculture.
farm bill changes
Question. You have said that one of the changes you would like to
see in the current farm bill is a mechanism to help farmers build
storage facilities. We believe we should be selling grain and reducing
our stocks. What is the rational for this strategy?
Answer. If producers do not have access to adequate storage, they
are more likely to sell when prices are low during the harvest period.
Access to transportation is also an issue. Marketing opportunities are
limited for many farmers due to rail abandonment, so access to
additional storage would provide these producers with some additional
tools to manage risk.
Question. How can constructing additional storage help producers?
Answer. Much of the storage built during the 1970's is nearing the
end of its useful life and may need to be replaced. As storage
facilities wear out, farmers will be more likely to market when prices
are low during the harvest season or be forced to pay commercial
storage rates. If crops are large, and the marketing system cannot move
all the grain at once, grain supplies may back up onto the farm and
leave producers with no alternative but to store grain on the ground.
On-farm storage could help to avoid such problems. Federal assistance
in financing storage facilities would also help farmers obtain credit
at favorable terms, which can be difficult through commercial sources.
Looking ahead, as customers become increasingly sophisticated in
their demands for grain with specific traits and characteristics,
identity preservation is rapidly becoming key for suppliers. Increasing
storage opportunities, in particular on the farm, will be an integral
part of the grain marketing infrastructure that will be developed to
market identity preserved grain.
Question. You are also advocating an extension of loans. Won't
allowing producers a longer period of time to settle loans tend to
build stocks that will continue to depress prices?
Answer. We advocate providing limited discretion to extend
commodity loans when there is a breakdown in the marketing system, for
example, in the event of a rail strike.
food quality protection act
Question. Implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
has made farmers very nervous about the consequences of pesticide
reduction regulations. We urge USDA to work closely with the EPA to
take into account the effects this act has on farmers ability to
produce a quality product which is competitive on the world market.
Will USDA take the lead on this issue and weigh the potential harm the
FQPA may cause American farmers and ranchers?
Answer. EPA and USDA have agreed upon processes to ensure USDA
involvement in risk assessment, risk mitigation, and other aspects of
FQPA implementation. Along with our cooperators at the Land Grant
Universities, USDA will take the lead in the development of transition
strategies when they are required to reduce risk to acceptable levels.
Transition Strategies will be developed in consultation with grower
organizations.
animal feeding operations
Question. Proposed new rules for Animal Feeding Operations (AFO's)
are as detrimental to livestock production as the FQPA is to crop
production. Will you assist us in Congress in undoing the EPA's blatant
rewriting of the Clean Water Act, ensuring that the result of the
Unified National Strategy for AFO rulemaking is fair and maintains our
productive capacity at its current level?
Answer. The Unified National Strategy for AFO's is not a rule or a
regulation. Any proposed changes to legislation or regulations will
have to have to go through the full rulemaking process. One of the
guiding principles of the Strategy is to ``ensure that measures to
protect the environment and public health complement the long-term
sustainability of livestock production in the US''.
guaranteed farm ownership loans
Question. Will USDA include in your current and future budgets
sufficient money to replenish drained funds for guaranteed ownership
loans to farmers and ranchers under the Interest Assistance Program?
Answer. For fiscal year 1999, approximately $425 million was
available for the guaranteed farm ownership loan program. FSA estimates
that funding for this program will be depleted by mid-March, except for
a small amount of funds set-aside for beginning farmer and socially-
disadvantaged targets. As a result of low commodity prices, many
farmers and ranchers are facing cash flow problems this year,
dramatically increasing demand for USDA's farm lending programs. In
addition, demand for the guaranteed farm ownership loans, in
particular, has increased due to: 1) a large carry-over of applications
from last year, and 2) a change made by last year's agriculture
appropriations bill which increased the loan limit on farm loans to
$700,000 (previously there were separate limits of $300,000 for farm
operating loans and $400,000 for farm ownership loans.
The Administration recognizes the serious need for additional
funding for this and the other farm loan programs, and we are currently
considering a proposal for a supplemental funding request. Additional
funding proposed specifically for the guaranteed farm ownership loan
program would be about $350 million. We will work closely with Congress
to ensure that farmers and ranchers have access to the credit they need
to see them through to better times.
civil rights case backlog
Question. Much remains to be done in the area of Civil Rights.
According to information posted on the Office of Civil Rights Internet
site as of March 1998, Montana had at least 19 cases of discrimination
pending with the USDA, placing Montana in the same category as highly
populated states such as Florida and New York. These people deserve
better than this from an agency that was supposedly established to help
American agricultural producers. I want to know when the people still
in the process can expect prompt, responsive, and efficient handling of
their complaints, not the foot-dragging, hurry-up-and-wait treatment
they have received up to this point?
Answer. We are committed to getting existing complaints resolved
and to resolving all new complaints in a timely manner. We have issued
new Departmental regulations that delineate complaint processing
procedures that will get most program discrimination complaints
resolved within 180 day. We are adding 30 staff to help us achieve that
goal.
funding for crop insurance reform
Question. President Clinton vowed to make crop insurance a top
priority in the new Congress. However, absolutely no mention of crop
insurance or funding of crop insurance is mentioned in the fiscal year
2000 budget. With a risk management plan bankers are more likely to
finance producers if they have both their crop and their price covered
with a reliable insurance program. Where is the funding to reform crop
insurance and how does USDA plan to address this issue.
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget provides for an appropriation
to the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund of ``such sums as may be
necessary'' for the continuation of the crop insurance program. This
appropriation request is based on current law which is the usually
manner in which such requests are made. A substantial amount of
supporting information has been provided to the Congress to justify
continued funding for the program. The improvements the President has
vowed to make in the program will require legislation. A ``white
paper'' detailing the Administration's proposals for improving the
program was released along with the budget. The Administration has also
announced that wants to obtain additional input from the public and to
work with Congress on these proposals and other program improvements.
There is a wide range of potential costs and various ways for funding
the program, including the use mandatory spending. Once agreements are
reached on the improvements that need to be made, the funding for these
improvements can be worked out. This approach has been used before in
developing farm legislation and it has worked well.
As for your comment regarding the importance of risk management
protection for both price and production, we agree whole-heartedly, and
would note that, over the last few years, new revenue insurance
products have been developed and have attracted an increasing portion
of the business covered by the crop insurance program. Even under
current law, is anticipated this trend will continue. Further, the
fiscal year 2000 budget would provide additional funding for risk
management education efforts to ensure that producers are informed of
the broad range of tools available, such as futures trading and
contractual arrangements, to help them manage risk.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Kohl
farm safety net/emergency assistance emergency appropriations
Question. Please provide an overview, to the extent possible by
state and commodity, of the levels of emergency assistance provided to
producers as a result of the $5.9 billion made available in the Omnibus
Appropriations Act of fiscal year 1999.
Answer. The emergency financial assistance to farmers and ranchers
who have incurred losses associated with crops due to disasters is
composed of several types of payments. The table below identifies each
disaster program and it's associated program level.
Summary of USDA Disaster Program Funding In 1999 Budget Agreement and
Other Disaster Programs
[In millions of dollars]
Budget Authority/
Items Program Level
Commodity Credit Corporation:
Market Loss Crop Payments................................. 2,857.0
Market Loss Dairy Payments................................ 200.0
1998 Crop Losses ( \1\ ) \2\.............................. 1,500.0
Multi-year Crop Losses ( \1\ ) \2\........................ 875.0
(Includes Wheat Scab)................................. (30.0)
Livestock Feed Assistance................................. 200.0
Salmon, Honey, Mohair..................................... 78.0
Food for Progress......................................... 25.0
NAP Raisin Provisions..................................... 3.0
Dairy Production Assistance............................... 3.0
Cotton Warehouse.......................................... 5.0
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal, Budget Agreement........................ 5,746.0
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Other Disaster Programs Implemented:
Disaster Reserve Flood Compensation \2\................... 42.0
American Indian Livestock Feed \3\........................ 8.5
Livestock Indemnity \4\................................... 4.0
Dairy Production Assistance \4\........................... 6.8
Small Hogs Operation Payments \5\......................... 50.0
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 5,857.3
\1\ Up to $400 million reserved for crop insurance buy-up on 1999 crops.
\2\ The program will be partially funded under Section 1102 of the 1999
Appropriations Act which authorized the allocation of an additional $30
million to the DRFCP.
\3\ Of the total program level of $12.5 million, $8.5 million is
anticipated to occur in fiscal year 1999.
\4\ Provided for by the 1998 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act.
\5\ Program is funded by Section 32 funds, but delegated to FSA to
administer.
Just over $2.8 billion in Marketing Loss Assistance Payments have
been made as of February 12, 1999. These payments include feed grain,
wheat, upland cotton, and rice programs. The attached table identifies
the States that have received payments.
timing and effect of assistance
Question. Please include any timetables available to indicate when
producers may expect to receive assistance plus and analysis of the
degree to which the assistance made available by the aforementioned Act
will remedy shortfalls in farm income due to either production or
market losses in 1999.
Answer.
Within 10 working days of the omnibus bill's enactment, USDA began
making income loss assistance payments. By November 21, 1998, USDA had
paid 1.4 million farmers more than $2.8 billion.
On November 12, 1998, USDA announced the Livestock Assistance
Program (LAP) and began taking applications on November 23, 1998. To
accommodate the extremely high demand for LAP, USDA extended the sign
up for this program and now plans to close enrollment on March 25,
1999. USDA will issue payments shortly thereafter. We estimate that the
$200 million Congress appropriated for livestock assistance will be
heavily over-subscribed and USDA, consequentially, will be able to pay
only a portion of the total request.
On March 15, 1999, the sales closing date for the 1999 crop
insurance program, USDA will have disbursed the $400 million dedicated
to lowering crop insurance premiums--the Administration's down payment
on its commitment to strengthening the farm safety net by reforming and
improving crop insurance.
USDA has implemented the honey and mohair loan programs included in
the bill.
In the near future I will announce USDA's plans for the $200
million dairy assistance program.
USDA now expects to make CLDAP payments in June, following a six
month sign up program, the same length of time USDA ran the sign up for
the 1988 disaster assistance program, the last time USDA had to
implement a major, new crop loss assistance program. While USDA was
able to use the 1988 program as a template for subsequent programs, we
could not do so for this year's program.
The additional resources sought by the Administration and approved
by Congress have been instrumental in keeping thousands of farmers and
ranchers in business during tough times. USDA is at your disposal to
provide any additional information about implementation of these
programs.
state of the farm economy
Question. Please provide any information available about the state
of health of the farm economy at present and the extent to which
producers may not be able to continue viable farming or ranching
operations this coming year even with the assistance provided in the
fiscal year 1999 Act.
Answer. The farm economic outlook for 1999 is not favorable. In
1998, the farm economy took a sharp downturn when bad weather
devastated many production regions from California to Florida, while
grain and oilseed prices nosedived as a result of large global
supplies, the deepening Asian financial crisis, and weak export demand.
Livestock prices also dropped due to large supplies, and hog prices
went into a free fall late in the year. Unfortunately, exports and
commodity prices likely will be even lower in 1999, causing increased
farm financial stress, particularly in grain and oilseed producing
areas, such as the Corn Belt States, that up to now have weathered the
economic downturn.
U.S. farm exports, for example, are expected to drop to $49 billion
in fiscal year 1999--down $4.6 billion from fiscal year 1998 and nearly
$11 billion from the peak in 1996. Net farm income is expected to drop
to $44.6 billion for 1999, a 7-percent decline from 1998 and a 16-
percent drop from 1996. Net income just for key field crops (wheat,
corn, soybeans, upland cotton and rice) will be 17 percent below the
average for the past 5 crop years for the 1998 crops, and for the 1999
crops, net income is projected to be 27 percent below the previous 5-
year average.
USDA's revised baseline projections for the next 10 years indicate
that economic recovery will occur at a very gradual pace.
The nearly $6 billion in government assistance enacted last year is
helping to maintain farm income and ease financial hardship for many
producers. Direct government payments to producers reached nearly $13
billion in calendar year 1998 and will probably total at least $11
billion in 1999. Also, lower interest rates and fuel costs have helped
reduce production costs, offsetting some of the decline in cash
receipts for many producers.
However, aggregate measures of the health of the farm economy mask
a marked erosion in market income in many regions and commodity
sectors, and all signs now point to greater farm financial stress in
1999. Net cash income is currently projected to decline $3-4 billion.
Land values began declining in a number of Midwestern States during the
last half of 1998, after years of steady increases. The drop in income,
coupled with declining asset values for many producers, means many will
have difficulty obtaining credit, and those who do will use it for
variable cash expenses, not investment, and will find themselves
squeezed trying to repay debt out of current income. For the many
producers who struggled with cash flow in 1998 because of adverse
weather and low prices, problems likely will worsen in 1999.
As a result of increased financial stress in farm country, demand
for USDA farm loans in fiscal year 1999 has been extremely strong. Many
farm families who have been financing their business operations through
their own resources or with a minimum of commercial bank debt are now
seeking farm loan assistance. Commercial lenders are utilizing Farm
Service Agency loan guarantees to restructure the short-term
indebtedness of their customers into more favorable long-term rates so
that they can continue to provide financing. FSA is using all servicing
authorities, including rescheduling and reamortizing, deferring
installments, and debt writedowns to assist FSA borrowers.
However, funds are exhausted or will soon be exhausted for key
credit programs: all emergency loan funds and non-targeted direct farm
ownership loan funds have been obligated already; non-targeted
interest-assisted guaranteed loans and direct farm ownership loans will
be exhausted in March; funding for direct farm operating loans will
last into April, and guaranteed operating loan funding will be gone by
August. Credit is no substitute for income, but adequate credit is
essential to maintaining any farm operation.
For many farmers and ranchers the key to weathering the farm crisis
is duration: how long the period of low commodity prices will last.
According to a 1998 Iowa State University study of 1200 Iowa farmers,
those in basically strong or stable financial condition can withstand a
year of low prices, but if these conditions were to continue for
several years, one-third of the farmers in the study would face
restructuring or liquidation.
There are many uncertainties that could affect market demand and
prices, and, hence, farmers' well-being over the next 1 to 2 years.
Weather is always key; so is the world economy for a farm sector as
export-dependent as American agriculture.
dairy policy reform
Question. Would you please provide your observations or suggestions
relating to changes in USDA programs to help move toward a more
rational and fair dairy policy through either regulatory action or
legislation? In particular, would you address steps that might be taken
to help find a policy of comity among all regions to eliminate the
otherwise unavoidable conflict and turmoil that would result from
regional compacts or other tools of geographic disparity?
Answer. On or before April 4th, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) will issue its final decision on consolidation and reform of
Federal Milk Marketing Orders as mandated by the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (1996 Act) as amended. In the nearly
three years since enactment of the 1996 Act, USDA has requested
information from all segments of the dairy industry and received nearly
4,500 comments on Federal order reform and consolidation. In addition,
USDA established agreements with dairy industry experts in the academic
community to analyze specific issues, including the Class I price
structure and replacement of the Basic Formula Price (BFP) for milk,
and conducted several listening sessions around the country before and
after release of USDA's proposed rule in January 1998. We believe this
meticulous approach in informing the public and obtaining input from
interested parties will yield a final decision that is in the best
interests of all segments of the dairy industry and be fair to all
areas of the country.
emergency precedents
Question. USDA recently announced the granting of $50 million to
hog producers to help offset the dramatic reduction in price. How does
the Department intend to address similar requests from producers of
other commodities (e.g. beef cattle, aquaculture, minor crops, etc.)
now that a precedent appears to have been established?
Answer. Hog producers were hit with the lowest prices in five
decades and we made every effort to find a way to help producers. We
would hope to be able to help other producers in similar circumstances
and are working hard to shore up the safety net for all farmers and
ranchers.
rural rental housing assistance
Question. The budget request for 2000 would reduce the amount
available for Rental Assistance, in part, by deferring a portion of the
funds until October 1, 2000. What effect would this action have on
current tenants of eligible housing facilities and on the USDA housing
programs generally?
Answer. The manner in which the budget is requested for rental
assistance will have no effect either on the flow of funds to the
borrowers or on the tenants of the units. These funds are provided
through five-year contracts and this permits spreading the budget
authority over tow years.
effects of climate change
Question. To what extent is climate change having an impact on USDA
policies? Recent weather events lead to a conclusion that adverse
conditions are affecting agriculture more severely and more
significantly than in earlier decades, resulting in more volatile
markets, reduced farm income, and disruption of consumer expectations.
How is USDA responding to these changes in terms of long-term policy
and what recommendations would you make for Congressional action in
this regard?
Answer. Temperature increases can have both positive and negative
effects on crop and forest yields, with the difference depending on
location and on the magnitude of the increase. And agricultural and
forestry systems are most sensitive to extreme climatic events such as
floods, wind storms, and droughts, and to seasonal variability. Climate
change could alter the frequency and magnitude of extreme events and
change seasonal patterns. Increases in rainfall intensity pose a threat
to agriculture and forestry and the environment because heavy rainfall
is primarily responsible for soil erosion, leaching of agricultural
chemicals, and runoff that carries livestock waste and nutrients into
water bodies. Adjustment costs are likely to be higher with greater
rates of change. While climate change is not expected to seriously
threaten the U.S. ability to produce enough food to feed itself through
the next century, regional production patterns are likely to affected.
Strategies such as changing planting and harvest dates, rotating
crops, selecting varieties for cultivation, changing irrigation
practices, fertilizers and pesticide use, and choosing cultivation and
forest management practices can lessen potential yield losses from
climate change and improve yields in regions where climate change has
beneficial effects.
We need to improve our understanding of how extreme events could
affect agriculture and forestry and develop appropriate management
systems for coping with these events. And we need more research to
explain and predict how agriculture and forestry will be affected by
climate change USDA investment in additional research on the adaptation
of appropriate strategies is needed to gain a better understanding of
the climatic factors that affect enterprise level adoption such as
information flow, access to capital, and the role of global change
public programs and policies.
We need Congressional support for our fiscal year 2000 research and
climate change technology programs so we can conduct this vital
research and demonstrate alternative management practices that not only
address the climate challenge but provide significant benefits in the
form of improved productive capacity of our soils, improved water
quality, and habitat protection. We would also welcome your ideas on
how USDA's programs can be augmented to include greenhouse gas
abatement and carbon sequestration. And we look forward to working with
you to address the international challenge of reducing the atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases in the most cost-effective way.
Question. Reduced farm income increases the difficulty of obtaining
commercial credit. In many cases, commercial lenders are restricted by
state and federal banking requirements in a manner that will adversely
affect farmers when cash flow, debt to assets ratios, or other
financial conditions can not be met. What role is USDA taking with the
financial industry (including federal and state regulators) to help
farmers overcome banking regulatory burdens?
Answer. FSA provides substantive guaranteed loan assistance for
bank customers who have been affected by the weakened farm economy.
With this assistance from FSA, family farmers who otherwise would be
prohibited from obtaining commercial credit are able to continue their
credit relationship with their home-town banks. USDA has no influence
over federal and state regulators. However, issuance of FSA loan
guarantees to commercial lenders gives confidence to regulators that
exposure to loan losses is reduced.
Question. Does USDA intend to seek additional levels of direct farm
credit for Farm Service Agency programs to help offset growing
difficulty of farmers to obtain operating capital from commercial
lenders?
Answer. FSA will utilize all available resources in the farm loan
programs to assist family farmers with their credit needs. Seeking
additional funds for these programs is actively being considered.
Question. Does USDA intend to seek additional farm credit funding
budget authority for fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Use of loan funds in all farm loan programs is being
closely monitored. Deliberation will be given to seek additional
funding authority for programs that will be exhausted before the end of
fiscal year 1999.
loan deficiency payment calculations
Question. It has come to my attention that differences in points of
delivery for certain commodities in WI and MN are working to the
detriment of Wisconsin farmers in the calculation Loan Deficiency
Payments (LDP's). In other states it has been determined that the
existing system for LDP calculations based on posted county prices did
not accurately reflect prices received by producers. Please review the
situation in Wisconsin and report your findings and actions taken to
ensure fair and equitable treatment for Wisconsin producers.
Answer. LDP's are calculated using county loan rates that are
established once a year and Posted County Prices (PCP) that may change
daily. There is a common misconception that the PCP pricing system was
designed to ensure that all producers of a commodity have the potential
of earning the same marketing loan gain or LDP. In actuality, the
primary objective of the PCP system is to determine a value as close as
possible to the local cash market price in any given area. The PCP
system was designed to provide producers with equitable, but not
necessarily equal value for their commodities.
The Kansas City Commodity Office (KCCO) conducts weekly surveys of
187 counties in major production areas throughout the nation to
determine if Posted County Prices (PCP's) accurately reflect local
market prices. The most recent surveys for corn and soybeans were
conducted on March 9 and included four counties in Wisconsin. In
general, the results indicate that PCP's in Wisconsin accurately
reflect local market conditions for these commodities.
If you have specific questions concerning PCP for a specific
commodity or region of Wisconsin, I encourage you to submit your
comments to the Farm Service Agency for further review.
study of dairy prices and the wto
Question. Section 151 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement Act of
1996 calls for a study and report regarding the United States
membership in the World Trade Organization and the potential impact of
such membership on domestic dairy prices, federal dairy programs, and
other related items. This report was to be provided to the House and
Senate Agriculture Committee's no later than July 1, 1997. Please
provide information on the status of this report and, if complete,
would you please provide a copy to this subcommittee?
Answer. The analysis for the study of the impact on milk prices,
producer incomes, and dairy program costs of additional access
resulting from U.S. obligations under the World Trade Organization has
now been completed and the final report is currently being prepared. We
will transmit a copy of the report to Congress as soon as it is
completed.
fsis user fees and farm income
Question. Please explain if you disagree that any FSIS user fee
imposed on meat and poultry companies would not be passed on solely to
producers. Do you believe the major meat and poultry companies act more
competitively in their relationship with consumers than producers? If
so, please explain?
Answer. We do not estimate that the impact of the user fees will be
passed down to producers in the form of lower prices paid. We estimate
that most of the fees will passed on to consumers in the form of higher
retail prices. We estimate that the cost will be passed onto consumers,
because they are less likely to decrease the amount of meat and poultry
they consume as result of higher the higher prices created by the
proposal. The overall impact on retail prices would be less than one
cent per pound.
Question. If so, why is there so much concern expressed by the
Department and elsewhere about concentration with the agricultural
industry, especially in regard to the livestock sector and the effect
of concentration on farm prices?
Answer. There is much concern about concentration in the livestock
sector, because in 1997 the top 4 firms slaughtered 80 percent of the
steers and heifers, 54 percent of the hogs, and 74 percent of the sheep
and lambs. USDA has placed a high priority on addressing issues
surrounding the high levels of concentration in the meat packing
industry. Where anticompetitive practices are found in violation of the
Packers and Stockyards Act, USDA will pursue appropriate remedies
aggressively.
emergency forestry assistance
Question. Emergency Forestry Assistance. The fiscal year 1999
Appropriations Act included $10 million in emergency funding through
the Forestry Incentives Program (FIP) related to forest fires in
Florida and disasters in other states, including Wisconsin. What is the
status of providing this assistance and what plans for distribution of
benefits do you intend to use? Additionally, what timetable do you
envision for delivery of this assistance? Since the identified need in
Wisconsin is nearly $1.3 million for disasters in 1998, and since $10
million provided nationally will not cover all identified needs, will
the Department reflect these shortfalls in emergency funding to states
based on an appropriation of FIP funding for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. On February 16, 1999, $9 million in Forestry Incentives
Program (FIP) funds were allocated to 17 States to address
reforestation needs caused by wildfires and other natural disasters in
1998. A $1 million reserve is being retained for future assistance,
primarily for tree planting needs in Florida. USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) and Forest Service, along with State
foresters, are currently delivering the services associated with this
funding. The Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget currently does
not request funding for the FIP program in fiscal year 2000.
sanctions
Question. Please provide an update on U.S. negotiations regarding
the lifting of sanctions against countries such as Cuba and Iran in
terms of the implications for agriculture. Please provide any
information relating to the effect the lifting of such sanctions would
have for U.S. producers.
Answer. In the case of Cuba, last January, the President announced
an initiative to enhance U.S. support of the Cuban people and to
promote a peaceful transition to democracy. As part of this initiative,
the United States is implementing certain ``new measures'' including
allowing exports of food and certain agricultural commodities to Cuba.
Exports are limited to non-governmental entities in Cuba so that
eligible recipients are effectively small ``mom and pop'' shops,
private farmers and restaurants. While this represents an important
first step, the immediate impact on the level of exports of agriculture
products to Cuba is likely not to be great. USDA will continue to work
with the Commerce Department in drafting the regulations that will
govern these sales.
If sanctions on Cuba were lifted, the United States could
reasonably expect to supply about half of Cuba's agricultural imports
or about $350 million annually. According to some analysis, Cuba has
the potential to become a $1 billion market for agricultural exports
after substantial investment occurs, which would make Cuba the second
largest U.S. agricultural export market in Latin America.
With respect to Iran, in December, the Treasury Department received
a request for approval of a license to broker a sale of approximately
$500 million in agriculture exports to Iran. While a sale of this kind
is currently prohibited under the terms of the comprehensive embargo
against Iran, the request is being given serious consideration by the
Administration. USDA is working to ensure that all points of view are
represented in the decision-making process.
Despite heavy competition from Australia, Canada and South America,
if normal relations were resumed with Iran, it is not unreasonable to
expect that U.S. agricultural exports to Iran could reach $300 million
in a relatively short period of time and perhaps twice as much within
five years. Principal gains for U.S. exports would be in grains and
oilseed products.
assistance to russia
Question. There have been recent claims that Russia has executed
sales of wheat to Iraq. Although there appears to be no evidence that
these sales involved the conveyance of commodities originating in the
U.S. (notwithstanding the fungibility of commodities such as wheat)
these allegations do raise certain questions about the role of U.S.
assistance in Russia. Please provide information that outlines the
steps the U.S. is taking to ensure that food assistance to Russia is
actually being delivered to the populations intended.
Answer. First, it is important to note that Russian government
officials have assured USDA that such shipments are not being
considered.
Second, USDA is taking extraordinary steps to oversee the Russian
food aid package and thereby ensure that the assistance is provided to
the targeted population. To avoid any mishandling of the commodities,
USDA has set up a broad system to monitor compliance of the Russian
government with its commitments under these food aid agreements.
Monitoring will be necessary in two broad areas: (1) the importation,
distribution and sale of the commodities and (2) the deposit of
commodity sale proceeds into the ``Special Account'' by the Russian
Government and subsequent transfer into the Russian pension fund. USDA
monitoring of the agreements will be designed to minimize the potential
for fraud and abuse in the distribution and sale of food aid
commodities, and to ensure that appropriate reporting and monitoring
systems have been designed to ensure that such problems do not occur.
A key item in the process is the establishment of a U.S. Russian
working group in Moscow to identify and resolve any irregularities. The
working group is under the supervision of the Minister Counselor for
Agricultural Affairs, and bears responsibility for approving the
Russian work plans, reviewing logistics and financial reports,
estimating the ruble value of commodity shipments, and recommending to
the Minister Counselor disbursements from the Special Account to the
Pension Fund of the Russian Federal Budget.
On the logistics side, USDA is requiring detailed work plans from
Russian authorities about how and where commodities will be
distributed, and the Russian government will be required to report on
its fulfillment of those work plans.
On the financial side, all records of the Russian Government and
its agents must be made available for inspection by USDA monitors. In
addition, a bi-weekly financial report submitted by the Russian
Government will be reviewed by the working group.
In addition, USDA has established a monitoring group within the
U.S. Embassy. At least four individuals from USDA will be detailed to
Russia on a full-time basis to assist in this effort. The staff will be
placed in both the U.S. Embassy, Moscow and the U.S. Consulate,
Vladivostok. At any one time, at least two of these individuals will be
traveling to the regions to meet with local officials and
organizations, perform spot checks on the deliveries of commodities,
and investigate any allegations of fraud or mishandling of the
commodities. Data on the progress of shipments will be tracked in
Moscow using a sophisticated database created specifically for this
purpose.
Besides the joint U.S.Russian monitoring effort and these
independent U.S. activities, the Russian government has established its
own audit and control operations. The economic crime control unit of
the Ministry of Internal Affairs will be tracking the commodities as
they move within the country, from discharge at the port or point of
entry to purchase within the regions. In addition, the State Customs
Committee and the Ministry of Railways have established their own joint
committee to track the food aid shipments.
USDA believes these actions will greatly help to assure our food
aid benefits a broad spectrum people in Russia who are experiencing a
very difficult situation.
pakistan
Question. Last year, Congress took action relating to sanctions
against Pakistan in order to help protect U.S. agricultural interests
in that country. Now, we hear an opportunity exists to provide an
additional 200,000 tons of wheat to Pakistan, but since that nation is
in default on GSM loans, that sale (or any other) is in jeopardy. What
is USDA doing to help protect markets such as this?
Answer. To help Pakistan meet its wheat import needs and preserve
U.S. access to that market this year, USDA has donated a total of
300,000 metric tons of wheat under the authority of section 416(b) of
the Agricultural Act of 1949. The wheat will be shipped this spring. In
addition, USDA is providing to Pakistan $15 million worth of additional
wheat and $10 million worth of soybeans under the Public Law 480 Title
I concessional sales program. These food aid activities are not
precluded by the default under the CCC export credit guarantee program.
Question. To what extent is the Pakistan problem related to the
general financial pressures in that part of the world?
Answer. The Asian financial crisis is a contributing factor to
Pakistan's current financial woes, along with the economic sanctions
imposed after the nuclear tests in May, and Pakistan's own difficulties
in managing its economy effectively. The extent to which financial
problems in Asia have affected Pakistan's finances in general and its
ability to buy U.S. wheat in particular is difficult to quantify.
For example, the value of cotton and textiles exports, which
constitute about two-thirds of Pakistan's $7.5 billion annual export
earnings, is down about 15 percent this year compared to last. This is
partly due to reduced exports to Far Eastern markets as a result of the
economic downturn there and partly due to depressed prices in general
as a result of the global economic situation. At the same time, worker
remittances (a major source of foreign exchange) have virtually dried
up since the Government of Pakistan's hard currency bank accounts were
frozen last May following the nuclear tests.
Question. How many other trading partners, or potential trading
partners, are in similar situations?
Answer. Pakistan has managed to remain current on payments to the
Australian and Canadian wheat boards, so those agencies do not face the
same situation as the United States.
dairy export incentive program
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget reflects a decrease in this
program. Please provide information relating to this program's use in
fiscal year 1999 and the reasons for the projected reduction in 2000.
Answer. The President's budget assumes that bonus awards under the
Dairy Export Incentive Program will reach $99 million in 2000, which is
just slightly below the level of $102 million projected for 1999.
However, these numbers are only projections of program activity. The
actual level of DEIP bonus awards in both 1999 and 2000 will be
determined by market conditions and the Uruguay Round Agreement subsidy
reduction commitments.
banana regime issues
Question. A February 3rd article in the Journal of Commerce
discusses the relationship of the current Banana Regime issue with the
overall economies in the Caribbean Basin and suggests that a U.S.
victory at the WTO may ultimately cause the U.S. more harm than good.
Would you please comment on that statement and provide an overview of
the implications of the Banana Regime issue on U.S. agricultural trade?
Answer. The issues in the EU Banana Regime case ultimately test
whether the EU will provide access to its market on a fair and non-
discriminatory basis. While the Banana case does not present a
situation in which U.S. agricultural products are being denied access,
it does present a situation in which U.S. businesses that supply or
service agriculture (e.g., U.S. farm equipment manufacturers,
fertilizer producers, marketing firms, etc.) have suffered injury
because of discriminatory practices. Maintaining the principles of fair
access to the EU market is an important issue for U.S. agriculture in
general.
The Banana case also tests whether the EU will comply with its
obligations under the WTO or will ignore the Dispute Settlement Body
(DSB) Panel rulings. If it ignores the DSB rulings, the benefits of the
Uruguay Round will be put at risk for all members.
The United States, and U.S. agriculture in particular, has a strong
interest in an effective WTO dispute settlement mechanism. Since the
WTO was established in 1995, the United States has received favorable
decisions in three agricultural cases and has three other cases pending
where preliminary findings have supported our positions. In addition,
the United States has resolved a number of agricultural issues through
the WTO consultation mechanism without going to a panel.
food safety
bio-terrorism
Question. Please explain the steps USDA is taking, along with other
Federal agencies, regarding the threat of intentional contamination of
our food supply as either part of an international terrorism threat or
any other means. To what extent does the President's Food Safety
Initiative address this issue?
Answer. APHIS has requested $1.2 million in the fiscal year 2000
President's Budget to develop a national emergency management system to
meet the needs of emergency disease outbreaks and emerging animal
health issues including microbiological residues, manure management,
transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, and biological terrorism.
Components of the system would include prevention activities such as
surveillance and a national disease reporting system; preparedness
activities such as training and the development of response plans; and
response and recovery activities. Of the $1.2 million, approximately
$700,000 would be used to survey for significant animal health events
including biological terrorism. APHIS would also conduct 4 training
sessions for Agency and State employees and industry representatives
regarding biological terrorism, decontamination procedures, and other
animal health events. The remaining $500,000 would be used to complete
a master plan for the new system and to develop a National Animal
Disease Reporting System and Geographical Information System. The
President's Food Safety Initiative does not include any funds for
bioterrorism activities.
haccp
Question. Please provide information regarding the effect HACCP
implementation is having on small firms. Since implementation of HACCP
at the small firm level is very recent, have there been any
unanticipated problems that should be considered by the Appropriations
Committee that might not have been known at the time the fiscal year
2000 budget request was being developed?
Answer. Approximately 2,200 small establishments were required to
implement Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems by
January of this year. At this time we have not encountered any serious
problems.
pesticide data program
Question. Please provide information explaining the role of the
Pesticide Data Program (PDP) within the context of food safety. Also,
please provide information that directly links the PDP to the
availability of pesticides for producers, especially for producers of
minor crops.
Answer. The Pesticide Data Program (PDP) provides data on pesticide
use and residue detections for a variety of commodities as close to the
point of consumption as possible. The program was created to strengthen
the Government's ability to respond to food safety concerns, to protect
public health, and to provide the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
with the data needed to assess the actual dietary risk posed by
pesticides. The availability of this data has become more critical with
the passage of the Food Quality Protection (FQPA), which established
more stringent health-based standards for pesticide residues to assure
protection of the public, especially for at risk populations, such as
the elderly and children. Without actual residue data, risk assessment
studies for pesticides are based on a theoretical maximum amounts of
pesticide use. Such studies may greatly overstate the exposure to
consumers and may jeopardize EPA's registration of pesticides important
to agriculture. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) utilizes the
data to more accurately identify and respond to instances in which
pesticide residues exceed established tolerances.
About 88 percent of PDP data are for pesticide residues on minor
crops. These data have been extremely useful in conducting evaluations
necessary to retain the pesticide registration for pesticides needed to
sustain minor crops.
income, markets, and resource protection
invasive species
Question. Please provide information relating to potential cost to
the national economy due to the existing and potential introduction of
alien species for which USDA has regulatory jurisdiction. In what areas
of the nation are these problems the most serious?
Answer. On February 3,1999, the President announced an Executive
Order to expand the effort to address the growing environmental and
economic threat of invasive species. This order establishes an
interagency Invasive Species Council with the Department's of
Agriculture, Commerce and Interior with the Secretaries as co-chairs.
Experts estimate that invasive species already infest over 100 million
acres of the United States and is growing at a rate of 3 million acres
annually. The costs to the U.S. economy are about $123 billion
annually.
Question. Is there any way to better protect areas into which these
species may migrate in the immediate future?
Answer. The Council will develop a comprehensive plan to minimize
the economic, ecological, and human health impacts of invasive species
and determine further steps to prevent the introduction and spread of
invasive species.
Question. From a budgetary perspective, keeping in mind the
constrains on this subcommittee, what are the best strategies to
control the threat from these pests?
Answer. The USDA budget includes an increase of $16 million for
programs to combat invasive species by preventing entry, improving
monitoring and detection, providing rapid assessment and eradication,
increasing crosscutting research and technology, and developing
partnerships directed at education and outreach.
organic certification
Question. Please provide information regarding finalization of the
Organic Certification program. In which areas of the nation do you
believe this program will be the most important from both a producer
and consumer perspective?
Answer. USDA is currently working with the organic community and
consumers to develop a regulation that responds to the 275,000 comments
received in response to the proposed rule. Since publication of the
rule, USDA has published several issue papers to gather further input
on animal confinement, animal medications, and procedures for
termination of producer certification. USDA's goal is to establish
clear, consistent regulations that stimulate the growth of the organic
livestock sector, satisfy consumer expectations and allow organic
livestock producers flexibility in making site-specific, real-time
management decisions. Although some areas of the country may produce
more organic product than others, both producers and consumers
Nationwide will benefit from the uniform standards established by this
rule.
wetlands reserve program
Question. Will the expected enrollments in the Wetlands Reserve
Program (WRP) in fiscal year 2000 bring total enrollments to the fully
authorized level?
Answer. Yes, the requested enrollment for fiscal year 2000 would
bring the total WRP enrollment up to the 975,000 acre enrollment cap.
Question. In the event the WRP enrollment authorization is met,
does USDA intend to request additional authorization? If so, when and
to what levels?
Answer. Once the cap is reached, USDA would have to seek new
authority to enroll additional acres. The President's Clean Water
Action Plan recommends that up to 250,000 acres be enrolled in the WRP
each year over a five-year period.
watershed infrastructure reliability
Question. Watershed Infrastructure Reliability. Since many
watershed structures are reaching their life expectancy, what does USDA
plan to do to help avoid continuing deterioration of these structures
beyond educational activities?
Answer. Beyond the one-time educational program, USDA has no firm
plans to address the continuing deterioration of the structures built
under the Small Watershed Program. However, USDA is exploring ideas on
how best to assist sponsors in addressing the problem within current
authorities and budget constraints.
Question. To what extent does the current status of these
structures present a threat to public safety?
Answer. In some instances, especially with older watershed
structures that have not been properly maintained, there has been
significant deterioration which could create an imminent threat to
public safety. While downstream developments are also placing people at
risk, there have been no examples where failure of an NRCS assisted
structure resulted in loss of life.
Question. Please explain if you believe the level of activity
needed to correct the problem of deteriorating infrastructure does not
rise above the normal maintenance requirement, and thereby places
burden of repair solely on local watershed organizations.
Answer. The problem of deteriorating dams after they reach their
designed life is more complex than sponsors merely not maintaining the
dams. However, it is our current position that the sponsors of dams
built under the Small Watershed Program are responsible and liable for
the operations and maintenance, as well as compliance with all state
and federal laws involving dam safety and environmental permits.
Currently, USDA has no statutory authority to provide financial
assistance for operations, maintenance nor rehabilitation.
resource conservation and development
Question. Do you believe Resource Conservation and Development
(RC&D) districts should be expanded in number or should the areas be
expanded geographically? Should the RC&D program contain a
``graduation'' requirement which would allow new districts to come into
the program as others leave due to either completion of RC&D goals or
inactivity?
Answer. At current funding levels, we can only adequately support
the 315 existing RC&D areas and could not afford any program expansion.
There are currently 37 applications for new area authorizations on file
with an additional 20 councils being formed.
The RC&D program should only contain a ``graduation'' requirement
for those RC&D Councils found to be inactive or performing below a
minimum level. This would be a `de-designation' of a RC&D area. USDA,
in consultation with the National Association of RC&D Councils, Inc.
has developed minimum performance criteria for RC&D Councils. The 315
existing designated area councils will be requested to assess their
performance using this criteria this fiscal year and identify actions
to improve where needed. Inactive or limited performance councils would
be provided the opportunity to revise their area plan and strengthen
results. USDA could then determine to withdraw assistance if
insufficient progress occurs. We expect that this would rarely occur.
rural housing rental assistance
Question. The budget request for 2000 would reduce the amount
available for Rental Assistance, in part by deferring a portion of the
funds until October 1, 2000. What effect would this action have on
current tenants of eligible housing facilities and on the USDA housing
programs generally?
Answer. The 2000 budget actually provides for an increase in rental
assistance, from $583 million that was appropriated for 1999 to $640
million for new and expiring contracts in 2000. Rental assistance is
provided through 5 year contracts and dispersed over the period of
these contracts. Therefore, it is not necessary to have the total
amount of funds to support these contracts available in the fiscal year
they are made. While the 2000 budget reflects a change in the way
rental assistance is budgeted, making some of the funding available in
a subsequent budget year, this change is not expected to have any
impact on program recipients. The 2000 budget provides sufficient
funding for the renewal of all existing rental assistance contracts
that are expected to expire in 2000, and for new contracts to support
the loans and grants expected to be made for farm labor housing and the
on-going rural rental housing loan program.
formula research funding
Question. For the first time in many years, Congress in fiscal year
1999 appropriated funding level increases for many of the Formula
Funded research programs, such as Hatch Act, Smith-Lever, and other
programs important to states and rural areas. However, the fiscal year
2000 budget request, again, calls for significant reductions in these
accounts. Please explain the rationale for these reductions, the
anticipated effect it will have on state and country based research and
extension activities, and the extent to which USDA consulted with its
state and local partners in this decision.
Answer. The Administration advocates a broad range of funding
mechanisms in support of university-based agricultural research,
education, and extension. These mechanisms, including formula programs,
competitive grants, special grants and projects, and other programs--
such as Smith-Lever 3(d)--are interdependent and jointly contribute to
the success of our knowledge-based system of agriculture. Although some
states may be impacted by the cut in formulas, the vast majority
continue to match federal dollars at a rate of four state dollars to
every federal dollar. The priorities which define Federal support for
programs in agricultural science and education are developed through a
collaborative, State/Federal process of consultation with stakeholders,
mutual planning, and in almost all cases, joint investment.
methyl bromide
Question. Please provide information regarding USDA activities in
fiscal year 1999 and in the fiscal year 2000 budget relating to methyl
bromide alternatives, including your expectations on finding an
acceptable alternative in the near term, and please note any changes in
program activities that may have resulted from last year's extension of
production phase-out from 2000 until 2005.
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, ARS has nearly $14,400,000
appropriated for research on methyl bromide alternatives. The funds
currently are distributed among 20 ARS locations (see table). About
half of the funds are in the two states that are most impacted by the
impending loss of methyl bromide--California ($4,374,000) and Florida
($3,029,000). The Honolulu, HI, and Weslaco, TX, locations, where
research on methyl bromide alternatives for quarantine purposes is
conducted, account for an additional 25 percent of the funding
($3,168,000).
ARS Funding for Methyl Bromide Alternatives Research is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Location 1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davis, CA............................... $ 226,000 $ 226,000
Fresno, CA.............................. 3,485,400 3,485,400
Riverside, CA........................... 126,600 126,600
Salinas, CA............................. 535,900 535,900
Washington, DC.......................... 241,200 241,200
Gainesville, FL......................... 213,000 213,000
Miami, FL............................... 1,219,300 1,219,300
Orlando, FL............................. 1,597,100 1,597,100
Byron, GA............................... 83,900 83,900
Tifton, GA.............................. 462,200 462,200
Honolulu, HI............................ 1,684,700 1,684,700
Manhattan, KS........................... 70,800 70,800
Beltsville, MD.......................... 1,048,200 1,048,200
Stoneville, MS.......................... 182,200 182,200
Corvallis, OR........................... 487,400 487,400
Charleston, SC.......................... 330,600 330,600
Weslaco, TX............................. 1,482,900 1,482,900
Wenatchee, WA........................... 209,200 209,200
Yakima, WA.............................. 258,000 258,000
Kearneysville, WV....................... 435,000 435,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 14,379,600 14,379,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other USDA agencies with methyl bromide alternatives research
projects are the Forest Service (FS) and Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). The Forest Service (FS) has
reestablished nursery programs at Athens, Georgia, and St. Paul,
Minnesota, with the goal of developing integrated pest management
programs that will ensure high quality seedlings. In the postharvest
area, FS, together with the Foreign Agricultural Service(FAS)and the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), has been successful
in negotiations to get U.S. heat-treated coniferous wood accepted into
Europe and kiln-dried lumber into Korea in lieu of fumigation with
methyl bromide. CSREES, which administers the NRI competitive grants,
has funded research on biological control of soilborne diseases.
An increase of $5 million is proposed in fiscal year 2000 for a new
competitive grants program in CSREES aimed to support the discovery and
implementation of practical pest management alternatives for
commodities affected by the methyl bromide phase-out. The new program
will focus on short- to intermediate-terms solutions for all
commodities at risk. Activities will involve research designed to
deliver and demonstrate the practicality and economic feasibility of
new technologies.
An acceptable alternative must allow growers to raise a profitable
crop reliably from year to year. In the short term, it is clear that
acceptable alternatives will have to come from among those already
under development and testing. Because methyl bromide is effective over
a wide range of soil types, climates, and crops, no single alternative
is available to replace all the uses. The most likely short-time
alternatives will be replacement fumigants that are already registered.
Other kinds of alternatives, such as resistant varieties, biological
control, and cultural improvements, show promise; but there is not
enough time to develop and adapt them to acceptable cropping systems
before the phase-out. Even for replacement fumigants, results are mixed
and not as consistent as methyl bromide--probably why the replacements
have not been widely adopted as long as methyl bromide is available.
Although there are likely to be short-term replacements for some
uses of methyl bromide, in most cases, the alternative is likely to
cost more and be less effective. Serious economic consequences and
shifts in agriculture within states and among foreign countries are
expected.
The strategy for finding alternatives is not expected to change
because of the extension of the phase-out; there will just be more time
to look for solutions. The strategy remains to identify and develop
alternatives in laboratories and small plots, then test the most
promising ones in larger plots under a variety of conditions, and
finally to select the most effective and validate their effectiveness
in commercial field-scale settings. The final stages are done with the
cooperation of the agriculture industries and growers, many times on
grower land.
user fee offsets
Question. Section 754 of the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Act
directed that any submission of unauthorized user fees in the fiscal
year 2000 budget request before this subcommittee would have to include
certain additional information if the revenue for those fees was
necessary to meet the President's budget authority requirements. While
the budget authority request for FSIS appears to include the full
amount necessary for inspection and related activities in fiscal year
2000, the table found on page 379 of the Budget reflects a total
discretionary requirement for this subcommittee that assumes the $504
million in proposed revenues from unauthorized user fees for FSIS
activities. Please list by USDA agency and by amount any assumptions of
revenues from unauthorized user fees to achieve the discretionary
spending found on page 379 and, consistent with Section 754 please note
the funding levels currently in the budget request recommended for
reduction in the event the fees in question are not authorized prior to
the convening of a committee of conference for the fiscal year 2000
appropriations bill.
Answer. We will provide the information for the record.
[The information follows:]
FISCAL YEAR 2000 FEE PROPOSALS WHICH IMPACT DISCRETIONARY SPENDING
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget
Agency Proposal Authority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food Safety and Inspection Salaries and -504
Services. Expenses. This
proposal would
charge fees for the
full cost of
providing Federal
inspection of meat,
poultry, and egg
products. The user
fees exclude Grants
to States and
Special Assistance
to State Programs..
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Salaries and -9
Service. Expenses. This
proposal would
establish user fees
for costs for
animal welfare
inspections and
issuance of
biotechnology
certificates..
Grain Inspection, Packers and Salaries and -19
Stockyards Administration. Expenses. This
proposal would
establish a fee for
grain
standardization and
a licensing fee to
cover the costs of
administering the
provisions of the
Packers and
Stockyards Act
relating to meat
packing and
stockyards
activities..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
county and state office streamlining
Question. To what extent are total agency costs in the office
consolidations considered? For example, would USDA require relocation
of a state office for one agency in order for all state agencies to be
in a single location if the cost for the relocation exceeded the costs
of current locations?
Answer. FSA with NRCS and RD will be establishing a working group
comprised of representatives from management and the unions to develop
a plan for implementing office consolidations where these are not
already in place. The working group will be looking at every aspect of
plans to achieve savings under current budget resources. It is possible
that the benefits to producers and field offices of a common state
office location could outweigh a somewhat higher cost, yes.
employee reductions and office closures
Question. Since budget constraints are resulting in lower service
levels in field offices due to increased workload and a reduced
workforce, has USDA conducted an evaluation to determine when the
continuation of a county office in a given location is of less
importance to the customer than the maintenance of ``service'' in the
area? At what point does the presence of a workforce in an area become
more important than the existence of a field office regardless of
whether that office can meet workload requirements?
Answer. The Agency is continually monitoring workload in States to
determine areas of increased workload and moves both human and monetary
resources to those areas based on availability to provide the most
effective and efficient service to its customers. State Executive
Directors have been charged to use all management tools available to
ensure that producers are served as expeditiously as possible using
details, directed reassignment of employees, shared management and
office collocation and consolidation to get the work accomplished. When
the cost of keeping a service center in operation exceeds the benefit
of service provided at the counter, States consider closure and
consolidation of operations to improve efficiency but only with
Congressional concurrence.
farm service agency federal and county employment statues
Question. Please provide an update on activities relating to the
conversion of Farm Service Agency (FSA) county personnel to Federal
status.
Answer. No further discussion or action has been taken in
converting FSA county employees to Federal status. Currently, the
Secretary is on record as being in favor of this conversion. No
Congressional action has been taken to enact this proposal. However, on
October 21, 1998, the President signed Public Law 105-277 which
contained a section to provide permanent FSA County Office committee
employees with Federal Civil Service status for only the purpose of
applying for USDA Civil Service vacancies.
farm service agency salaries and expenses
Question. The fiscal year 2000 request for FSA Salaries and
Expenses includes an $80 million increase, although that increase does
not take into account the additional $40 million provided as emergency
spending in fiscal year 1999 which reduces the actual increase to $40
million. To what extent has the FSA Salaries and Expenses account been
supplemented by carryover balances in past years and how much will be
available in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Historically, there has been carryover in past years. FSA
has both Federal offices and Non Federal County Offices, and the
ability to obligate administrative funds for carryover workload is
authorized by a general provision in each year's appropriation act,
which is only applicable to the non Federal county offices. Funds
obligated for carryover workload expenses are normally kept at a
minimum. Funds made available to county committees in a fiscal year are
based on actual and estimated workload and staff year requirements
according to the FSA County Office Work Measurement and Funding
Allocation System. Requirements are updated during the year to take
into account changing conditions. Programs administered by county
committees are highly volatile in nature and subject to rapid changes.
Such changes include weather conditions, domestic market prices, export
sales, legislative and policy changes. Many emergency programs end up
being quickly administered at mid-fiscal year or late in the fiscal
year. In a disaster situation the top priority is to furnish a check to
a farmer or rancher as quickly as possible, so most county offices must
end up delaying or completing the process of all necessary paperwork
according to required procedures in order to comply with Agency
procedures as well as satisfy general and specific audits by OIG and/or
GAO.
In past years, for example, obligated carryover in fiscal year 1997
amounted to $63.8 million of which $50.8 million was designated for use
in fiscal year 1998 and $13 million for use in fiscal year 1999. The
ending obligated carryover for fiscal year 1998 was actually $32.1
million which includes the $13 million brought forward from fiscal year
1998 and programmed for fiscal year 1999. The $32.1 million is for
carryover workload expenses to be completed in fiscal year 1999. There
is currently no expected carryover estimate for fiscal year 2000, given
1999 funding enacted.
Question. To what extent will the $80 million increase described in
the fiscal year 2000 budget request actually reflect an increase in
funding available to a maintain personnel?
Answer. The increase is actually $40.5 million. The 1999 funding
level includes the additional $40 million provided by the emergency
appropriations title of the 1999 Act. This funding identified as
administrative support for the emergency programs allowed FSA to
maintain fiscal year 1998 staffing levels into fiscal year 1999. An
increase of approximately $40.5 million over the fiscal year 1999
enacted level is required to sustain critical program delivery,
including pay costs at a reduced staffing level, offset by some
decreased operating costs. After adjusting fiscal year 1999 for $32.1
million in obligated carryover funding, the actual net increase for
fiscal year 2000 amounts to only $8.4 million. Therefore, the small
increase in total availability actually requires a decrease in staffing
because of pay and related costs.
Question. In what manner does the agency expect to reduce the
staffing levels to those included in the budget documents by the end of
fiscal year 2000.
Answer. fiscal year 2000 Explanatory Notes reflect a decrease of
752 staff years for Federal and non-Federal staffing level, from fiscal
year 1999 staffing of 16,545 FTE's to fiscal year 2000 staffing level
of 15,793. FSA has no buyouts or RIF's planned for fiscal year 2000.
The Agency hopes to achieve the 752 decrease in staff years through
attrition, which will be difficult.
Question. What effect will this have on the administration of
programs and the level of service afforded to customers?
Answer. Because workload, particularly for marketing assistance
loans, loan deficiency payments and farm loans, is expected to increase
in fiscal year 2000, the proposed reduction of 752 staff-years proposed
will pose a formidable challenge to FSA The Agency will strive for
maximum efficiency in program delivery as it continues with its
reengineering efforts for program and administrative services. But
ultimately, these reductions will negatively impact program delivery in
terms of delays in delivering payments to farmers, and in implementing
emergency and disaster programs across the nation, particularly in
locations already minimally staffed as a result of previous agency
downsizing.
conservation technical assistance
Question. To what extent will the restrictions on Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) Section 11 reimbursements affect the administration
of conservation programs in fiscal year 2000? Does USDA plan any
action, either administratively or through requests to Congress, to
correct any serious problem posed by the Section 11 limitation?
Answer. Section 161 of the 1996 farm bill amended Section 11 of the
CCC Charter Act to limit the uses of CCC funds for reimbursable
agreements and transfers and allotments of funds to State and Federal
agencies. In fiscal year 2000, after adjusting the cap to remove the
Emerging Markets Program from the base, the total expenditure of CCC
funds for such uses may not exceed $36.2 million. The budget projects
obligations under the revised cap for reimbursable agreements will
total $36.2 million in fiscal year 2000, excluding funding for
technical assistance for the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Technical assistance needs in
fiscal year 2000 for the WRP are estimated to total $18.3 million, with
$2.0 million provided from unobligated prior year appropriations and
$9.8 million from funds available under the Section 11 cap, leaving a
shortfall of $6.5 million. Technical assistance needs in fiscal year
2000 for the CRP are estimated to total $18.1 million. However, no
funds for CRP technical assistance in fiscal year 2000 are available
from unobligated prior year appropriations, no CCC funding has been
provided for, and we are therefore attempting to determine appropriate
actions to resolve the funding shortfall.
food gleaning savings
Question. As efforts at Food Gleaning become more successful, will
there by any anticipated future savings for USDA feeding programs? If
so, when might these be realized and to what levels might they reach?
Answer. Gleaning provides America the opportunity to save, and to
provide to low income people, huge quantities of food that would
otherwise go to waste. While it is reasonable to anticipate that,
overall, this could affect demand for Federally funded nutrition
assistance, we anticipate that the effects will be small and very much
at the margins. Mostly the gleaning effort will help people who don't
otherwise get enough to eat, some of whom are program participants, and
many who are not. However, gleaning in no way is seen as supplanting,
even partially, the need for the Nation's nutrition safety net. It will
augment it. It will reduce waste and augment nutrition assistance at
very little cost compared to the value of the food that can be saved
for human consumption.
usda agricultural policy advisory committee (apac)
Question. Please provide an update on the status of nominations to
the USDA Agricultural Policy Committee (APAC). Wisconsin has a
candidate that represents the small and medium-sized family dairies
that are prevalent in the Midwest. What is the Department's status on
completing those nominations?
Answer. We are in the final phases of the review process and
anticipate the process will be completed by the end of March.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dorgan
disaster program sign-up
Question. Not only do we have a farm program safety net that is not
working, but our delivery system is also facing serious problems. Sign
up for the 1998 and multi-year crop disaster assistance programs were
scheduled to start a week ago Monday (Feb. 1). Last week, it was
announced that farmers should wait a week before coming in, because our
county offices didn't have all the materials available to sign farmers
up. Yesterday, I was informed that our farmers would have to wait
another week until a computer download could be completed. We have also
had a serious backlog in processing of farm credit applications.
While I recognize that FSA staff has been working extremely hard to
get disaster aid to our farmers, the fact is that there has not been
adequate staffing to effectively deliver the programs on a timely basis
to our producers. This is a critical time for our farmers. They are in
the midst of arranging financing for this year's crops. For many, the
disaster payments will make the difference between whether they are
able to farm this spring. Yet, the proposed budget is still
recommending a reduction in FSA staffing. What is the Department's
future plans so that farmers can be assured that they will receive
timely delivery of USDA service through FSA?
Answer. FSA county staffing has declined by 28 percent from 1993 to
1998 as a result of appropriations actions, field office streamlining
and workload reductions resulting from the 1996 Farm Bill. The
emergency funding of $40 million included in the 1999 appropriations
act has allowed FSA to maintain approximately the same staffing level
in 1999 as in 1998. However, it did not provide for any additional
staff to handle the large workload increases associated with the new
emergency disaster assistance programs. The additional programs have
strained FSA delivery in many States. This has compounded backlogs
associated with the increased activity in the loan deficiency payments,
marketing loan assistance, other assistance activities stemming from
low prices, and the disbursement of disaster payments.
The proposed fiscal year 2000 staff reductions may affect program
delivery and service to producers, particularly in locations already
minimally staffed as a result of previous agency downsizing. Without
significant improvement in commodity prices, these proposed staffing
reductions may not be consistent with the economic realities we are
facing and the resultant workload. We will be reassessing our needs in
order to deliver assistance to farmers timely.
farm credit assistance
Question. Yesterday, Vice-President Gore announced that a Federal
rule change would be issued later this week to streamline the
procedures for the handling of guaranteed farm ownership and operating
loans. This is welcomed news. But, a streamlined process doesn't help
when the program is out of funds. In North Dakota, the allocations for
a number of categories of guaranteed FSA loans are already fully used.
What additional amounts of FSA credit will be needed to meet the needs
for this spring and when will USDA submit such requests to Congress?
Answer. FSA intends to pool and redistribute unused funds in March
for the guaranteed operating with interest assistance and farm
ownership loan programs. This action will help alleviate, but not
eliminate, funding shortages in North Dakota. The option of seeking
additional farm loan funding authority from Congress is under review.
Question. In addition, what changes would you recommend to current
FSA credit authorities so that you can provide appropriated credit to
serve the needs of family farmers in this period of distress?
Answer. FSA is confident that existing loan programs, if fully
funded, will meet the needs of family farmers affected by low commodity
prices. FSA farm loans provide low-interest rate assistance in the
direct and guaranteed operating with interest assistance programs.
Lenders are able to restructure the indebtedness of their customers
with FSA guaranteed operating and farm ownership loans.
flooded lands relief
Question. Last year, you announced a $12 million program under the
Disaster Reserve Assistance Program to assist livestock producers who
experienced flooding due to natural disasters. In addition, $35 million
was allocated for flooded agricultural lands as part of the $2.4
billion disaster assistance package. These programs are urgently needed
in our region, particularly in the Devils Lake area which has suffered
for the past six years with flooding. When will USDA have these
programs ready so that farmers can begin signing up for them and
receiving assistance from them?
Answer. The regulation is currently going through departmental
clearance. Immediately upon OMB clearance and publication in the
Federal Register signup will begin. We have been working with the
impacted states to determine the length of signup needed. Input from
the states indicates that a six week signup period is needed. Data will
be uploaded to determine a factor and issue payments.
fsa budget priorities
Question. At a time when FSA is having difficulty maintaining
adequate staff and county offices to deliver farm programs to our
farmers, I am greatly concerned about the Agency's priorities. While I
do not oppose the co-location of USDA state offices, I am greatly
concerned that our FSA state office may be required to move its office
to Bismarck with moving costs estimated at almost $1 million. In
addition, since there is not adequate space in the current federal
building in Bismarck in which USDA offices are currently housed, it
would also mean the construction of a new facility. Based on projected
costs savings, it would take almost a dozen years for FSA to recover
enough in savings to pay for this move.
At a time when FSA is seriously behind in its workload and has been
cutting staff at the county level in recent years, it would make more
sense to use existing funds for providing direct service to producers,
rather than moving offices. I would request that the Department conduct
a thorough review of this proposed move and report its findings to this
subcommittee prior to taking any further action on this matter.
Answer. As part of the 1994 reorganization, the Department of
Agriculture has been consolidating administrative organizations that
provide support to program managers. Currently three separate
administrative structures provide support to the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, and the Farm and Foreign Agriculture Services and
Rural Development mission areas--down from nine such organizations in
1993. The Department has combined these three structures into one unit
which will be known as the Support Services Bureau, and by delegating
the authority to conduct most administrative functions to the state
level, closer to the customer.
This action was implemented due to the following reasons:
--A consolidated structure will deliver better services to our local
customers and employees.
--A consolidated structure will provide for a new consistency in
administrative policy.
--A consolidated structure will make better use of limited
administrative resources.
--A more efficient administrative structure will help to preserve
limited budget resources for program delivery.
The proposal to consolidate the Bismark FSA State Office with the
other agencies is part of this plan. FSA, NRCS, and RD will be
establishing a working group comprised of representatives from
management and the unions to develop a plan for implementing the
administrative convergence. The working group will be looking at every
aspect of the plan to achieve savings under current budget
circumstances, but will certainly take into consideration the balancing
of moving costs necessary to achieve the convergence plan with any
diminished service level to producers. We will advise the subcommittee
prior to consolidating the offices at Bismarck.
trade & policy research center
Question. USDA's budget for fiscal year 2000 includes funding for
the Trade and Policy Research Center at North Dakota State University.
The budget states that the project will contribute primarily to the
Department's Strategic Goal 1, ``An agricultural production system that
is highly competitive in the global economy,'' and Goal 5, ``Enhanced
economic opportunities and quality of life for families and
communities.'' Please provide for the record a statement on the longer-
term need for the research and analysis which will be provided by the
Trade and Policy Research Center for the Northern Plains Region, and
how this would complement and supplement research conducted by the Food
and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI).
Answer. The Northern Plains Policy and Trade Research Center
(NPPTRC) at North Dakota State University has been a member of the Food
and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) consortium for
several years and provided important analytical input that is unique to
the large northern plains region of the United States. Most other
consortium members receive federal funding for the work they do on
behalf of several states in their respective regions while NPPTRC has
been representing the northern plains states primarily with its own
resources. The proposed research project will greatly enhance the
quality of policy and trade research in the northern plains and improve
the FAPRI agricultural forecasts. The NPPTRC global wheat model and
global sugar model currently interact with the FAPRI model in
evaluating agricultural outlook for wheat and sugar. The proposed
program will enhance the quality of these models as well as develop new
analytical tools that capture the unique resource endowment, climate,
crop mix, and marketing environment of the northern plains and provide
timely analyses of major trade issues and policy changes for private
and public decision makers.
usda epscor
Question. Congress for a number of years has directed USDA to use
10 percent of its National Research Initiative Competitive Grants
Program (NRI) funding for an Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research (EPSCoR). USDA EPSCoR strengthens our nation's
research capability and helps ensure that quality research in the
agricultural sciences is a nationwide commitment. Using the three most
recent years for which data is available, what percentage of NRI
funding was committed to researchers in the USDA-EPSCoR States?
Answer. The percentage of NRI funding committed to researchers in
the USDA-EPSCoR states for the three most recent years for which data
are available is as follows: 1996 = 12.7 percent; 1997 = 12.6 percent;
1998 = 15.2 percent.
Question. Please provide a chart listing, by state, the number of
proposals submitted to each of the four USDA EPSCoR award areas
(Research Career Enhancement Awards, Equipment Grants, Seed Grants and
Strengthening Standard Project Awards), and the number of those
proposals which received funding.
Answer. The number of proposals submitted by and awards made to
USDA-EPSCoR states in the NRI Research Career Enhancement Awards,
Equipment Grants, Seed Grants and Strengthening Standard Project Awards
programs are as follows:
NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research Career Equipment Grants Seed Grants Strengthening
Enhancement Awards ------------------------------------------ Standard Research
State --------------------- Project Awards
Proposals Awards Proposals Awards --------------------
Proposals Awards Proposals Awards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996
Alaska...................... ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ........ 3 ........
American Samoa.............. ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ........
Arkansas.................... ......... ........ 2 2 5 1 11 5
Connecticut................. ......... ........ 1 1 3 3 11 2
Delaware.................... ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ........ 10 3
District of Columbia........ ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ........ 1 ........
Guam........................ ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ........
Hawaii...................... ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ........ 2 ........
Idaho....................... ......... ........ 2 2 3 3 17 4
Maine....................... 1 ........ 1 ........ 3 1 9 1
Micronesia.................. ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ........
Mississippi................. ......... ........ 3 2 5 1 11 3
Montana..................... 1 1 3 1 5 ........ 13 5
Nevada...................... ......... ........ ......... ........ 1 ........ 5 ........
New Hampshire............... 1 ........ ......... ........ 3 1 5 2
New Mexico.................. ......... ........ 3 2 1 ........ 5 ........
North Dakota................ ......... ........ 5 ........ 5 2 8 3
Northern Marianas........... ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ........
Puerto Rico................. ......... ........ ......... ........ 2 ........ ......... ........
Rhode Island................ ......... ........ 6 4 7 ........ 7 ........
South Carolina.............. ......... ........ 1 1 10 3 13 2
West Virginia............... ......... ........ ......... ........ 3 ........ 9 2
Wyoming..................... ......... ........ 1 ........ 5 1 5 1
Fiscal year 1997
Alaska...................... ......... ........ ......... ........ 1 ........ 3 ........
American Samoa.............. ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ........
Arkansas.................... ......... ........ 4 4 8 3 9 3
Connecticut................. ......... ........ 1 1 2 1 9 1
Delaware.................... ......... ........ 1 1 1 ........ 4 ........
District of Columbia........ ......... ........ ......... ........ 2 1 ......... ........
Guam........................ 1 ........ ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ........
Hawaii...................... 1 1 ......... ........ 2 1 4 ........
Idaho....................... ......... ........ 1 ........ 1 ........ 6 ........
Maine....................... ......... ........ 1 1 6 3 7 3
Micronesia.................. ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ........
Mississippi................. ......... ........ 2 1 5 2 11 1
Montana..................... ......... ........ 4 4 12 3 1 ........
Nevada...................... ......... ........ 1 1 ......... ........ 8 2
New Hampshire............... ......... ........ ......... ........ 3 1 1 ........
New Mexico.................. ......... ........ 1 1 ......... ........ 3 ........
North Dakota................ 1 1 5 4 3 ........ 7 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Feinstein
citrus freeze
Question. How are the fiscal year 1999 Disaster Supplemental funds
being allocated?
Answer. Producers who suffered losses to their 1998 crops and their
1999 crops for which harvest began in December, 1998 are provided the
option of receiving single year loss benefits on either their 1998 or
1999 crop, but not both. To determine multi-year benefits, the 1998
crop insurance indemnities will be used to determine eligibility.
Question. Will there be sufficient funding to cover the additional
cost imposed on the funding by the citrus freeze?
Answer. The 1999 Appropriations Act, Public Law 105-277, provided a
total of $2.375 billion for crop loss disaster assistance. If the value
of applications received ultimately exceeds available funds, then
payments to producers would need to be prorated.
Question. Unlike other farm workers, California's citrus workers
are permanent residents in the areas where they work. What steps can
the USDA take to address the needs of California's farm workers who
lost their only source of income due to the freeze?
Answer. To date, The Department has made available $1.8 million for
emergency rental housing for farm workers displaced due to the December
freeze. The Department is reviewing a range of possible options which
could be used to assist farm workers affected by the citrus freeze.
This includes review of funding options within the Rural Development
area as well as existing legislative authorities. For example, Section
2281 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990
authorizes up to $20 million annually in emergency grants to public
agencies or private organizations with tax exempt status to assist
seasonal farmworkers that have lost income due to natural disasters,
however, no funds are currently available under this authority. In
1992, following Hurricane Andrew, use of Commodity Credit Corporation
funds was authorized in emergency supplemental legislation for farm
worker housing in south Florida. The funds were used to purchase and
install trailers.
freeze in california
Question. Are you planning to extend the same waivers relating to
food stamps that were granted to Tulare County to the other counties
impacted by the freeze?
Answer. Tulare and Fresno County have requested certain waivers and
they were provided. The California State Agency has advised the other
disaster affected counties that waivers are available, but the counties
have not requested any at this point.
We have shipped about 40 extra truckloads of food into these
counties, to date, coming from State and Federal inventories. And we
are keeping a close eye on developments there to make sure we do all
that we can.
border inspections
Question. What steps are you taking to address the recent fruit fly
and pest infestation problems at the border in San Diego and other
ports of entry?
Answer. USDA and the California Department of Food and Agriculture
(CDFA) are working cooperatively on three Mediterranean fruit fly
(Medfly) and Mexican fruit fly (MFF) emergency eradication programs in
California. The Medfly operations are located in Orange, San Diego and
Riverside Counties. The MFF operations are in several areas of San
Diego County such as El Cajon, Oak Park and Stockton. All emergency
efforts include regulatory activities, pest control, and surveys. In
addition, an areawide sterile MFF release program was implemented in
January 1999 to prevent outbreaks due to natural or illegal movement of
the exotic insect. The release area encompasses the three infested
areas and most populated areas of San Diego south of Interstate 8 to
the US/Mexican border. We plan to continue the areawide release program
until June, 1999.
Question. Reports have indicated that the actual staffing levels at
the border are well below what are recommended in agency guidelines for
USDA inspections. How many inspectors are currently working at the
major California points of entry?
Answer. There are currently 65 authorized positions at the major
California points of entry: Calexico, CA (22); Andrade, CA (2); and San
Diego, CA (41).
Question. How many inspectors are recommended by USDA guidelines?
Answer. The USDA guidelines for fiscal year 1999 recommend 65
inspector positions at major California points of entry.
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget requests an increase in the
AQI program. Will any of this increase will go towards correcting the
staffing shortage at the US/Mexico border?
Answer. The proposed fiscal year 2000 increase for the AQI
appropriated program supports additional staffing of 15 inspectors
along the US/Mexican border. We plan to allocate 3 of the new positions
at California points of entry: Andrade, CA (2) and San Diego, CA (1).
The balance of the positions will be located along the Mexican border
in Arizona and Texas.
Question. How much additional funding is necessary to bring the
number of inspectors up to USDA standards?
Answer. The proposed fiscal year 2000 increase of $3.9 million for
the AQI appropriated supports additional inspection personnel necessary
to address the expansion of travel and trade from Mexico, Canada and
Hawaii.
Question. How will USDA address the concerns raised by nations such
as Australia and Taiwan which have imposed restrictions on importing
some agricultural products from the San Diego area?
Answer. USDA is conducting bilateral negotiations to assure these
countries that our emergency programs in San Diego, California,
including all regulatory, control, and survey efforts, are more than
sufficient to guarantee that agricultural products from this area pose
no pest risk. In addition, we invited Taiwanese and Australian
agricultural officials to visit the emergency project sites to
experience the scope and intensity of these programs first-hand. On an
ongoing basis, we ensure compliance with all international standards
for activities like pest surveillance and notification to promote the
credibility of U.S. agricultural products among our various trading
partners.
importation of citrus from argentina
Question. How is USDA planning to address the concerns raised by
the California Department of Food and Agriculture relating to
importation of citrus products from Argentina, particularly the
problems they raise with citrus black spot and sweet orange scab?
Answer. On October 16, 1998 APHIS extended the public comment
period until February 11, 1999. Public hearings were conducted also in
Orlando, Florida and Thousand Oaks, California. APHIS is now analyzing
the information provided by independent scientists regarding the
Argentine petition and the risk mitigation measures advocated by APHIS.
It is our intent that these mitigation measures are designed to prevent
the introduction into the United States of Citrus Canker, sweet orange
scab and citrus black spot.
Question. What is the time line for implementing the rule on
importing Argentine citrus?
Answer. We hope to complete our analysis in time for the
regulations to be in place for their next crop season.
Question. Does APHIS require additional resources to address this
problem?
Answer. No additional funds are needed to complete this analysis.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Durbin
agricultural research
Question. Will the amount included for the National Center in the
Budget preclude an expeditious completion of this project?
Answer. The amount included in the fiscal year 2000 budget for the
National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research (NCAUR) will not
preclude an expeditious completion of the North Wing project. The $8.2
million received in fiscal year 1999 will be used for design and
construction of the last phase of the North Wing renovation. In the
fiscal year 2000 budget, $1.8 million will be needed for planning and
design of the Chemical Wing renovation. Planning and design is expected
to last 12-18 months. Construction funds for the Chemical Wing
renovation will not be needed until fiscal year 2001.
Question. What criteria was used to determine ARS program cuts at
facilities like the National Center in Peoria and the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign? In particular, please account for the
cuts in the following programs at the University of Illinois: Soybean
Diseases; Sensors and Systems for Site-Specific Crop Management to
Improve Environmental Quality; and Reduced Herbicide Inputs for
Effective Weed Management Systems to Improve Water Quality. And, the
following programs at the National Center in Peoria: Processing of
Natural Polymers; Enhanced Uses of Plant Proteins; Anaerobic Processes
in Animal Waste Management; Meadowfoam Research; Bioprocess and
Metabolic Engineering Technologies for Biofuels; Biotechnology Research
and Development Corporation; and Novel Carbohydrate-Based Materials via
Bio Conversion Processes.
Answer. The research projects carried out at the Peoria and Urbana
research centers are recognized as important research to the Department
and the specific groups, producers and consumers who would benefit from
this research. However, these projects have been identified as being
less critical to the Nation's broader interests and research needs,
such as food safety research, nutrition research, and global climate
change. The screening criteria used by ARS officials includes the
following elements: the relevance of the research project; the
availability of sufficient resources to conduct the research; and the
overall impact of research on American agriculture. The projects are
numerically ranked according these criteria, and those with the lower
rankings are proposed for termination.
Most of the projects proposed for termination in this budget at
Peoria and Urbana were identified in prior Administration budgets as
less critical and remain in this category. Newly initiated projects not
included in the President's requests were also added to the proposed
termination list. While these research projects are important,
worthwhile, and provide benefits to the agricultural industry and the
American public, others of more critical national importance become
higher priority.
The funding allocation for discretionary programs in the fiscal
year 2000 budget remains exceedingly tight. Choices between better and
best are never easy but constraints in this budget made this a
necessary process. Let me reiterate that those projects recommended for
termination have or will contribute to the solution of agricultural and
consumer problems--but they are considered less essential to continue
because of a very constrained discretionary Federal budget with
competing, higher priority research needs.
food safety
Question. The President stated in early January that of the $105
million increase for the Food Safety Initiative, approximately $65
million would go to USDA. The President indicated that portions of
these funds would be used to ``introduce HACCP at the 2,700 smaller
plants.'' My understanding is that those plants came on line in
January, 1999. How will funds in fiscal year 2000 be used for the above
mentioned plants?
Answer. In January, small meat and poultry establishments were
required to have implemented Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point
(HACCP) systems. In order to facilitate this transition, we held
numerous workshops across the country to provide the operators of these
establishments with the technical assistance needed to meet the new
requirements. The 2000 budget will provide the resources necessary to
maintain these efforts.
Question. How will FSIS funds be used to assist with the
``smallest'' plants (those employing less than 11) with HACCP
implementation in January 2000?
Answer. The 2000 budget includes resources necessary for the Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to ensure that very small
establishments have the technical assistance needed to successfully
implement Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems.
In addition, funds are requested to redeploy inspection personnel to
cover critical inspection vacancies in very small establishments. The
2000 budget also includes funding for initiatives aimed at ensuring
that State meat and poultry inspection programs have the capability to
implement the HACCP rule. Successful implementation by the States is
important, because they inspect approximately 3,000 very small
establishments.
Question. In moving towards more ``science-based'' approaches to
food safety inspection, FSIS is proposing changes in the way it uses
its inspectors. Has FSIS formed a new interpretation of ``continuous
inspection'' and is there a need for a change in Statutory authority?
Answer. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)is beginning
to test alternative slaughter inspection procedures in conjunction with
the implementation of the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point
(HACCP) systems regulations. As part of these tests, FSIS personnel
will conduct inspection in different ways, but with the same goal of
ensuring the safety of all meat and poultry products. This does not
connote a new interpretation of continuous inspection. The existing
statutory framework for meat and poultry inspection provides FSIS with
ample authority and flexibility to build a science-based regulatory
system based on these alternatives.
asian longhorned beetles
Question. The Administration, USDA in particular, has responded
expeditiously and thoroughly in its efforts to combat the infestation
of the Asian Longhorned Beetle in the Chicago, Illinois area. Please
provide a status report on the efforts taking place in Chicago to
combat infestation as well as remove and replant trees. Is there a
coordinated approach with other Federal departments and agencies?
Answer. In July and August of 1998, Asian Long-Horned Beetle was
discovered at three locations in the Chicago, Illinois area. Over 400
trees have been found to be infested and scheduled for removal. This
program is a cooperative effort between APHIS, the Illinois State
Department of Agriculture, and the city of Chicago.
Question. What Federal funds are available to assist the City of
Chicago, the State of Illinois, and other affected communities?
Answer. In January 1999, $5.5 million was transferred to APHIS from
the Commodity Credit Corporation to conduct eradication activities in
New York and Illinois.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Cochran. Our next hearing is going to be Tuesday,
March 2nd, at 9:30 a.m. in this room, 138 of the Dirksen Senate
Office Building. At that time we will hear from Department of
Agriculture witnesses on the subject of assistance to producers
and the farm economy.
Until then, we stand in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., Tuesday, February 9, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday,
March 2.]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:34 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Thad Cochran (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Cochran, Gorton, Burns, Kohl, Dorgan, and
Durbin.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services
STATEMENTS OF:
KEITH COLLINS, CHIEF ECONOMIST
AUGUST SCHUMACHER, JR., UNDER SECRETARY FOR FARM AND FOREIGN
AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
ACCOMPANIED BY DENNIS KAPLAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET AND
PROGRAM ANALYSIS
OPENING REMARKS
Senator Cochran. The subcommittee will please come to
order.
We welcome our witnesses and our guests at our hearing
today.
At this hearing, we will review the budget request for the
Department of Agriculture for programs administered by the
Department which provide assistance to farmers and ranchers.
In this context, we need to know and we would like to hear
from our witnesses about the current financial and economic
situation confronting farmers, including farm commodity prices
and what the Department is doing to help expand markets and
improve farm income.
We would like to know the status of the emergency
supplemental funding and livestock and marketing assistance
payments that were provided for in the Fiscal Year 1999
Agriculture Appropriations Act and how the Department is
administering these programs.
We will also be interested in hearing from our witnesses
about the adequacy of the funding for credit programs that
finance farmers' activities.
Last year, Congress appropriated one of the largest
emergency farm relief packages in history, providing nearly $6
billion for disaster and market assistance for the Nation's
farmers and ranchers. Also, additional production flexibility
contract payments were disbursed before the first of the year
to help farmers.
Those who purchased crop insurance will have a 30 percent
reduction in premium costs because of this disaster assistance
legislation.
We appreciate very much the presence at our hearing this
morning of Keith Collins, who is the Chief Economist of the
Department of Agriculture; Mr. August Schumacher, Jr., Under
Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, and Mr.
Dennis Kaplan with the Budget Office of the Department of
Agriculture. There are others who are here accompanying these
witnesses and we appreciate your being here and providing
assistance to us at this hearing.
We have copies of statements that you have prepared and we
thank you for those. They will be made a part of the record in
full.
I would invite you now to proceed to make whatever comments
you think appropriate and to summarize your statements. We will
have an opportunity to ask questions after you complete your
remarks.
Mr. Collins, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF KEITH COLLINS
Mr. Collins. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good
morning. Thanks for the invitation to start this hearing by
discussing the economic conditions in U.S. agriculture.
There is a great deal of concern about the problems the
farm economy experienced in 1998 and a great deal of concern
about the prospects for 1999. I am going to start by describing
briefly the current situation. Then Under Secretary Schumacher
will follow up by providing some detail on the assistance
programs that we are providing to U.S. agriculture.
As we all know, the farm economy contracted in 1998. As you
indicated, the emergency relief package helped many producers
cope with the downturn in the farm economy this past year.
In 1999, unfortunately, farm exports are going to continue
to be weak and farm prices likewise will continue to be weak. I
think that will cause higher farm financial stress,
particularly in some areas of the country that have escaped up
to this point, notably areas in the Corn Belt and down into the
mid-South.
There are two major causes of the downturn that we are now
experiencing. The first is macroeconomic, the slowdown in the
world economy which is reducing food and fiber demand. World
economic growth in 1998 was about half the level of 1996 and
1997. And, as we look ahead for 1999, it will probably remain
at that rate, about half the level of the mid-1990's.
In addition to that, we have had a very sharp increase in
the value of the dollar which has encouraged imports. It has
also eroded our competitive position in world markets.
A second major cause of the downturn is increased world
agricultural production of food and fiber. To give you an
example, the 3 highest years of production in world history of
grains and livestock occurred in the last 3 years. So
production has been boosted by the high prices that we saw in
the mid-1990's.
We have had 3 generally favorable weather years. We have
had better technology, which is also boosting yields. We have
also had a livestock liquidation occurring in a number of
countries around the world, which is increasing meat supplies.
And we have had key policy changes, such as in China, which has
promoted self-sufficiency there.
This combination of large supplies and slow-growing demand
is driving down farm prices. While the decline that we are
seeing has all the earmarks of being cyclical, I think there
are also some underlying structural changes that suggest for
some commodities, such as soybeans and hogs, that lower prices
on average may endure into the future.
In 1996, farm exports reached a record high of $60 billion.
This year, we are forecasting farm exports at only $49 billion.
Grain, cotton, oilseed, beef and poultry exports all have been
seriously affected.
In addition to that, our trade surplus in agriculture--
something we like to extol--will only be $11 billion this year,
which would be the lowest level since 1987.
As a result of this weak export market and decline in
demand, farm cash receipts last year fell about $10 billion.
They went down to about $198 billion. And I think as we look
ahead for 1999, we would foresee them staying at that level,
although crops would decline a little more, offset by a little
increase in livestock.
Despite all this bad news that I have uttered thus far,
there are some positive factors, I think, that are helping a
number of farmers withstand the decline, the downturn in the
farm economy. Declining interest rates, fuel prices, and feed
costs lowered farm production expenses last year. They fell 2
percent. That is the first significant decline in about a
decade.
In addition to that, farm interest expenses are in pretty
good shape. I would take you back to the early 1980's when farm
interest expenses were 14 percent of gross cash income of
farmers. This past year they were only 6 percent.
Another factor offsetting the drop in market revenues is
government payments, which rose $5.5 billion during calendar
year 1998. They were $13 billion in total, and, I think as we
look out to 1999, we can see government payments again
providing good support. They will probably be at least $11
billion.
Our conservation programs, those plus technical assistance,
are also an important part of government support. They provide
payments; they provide cost sharing to help farmers maintain
their soil productivity and deal with environmental concerns.
These aggregate financial measures that I have just
discussed suggest that the farm economy was generally
performing financially adequately as we started 1999, mainly
due to the increase in government payments and the reduction in
production costs.
We had the second highest net cash income in history in
1998, and the farm debt-to-asset ratio has remained steady, at
about 15 percent, which is well below the 20 percent or more
that we saw in the 1980's.
As we look out to 1999, I think the signs point to
increased financial stress. Net cash farm income is expected to
decline about $3 billion to $4 billion. While farm real estate
prices, by most analyst' expectations, are not going to go
down, we have seen some declines in farm real estate prices in
some regions of the country in the second half of 1998.
I think many producers will have a greater difficulty
obtaining credit in 1999. You may have seen the Farm Credit
System's report this week that their nonperforming loans rose
69 percent during 1998. They were a big lender to American
agriculture. But I would point out that the share of
nonperforming loans for the Farm Credit System as well as other
banks is still pretty small in their total portfolio.
More people are turning to USDA for credit. Our farm loan
commitments since October are up 65 percent over the year
earlier.
Very quickly, let me just comment on a couple of the
commodity market situations.
For grains, the current season is one of building stocks.
Prices this year for the 1998 crops are at 8- to 10-year lows.
I think when we look at grains, the bottom may be near. For
wheat, we are going to see less acreage, as low prices combined
with planting flexibility will take acreage out of grains, I
believe, in 1999. That should reduce wheat stocks. It should
stabilize corn stocks. We might see improved prices for wheat,
but not very much because there is still going to be a lot of
wheat in the world--maybe a 10-percent increase in prices on
the 1999 crop.
For corn, unfortunately, with stocks stabilizing, prices
are staying about the same, in the $2 per bushel range.
For soybeans, I think carryover stocks this season will
reach the highest level in more than a decade. Our soybean
prices will be the lowest since 1986, and I do not have good
news to report for 1999.
I think we will see a further increase in stocks and even
lower prices. Soybeans are attractive to many farmers because
they represent a little bit less risky crop. Soybeans have been
resilient in bad weather. They have low out-of-pocket costs,
compared to some of the other main crops. Soybeans' marketing
assistance loan is a little bit higher relative to some of the
other crops, and we have new varieties, such as herbicide
resistant soybeans.
All of those factors I think will push more plantings of
soybeans in 1999, and we could see the season average price
drop well below $5 a bushel.
For cotton, this year's exports are the second lowest in 20
years due to reduced world demand for cotton textiles and
apparel. Also, our cotton production is much lower, and we have
a lot of polyester on the world market. Since there are very
low oil prices, there are low polyester prices. And we lost
Step 2 payments.
In addition to that, we have a surge in imported cotton
textiles in the United States and that has hurt domestic mill
demand for cotton.
In 1999, I think we will see higher U.S. production, and
that will continue to keep the pressure on cotton prices.
Turning to livestock, we had record meat and poultry
supplies in 1998. That gave us the lowest cattle prices in the
1990's, and it gave us the lowest hog prices since 1972.
While our cattle herd has been reacting to low prices for
some years and declining since late 1995, and we think that in
1999 we will see lower beef production, the low prices will
also probably reduce hog production in 1999, and we will see
strengthening prices for both of those commodities, but not big
increases. Increases will probably be on the order of 5 percent
to 10 percent--better, but still weak, prices.
As beef and pork production is cut back, I think broiler
production will be up fairly sharply, given last year's high
prices, and that will contribute to yet another year of record
high meat and poultry supplies in 1999.
Milk prices were good news in 1998. We had record high milk
prices. Unfortunately, over the last several months, we have
seen a big increase in milk production, and that has led to a
sharp drop in cheese prices.
On Friday of this week, we will announce the basic formula
price for February, and I think it is likely to be down in the
neighborhood of 35 percent from January's price. That would be
a record large month-to-month drop. But I would point out that
it would be coming from a very high level. The January price
was the second highest in history.
For all of 1999, farm level milk prices will probably
average between the 1997 and 1998 levels. Unfortunately, prices
have recently been weaker than we thought, and it looks like
they will be closer to the 1997 levels, which was not a good
year for dairy producers.
Producers will have some offsets to the lower milk prices,
however, from lower feed costs and from the $200 million in
relief payments to be made soon.
To conclude, there are sectors in agriculture that are
stable and growing. However, there are some that are not. For
1999, field crops will be in the category where producers are
likely to face increased financial stress.
As I indicated, red meat markets will get stronger, but
they will still be weak. I think that these types of forecasts
suggest that the financial difficulties that we saw in some
producers in the Southern Plains States, some areas in the
Southeast, and some areas in the Northern Plains are going to
spread into the Midwest and down further into the Delta States
in 1999.
I would end by saying there are lots of uncertainties when
economists talk about the future--the weather being one, the
macroeconomic performance of the world economy being another,
and the policies of countries around the world being yet
another one.
But I do want to emphasize that there are a lot of cyclical
factors at play in agriculture right now. So, as we look out
over the next 2 to 4 years, some of those things will correct.
The world economy will start to grow better, and I think at
that point we will see stronger export demand and better prices
for U.S. farmers.
At this point, however, I would say the recovery looks like
it would occur at a fairly gradual pace.
That completes my comments, and I will turn it over now to
Mr. Schumacher.
[statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Keith Collins
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I welcome the
opportunity to discuss the economic outlook for U.S. agriculture. Over
the past year, the near-term outlook changed dramatically as adverse
weather reduced farm income in some regions, and the Asian financial
crisis and large global commodity production caused a sharp drop in
farm prices and the value of agricultural exports. With crop yields at
trend levels in 1999, major crop prices will likely remain at low
levels over the next year, and record total meat and poultry production
is likely to prevent a strong rebound in livestock prices. Increased
government assistance enacted in 1998, of nearly $6 billion, is helping
to maintain farm income and limiting financial hardship in the near
term. But with weak exports and prices in 1999, farm financial stress
is likely to rise. Over a 2- to 4-year horizon, economic recession in a
number of countries should give way to economic recovery, increased
demand for U.S. agricultural products, and a gradual improvement in
farm prices and incomes.
macroeconomic overview
In 1996 and 1997, positive economic growth in the United States,
near record indicators of consumer confidence, and the lowest
unemployment rate since 1973 bolstered domestic demand for agricultural
products, while an expanding world economy and declining barriers to
trade supported expansion in U.S. agricultural exports. In 1998, the
U.S. economy remained strong, but the foundation for world food demand
deteriorated, as Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand,
Indonesia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil all saw their economies
contract. After rising an estimated 3.4 percent in 1997, the world
economy grew only 1.9 percent in 1998, the lowest rate of growth in 5
years.
World economic growth is likely to slip a little more in 1999,
growing only about 1.7 percent. The U.S. economy may slow as a
strengthening dollar further increases the U.S. trade deficit, but
inflation, interest rates, and unemployment remain at low levels. Most
analysts do not expect Southeast Asia's economies to turn around until
2000, but recessionary pressures are expected to weaken in 1999, with
Japan's economy bottoming out and South Korea poised for recovery.
However, economic growth will likely slow in Latin America, pulled down
by Brazil's currency crisis. And, the Russian economy will decline
sharply in 1999.
outlook for u.s. agricultural exports
Lower world market prices and export volume reduced U.S.
agricultural exports to $53.6 billion in fiscal year 1998, 10 percent
below fiscal year 1996's record-high $59.8 billion. For fiscal year
1999, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) forecasts exports to
drop to $49 billion, as lower export prices more than offset increased
volume. Lower world prices and reduced volume will likely cut the value
of oilseed and product exports by almost $3.5 billion. In addition, low
supplies and reduced competitiveness will lower cotton exports, and the
Russian financial crisis is forecast to lower poultry exports. Reduced
exports to Asia account for about 85 percent of the drop in the value
of U.S. agricultural exports during fiscal year 1996-99.
Pacific Asia, including Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, is the most
important market for U.S. agricultural products, accounting for one-
third of total U.S. agricultural export sales this past year. Over the
coming decade, rapid income growth in Pacific Asia will stimulate
expansion in demand for U.S. farm products. Other important growth
markets include our North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
partners, Canada and Mexico. In fiscal year 1998, these two countries
imported nearly $13 billion in U.S. agricultural products accounting
for nearly one-quarter of all U.S. agricultural exports.
Generally, USDA does not expect Brazil's economic problems, if
contained, to lower greatly U.S. agricultural exports. In fiscal year
1998, Brazil was the 2lst largest market for U.S. agricultural exports,
importing $0.6 billion in U.S. agricultural products or only about 1
percent of total U.S. agricultural exports to all destinations.
However, for some commodities, such as rice, Brazil is a very important
market. In fiscal year 1998, rice exports to Brazil amounted to nearly
one-fifth of total U.S. rice exports. USDA forecasts a drop in U.S.
agricultural exports to Brazil to $0.5 billion in fiscal year 1999.
Brazil is slightly more important as a source of U.S. agricultural
imports, ranking as the 8th largest U.S. agricultural import supplier.
Brazil accounts for over one-half of U.S. orange juice imports. Other
agricultural imports from Brazil include prepared and preserved beef or
veal, sugar, coffee and tobacco. In addition, Brazil is a major U.S.
competitor in the soybean market.
an overall assessment from the farm income and finance perspective
Cash Receipts and Expenses.--With strong demand and record or near-
record market prices for several crops, farm crop cash receipts reached
a record $112 billion in 1997. Lower crop prices caused crop cash
receipts to fall to less than $105 billion last year. For 1999, USDA
projects cash receipts for crops will likely decline to $102 billion,
$10 billion below the record and the lowest level in 4 years, as crop
prices retreat further. Compared with 1997, corn cash receipts may be
down by over $4 billion, wheat cash receipts down by over $2 billion,
and soybean cash receipts down by nearly $4 billion in 1999.
Livestock receipts reached nearly $97 billion in 1997. Livestock
receipts declined by about $3 billion last year, as record high prices
and receipts for milk were more than offset by sharply lower prices and
reduced receipts for cattle and hogs. This year, lower red meat
production will likely lead to higher prices and receipts for cattle
and hogs, while poultry receipts remain about the same and more milk
production reduces prices and receipts for milk. Total livestock
receipts will likely improve in 1999, as the increase in cattle and hog
receipts more than offset lower milk receipts.
Declining interest rates, fuel prices, and feed costs have helped
farmers reduce their production costs, offsetting some of the decline
in cash receipts. Total production expenses declined 2 percent from
1997 to 1998, the first significant drop in more than a decade. In
1999, USDA forecasts total farm expenses to be $186 billion, up only
slightly from last year.
Government Payments.--Legislation passed last year along with
provisions of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of
1996 (the 1996 Act) are helping to offset much of the loss in farm
income resulting from crop losses and lower crop prices. USDA's
Economic Research Service (ERS) estimates direct government payments,
which do not include net indemnity payments under the Federal crop
insurance program, to farmers reached nearly $13 billion in calendar
1998 and will total about $11 billion in 1999, up from $7.5 billion in
1997. For the 1990's, government payments exceeded these levels only in
1993, when payments reached $13.4 billion.
In October, Congress passed and the President signed legislation
providing about $5.7 billion in additional direct payments to farmers.
Nearly $2.9 billion of these payments were paid out as additional
Production Flexibility Contract (PFC) payments in late 1998. USDA will
distribute the remaining payments during the first half of 1999, with
the bulk going to crop producers who suffered 1998 and prior-year crop
losses. Congress also passed legislation last year enabling producers
to receive 100 percent of their fiscal year 1999 PFC payments before
January 1, 1999, rather than receiving half in mid-December or mid-
January and the rest by September 30, 1999. This legislation increased
calendar 1998 PFC payments by about $0.5 billion and reduced calendar
1999 PFC payments by the same amount.
Under the 1996 Farm Bill, crop producers received PFC payments of
$5.7 billion in fiscal year 1998 and will receive $5.5 billion in
fiscal year 1999. Other direct payments provided under the 1996 Farm
Bill include loan deficiency payments, which are paid to producers when
crop prices fall below the announced loan rate, and payments to
producers participating in conservation programs. In 1998, loan
deficiency payments were record high with producers receiving about
$1.8 billion in loan deficiency payments.
Conservation Programs.--Conservation programs are proving to be
very helpful in improving the economics of farming. Farmers and
ranchers receive about $2 billion in direct payments annually under
USDA's conservation programs. The largest of these programs is the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Under this program, farmers receive
an annual rental payment and partial payment for establishing
appropriate cover as compensation for taking fragile land out of crop
production. Currently, over 30 million acres are enrolled in the CRP,
helping to enhance wildlife habitat, reduce soil erosion, and improve
water and air quality. During the 18th signup, 7.1 million acres were
offered for enrollment, and USDA expects to announce accepted bids
soon. Under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), USDA
provides cost-share payments to farmers and ranchers who adopt sound
conservation and manure management practices. This and other
conservation programs are helping producers reduce soil erosion, enrich
soil productivity, improve water quality and wildlife habitat, restore
lands damanged by adverse weather, and earn income or reduce costs of
conservation practices.
While USDA's conservation work helps producers directly with
financial assistance, the technical assistance that is provided is
equally important. For example, many livestock owners face increasing
regulatory pressures from EPA, and state, and local agencies to improve
water quality. This often means having a safe way to use animal wastes.
Through our technical assistance, USDA works with producers to develop
a plan that allows them to apply the manure to land thereby recycling
nutrients, reducing the cost of inputs, and helping meet other
environmental requirements.
Financial Situation.--It is hard to characterize simply the
financial condition of so diverse an industry as U.S. agriculture.
Aggregate financial indicators portray a sector with problems in some
areas but generally performing adequately entering 1999, due in part to
higher government payments authorized last year and lower production
expenses. Net cash farm income--gross cash income less gross cash
expenses--of $59 billion in 1998 was down only slightly from the record
of nearly $61 billion in 1997. Farm debt has risen 2-3 percent per year
in recent years, but the value of farm assets has grown faster.
Consequently, farm equity has steadily increased and the debt-to-asset
ratio has remained steady at about 15 percent, down from over 20
percent in the mid-1980s. In 1999, however, aggregate indicators
suggest increasing financial stress. USDA forecasts net cash farm
income will fall to $55.5 billion in 1999. U.S. average farm real
estate values may rise slightly, reflecting low inflation and borrowing
costs, but land values began declining in 1998 in some regions.
Meanwhile, farm debt could decline as farmers reduce their borrowing in
response to added government payments, low prices, and reduced spending
on equipment and other production inputs. However, if farm income
declines as projected, farm operators will have less income available
in 1999 to meet principal and interest payments. In addition, many
producers struggled with cash flow in 1998 resulting from low prices
and adverse weather, and these problems will worsen if low prices
linger, as USDA now expects.
Looking ahead at individual commodities reveals an unsettling
picture. Continued low hog, cattle, and field crop prices will place
additional financial pressures on producers who specialize in the
production of these commodities and are already highly leveraged. Hog
prices could continue to remain below break-even levels for most
producers for much of 1999, and cattle prices, which have been low for
quite some time, may still not be strong enough to return a profit for
some producers for much of the year. For principal crops, net income
could fall sharply. In 1999/2000, the net income (production value plus
government payments minus total cash expenses) from wheat, corn,
soybean, upland cotton and rice production could drop to $17 billion,
compared with over $19 billion in 1998/99 and the average of $22.7
billion for the previous 5 years.
outlook for major crops
Wheat and Rice.--The story of the U.S. wheat market over the past 2
years has been rising production, weak exports, rising stocks, and
declining prices after successive years of strong prices in the mid-
1990's. In 1998/99, U.S. wheat production reached 2.6 billion bushels,
as record yields more than offset a 6-percent drop in planted acres
from a year earlier. Total wheat supplies--the sum of carry-in stocks
and production--increased 12 percent in 1998/99, compared with the
prior year, providing the largest supply of wheat in more than a
decade. The strong increase in supplies has pressured wheat prices,
which USDA forecasts will average $2.70 per bushel for the 1998/99
season, down from $3.38 last year, and will likely end up being the
lowest season-average price in 8 years.
Total domestic use is likely to increase about 8 percent in 1998/
99, as lower wheat prices this past summer increased feed use. In
contrast, weak global demand and strong overseas competition could
lower U.S. wheat exports, despite increased donations to Russia and
several other needy countries. Exports of soft red winter wheat may be
less than half of the 1997/98 level due to larger supplies of similar
wheat in several importing and in competing exporting countries. Hard
wheats, especially those with higher proteins, have fared better
because of strong demand by several countries for blending with their
lower quality crops and because of reduced supplies in Canada. Even
with the expanding total use of U.S. wheat, USDA estimates that
carryover stocks at the end of the 1998/99 season, compared with total
use, will be the highest since 1987/88.
On the world front this season, global wheat production is down 4
percent from 1997/98's record, as area and yield each declined around 2
percent. The European Union (EU) harvested a record-large crop in 1998/
99 because of record yields. Australia is expecting a larger crop as
favorable planting conditions led to expanded area. Argentine
producers, however, cut plantings in response to low prices. Canadian
producers also cut plantings, but production was about unchanged from
1997/98 due to higher yields. With production down and world
consumption up modestly, world wheat carryover stocks for 1998/99 will
decline, a positive development for U.S. producers.
Unfortunately, global import demand may be down 9 percent this
season because of bigger crops in several key importing countries, such
as Pakistan and North Africa. China will again remain a small importer
because of another large crop and huge stocks, while large production
and government stocks are sharply reducing India's import needs. For
Indonesia, the financial crisis and the elimination of the consumer
flour subsidy has sharply reduced wheat imports. Latin America may see
limited demand growth, but little year-to-year change is likely for
East Asia.
For 1999/2000, U.S. fall winter wheat plantings were down 7 percent
from a year earlier and the lowest since 1972/73. If spring wheat acres
are similar to last year and yields remain near the historical trend,
USDA expects a 1999/2000 crop of around 2.2 billion bushels. However,
large carry-in stocks will be partially offsetting and supplies may
still be the second largest since 1990/91. World stocks may decline
again as consumption exceeds production. A tighter but ample U.S. and
global stocks situation should raise U.S. prices but only moderately--
on the order of 10 percent--in 1999/2000, and USDA does not expect
substantial price improvement unless adverse weather lowers global
wheat production.
The U.S. rice market has performed surprisingly well compared with
expectations prior to enactment of the 1996 Act that generally foresaw
declining U.S. rice production. In 1998/99, U.S. rice production
exceeded 188 million hundredweight (cwt.), up 3 percent from last year
and the second largest crop on record. All States produced larger rice
crops in 1998, except California because of adverse weather there in
1998. Supporting the increase in plantings has been strong domestic
demand and exports over the past two seasons and firm prices. In 1998/
99, USDA estimates the farm price will average $8.50 per cwt., down
from $9.70 last year.
Domestic use of rice is likely to remain strong in 1999/2000, but
exports will face strong competition. Rough rice sales to Latin America
are likely to be affected by economic problems there, and the global
long-grain milled market will be very competitive, particularly with
lower-priced rice from Thailand and Vietnam. Recently, U.S. long-grain
rice has been selling at about a $70-$80 premium to similar grade Thai
rice, compared with a typical premium of $25-$40 in many of the high-
quality markets in the Middle East, Africa, and Europe. The U.S. price
premium could return to more a normal level in 1999/2000, pushing the
average U.S. farm price of rice below this season's level.
Corn and Other Feed Grains.--U.S. feed grain production in 1998/99
exceeded more than 271 million metric tons, up 4 percent from last year
and the second highest on record. The corn crop rose 6 percent to the
second highest level in history, while grain sorghum production dropped
18 percent and barley and oats production were little changed from
1997/98. Drought reduced corn production in Texas and across several
Southern States. However, these production losses were more than offset
by gains elsewhere, especially in the northern and western edges of the
Corn Belt. Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakotas all had record
corn crops in 1998.
Corn supplies in 1998/99 are up 10 percent from last year, because
of the larger crop and bigger carry-in stocks. The strong increase in
supplies has dampened feed grain prices and sharply increased projected
carryover levels. While USDA forecasts total use of corn to be the
second highest level on record, total use will not approach 1998
production. U.S. ending stocks of corn on September 1, 1999, are likely
to be up nearly 500 million bushels from last year to their highest
level since 1992/93. As a result, USDA's corn price forecast of $1.95
per bushel for 1998/99 is down from $2.43 last year, and this year's
season-average price will likely be the lowest in more than a decade.
USDA expects gains in feed use and expanding use for ethanol and
high fructose corn syrup production will push domestic use of corn to a
new record in 1998/99. U.S. corn exports are likely to rise from 1997/
98's low level as Argentina's crop declines, but stagnant global demand
and continued strong competition from South Africa and China will limit
the increase in exports. Also, low-priced foreign supplies of other
coarse grains, especially barley, are limiting import demand for corn.
Global coarse grain production fell slightly during 1998/99, as
smaller crops in the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and Argentina
offset higher U.S. production and a rebound in China's corn crop from
the drought-reduced 1997 level. Corn production declined in Eastern
Europe as yields dropped from last year's high level. USDA expects
Argentina's crop to decline as early dry conditions and more favorable
prices caused farmers to shift some area to later-planted soybeans.
China's corn production rebounded in 1998 and stocks are rising, but
low world prices are likely to keep its exports below the 1997/98 pace.
USDA projects global corn imports to be down slightly from last
year, despite expanding demand in North Africa, the Middle East, and
Latin America, excluding Mexico. A larger crop could reduce slightly
Mexico's corn imports, and Asian demand continues to shrink.
Indonesia's imports will be minimal as domestic production is
sufficient to meet the needs of its sharply reduced poultry industry.
Mixed feed production is dropping in South Korea as the financial
crisis cuts meat demand.
Assuming trend yields, U.S. corn supplies could be up again in
1999/2000 as sharply higher beginning stocks more than offset a smaller
crop. Domestic use will continue to expand, but the year-to-year gains
will be less than in recent years because of reduced livestock
production. U.S. corn exports are likely to rise in 1999/2000 as import
demand continues to rise in North Africa, the Middle East, and Latin
America and demand begins to recover in Mexico and parts of Asia.
However, U.S. export gains could be limited by stronger Argentine
production and exports in 1999. Thus, in the absence of adverse
weather, corn production and total use may about balance, leaving U.S.
corn carryover stocks at high levels in 1999/2000 and the price outlook
for feed grains about unchanged.
Soybeans and Other Oilseeds.--Producers have responded to the
planting flexibility provisions of the 1996 Act by expanding soybean
acreage and production. In 1998, U.S. producers planted 72.4 million
acres to soybeans, up from 70.0 million acres last year and from 64.2
million acres in 1996. U.S. soybean production was record high both in
1997 and 1998.
In 1998/99, total U.S. soybean supplies are record high,
approaching 3 billion bushels and up 5 percent from the previous
season. However, total soybean use is likely to fall about 3 percent in
1998/99, as domestic use stagnates and U.S. exports face strong
competition from Brazil and Argentina. As a result, USDA now expects
1998/99 U.S. carryover stocks to increase to 410 million bushels, more
than double last year's level and the highest carryover in more than a
decade. The increase in ending stocks is pressuring farm soybean
prices, which are expected to decline from an average of $6.47 per
bushel last season to $5.20 in 1998/99, the lowest since 1986/87.
Other than China and Mexico, there are few foreign markets that
will likely import more soybeans this season. For 1998/99, USDA
projects a 3-percent decline in global soybean imports. EU crushers
have run down supplies of rapeseed and sunflowerseed. Given the
comparatively large stocks remaining in South America, U.S. export
commitments continue to trail last year's pace. USDA projects U.S.
exports of soybeans, soybean meal, and soybean oil will be down 7, 17,
and 15 percent, respectively, in 1998/99, compared with one year ago.
The recent devaluation of the Brazilian real could lead to more
pressure on soybean prices this spring and summer as Brazil markets
this year's crop more quickly than normal. This would further reduce
1998/99 U.S. exports and add to U.S. carryover. On the other hand,
larger Brazilian exports in 1998/99 could help U.S. exports in 1999/
2000 by reducing the South American carry-in. In addition, lower world
prices in 1998/99 may cause South American growers to reduce oilseed
plantings in 1999, reducing competitor supplies.
U.S. soybean planted acreage in 1999 is likely to increase from
last year's record, and foreign competition will likely remain intense.
Returns from planting soybeans continues to remain strong relative to
other crops. The marketing assistance loan rate for soybeans relative
to other crops and greater use of herbicide-resistant soybeans, which
has cut costs, may encourage some producers to expand soybean
plantings. In addition, yield potential has risen sharply in recent
years, as producers have expanded plant population counts and used
improved soybean varieties adapted to their area. Yields also have been
resilient to adverse weather. With trend yields, U.S. soybean
production in 1999 could exceed last year's record.
The demand for soybeans and soybean products in both the U.S. and
the rest of the world will expand in 1999/2000 but below the growth
rates of recent years. Use in Asian countries may stabilize. China's
consumption of both protein feeds and vegetable oils should rise 2-4
percent but well below growth in recent years. In both the U.S. and the
EU, protein use should expand by 1-3 percent helped by lower protein
prices and a small increase in red meat and poultry production.
However, the increase in demand is not likely to be enough to avoid a
further increase in U.S. soybean carryover and even lower soybean
prices, which could average below $5 per bushel, in 1999/2000.
Cotton.--Cotton plantings fell 3 percent in 1998, resulting in the
lowest cotton planted area since 1992. However, U.S. cotton production
in 1998/99 fell by over 25 percent from last year, resulting in the
smallest crop in 9 years, as adverse weather affected all four cotton-
producing regions. Drought was especially severe in Texas, where
farmers abandoned a record 42 percent of planted acres. Due to the drop
in cotton production, total U.S. cotton supplies in 1998/99 are down by
over 20 percent, compared with last season. Despite tighter supplies
and ending stocks, cotton prices so far this season have averaged below
last year as demand has softened.
USDA projects domestic mill use at 10.4 million bales, down 8
percent from last year. The decline in domestic mill use primarily
reflects rising cotton textile and apparel imports, which are amply
available at low prices because of reduced Asian demand. U.S. imports
have risen at an annual rate of 20 percent since the beginning of
calendar 1997 and are projected to reach about 14.0 million-bale
equivalents this season. The cotton textile trade deficit of
approximately 9.5 million-bale equivalents is equal to 45-50 percent of
estimated total U.S. end-use consumption of cotton.
Tight U.S. supplies and the loss of Step 2 payments have reduced
the ability of U.S. cotton to compete in world markets and increased
the prospects for substantial cotton imports later this year. U.S.
cotton exports could drop to only 4.2 million bales, down from 7.5
million bales last year and the lowest since 1985/86. USDA forecasts
U.S. raw cotton imports of 350,000 bales during 1998/99, down slightly
from 2 years ago but up sharply from last season. Imports will surge
after the Step 3 quotas trigger.
Both world cotton production and consumption are down in 1998/99.
World production is down 7 percent from last season, due mainly to
production declines in China and the United States. China's crop is
estimated to be down 6 percent from last year. World consumption is
projected down 2 percent from last year, the largest year-to-year
decline since 1974/75. Reasons for falling consumption include the
Asian economic crisis, increased competition with polyester due to
surplus synthetic fiber production capacity in Asia, economic problems
in Russia and Brazil, and increased competition from textile exports
from countries such as Indonesia and Thailand.
Lower prices for alternative crops could keep U.S. cotton plantings
in 1999 at near last year's level. While plantings may be about
unchanged in 1999, U.S. cotton production could be up about 25 percent
with a return to trend yields. A much larger crop would improve U.S.
cotton's competitiveness in world markets, thereby reducing imports and
increasing exports from this season's projected levels. However, weak
world demand could limit export growth and U.S. ending stocks could
rise in 1999/2000, further pressuring cotton prices. Textile imports
are likely to remain strong in 1999/2000 and limit growth in domestic
mill use.
outlook for livestock
Cattle.--The average price received for all beef cattle fell 6
percent in 1998. USDA had expected cattle prices to strengthen during
the second half of 1998 following steady herd liquidation since late
1995. However, low cattle prices and drought in southern States caused
producers to continue to reduce their herds, increasing cattle
available for placement into feedlots. In addition, with good northern
forage supplies and producers trying to keep animals on grass longer
with the hope of receiving higher prices, ranchers placed heavier
animals into feedlots raising average dressed slaughter weights from
699 pounds in 1997 to 723 pounds this year. The continuing liquidation
and heavier slaughter weights caused beef production to increase by 1
percent in 1998.
The economic problems in Asia and Russia as well as herd reductions
in many major beef exporting countries caused the U.S. beef trade
balance to worsen in 1998. U.S. beef imports increased about 11
percent, as world trade slowed and more product was moved into the
strong U.S. economy. In comparison, U.S. beef exports rose 1 percent
with reduced exports of higher value cuts to Asian countries only
partially offset by higher exports to Mexico. On a weight basis,
however, net imports equal less than 2 percent of U.S. beef production.
Beef production will likely decline in 1999 as slaughter levels and
weights fall, and lower production should bolster cattle prices in
1999. Cattle inventories have declined since 1996, and the 1998 calf
crop was the lowest since 1952. USDA expects the combination of fewer
slaughter cattle and lower dressed weights to reduce beef production in
1999 by about 3 percent to 25.0 billion pounds.
Much of the year-to-year decline in beef production will not occur
until the second half of the year. During early January, producers
indicated that the number of heifers over 500 pounds that they are
retaining for beef cow replacement was 4 percent below a year earlier.
This will make almost the same number of heifers available for
placement into feedlots through the first half of 1999 as last year. In
the second half of the year, USDA expects producers' increased
retention of heifers for the breeding herd and lower slaughter weights
will reduce year-over-year beef production by 5 percent. For all of
1999, USDA expects fed cattle prices to average $65.50 per cwt. in
1999, compared with $61.48 last year and $66.32 two years ago.
U.S. beef trade is likely to be more in balance in 1999 as import
growth slows and U.S. government donations of beef increase. Largely
due to food aid to Russia, U.S. beef exports are projected to increase
about 8 percent. In comparison, declining beef supplies in Canada and
Oceania are expected to reduce the growth in U.S. beef imports to about
4 percent in 1999.
Hogs.--Hog production increased by 10 percent in 1998, reflecting
strong returns the previous 2 years and expansion of large hog
operations. Producers expanded inventories to the point that by
September 1, 1998, there were 63.5 million hogs on farms, the highest
since 1980. Large productivity increases and structural change also
fueled the inventory expansion. Increases in pigs per litter, litters
per sow per year, and weight per animal slaughtered have combined to
raise pork produced per breeding animal by 20 percent since 1988.
The abnormally large year-to-year increase in pork production
caused hog prices to tumble from year ago levels. For all of 1998,
slaughter hog prices averaged $31.67 per cwt., down from over $51 in
1997 and the lowest since 1972. In December, hog supplies strained
processing capacity causing hog prices to drop to the $10 per cwt.
range. Weekly hog slaughter frequently reached 2.2 million head during
the fourth quarter of the year, with weekday kills of over 400,000 head
and Saturday kills of 200,000. Total fourth quarter slaughter reached
27.6 million head, 1 million more than the fourth quarter of 1994, the
last time hog prices plunged.
Larger hog imports were a factor in overall price declines in 1998,
but not a major factor. The strong U.S. dollar rate of exchange with
the Canadian dollar, large hog production, low prices in Canada, and
labor problems at Canadian hog packing plants led to U.S. imports of
Canadian hogs of 4.1 million head in 1998, about 4 percent of U.S. pork
production, and up from 3.2 million head in 1997. Canadian hog imports
reached a higher level in late 1997 and early 1998, and they maintained
that level so that weekly imports during the low-priced fourth quarter
were not much different than during the third quarter.
Despite the weak world economy and the strong U.S. dollar, U.S.
pork exports actually increased sharply in 1998. The United States
exported more than 1.2 billion pounds of pork in 1998, up 18 percent
from last year. In contrast, pork imports rose 10 percent to 695
million pounds in 1998. The United States continued to be a major
market for pork from Canada and Denmark in 1998, while the major U.S.
export markets included Japan, Russia, Mexico and Canada.
USDA expects continued large hog supplies to pressure processing
capacity and prices during the first half of 1999. The market hog
inventory on December 1, 1998, was 2 percent above a year earlier.
However, pork production could be up about 5 percent during the first
half of 1999, as continued low prices provide a further incentive for
producers to reduce the breeding herd. In addition, low prices could
cause producers to market hogs at heavier weights. Hog prices will
likely average in the $25-$35 per cwt. range during the first half of
1999, which would be below breakeven for most producers.
As hog slaughter begins to decline in the second half of 1999,
prices should rise above last year's level, particularly in the fourth
quarter. Producers have already responded to the exceptionally low
prices in the last half of 1998 by reducing the breeding herd, which on
December 1 was 4 percent below a year earlier. In addition, producers
have indicated intentions to farrow 7 percent fewer sows during March-
May compared with a year earlier. This implies a fractional decline in
third quarter pork production but a 10-percent drop for the fourth
quarter. For all of 1999, USDA forecasts hog prices to average $34 per
cwt., 7 percent higher than last year.
U.S. pork exports are likely to increase about 10 percent in 1999,
while imports remain steady. Increased pork exports to Mexico, Japan,
and other markets are likely to more than offset lower exports to
Canada and Russia. The economic crisis could limit U.S. pork exports to
Russia to donations under food aid programs, causing exports to Russia
to fall below the level achieved in 1998. Exports to Canada may also
trend downward, as restructuring and expansion of the Canadian pork
industry reduces the demand for U.S. pork products.
Continued low hog and pork prices for much of 1999 will likely
limit the growth in pork imports, and U.S. live hog imports could fall
below last year. Slaughter capacity increases in Manitoba, the
settlement of labor disputes in Canadian hog slaughter plants, and
Ontario hogs increasingly moving to slaughter in Quebec under buying
agreements may lower U.S. hog imports from Canada in 1999 but only
slightly.
Broilers.--The rate of growth in broiler production was only 2
percent in 1998, as production was negatively affected by below-normal
egg hatching rates. Consequently, broiler prices for all of 1998
averaged 7 percent above 1997, weakening during the fourth quarter with
the loss of the Russian market and higher U.S. production. In response
to higher prices and a return to more normal hatching rates, USDA
expects broiler production will be up nearly 6 percent in 1999. The
increase in production could lower the price of broilers from over
$0.63 per pound last year to $0.59 per pound in 1999.
Broiler meat exports will probably remain weak through much of
1999. The loss of the Russian market is unlikely to be offset by gains
in other markets, and first-half exports could be 20-25 percent lower
than in 1998. Exports in the second-half of 1999 may increase relative
to 1998, especially if sales opportunities with Russia reappear.
Dairy.--Farm-level milk prices were record-high in 1998, averaging
$15.38 per cwt., compared with $13.34 in 1997. The sharp increase in
farm-level milk prices reflected modest growth in milk production and
strong demand for milk products. In 1998, milk production was adversely
affected by weather in California, Texas, and the Southeast. In
addition to high milk prices, lower feed prices boosted dairy
producers' incomes in 1998.
Dairy farmers appear to be reacting to the record-high milk prices
and low feed costs over the past year by expanding milk production,
which is projected to average about 2 percent higher in 1999. After
being up only fractionally for most of the year, milk production
increased by 3.5 percent from November 1998 through January 1999. In
response to the increase in milk production, which supported higher
cheese production, wholesale cheese prices fell sharply in January
dropping by about $0.60 per pound. The sharp decline in the price of
cheese will lead to a steep drop in farm-level milk prices over the
next few months. For all of 1999, USDA expects farm-level milk prices
to average about $1 per cwt. lower than last year--putting them about
halfway between the 1997 and 1998 levels--but the decline could be even
steeper if recent monthly year-over-year increases in milk production
are maintained through much of 1999.
outlook for retail food prices
The Consumer Price Index (CPI) for food increased by 2.2 percent,
while the CPI for all items increased by 1.6 percent in 1998. Last
year, lower retail prices for beef, pork, eggs, and nonalcoholic
beverages were more than offset by higher prices for dairy products,
fish and seafood, fats and oils, fruits and vegetables, cereal and
bakery products, and sugar and sweets. Retail dairy product prices
increased by 3.6 percent in 1998, reflecting the sharp increase in
farm-level prices. Strong vegetable oil prices caused the CPI for fats
and oils to increase by 3.7 percent, and weather problems in
California, Florida, Texas, and some importing countries pushed up
retail prices for fresh fruits and vegetables by more than 7 percent
last year.
USDA expects the CPI for food will increase by 2-2.5 percent in
1999. Retail prices for fruits and vegetables should be up only
modestly in 1999, assuming there are fewer weather problems in the
major fruit and vegetable growing areas this year. In addition,
continued large supplies of red meat and poultry will likely prevent
retail prices for meat and poultry from increasing much in 1999.
Longer Term View.--Looking to the longer term, USDA's recently
published agricultural baseline projections to 2008 provide a view of
how the global farm economy would unfold over the next decade under a
very specific set of assumptions about policy and weather. This
ambitious effort is primarily the work of the Economic Research
Service. While we can be sure that the projections will turn out wrong
because the assumptions never hold, the analysis is extremely useful to
understand the possible implications of the underlying trends as we now
see them. A few highlights are:
The global macroeconomy takes 3-4 years to recover to a stable,
moderately strong rate of growth. The global economic problems mean a
prolonged weakness in global demand for farm products. The slow
recovery in the world economy and ample supplies in competitor
countries results in U.S. agricultural exports not returning to the
record level of 1996 until about the year 2003. U.S. planted acreage
drops only a small amount, and with trend yields supplies remain large,
leading to a slow recovery in nominal farm prices and steadily
declining inflation-adjusted farm prices throughout the projection
period. In particular, real soybean and hog prices decline
substantially compared with other commodities. Recovery in the global
economy leads to strong growth in U.S. meat and poultry exports after
3-4 stagnant to slow growth years. U.S. cattle production turns up for
several years starting in 2001, but then declines under strong
competition from hogs and broilers. Net farm income grows slowly
throughout the projection period and does not reach the 1996 record
high of $53.4 billion. Loan deficiency payments are made through 2002.
The farm balance sheet improves as the overall debt-to-asset ratio
slowly declines throughout the projection period in line with the slow
declines observed during much of the 1990's.
key uncertainties in the outlook
There are many uncertainties that could affect markets and the
well-being of market participants over the next 1 to 2 years. Three key
factors follow:
--Weather and agricultural production.--Last year's heavy rain and
flooding in California and drier than normal conditions in the
Southern Plains and South highlighted the role of weather in
crop production and farm financial conditions. The current La
Nina weather event is having a limited effect on U.S.
agriculture, with the possible exception of the December freeze
in California that severely reduced citrus production. La Nina
is not expected to be a major factor affecting global or U.S.
crop production this year. However, weather forecasting remains
imprecise and the possibility remains that adverse weather
could cause a major shortfall in world crop production and a
strong increase in prices from current levels.
--Macroeonomic Performance in Asia and Latin America.--A number of
very important markets for U.S. agricultural products fell into
recession in 1998, including Southeast Asia, South Korea, and
Japan, which account for about one-quarter of the value of U.S.
agricultural export sales. Moreover, the Russian economy is
expected to sink dramatically in 1999. The current economic
problems in Brazil will lead that country into recession in
1999 and could cause major problems for other Latin American
countries. If the Asian economies fail to stabilize or the
economic problems in Brazil spread to other Latin American
countries, which account for one-fifth of U.S. agricultural
export sales, U.S. agricultural exports could drop further,
placing additional pressure on farm commodity prices over the
next 2 years. The engines of growth in the world economy right
now are the U.S. and the EU. Should either of these two
countries fall into recession there would be a global recession
that would further erode world food and fiber demand and U.S.
farm exports.
--China.--The outlook for U.S. agriculture is very much linked to
what happens in China, home to one-fifth of the world's
population. USDA expects China's economy will maintain the
strongest growth in Asia over the next several years with per
capita GDP growth of 7 percent or more per year. As incomes
grow, the demand for food is expected to outpace increases in
production causing China to expand agricultural imports.
However, China's emphasis on self-sufficiency has raised their
grain and cotton production, stocks, and exports this year.
Although cotton production incentives appear to be coming down,
continued emphasis on grain production and maintenance of trade
barriers could dampen future growth in world grain trade and
grain prices. In addition, the pace of economic growth may be
overly optimistic, given the economic problems in China and in
several neighboring countries. Alternatively, if the pace of
economic and trade liberalization could quicken, China could be
integrated in into the world economy more rapidly than
anticipated, which would further strengthen world grain
markets.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony, and I will be happy to
respond to any questions.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Mr. Collins.
Before we proceed to hear from Mr. Schumacher, I think I
will yield at this point to my colleagues on the subcommittee
for any opening statements or remarks that they would like to
make at this time.
Senator Kohl.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Cochran. I have an opening
statement that I will put into the record because I know that
will expedite our hearing.
Senator Cochran. Thank you. That statement will be in the
record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Kohl
Secretary Schumacher, Mr. Collins, and Mr. Kaplan, let me join
Senator Cochran in welcoming you. Our hearing this morning addresses
``Assistance to Farmers and the Farm Economy''. That could encompass
anything from land conservation to agricultural anti-trust reform to
trade policy. And though our subject matter is broad, in view of
current trends in farm prices, it demands our immediate attention.
Mr. Collins, I have reviewed the information in your prepared
statement. I must say, you do not provide much encouragement for anyone
wanting to go into farming. When Secretary Glickman testified before us
last month, he observed that, in spite of a record strong national
economy, those industries tied to natural resources, especially
agriculture, are suffering dismally. That is bad news for this
Subcommittee that has the responsibility of looking beyond Wall Street
and into the fields and rural roads of small town America. This nation
cannot be strong without strength in all parts.
Let us go beyond generalities for a moment. Mr. Collins, you point
out that farm exports dropped to $53.6 billion in fiscal year 1998, a
10-percent reduction from 2 years before, and your projections include
a further reduction to $49 billion this year. Further, I must point
out, this is occurring in an era when we were all being told that
``Trade'' was going to be the solution for agriculture's problems! I
don't see much of a solution when farm exports are falling and we are
still faced with unreasonable treatment from our trading partners.
It sometimes seems difficult to get anyone's attention about the
plight of U.S. agriculture. No one can deny the dramatic decline in the
farm population over the course of this century. But the farmer's role
as provider for our nation and protector of our natural resources
remains as important as ever. Nations don't go to war over television
sets; they go to war over adequate food supplies. Conservation of our
natural resources gets a lot of lip service from our friends in the
cities, but it is the farmer whose livelihood is tied to protection of
soil and water resources. I want to know what the Department of
Agriculture is doing to help farmers meet the challenges of
environmental protection that will avoid the sometimes harsh rule of
regulation. The responsibility we carry to protect the farmers of
America is as important as the responsibility of our nation's farmers
to provide for all of us. One cannot and should not ignore the other.
Therefore, I was becoming increasingly alarmed the past few weeks
when we failed to see any action by the Administration to propose
additional funding for farm programs in the upcoming supplemental that
you knew was before Congress. It made many of us wonder if anyone in
the Administration really cared about the crisis in rural America and I
would welcome any of your comments to put our concerns to rest. When
Secretary Glickman appeared before us nearly one month ago, he
mentioned several needs which still have not been formalized in the
form of a budget request to the Congress.
I hope someone can explain to my satisfaction why there seems to be
such a disconnect within the Administration on something as important
as protecting the farm economy. It was very well for the President to
mention the plight of farmers in his State of the Union Message, but we
had hoped to see something of substance to follow his words. We are
waiting still.
I hear from my farmers in Wisconsin just as all Senators here
listen to farmers in their states. I know that while dairy prices have
been high, the outlook is grim. Volatility in farm prices concerns me
greatly. It is anticipated that dairy prices are going to fall from
record highs earlier this year to record lows in the coming weeks and
months. I wonder how many other sectors of the economy could survive
the enormous shifts in net income that farmers have to live with year
in and year out.
To exacerbate the problem of prices for dairy farmers is the
ongoing problem of policy. Secretary Glickman informed this
subcommittee that distribution of the $200 million we provided last
fall for dairy farmers will be provided in time to help cushion the
coming fall in dairy prices. However, let me firmly state that
providing dollars to help dairy farmers recover from falling prices
must not in any way be connected to the overall dairy policy reforms
you are soon to announce. It goes without saying that I will be
watching both developments very closely and one must not, under any
circumstances, be a quid pro quo for the other.
Secretary Schumacher, among your responsibilities is to provide
U.S. agriculture a strong voice in world trade. Historically,
agriculture has been the shining light in U.S. trade, but as I stated
above, it appears that light cannot continue to shine brightly through
the haze of unfair practices by some of our trading partners and
uncontrollable financial problems now affecting much of the world.
Still, you possess tools to help farmers find their way to new
consumers around the world. We must continue those efforts. In
addition, I worry about the ability of farmers, especially small family
farmers, to survive in an economic climate largely controlled by a few
corporate giants. Small farmers, too, need direct access to markets.
They need to be their own ``middle-men'' and keep more profits in rural
America rather than corporate board rooms.
Let me close by saying that no one in this room, or watching around
the country, wants to see us return to the conditions of the 1980's
when foreclosures and bankruptcies were the rule of the day. We need to
look at measures to conserve land, to smooth agricultural price
volatility, to protect our farmers from uncompetitive concentration in
their industry, to open markets to our quality American agricultural
products. These are large tasks, but farmers in Wisconsin and around
the nation deserve Federal attention that acknowledges their central
place in the history of America's prosperity and way of life.
Senator Cochran. Senator Gorton.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR GORTON
Senator Gorton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As you know, last year Congress provided a $6 billion
disaster and relief package for U.S. agriculture. This package,
as you recall, was drafted and passed with the purpose of
aiding the agriculture based regions of the country that
experienced natural disaster and market losses. Although this
package did relatively little to assist producers in Washington
State who have been impacted by the Asian flu, worldwide
stockpiles of commodities and certain unilateral sanctions, it
certainly signified the concern all of us have regarding our
Nation's farm economy.
While there is no question that commodity prices have
slipped in this country and many family farms are on the brink
of bankruptcy, I question USDA's proposed budget as it
addresses these concerns. On-the-ground production agricultural
programs appear to be of no real significance in this budget.
Research money is allocated for global research and climate
change instead of regional programs this subcommittee and this
country's commodities consistently request and support.
Funding is not requested for the implementation of
prospective crop insurance reforms. Federal private land
purchase programs are significantly increased, showing that
USDA's interest is in simply buying up land farmers can no
longer afford to harvest.
Export programs are decreased, even though almost every
major producer organization of the country has requested
additional foreign market assistance.
My two greatest concerns as a member of this subcommittee,
concerns that growers in Washington State consistently
emphasize, are agriculture research and export enhancement. For
several years, it has been apparent that the Administration
does not agree with growers or me on the subject of regional
research. The Administration should recognize the error of its
ways and discontinue its attempts to eliminate regional
research programs.
Second, with respect to exports, I urge USDA to understand
the importance of agricultural exports and to use the upcoming
World Trade Organization's negotiations in Seattle to expand
and enhance our Nation's agricultural trade. With more than 25
percent of Washington State's commodities being exported, our
agricultural community has a unique and important interest in
these negotiations.
As the department prepares for the WTO Ministerial, I urge
it to consider the importance and significant impact trade has
on Washington State and on the entire Nation's agricultural
economy.
Senator Cochran. Thank you. Strong letter follows.
[Laughter.]
At this time I would like to submit Senator Burns, and
Senator Feinstein's prepared statements for the record.
[The statments follow:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Burns
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I look upon this Subcommittee to improve the devastating economic
situation for American farmers and ranchers. They need more than a
helping hand or a quick fix. They need solutions that will pull them
out of this crisis and keep them out from any more like it in the
future.
The agricultural producer is drowning in a sea of debt and many in
Congress want to continue to send lifeboats. The problem is that once
the producer makes it into the boat he cannot seem to get to shore. He
just continues drifting, barely afloat, and always paddling to try to
make it to shore. I would like to see laws passed this session that
will not only provide a temporary lifeboat to farmers and ranchers, but
pull them completely out of the water.
I believe one way to do that is through an effective crop insurance
program. An operative farm income safety net is paramount to the
survival of agriculture. A long-term viable solution will be necessary
for a safety net with staying power. There are several ideas for crop
insurance reform that are being proposed for Congress this year. This
project will no doubt be a huge undertaking and one that may or may not
be passed in one session. However, the need for reform is imminent and
I believe we can make the Federal Crop Insurance Program, or one like
it, more useful to producers.
I believe a truly effective crop insurance plan involves simply
three things: private insurance, the federal government and the farmer.
The federal government can help facilitate a program to unite the
producer and the private insurance company. Privatization with
government intervention will ultimately put the control in the hands of
the farmer. With a risk management plan, bankers are also more likely
to finance farmers if they have both their crop and their price
covered, with a reliable insurance program. A lasting solution, such as
effective insurance, is imperative to bring producers out of this
current economic crisis.
I know that several of my colleagues also realize the importance of
crop insurance reform this session. The administration claimed crop
insurance reform as one of its top priorities and urged Congress to
repair the federal crop insurance system. Why then did the USDA neglect
to include any funding for this program in the fiscal year 2000 budget?
When questioned, Secretary Glickman stated that USDA will ``find'' the
funds. I realize there is a longer growing season here in Washington
D.C. than in Montana, but where I come from $1 billion doesn't grow on
trees. The lack of funding provided for crop insurance is a slap in the
face to each and every agricultural producer.
Funding for the GLCI (Grass Lands Conservation Initiative) was held
level under the NRCS budget rather than being increased. This program
is invaluable to ecosystem management, which has been a top priority in
President Clinton's environmental agenda. This program provides
education and technical assistance to agricultural producers who
continue to be the ultimate environmental stewards. Funding for this
program should be increased from $15 million to at least $20 million.
The proposed USDA budget claims it will strengthen the safety net
for farmers and low income populations while providing economic
opportunities for rural Americans. It also alleges it will protect our
natural resources and further improve the safety of the food supply.
While all worthwhile programs, this budget will have a hard time
funding any of them adequately. The decreases reflected in the budget
certainly do not help the farmer or rancher, and the program increases
are not tailored to help them either. Agricultural producers are the
backbone of this country and it is especially these people to whom the
United States Department of Agriculture should be held accountable.
I am extremely disappointed with the Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services budget cut. The President promised to bring trade in line with
agricultures and Secretary Glickman recently suggested increased
exports as a solution to the agriculture crisis. Yet, the Farm and
Foreign Agricultural Services budget was cut by nearly $6.5 billion.
Two of the main programs for exports, the Export Enhancement Program
and the Food for Peace (Public Law 480) program, were reduced by $56
million and $772 million respectively. The Export Enhancement Program
has funds that are not being currently utilized. We need to make this
money available now to allow producers to export commodities in
storage. With 70 percent of Montana's grain sent for export we cannot
afford to lose these important programs. This administration wants
fast-track negotiation yet they are unwilling to appropriate or use the
money for the export programs currently in place.
Several other programs important to export enhancement were also
cut. The Commodity Credit Corporation Program was cut by $5.8 billion,
the Dairy Export Incentive Program by $15 million and the Food for
Progress program by $24 million. With today's global market situation,
producers cannot afford to have the few opportunities they have for
export reduced. The CCC provides an important service for private
negotiations with other countries. Agricultural producers have an
increasing need for avenues to market their products through private
entities. The budget cut to the CCC makes them more dependent on the
federal government, rather than giving them opportunities to expand
marketing channels.
The international trade front continues to be a major problem in
Montana and other western states, especially in regards to Canada. Even
with programs like the Northwest Cattle Project, far more cattle flood
the market from Canada than are exported from the United States. The
Canadian Wheat Board, a state trading enterprise, maintains control of
the grain market and lowers prices for producers on both sides of the
border.
The European Union also continues to be a thorn in the side of
agricultural producers. Their non-compliance with World Trade
Organization regulations on imports of bananas and beef should make
them subject to severe retaliation. However, they are still treated as
major players in the world market and have hardly received
admonishment. China must also be subjected to more than a slap on the
wrist for their non-tariff trade barriers. The barrier on TCK smut is
non-scientific and only provides a way for China to prevent access to
foreign grain.
Trade inequities will continue to be a huge problem until they are
addressed in a manner that means compliance. Mr. Schumacher, when will
the Foreign Agricultural Service step in to reduce trade barriers and
resolve international trade disputes? I thank you for your staffing and
support in negotiations between the United States and Canada in Ottawa
recently. However, these are baby steps. What agricultural producers
need are comprehensive agreements that help them now.
As a result of legislation passed last year and the FAIR act of
1996, approximately $6 billion in government payments was to be given
to farmers and ranchers in strife. This money is to be used to offset
loss from crop losses and lower prices. Yet, I have constituents call
every day wondering where their payments are. When Congress promises
loss payments my people at home expect USDA to disperse those funds in
a timely and efficient manner. Endless deadline extensions and hurry up
and wait policies by the USDA are not helping the farmer pay the bank
or the rancher buy hay for the winter.
The biggest problem we have right now in the world of agriculture
is getting a fair share of the consumer dollar back to the producer.
The most important end result of any legislation introduced this
Congress must be to return to the producer his or her share of the
economic dollar. Something is wrong with the big picture. Somewhere
between the time the producer sells the product and the time it reaches
the table, there is a serious disconnect. I believe this committee
needs to take a good look at the big picture and arrive at some
effective solutions. I commit my support and my efforts to the Chairman
and ranking member as well as to the producer in Montana and the nation
to work on this issue with them in the coming year.
Our producers have lost nearly all faith in any assistance the USDA
or the federal government promises. If they have to go it alone right
now, many will fail. They simply do not have the resources or the back-
up funds to allow them the luxury of zero dependence on government
programs. This Department gives the impression of wanting to help the
agricultural producer, but in reality farmers and ranchers may as well
be going it alone. The continued disregard by the United States
Department of Agriculture for the producers it should represent forces
us to come up with an alternative solution.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing some
answers from the USDA, and more importantly to working with you in the
coming year to improve the economic situation for the American farmer
and rancher.
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Feinstein
I want to thank you for being here today.
California is the leading agricultural producing State in the
nation. We also have a significant amount going to export. We export
about 20 percent of what we grow and, in 1997, our exports were valued
at $6.7 billion.
Six of California's top ten agricultural export markets are Pacific
Rim countries. The leading export destinations for California
agriculture are: Japan, Canada, Hong Kong and South Korea. Combined,
these four markets import over $2.6 billion of California agriculture.
Almost fifty percent of our cotton exports go to Japan and South
Korea. Other products being exported to Asia--and other destinations--
include table grapes, wine, oranges, cattle and tomatoes.
Clearly, what happens in Asia is going to have a profound impact on
California's agricultural economy. Thus far, California exports--
including agriculture--have managed to avoid serious fallout from the
Asian financial crisis, but the decline in trade with Pacific Rim
countries will have a lasting impact if things do not turn around
there. I read Mr. Collins' statement.
On another note, before closing I would like to thank the
Department for scheduling one of its regional forums on risk management
in Fresno. I understand the forum is scheduled for later this month and
I just wanted to express my gratitude for recognizing the level of
concern in California. California faces a very unique situation in
terms of the need for crop insurance reform. Only about one fifth of
California's 250 types of crops are even eligible for federal
insurance. I am pleased the Department understands this situation and
is taking steps to hear input from California's growers. Please let me
know if I or my office can provide you any assistance with the meeting.
Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Senator Durbin, we are interrupting our
witnesses to take in the opening statements or comments that
members of the subcommittee would like to make. I will
recognize you at this time for that purpose if you would like
to make any remarks.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, I am going to make my
statement a part of the record and not read it in the interest
of time.
Senator Cochran. OK. Thank you very much.
Mr. Schumacher, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF AUGUST SCHUMACHER, JR.
Mr. Schumacher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and your
colleagues. Thank you for calling today's hearing. I am
certainly pleased to be here with Keith. We have been speaking
with each other fairly frequently on this difficult farm
outlook that has come before us this year, continuing from last
year.
We have Under Secretary Michael Dunn with us today, Mr.
Chairman, and also Under Secretary Miley Gonzalez. Also I am
delighted that Pearlie Reed, Chief of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, is here along with the three
administrators from my mission area. With your permission, I
would like to call on them to answer some of the detailed
questions you may ask. I believe there is an empty chair here
so that any of these people can come forward. Or we can respond
for the record.
I am going to keep my remarks very short. With your
permission, I would like to put my full statement in the
record.
Senator Cochran. That will be perfectly all right. We will
make that a part of the record in full.
Mr. Schumacher. Just to pick up from Keith's comments on
the farm crisis, I think certainly the farm economy is not what
we had in mind when we went through the 1996 Farm Bill.
Baseline projections for farm prices and exports were quite
different in 1996 than they are today, and I was running the
Foreign Agricultural Service when exports reached nearly $60
billion. I think we had some pretty good net cash farm income
estimates.
Many in agriculture anticipated growing world demand and
higher prices, with farmers maximizing returns with some of the
new planting flexibility the Farm Bill provided. The theory was
that foreign markets would drive growth and that farmers would
respond.
But, unfortunately, as we have seen this year farm exports
and prices have fallen for most of the heartland crops and
certainly some of the livestock since 1996.
We still are projecting long-term--long-term--growth in
exports, but U.S. agricultural exports are now only projected
at $49 billion for this fiscal year, 1999. They are not
expected to reach the 1996 high of nearly $60 billion for
another 5 years.
Prices are not expected to recover significantly until
exports do.
Now this could all change if there are major weather
problems in North China, Australia, Argentina, Brazil or, God
forbid, in the United States. Things can be very cyclical, and
the baseline assumes normal weather. But, as we have seen,
weather is never normal. So we will have to see how the weather
situation evolves.
I would now like also to express my deep appreciation and
gratitude to our employees who serve in our mission and who
serve USDA widely. With this farm crisis upon us, these
employees are really working very, very hard, during some very,
very difficult times.
I was down in your State 10 days ago and met many employees
just to talk through some of the issues and visited a number of
farmers. Things are not looking good.
Let me just briefly touch on the supplemental request that
is now here, delivered to both Houses of Congress by the White
House last week.
I understand Thursday, Mr. Chairman, the Senate is
scheduled to mark up the bill to provide supplemental
appropriations. The President's request includes $109.6 million
to enable USDA to provide an additional $1.1 billion for
financing to farmers and ranchers. The message that I am
getting from the countryside is that we desperately need some
additional credit, supplemental credit, out there.
Our overall usage, as Keith has said, is up 65 percent. For
most farm credit programs, funds have been exhausted or will be
exhausted very shortly.
It also includes--and this is a very important issue--$42.8
million for Farm Service Agency temporary staff to meet the
overwhelming demand not only for credit and servicing of credit
but for all of the new LDP's--loan deficiency payments--that we
are working on. We can come back to this in the question period
to discuss how we are doing in issuing payments. I think you
indicated in your opening remarks that you would like to hear
more about that, and I would be very pleased to address that,
maybe assisted by Keith Kelly and Parks Shackelford of FSA.
But we certainly appreciate your very prompt action, coming
up this week, Mr. Chairman, on this vital supplemental bill.
Before I conclude, let me look a little bit at last year's
highlights, again emphasizing the workload in the countryside.
Let's take, for example, LDP's. Since July of 1998, those
have gone up a thousandfold. In sheer numbers, we have gone
from a little over 2,000 in 1997 to nearly 1.5 million in
1998--in dollar terms, $2.8 million in 1997 to $2.8 billion in
1998. This is an extraordinary increase in that safety net on
LDP's.
The number of farmers placing crops under loan also has
gone up significantly. In addition to the marketing assistance
loans, farmers have had the option to take 100 percent of their
1999 flexibility payments beginning in November 1998, as
provided by statutory change last year. Farmers have opted to
receive about 60 percent of total estimated AMTA payments in
advance.
Now let's look at the emergency assistance about which you
inquired.
I am very pleased that within 10 to 12 days after the
President signed your emergency bill last year, the $2.8
billion was sent by bank draft or by check to farmers. So
virtually all of that went out before Veterans Day. We worked
very hard and the computer systems worked very well to get that
$2.8 billion out very promptly.
The signup for the $200 million Livestock Assistance
Program, which began last November, was extended due to very
heavy demand. Payments should be going out in early spring,
very early spring.
Signup for the $2.4 billion crop loss disaster assistance
program began February 1 and was recently extended to April 9.
Payments should go out in late spring, and I would be pleased
to follow up on the details of that if you so wish.
The Secretary will be making an announcement very soon on
the $200 million Dairy Income Loss Assistance Program. The
program implementation plan is working its way through
clearance very quickly, because, as Keith said, the price of
milk is going down. That program needs to be announced, and
those payments will go out very shortly after the Secretary
makes the announcement.
Also, independently of the disaster bill, we have taken a
number of actions to help pork producers. Secretary Dunn was
very active in that, and he can comment further, if you wish,
on the pseudorabies eradication. The signup for the Small Hog
Operations Program ended February 12, and those checks should
go out later this month.
Then, finally, we will be implementing the commodity loan
programs for mohair and honey.
So there has been a major, major full court press to get
assistance out.
Let me just briefly touch on crop insurance and the export
side before I conclude.
In 1998, Federal crop insurance covered about 182 million
acres under approximately 1.2 million policies covering
liability of $28 billion.
In 1998, we helped many farmers survive crop losses,
whether it was in the Northern Plains, with the wetness, or in
the Southern Plains with the drought in May and June of last
year. It was the hottest and driest period on the historical
record. We paid out about $1.6 billion, together with the
private sector, on insurable losses.
We have been aggressively promoting new programs. Ken
Ackerman and his fine staff have been working with the private
sector in expanding existing programs.
Prior to 1996, no Federally backed revenue insurance was
available to farmers. RMA now provides five different types of
revenue insurance. Unfortunately, many farmers still remain
uninsured or underinsured. As you well know, Mr. Chairman--we
have discussed this--we developed and submitted a broad outline
proposal for making crop insurance provide better coverage at
more affordable prices. As a down payment under the disaster
program, we rolled forward $400 million of that on the
emergency relief package to reduce the insurance premiums to
buy down the buy-up coverage by 30 percent.
In addition, we have proposals that are coming forward, and
there will be a number of hearings in the next week and the
week after, both in the Senate and the House, on our risk
management crop insurance. Those will be covering making higher
loan crop insurance coverage more affordable, to expand the
range of crops covered by insurance, to develop policies
covering multi-year as well as single year losses, and to raise
the floor on catastrophic and NAP coverage. That is certainly
something the South has been hearing a great deal about. Also,
more importantly, there is the implementing of a pilot revenue
program for our livestock producers. Livestock covers a little
over 50 percent of our total gross receipts and they are not
covered very much by revenue. Also it should provide better
information and training.
We are looking very much forward to working with you, Mr.
Chairman.
Let me then just conclude on the international side.
We have had a very active year, starting about a year ago,
with the Korean GSM and the Asian crisis, when Tim Galvin and
Chris Goldthwait, stepped smartly to the plate.
Sales of U.S. commodities under our GSM have risen by 40
percent, from $2.9 billion to over $4 billion. Certainly that
got the attention of some of our competitors who had put some
interesting press releases out about that activity.
All told, we will ship nearly 10 million tons of food under
our food aid authorities. And, as Senator Gorton mentioned, we
are working very hard in getting ready for the next
agricultural negotiations at WTO. We have a very ambitious set
of objectives for this round.
For fiscal year 2000, we have $3.5 million for the Cochran
Fellowship, and that is working very, very well. We are
expanding the program into Africa, which could be our new
growth area in a few years' time.
So, in conclusion, we are going to be asking for many
comments as we work through the risk management proposals. It
is true that we did not put much money in the budget for this
because we want to get a consensus, similar to what we did in
1990 and 1995 on the Farm Bill, where we built a consensus with
farmers, ranchers, commodity groups, farm groups, farm
organizations, and the authorizing committees, and then work
through the budget implications as the year develops.
It is going to be an active year. We are starting off with
the tremendous work going on in the supplemental that is going
forward, and I thank you for taking that up so promptly. We are
then going to be finalizing all the payments that are coming
out over the next 2 or 3 months. That should be all done by
late May or the latest, late spring. Then we have the risk
management proposals coming forward. Then we will have to see
how the weather and prices continue and whether we need to do
even more as we did last year.
When farmers were in crisis, we all stepped up to the plate
and assisted family farmers in getting through this crisis.
Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate being
here and look forward to answering your and your colleagues'
questions.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of August Schumacher, Jr.
introduction
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear
before you today with my colleague, USDA's Chief Economist Keith
Collins, to discuss our assistance to producers and our commitment to
improving the farm safety net. With me this morning are representatives
from the Farm Service Agency, Risk Management Agency and Foreign
Agricultural Service within my own mission area, as well as
representatives from the Research, Education and Economics and
Marketing and Regulatory Programs mission areas and the Natural
Resources Conservation Service. Statements of the Agency Administrators
detailing their fiscal year 2000 budget requests will be submitted for
the record. The mission of Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services is to
secure the long-term vitality and global competitiveness of American
agriculture. The President described our mission another way in his
State of the Union message when he said: ``We must work hard to bring
prosperity back to the family farm.''
Our ability to accomplish this mission is surely being tested
during this period of low commodity prices and weak overseas demand.
We will continue to use all of the program and policy tools
available to us to help producers whose incomes have dropped
substantially because of low prices and weather-related production
losses. But while planting flexibility provisions of the Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act), strong
export and trade policy programs, risk management initiatives, and our
farm loan programs have helped many crop and livestock producers, it is
clear that the farm safety net needs to be reinforced. This is a top
priority.
The Administration and Congress worked together last year to
support farmers in areas hit hard by sharply lower commodity prices,
severe weather problems, and, in some cases, successive years of
reduced yields. This year we will continue our efforts to expand and
improve programs which help producers manage risk, and we look forward
to working with Congress to further reform the insurance programs for
crop and livestock producers. We also are working hard to expand
opportunities for small farmers and others who traditionally have been
under-served in our farm programs. The recent class action settlement
with African American farmers underscores our continued commitment to
ensure fair treatment for all of our customers.
The heavy workload associated with the farm crisis is putting
increased stress on an already strained farm program delivery system as
well. To improve service and cut costs, we are streamlining business
processes, establishing a common computing environment, and
consolidating administrative services among the county-based agencies.
However, savings from these efforts won't be realized immediately. In
the interim, it is vital that Farm Service Agency staffing be
maintained at sufficient levels to ensure the efficient delivery of
service to our customers on a timely basis.
Mr. Chairman, before addressing our specific proposals for
strengthening the farm safety net, I would like to describe recent and
ongoing efforts underway by USDA to help America's family farmers and
ranchers.
commodity program assistance
As a result of the depressed market conditions in many grain and
oilseed production areas, farmers' use of marketing assistance loans
and loan deficiency payments (LDPs) has soared dramatically. The
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) increased benefits under the
commodity programs by allowing LDPs for silage and high moisture corn,
as well as for below-grade or contaminated commodities.
By the end of January, farmers had requested nearly 1.5 million
LDPs for their 1998 crops--more than a 600-fold increase over the 2,182
LDPs made on 1997 crops. Total marketing assistance loan gain (MLG) and
LDP outlays on the 1997 and 1998 crops are now projected to total $3.1
billion, with all but $165 million going to 1998-crop commodities. Corn
producers have received 36 percent of the total to date, while soybean
producers have received 23 percent, wheat producers 20 percent, and
upland cotton producers 14 percent. For 1999 crops, total MLG and LDP
outlays are forecast to rise to $4.2 billion.
Putting these outlays into perspective, as of January 20, 65
percent of the 1998 wheat crop (1,665.2 million bushels) had been put
under loan or received an LDP. That's more than seven times the year-
earlier level, and more than six times the entire 1997-crop quantity
covered by the program. Year-to-date activity is similarly large for
other crops and reflects the extremely heavy county office workload.
In fiscal year 1999, the value of loan placements and LDPs for all
commodities is projected to total $10.6 billion, 38 percent more than
in fiscal year 1998. In fiscal year 2000, that figure is forecast to be
even higher at $13.2 billion, more than 70 percent greater than in
fiscal year 1998. Of these totals, the increase in LDPs alone is
demonstrative of the low commodity prices farmers are facing. LDPs for
all commodities in fiscal year 1998 were under $500 million; in fiscal
year 1999 they are projected to reach $1.8 billion, more than a three-
fold increase. For fiscal year 2000, LDPs are projected to be over $2.7
billion, about six times the LDP total for fiscal year 1998.
In addition to the marketing assistance loan program, farmers had
the option to take 100 percent of their 1999 production flexibility
payments (estimated at about $5.5 billion after adjustments for payment
limits) beginning in November 1998. As of February 23 of this year,
farmers had opted to receive about $3.7 billion, or about two-thirds,
of this amount, leaving the remaining $1.8 billion to be paid later
this year.
emergency programs
USDA is working hard to implement the emergency programs funded in
the 1999 Act, which include market loss payments, 1998 and multi-year
crop loss assistance, livestock feed assistance, and other programs.
Market loss payments of $2.8 billion--amounting to a 50-percent
increase in 1998 production flexibility payments--were distributed to
major crop producers before Thanksgiving. We are now developing program
provisions for distributing $200 million in market loss payments to
dairy producers this spring.
Provisions of the $2.4 billion Crop Loss Disaster Assistance
Program were announced last December, and signup began February 1.
There are two basic parts of the program: 1998 single-year crop loss
provisions cover crop losses during the 1998 crop year for which either
crop insurance or the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP)
is available; multi-year provisions provide an additional 25-percent
payment to producers who have already received either crop insurance or
NAP payments in at least 3 of the last 5 years. Producers may receive
benefits under either, but not both, of these programs. The program
also covers producers whose crops (primarily wheat) have suffered
multiple outbreaks of fusarium head blight (scab). Up to $30 million in
crop loss assistance and $12 million in disaster reserve funds will be
used to assist farmers with crop and pasture land that has suffered
long term flood damage.
The Disaster Assistance Tree Loss Program covers the cost of
replanting or rehabilitating trees from which crops are harvested that
have been damaged by natural disasters during 1998. It will run
concurrently with the Crop Loss Disaster Assistance Program. Growers
who have received assistance for tree losses under the Tree Assistance
Program (TAP) are not eligible to receive assistance under the new
program; however, TAP assistance has been extended by the 1999 Act to
cover trees and vines damaged by fire blight in addition to other
natural disasters.
Signup for the $200-million Livestock Assistance Program (LAP)
began last November and has been extended due to heavy demands. County
offices have been swamped with applications for this program. As of
January 29, more than 23,000 producers have applied for assistance
under this program in Texas alone. Nearly 1,200 counties have been
approved for LAP. As of February 22, applications totalled well over
$640 million, with many counties still processing applications. At the
current application rate, we expect requested assistance could reach
about $800 million by the end of the signup period. If this level of
participation is realized, LAP payments would compensate producers for
roughly 25 percent of their livestock grazing losses incurred during
1998.
FSA also has provided assistance to livestock producers under other
appropriated programs, including the $4 million Livestock Indemnity
Program (Phase II), which covered livestock death losses due to natural
disasters which occurred before May 1, 1998, and the $6.8 million Dairy
Production Disaster Assistance Program, which covers disaster-caused
diminished milk production or dumped milk. The 1999 Act added $3
million to this program.
The American Indian Livestock Feed Program (AILFP) is funded from
the sale of feed grains from the disaster reserve. It replaces an
earlier and similar program, the Indian Acute Distress Donation
Program, which was suspended by the 1996 Act. However, the need to
assist American Indians has not diminished, and AILFP provides direct
cash payments to eligible livestock owners. Tribes may apply as
livestock owners, and as of February 10, two tribes--the Chippewa Cree
Tribe of Rocky Boy's Reservation in Montana, and the Three Affiliated
Tribes of Fort Berthold in North Dakota--have been approved. Payments
have been issued, and applications from other tribes are now being
reviewed.
Since late 1998, USDA has taken several actions to help pork
producers--who've seen hog prices fall 75 percent since July 1997--and
improve market conditions. As announced by the Vice President, USDA
will make $50 million in direct cash payments to family-sized hog
producers and will provide $80 million under the pseudorabies
eradication program to remove up to 1.7 million hogs from the market.
Signup for the Small Hog Operations Payment Program ended February 12.
We've also accelerated pork purchases for Federal feeding programs,
increased pork purchases for the Russian aid package, and included pork
in the package of export credit guarantees to South Korea. We're
encouraging lenders to work with hog producers during the market
downturn, and, in addition to credit assistance, USDA is prepared to
use all servicing authorities, including rescheduling and reamortizing,
deferring installments and debt writedowns to assist those producers
who are FSA borrowers.
CCC has issued $9.7 million under the Noninsured Crop Disaster
Assistance Program to producers in 14 States for 1998 crop year losses.
Since the 1995 crop year, NAP has provided risk protection similar to
basic catastrophic crop insurance coverage for producers of uninsured
crops. During 1995 and subsequent crop years, 1,108 NAP areas have been
approved. To date, $16.0 million in NAP assistance has been provided to
producers in 39 States and Territories for 1997 crop year losses; $60.9
million has been issued to producers in 44 States and Territories for
1996 crop year losses, and $30.5 million was provided to producers in
45 States and Territories for 1995 crop year losses.
Other 1999 emergency funds support new recourse loan programs for
honey and mohair, for which procedures are being developed.
farm loan programs
A big part of the safety net for farmers involves expanding
economic opportunity, which includes access to farm credit resources.
Traditionally, USDA's role in the farm credit market has been the
``lender of last resort.'' However, the Department's role is important
because it provides opportunities for farmers who experience financial
difficulty to stay in business, and fills credit gaps, particularly for
small, limited resource, socially disadvantaged and beginning farmers.
The emergency provisions of the 1999 Act provide for an additional
$541 million in direct and guaranteed operating loans to producers who
are unable to obtain credit elsewhere.
Demand for FSA farm loans in fiscal year 1999 has been extremely
strong. Depressed farm prices and the natural disasters which affected
producers in many parts of the country have led to a 65-percent
increase in overall obligations compared to the same time last year.
Many farm families who have been financing their business operations
through their own resources or with a minimum of commercial bank debt
are now seeking FSA farm loan assistance. As a result of the weakened
farm economy, especially in the pork industry, these family farmers
have lower incomes and reduced financial resources to work with this
fiscal year.
Commercial lenders are utilizing FSA loan guarantees to restructure
the short-term indebtedness of their customers into more favorable
long-term rates so that they can continue to provide financing. FSA has
worked with lenders and other stakeholders to completely streamline
loan guarantee application procedures, making them more consistent with
standard industry practices and making the loan programs more user-
friendly and responsive to the needs of lenders and their farm
customers. A new Preferred Lender Program (PLP) dramatically reduces
the amount of time and effort lenders must spend in obtaining FSA
guarantees by allowing lenders with PLP status the maximum authority
possible to make and service guaranteed loans.
Obligations under the guaranteed operating loan (OL) with interest
assistance program are currently running 159 percent ahead of a year
ago at this time, while the number of applications has increased 56
percent. In the guaranteed farm ownership (FO) loan program,
obligations have increased 92 percent, and applications by 28 percent
over a year ago.
Applications for direct operating loans are up 44 percent from last
year at this time, and obligations under this program are running 35
percent ahead of last year. We expect use of direct OL funds will
accelerate as planting season nears. Economic conditions this year are
forcing many family farmers who normally obtain commercial credit to
seek direct OL assistance, and low commodity prices are creating severe
stress for many highly leveraged small farms operated by minority and
beginning farmers.
Many direct OL loans are being made in conjunction with emergency
(EM) loans to farmers affected by natural disasters. Applications for
EM loans so far in fiscal year 1999 are running 397 percent above a
year ago at this time, and obligations are running 185 percent above
last year. The heaviest use of EM loan funds generally occurs in March
through June. As is true for nearly all USDA direct loan programs,
funding levels for direct FO loans have historically been less than
farmers' demand for them. Many of these farmers are minority and
beginning farmers who are without the resources to obtain credit from a
commercial lender, even with a guarantee. As part of our ongoing
commitment to improving our services to small farmers and to others who
have been underserved in the past, USDA's fiscal year 2000 budget
request includes $128 million in direct FO loans, compared to $86
million available for 1999--a 48-percent increase. We also are
increasing our outreach to previously underserved farmers. In fiscal
year 1999, loans made to beginning farmers are up 32 percent and loans
to socially disadvantaged producers are up 42 percent from a year ago.
These increases mark the third consecutive year that we've increased
the number of loans made to these groups of producers. However,
providing loan funds to small farmers with limited equity and low
incomes is only the first step in helping them to become successful.
Many benefit from credit supervision, training, and assistance in
managing their farm businesses. Currently, we are providing loan making
and loan servicing benefits to these family farmers while achieving a
declining delinquency rate on the overall FSA caseload. The default
rate on FSA direct loans, as of January 1, has dropped from 23 percent
in fiscal year 1995 to 15 percent this year.
We are carefully monitoring the demand for FSA farm loans and the
amount of loan funds obligated. In addition to the number of
applications, we have a large carryover of unfunded applications from
last year, and some States are reporting fund shortages in non-targeted
loan categories (portions of loan allocations that are not set aside
for beginning and minority farmers until after April 1, 1999) for
guaranteed FO and OL loans with interest assistance. The statutory
increase in loan limits to $700,000 also means the fiscal year 1999
allocation of loan funds is able to fund fewer applications for
guaranteed loans, even as these applications have increased
dramatically. Because of the strong increase in demand for farm loan
assistance, we anticipate that most funds will be exhausted much
earlier than last year.
Beginning farmer (BF) targets for guaranteed loans are lifted on
April 1. The BF targets for direct OL are removed on September 1.
Socially disadvantaged targets remain in effect until administratively
withdrawn, and historically, this takes place in the latter part of the
fiscal year.
conservation reserve program
Many farmers also benefit from participation in the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP). Although CRP acreage is selected on the basis of
the environmental benefits it will provide, conversion of the cropland
to permanent vegetative cover does affect crop production, crop prices,
and farmers' incomes.
In the eighteenth CRP signup, which ended last December, USDA
received 90,000 offers for a total of 7.1 million acres. County offices
will soon be notifying producers of bid acceptances.
risk management
In his State of the Union address, the President reiterated his
call for a bipartisan plan to create a strong safety net for farmers.
That need is critical. We need policy tools that can provide needed
support to farm incomes when natural disasters and market disasters
strike, tools that farmers can rely on in a proactive approach to risk
management.
The first step in building a stronger safety net is using $400
million from the 1999 emergency appropriation as a down payment on
improving crop insurance. That $400 million will be used to reduce
farmers' premiums by 30 percent this year, as an incentive to increase
the use of buy-up coverage, and to help energize a broad-based crop
insurance program that will be the anchor for the safety net.
In building on that base, we would like to work with Congress on
some specific proposals, which include:
Increasing participation by making higher-level crop insurance
coverage more affordable and effective for farmers; developing policies
to cover multi-year as well as single-year losses; raising the floor
for catastrophic coverage and the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance
program; expanding the range of crops that can be covered; authorizing
a pilot revenue program for livestock as a first step to bringing the
largest sector of American agriculture under the crop insurance
umbrella; creating other new pilot options to see what works for
farmers; working more creatively with private companies to develop risk
management tools; and providing better information, education, and
service to farmers.
While we believe crop insurance should be the centerpiece of the
safety net, we need to look at a broad range of ways to help farmers
manage risk. These ways should include allowing farmers to extend the
due dates on market assistance loans to ease the pressure on cash flow.
They should include incentives for establishing on-farm storage
facilities to give farmers greater marketing flexibility.
In the next few months Secretary Glickman will hold three regional
forums around the country; Deputy Secretary Rominger and I will hold
others. We are inviting members of Congress to attend. We want to get
input from all quarters, and to hear from farmers, ranchers, lenders,
local officials--all who have a stake in agriculture--on how we can
improve the safety net for producers. We want to hear directly from
farmers and ranchers on what we need to do to make crop insurance a
more attractive and viable vehicle in their risk management strategies.
Crop insurance has come a long way since the 1994 reforms were
enacted. In 1998, the program provided nearly $28 billion in protection
on more than 181 million acres through nearly 1.2 million policies.
Hard-hit producers received $1.4 billion in indemnities. That
performance stands in stark contrast to the situation just 5 years
earlier, when only 83.7 million acres were insured through 700,000
policies providing $11.3 billion in liability.
Now, there are a number of new insurance programs with improved
coverages, including five different types of revenue insurance
protection, new crop programs, and dairy options. Last year, the Risk
Management Agency (RMA) responded to the acute farm crisis gripping
much of the Northern Plains with improved and expanded crop and revenue
insurance for spring wheat and barley, corn and soybeans.
We intend to continue working on improving the crop insurance
program. We will do everything possible to encourage program
participation, to correct inequities in the structure of premium rates,
yield guarantees, or other program provisions, to make the program
user-friendly for companies and producers alike, and to facilitate new
product development and other program innovations. We look forward to
working with Congress on crop insurance reforms based on the principles
of maximum participation, comprehensive coverage, use of market
mechanisms, flexibility, and program delivery at the lowest possible
cost to taxpayers and producers. Achieving these goals will provide a
strong foundation for the reliable and effective safety net that
producers need.
export programs
Developments in overseas markets during the past year have
certainly demonstrated that the health of the American farm economy is
inextricably linked to the global economy. As markets in Asia, Latin
America, Russia and elsewhere experienced financial turmoil and their
imports of food and agricultural commodities were reduced, the impacts
of those developments were felt throughout rural America. That is why
the agricultural community worked so hard to ensure adequate funding
for the International Monetary Fund, which is leading the international
financial reform efforts.
We recognize that a healthy farm economy depends on strong export
markets and USDA is using all of its available export tools to help
American farmers and ranchers weather this economic crisis. Faced with
the challenges posed by last year's market disruptions, we have
expanded substantially the level of CCC export credit guarantees made
available for export to markets in Asia, which otherwise would have
been unable to obtain financing for their food and agricultural
imports. As a result, sales registrations under the guarantee programs
exceeded $4 billion in 1998, an increase of 40 percent above the
previous year.
For fiscal 1999, we have announced the availability of $4.2 billion
in export credit guarantees, compared with $3.9 billion announced at
this time last year. This total does not include our anticipated $1
billion program for South Korea. We are continuing our negotiations
with the South Korean government over the commodity mix to be included
in the package.
In addition to these major undertakings, we also continue our
export assistance efforts under other programs. For example, under the
Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP), Secretary Glickman has
authorized export bonuses up to the maximum volume and spending limits
consistent with our World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations. From
July through January, bonuses of nearly $80 million were paid for
exports of nearly 70,000 metric tons of U.S. nonfat dry milk, over
3,000 tons of whole milk powder, and 4,000 tons of cheese. Last May,
Secretary Glickman reactivated the Export Enhancement Program (EEP) to
announce a 20,210-ton allocation for frozen poultry to six Middle East
countries to partly compensate U.S. poultry producers for markets lost
in Europe. To date, 1,500 tons have been sold under this initiative. He
also announced an EEP initiative for barley to Algeria, Cyprus, and
Norway in response to the European Union's heavily subsidized sale of
barley into the U.S. market. Before this initiative expired, USDA paid
$1.2 million in bonuses for nearly 25,000 tons of U.S. barley exports.
We continue to stress the importance of market development. In 1998, we
allocated $90 million to 64 U.S. trade associations, state regional
groups, and cooperatives for export promotion activities under the
Market Access Program (MAP), and approved marketing plans for $33.5
million for 27 U.S. trade associations under the Foreign Market
Development (FMD) program. In 1999, we have approved marketing plans of
$33.5 million for 26 U.S. trade organizations under FMD. Just last
month, we invited applications for our 1999 MAP and our fiscal 2000 FMD
program. We are using a new means this year to reduce U.S. wheat
surpluses while increasing our food aid to other nations--the
President's Food Aid Initiative, announced in July. This initiative is
being carried out under authority of the CCC Charter Act of 1933 to
purchase surplus wheat from the domestic U.S. market. The wheat is
subsequently being made available for donation overseas under the
authority of Section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949.
By late October last year, we had fully allocated the 2.5 million
metric tons of wheat and wheat products initially authorized. We
doubled the size of the initiative in December, authorizing Section
416(b) donations totaling 5 million metric tons. Wheat donations under
the Food Aid Initiative alone will now equal the total commodity
tonnage that the United States will provide worldwide this year under
all other food aid programs.
As of Jan. 30, 1999, allocations under the initiative totaled
around 4.8 million tons of wheat and wheat products. Of the total, 3.3
million has been allocated for government-to-government donations,
including Russia (1.5 million tons), Bangladesh (600,000 tons) and
Pakistan (300,000 tons), with the remaining 900,000 tons going to 16
other countries. Another 1 million tons has been allocated for
donations through the World Food Program, while 427,000 tons has been
allocated for distribution by private voluntary organizations (PVO's).
Shipments have begun to some countries, and we continue to
negotiate donation agreements with a number of recipient countries and
PVO's. We expect that all 5 million tons will be shipped by the end of
this calendar year.
We are also carrying out a major food aid effort in Russia. Along
with the wheat that I mentioned earlier, our package for Russia
includes 500,000 tons of corn, 300,000 tons of soybean meal, 208,000
tons of soybeans, 116,000 tons of rice, 120,000 tons of beef, 50,000
tons of pork, 50,000 tons of poultry, 39,000 tons of nonfat dry milk,
and 15,000 tons of planting seeds. The U.S. and Russian governments
have established an unprecedented monitoring program to ensure that aid
reaches the targeted populations throughout Russia. USDA is devoting
substantial resources to monitor the delivery and distribution of the
food aid. Four additional USDA staff will be sent to Russia to aid in
this effort. USDA also is requesting assistance from other U.S.
government agencies to monitor the package and will, if necessary,
consider sending additional staff.
trade negotiations
We must move forward with greater market reform in the next round
of world trade talks, which begins late this year in Seattle. Although
the Uruguay Round was a landmark agreement for agriculture--more was
done to liberalize trade and bring agriculture into the GATT system
than in all previous rounds combined--we have to recognize that
agriculture still has a long way to go to complete its reform and be
fully integrated into the world trading system.
Our goals for the upcoming WTO negotiations include: elimination of
export subsidies; substantially cutting--and where possible
eliminating--tariffs on farm products; tightening rules on domestic
subsidies; reforming state trading enterprises; and tightening rules on
technical barriers that unjustifiably restrict trade.
WTO accessions provide an excellent opportunity to address and
resolve some trade problems. We will be working with China on its WTO
accession.
In addition, we will continue to work to resolve the contentious
bilateral trade issues that hinder our exports, such as the EU hormone
ban, restrictive Canadian import policies for livestock and wheat, and
unfair Chinese phytosanitary rules.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I look forward to
working with the Committee on the fiscal year 2000 budget so that
together we can meet the needs of our nation's farmers and ranchers.
______
Prepared Statement of Pearlie S. Reed, Chief, Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today. For twenty-nine years I have served with the Soil Conservation
Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. During the
course of those years, I have had the opportunity to work with and meet
many outstanding conservationists--people who care greatly for the land
and for the farmers and ranchers that they serve. That is why I am here
today. I want to represent the conservationists who go to work everyday
to try and help our farms become more productive, to assist our
communities be stronger and more sustainable, and to also protect and
improve our land, water, and other valuable natural resources.
Our people in the field are what NRCS is all about. They are some
of the most capable and dedicated employees you will find anywhere in
the government. However, these employees need our assistance, if they
are going to be successful at what they do. They need us to help them
spend time out on farms and ranches with the farmers, rather than
performing administrative tasks in the office. They need us to provide
the technical and financial resources that they can use to help
farmers; they need us to tell their story, so that folks here in
Washington will understand our successes--but more importantly, what
their needs are.
I want to begin with the topic of accountability. It is something
that members of this Subcommittee have expressed very strongly to us.
We got the message. As a result, during the course of fiscal year 1998
we put several new accountability measures in place. One aspect is the
Total Cost and Accountability System (TCAS). It measures, on a daily
basis, the number of hours that employees spend on various functions,
including conservation planning, watershed work, or assistance in Farm
Bill program implementation. A second aspect of our accountability
system is the Performance and Results and Management System (PRMS).
This system focuses on measuring the results of our work and capturing
accomplishments. Although PRMS is just coming on-line, we believe it
will be a useful tool in meeting the objectives of the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
A third component is the Workload Analysis. At the state and field
office levels, data were collected about the expertise of our employees
in geographic areas of the country, how programs were utilized to
achieve objectives, and what our future projected workload would be.
The Workload Analysis aids NRCS strategic planning, in that we can set
targets and match objectives to realistic resources and staffing.
Initial results suggest that we need more help in the field to assist
with program implementation and meet the needs of farmers. As Chief, I
have taken many steps to minimize administrative tasks, and help
conservationists spend time in the field. My ``workload reduction
team'' has recommended and implemented many steps, such as eliminating
unneeded forms and reports, that cost valuable staff time. For example,
in Yolo County, California, commonly requested soil survey data is now
available on the Internet and has reduced requests to the office; in
New Mexico, many forms have been automated and streamlined, reducing
staff workload; and in Texas, elimination of the Field Office Computing
System (FOCS) has made more time available for field staff to meet with
customers. We are pleased with the results of workload reduction, but
regardless of the steps we take here in the leadership, we need
sufficient resources to apply toward meeting the incoming workload.
We know the workload is great. For nearly 30 years, I have seen the
people of NRCS eagerly and consistently go above and beyond the call of
duty. We see every citizen who walks in an NRCS office as our customer.
Some have criticized NRCS for this. I believe it is something to be
proud of. NRCS staff are part of the communities they serve and the
most impressive achievements of our agency, are where our field
conservationist help people to help themselves. It is through the
relationship that our field staff develop with individual farmers, or
through the role they play in helping communities, that they have
developed trust and a reputation for providing quality advice time and
time again. Some call it ``locally-led'' or a ``bottom-up'' approach,
but our work really comes down to ``interactive assistance''. NRCS
staff interact with customers: we want to know what the farmer's
objectives are; we gain an understanding for how the operation is run;
and we work with them to apply conservation practices that will achieve
their goals. We also strive to achieve national goals of clean water,
erosion control, nutrient management, among many others. We do all of
this based upon sound science and utilization of the best technology
available. It is an interactive process and it may take weeks, months
or even years to put all of the pieces together and it is also very
difficult to quantify.
Demands for NRCS' services continue to grow at an accelerating
pace. In recent years, the need and demand for Conservation Technical
Assistance (CTA) has increased as resource problems have been
identified, including those associated with nonpoint source pollution,
misapplication of fertilizers and pesticides, and land use changes.
NRCS has responded by developing new technology and conservation
standards to address emerging challenges such as nutrient management,
wetland destruction, global climate change, the aging watershed
infrastructure, and soil erosion. While this has increased public and
local awareness of natural resource concerns, it has also broadened the
agency's customer base to include a growing list of customers. We
estimate that the operators of livestock operations will require over
350,000 nutrient management plans in the coming decade for the
estimated 450,000 AFOs addressed by the Clean Water Action Plan. In
addition, almost 11,000 small watershed dams constructed under the
authority of Public Law 534, and Public Law 566 will reach the end of
their design life in this coming decade. These watershed structures
represent the safety, economic viability, and economic sustenance of
thousands of communities. In defense terms, we often speak of
``military readiness''. What I would ask us all to do today, is think
about the ``readiness'' of our conservation delivery system.
The people of NRCS have always given 100 percent of their abilities
and will continue to do so. The 1985 Farm Bill asked them to
concentrate more efforts on highly erodible lands, and they met that
responsibility. The 1990 Farm Bill asked them to work harder for
America's wetlands, and they also met that responsibility. The 1996
Farm Bill asked them to work harder for wildlife habitat, farmland
protection, animal agriculture and a host of other activities. They are
working hard to meet that responsibility, but they need our help.
I want to suggest, in closing, that the reason that so much is
being asked of NRCS is that so much is being asked of our nation's
farmers and ranchers. Everyday, they put their boots on and go out to
bring us the lowest cost, safest, and most abundant food supply on this
planet. At the same time, we ask them to be the caretakers of our
water, guardians of our air, and the stewards of the soil. It is up to
us to give them a hand.
______
Prepared Statement of James R. Lyons, Under Secretary for Natural
Resources and Environment
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. It is my pleasure to
outline for you the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Department
of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Over
the past six years I have had the honor to appear before this
Subcommittee during each appropriations cycle to present the budget for
NRCS. In reviewing the budget requests for the agency in those years,
it is quite startling to see how the agency has changed and emerged as
a leader in Federal conservation activities. Through passage of the
federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (1996 Farm
Bill), and implementation of the Department of Agriculture
Reorganization Act of 1994, NRCS has stepped up not only to advance the
conservation mission of USDA, but also to become the central Federal
agency for conservation on America's private lands.
Farmers, ranchers, and communities across the nation can turn to
NRCS and receive assistance on a wide spectrum of conservation,
encompassing nutrient and pesticide management, wetlands conservation,
watershed planning, flood prevention, water quality improvement,
development/maintenance of wildlife habitat, and, of course, soil
conservation. To meet that demand, NRCS delivers a wide variety of
financial and technical resources to its customers, through programs as
diverse as the Wetlands Reserve Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Program, and the Farmland Protection Program.
But regardless of the programs that NRCS delivers and the
responsibilities with which the agency has been entrusted, the core of
NRCS has been and continues to be its people. It is the NRCS delivery
system in the field that makes all of the work happen. It is the field
conservationists who combine knowledge of the latest technology and
science, with experience in farming and ranching operations to sensibly
apply good conservation management practices. It is the field
conservationists who have earned the trust of farmers and ranchers
across the nation through that sound advice and assistance.
I want to take a moment to outline in more detail, how the NRCS
field delivery system provides the conservation technical assistance
necessary to meet the agency's mission.
natural resources conservation service technical assistance
NRCS provides natural resources conservation assistance primarily
on private lands. More than 70 percent of the land in the contiguous
United States is privately owned, including virtually all of the
Nation's agricultural lands. It is on the private lands where millions
of individual decisions are made by farmers and ranchers, that the
ultimate success of our natural resource efforts will be determined.
NRCS is the only Federal agency whose major purpose is to provide
conservation technical assistance to private landusers across the
country. The agency's focus is on helping landowners and users achieve
natural resource and environmental goals while maintaining productive
and profitable operations and economically viable rural communities.
NRCS has had significant success, and the field structure is designed
to continue that success in the future. These are a few of its many
assets:
People.--NRCS has a nationwide network of professional staff at the
local level that provide conservation technical assistance to owners
and users of privately-owned land. NRCS field staff areas of expertise
cover a broad spectrum of natural resource issues. Over forty percent
of the agency's science and technology occupations are engineers, over
25 percent are soil scientists, and nearly 10 percent are schooled in
rangeland sciences. Other disciplines encompass biology, agronomy,
cartography, physics, and forestry. NRCS field staff live and work in
the areas that they serve, and have invaluable knowledge of the soil
resources, watersheds, climate, and wildlife in the area. But even more
importantly, our field staff know their customers. They interact with
them everyday and understand the farming operations, agricultural
trends, and resource constraints of the people they serve.
Technical skills.--NRCS natural resource specialists are trained to
deliver technological support to groups and individuals quickly,
efficiently, and consistently nationwide. Through a national framework,
including science and technology consortiums as well as NRCS
Institutes, field staff are trained to apply science-based assistance
with a great degree of sensitivity to local conditions. NRCS field
staff working in partnership with the local conservation districts are
used as a primary source of help by local people--and often by people
administering programs for other Federal, State, and local agencies.
Technical excellence.--NRCS specifications for soil and water
conservation practices are considered invaluable throughout government
and private industry. In addition, the agency is the leader in soil
classification and soil mapping. NRCS soil surveys and GIS-based data
are utilized daily not only by NRCS staff, but other Federal agencies,
local governments, and academia. Soil surveys are used daily to make
decisions as small as what type of plants to place in a backyard
garden, to how best to engineer highways and bridges.
Natural resource planning experience.--NRCS has vast experience in
broad-scale planning in watersheds and other areas and site-specific
planning on farms and ranches to address natural resource concerns.
Effective natural resource planning in the future will require this
type of planning process to develop effective solutions that meet the
needs for a sustainable land and its people. NRCS serves as a catalyst
by providing coordination to bring local people together with skilled
technical people to develop and implement meaningful solutions. These
planning efforts are provided through the Watershed Survey and Planning
Program, the Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Program, and
Coordinated Resource planning provided through Conservation Operations.
Diversity.--I would like to underscore the contributions that NRCS
is making toward ensuring equitable service and opportunity for all
customers and employees of USDA. NRCS has had a good record of ensuring
diversity and opportunity in the past, however, I believe we can do
better. Throughout various program and technical assistance activities,
NRCS will work hard to provide the necessary outreach and assistance to
ensure that our customers have easy access to services. In response to
the Civil Rights Action Team report, the Secretary has undertaken many
steps to improve the Department's activities and policies in this area.
I am confident that NRCS will continue to seek proactive ways to better
serve minority and low-income customers. One of the hallmarks of the
conservation assistance is that it is available to anyone, anywhere.
That includes areas that are not typically designated as high workload
areas based upon farm program participation, population, or other
demographic factors. By offering basic and universal conservation
assistance on a national basis, NRCS offers minority and limited
resource farmers a needed helping hand. A legacy of conservation on
private lands must be built with the participation of everyone.
Partnerships and volunteerism.--Since its creation, NRCS has
operated through voluntary cooperative arrangements with individuals,
the private sector, and Federal, State, and local governments. The
value of NRCS technical assistance is recognized by local and State
partners; equally, we recognize the invaluable contribution of
volunteers, who contribute immeasurably to conservation efforts.
Americans have freely and generously given of their time to the
volunteer arm of NRCS, known as the Earth Team. In fact, in fiscal year
1998 some 17,287 NRCS Earth Team volunteers donated 674,299 hours to
conservation efforts. As calculated by the Points of Light Foundation,
this equates to an additional $9,200,000 in direct assistance to
private landowners for natural resource protection, an increase of
nearly 11 percent from fiscal year 1997. The return on the investment
for NRCS is enormous. We estimate that for every dollar spent on the
Earth Team, we receive $48 dollars in service benefits.
Local people as decision-makers.--When NRCS provides conservation
and program assistance, the agency works under mutual agreements with
some 3,000 conservation districts that are established under state law.
About 17,000 local conservation district supervisors provide the agency
with invaluable guidance. The NRCS cooperative team structure is an
established and practical example of how Federal programs can be
managed with local guidance at the local level. It is crucial to
remember that the agency's approach is a voluntary one. Our
professionals provide options for problem-solving--developed in
conjunction with customers, but it is the customers who make the final
decisions.
Leverage.--State and local governments contribute substantially,
with both people and dollars complementing NRCS technical assistance.
Without NRCS technical assistance, which greatly enhances the value of
State and local efforts, these funds almost certainly would not have
been spent on natural resource protection. In a sense, this cooperation
constitutes a two-way leveraging: State and local programs and NRCS
benefit from each other's involvement.
We are asking a lot from our field delivery system. And as we look
at how the agency has evolved to assist in so many areas of
conservation, it has accomplished more despite decreasing numbers of
employees nationwide. To a great degree, we have taken every step
possible to ensure that reductions would not come at the expense of
field services. As a result, the agency still maintains over 75 percent
of its staff in the field. However, those staff are under increased
demand for their time and expertise. Chief Pearlie Reed is working to
minimize administrative functions, so that field staff can dedicate
their time where it is needed most--on farms and ranches across the
countryside. But as workload increases and our customers demand more
services, we need to provide additional staff resources to help the
agency meet that demand. Having said that, I will describe our programs
and plans for fiscal year 2000.
The following table shows the major items in this year's budget
request:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------------
1998 1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation
CONSERVATION OPERATIONS.......... 633,231 641,243 680,679
WATERSHED SURVEYS AND PLANNING... 11,190 10,368 11,732
WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION 181,036 99,443 83,423
OPERATIONS......................
DEBT FOR NATURE.................. ........... ........... 5,000
RESOURCE CONSERVATION & 34,377 35,000 35,265
DEVELOPMENT.....................
FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM...... ........... ........... 50,000
CCC Funding
WETLANDS RESERVE PROGRAM (WRP) 193,597 127,870 207,065
\1\.............................
WILDLIFE HABITAT INCENTIVES 30,000 20,000 10,000
(WHIP)..........................
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES 200,000 174,000 300,000
PROGRAM (EQIP)..................
FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM (FPP) 18,000 ........... 27,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include technical assistance costs funded from unobligated
WRP appropriation balances; fiscal year 1998--$18.7 million; fiscal
year 1999--$4 million; fiscal year 2000--$2 million.
CONSERVATION OPERATIONS is the foundation for most of the agency's
activitiesies. Conservation Operations represents a long-standing and
historical partnership of interests all working in a concerted effort
toward a sustainable and productive nation. The following programs and
initiatives are funded through Conservation Operations:
CONSERVATION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE is the cornerstone for most
agency activities. The fiscal year 1998 appropriations were
$541,361,000; and the fiscal year 1999 comparable appropriation is
$547,905,000. The fiscal year 2000 budget request is $585,000,000 or a
$37 million net increase.
The proposed funding levels represent support to the functions and
activities that are vital to meeting the mission of conserving,
improving, and sustaining our natural resources for the future.
Conservationists on the ground are under increasing demand for their
services, as they tackle new programmatic responsibilities while
retaining a commitment to the community for providing basic assistance
to landowners in need. It is our goal to ensure NRCS staff support to
grassroots watershed partnerships and the development of conservation
plans for communities. Throughout the nation, NRCS conservationists
facilitate and enable local action. Technical assistance funding
ensures the presence of these individuals and promotes voluntary
conservation.
We have also responded to requests of this Subcommittee and others
for additional data on our accomplishments and workload within
Conservation Operations. I am pleased that NRCS has begun to implement
accountability systems to capture the total cost of workload in various
areas. Also, we are creating a sound system for measuring performance
and quantifying the degree to which we are meeting our stated goals.
With respect to workload, one area of particular concern is the
issue of water quality problems associated with animal feeding
operations (AFO's). In September , 1998, as called for in the
Administration's Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP), USDA and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jointly released for public
comment a draft AFO Strategy that establishes national performance
expectations for all AFO owners and operators. The strategy presents a
series of actions that USDA and EPA will take to minimize the water
quality and public health impacts of the nearly 450,000 AFO's in the
United States. Thousands of producers will likely request nutrient
management assistance. In order to help them develop effective nutrient
management plans that protect our Nation's water resource, the fiscal
year 2000 budget proposes to increase the amount of conservation
technical assistance available to AFO operations by $20 million.
Recognizing that NRCS can never fully meet this workload, the
proposed funding level for Conservation Operations also represents a
continued cooperative effort between NRCS and its conservation partners
including Conservation Districts, Resource Conservation and Development
Councils, and other non-profit and community action groups. The
relationship between NRCS and its partners represents a catalyst that
empowers local people to become involved in conservation activity. In
addition, the funds that are appropriated by Congress are leveraged and
matched by the hard work and resources of the thousands of partners and
volunteers in virtually every aspect of NRCS operations. Additional
support for the CWAP in the budget request includes $20 million for
Competitive Partnership that will be used to strengthen the leadership
of locally-based organizations such as conservation districts or
watershed councils, to enable them to provide coordination of locally-
initiated conservation efforts. Finally, a further increase of $3
million will be used by NRCS for additional monitoring to help target
resources and document baseline conditions and performance.
Another area of increasing concern is the issue of Global Climate
Change. As the Administration and Congress work toward international
protocols concerning greenhouse gas emission, farmers and ranchers can
play a key beneficial role. Preliminary research indicates that sound
conservation practices, such as wetland protection, conservation
tillage, conservation buffers, as well as planting biomass covers have
the potential to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas levels. We want to
learn more about this, and the proposed Conservation Technical
Assistance increase includes $12 million for soil studies and
inventories to provide accurate baseline soil carbon data and to assess
the impacts of Federal programs on soil carbon stocks. Also, $3 million
is proposed to fund demonstration and pilot projects to test various
carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas mitigation strategies and
monitoring mechanisms.
These increases are partially offset by a decrease of $31 million
for a transfer of base funding to the proposed Support Services Bureau,
which will centrally fund the administrative support services common to
the county-based agencies. The fiscal year 2000 Budget requests $74
million for the Support Services Bureau's information technology and
Common Computing Environment functions. In fiscal year 1999, $31
million for similar activities was appropriated to NRCS. In addition,
$16 million will be made available from CCC, and transfer authority is
requested to merge the agencies' central administrative costs into this
common account. Estimates of the amounts to be transferred from FSA,
NRCS, and RD for administrative services are not yet available.
Some other activities that are encompassed by Conservation
Technical Assistance Include the following:
Highly Erodible Land Conservation (HELC).--The 1996 Farm Bill
provided amendments that have made HELC compliance requirements more
farmer friendly and have provided USDA with additional options in
assisting producers with compliance status, reduced the burden of
complying with the HELC provisions and have provided USDA with
additional tools to use in working with producers. However, all
producers who receive USDA program benefits must fully apply a
conservation plan or use an approved conservation system on highly
erodible land. Therefore, NRCS continually assists producers in
developing plans for land that they acquire and in making changes in
their current plans so that their practices may reflect changes in
cropping systems, weather conditions, new technology, and economic
incentives. Our experience has shown that approximately 20 percent of
producers will change their conservation systems each year.
Wetland determinations and certifications.--The 1996 Farm Bill
changed Swampbuster to give farmers greater flexibility in complying
with wetland conservation requirements by providing more options for
mitigation and wetland conversions. NRCS determines areas subject to
Swampbuster and responds to requests from farmers who plan activities
that may adversely impact wetlands. NRCS certifies wetland
determinations only upon request when clients propose a project to
alter the hydrology within wetlands. Responding only on a request basis
was provided for in the 1996 Farm Bill and ensures that requests from
clients are serviced in a timely manner and that certifications are
conducted where absolutely necessary. Certified determinations stay in
effect as long as the land is used for agricultural purposes or until
the owner or operator requests a review after natural events change the
topography or hydrology of an area. Certified wetland determinations
are conducted by NRCS on agricultural lands and non-agricultural lands
for USDA program participants. Generally, these NRCS certified wetland
determinations are also valid under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
In fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, landowners requested about
40,000 certified wetland determinations annually and these requests are
expected to increase.
Aside from wetland determinations, changes initiated by the 1996
Farm Bill have increased the activities of NRCS in wetland mitigation.
NRCS provides assistance to landowners who wish to enhance functions of
existing wetlands, restore former wetlands, and create new wetlands to
replace wetland functions lost from planned conversions or alterations.
These options, while creating increased opportunity and flexibility for
landowners, require a great deal of work by NRCS field staff, who
assess the functions of individual wetlands and provide the customer
with technical assistance in every phase of the mitigation process.
Other changes by the 1996 Farm Bill requires development of categorized
minimal effect exemptions and also revises the concept of abandonment.
When done under an approved conservation plan, landowners with farmed
wetlands and farmed wetland pastures may allow an area to revert to
wetland status and convert it back at a future date without violating
Swampbuster. Thus far, interest and participation in these wetland
activities has been widespread among landowners. While NRCS welcomes
the opportunity to provide additional assistance to these landowners,
these provisions have resulted in a marked workload increase for NRCS.
Grazing Land Conservation Initiative (GLCI).--This grassroots-
driven initiative has helped NRCS better define the resource needs and
benefits generated when grazing lands are improved. NRCS has been
requested to continue technical assistance to livestock producers on
private grazing lands. Grazing lands include rangelands, pasture,
hayland, and grazed forestlands.
Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) analysis of range vegetation
shows that over 15 percent of non-Federal rangelands are in poor
condition; over 44 percent are in fair condition; 34 percent in good
condition; and only 6 percent in excellent condition. The NRI indicates
that 75 percent--nearly 299 million acres--of non-Federal rangelands
need conservation treatment. Properly managed grazing land represents a
renewable resource for producing food and fiber. Vegetative cover on
well-managed grazing lands contributes to: (1) increased water quality
and quantity; (2) improved wildlife habitat; (3) reduced soil erosion
and sedimentation; and (4) improved riparian areas.
In fiscal year 1999, NRCS was able to continue support for a
Grazing Land Conservation Coordinator position in each of the fifty
states. This position helps us to provide multi-resource technical
assistance to support grazing lands conservation and water quality
improvement on rangelands and begin the process of rebuilding the
agency's expertise in rangeland conservation, a capability demanded by
our customers.
Urban Conservation.--Another area of attention has been the work of
NRCS in urban and suburban conservation. Natural resources do not
recognize the boundary between urban and rural areas and to ignore
their interaction within a watershed would not do justice to either.
The watershed approach to resource conservation has been widely
acclaimed and highly successful. However, when we begin to examine and
work to rehabilitate the health of a watershed we must include all
contributing factors that may be present, including community and
residential elements. The efforts of NRCS are aimed to improve water
quality and protect our natural resources while maintaining and
enhancing production. The demand for assistance with issues such as
water quality and soil erosion prevention are matters that effect
everyone, and workable solutions must include the participation of
everyone. NRCS has had great success in utilizing the science and
technology that it has gained in its 60 year history to all types of
resources in many settings. Likewise, the expertise in soil and water
quality that the agency has gained is well suited and easily applied to
help communities realize their goals for ecosystem health. We will
continue to work together as neighbors to achieve actual goals.
Snow survey and water supply forecasts provide western states and
Alaska with vital information on summer water supplies. The fiscal year
1998 appropriation was $5,835,000, the fiscal year 1999 appropriation
was $5,990,000; and the fiscal year 2000 request is $6,124,000. NRCS
field staffs provide necessary leadership, standardization of
procedures, and automation to a partnership of Federal, State, and
local personnel to collect snow-pack data from more than 1,200 remote
high mountain sites. After compiling and analyzing the data, NRCS is
able to provide snowpack estimates and water yield on a monthly basis
throughout the snow melting period. The knowledge gained through this
effort supports critical decisions on billions of dollars of
agricultural production, municipal water supply, hydroelectric and
industrial water supply, flood control, and water flow requirements for
fish and wildlife. This modest program contributes substantially to the
economic and environmental well-being of a very large part of the
country.
Soil Surveys provide the public with local information on the uses
and capabilities of their soil resources. The fiscal year 1998
appropriation was $76,409,000; the fiscal year 1999 appropriation is
$78,323,000; and the fiscal year 2000 request is $80,565,000. Soil
surveys are based on scientific analysis and classification of soils
and are used to determine land capabilities and conservation treatment
needs. The published soil survey for a county or designated area
includes maps and interpretations with explanatory information that is
the foundation of resource policy, planning and decision-making for
Federal, State, county, and local community programs. Homeowners and
landowners also use soil survey information when making decisions. Soil
surveys are conducted cooperatively with other Federal agencies, land
grant universities, State agencies, and local units of government, many
of whom contribute funds and staff.
Soils information has been gathered over many years and is
primarily contained in published soil survey manuscripts and maps.
There is a need for digital soils data for use in geographic
information systems (GIS). NRCS has the leadership role for
coordinating the development, maintenance, and distribution of a
modernized digital soils data base. Geographically referenced digitized
soil survey data, along with orthophotography will provide the accurate
reference base needed for computer-assisted conservation, natural
resource planning, and for geographic referenced data sharing. In
addition, digitizing the soil surveys provides efficiency when updating
and maintaining the soil survey data.
Plant Material Centers assemble and test plant propagation and the
usefulness of plant species for biomass production, carbon
sequestration, erosion reduction, wetland restoration, water quality
improvement, stream bank and riparian area protection, coastal dune
stabilization, and to meet other special conservation treatment needs.
The Plant Materials Centers also focus on the important role of native
species in ecosystem functions. The fiscal year 1998 appropriation was
$8,825,000; the fiscal year 1999 appropriation is $9,025,000; and the
fiscal year 2000 budget request is $9,238,000. Plant materials
represent inexpensive, long-term conservation solutions to many
environmental and natural resource problems and their maintenance costs
are usually low. Many landowners and managers willingly use plant
materials, if available, to meet their conservation needs.
The work at the 26 centers is carried out cooperatively with State
and other Federal agencies, commercial businesses, and seed and nursery
associations. Plant Materials Centers play an important research and
development roles since most commercial nurseries will not develop new
plant materials due to limited markets, but will grow and market the
stock once a dependable plant has been developed. After species are
proven, they are released to the private sector for commercial
production.
Following are the other appropriated discretionary accounts in the
NRCS Budget:
Watershed Surveys and Planning.--NRCS works with local sponsoring
organizations to develop plans on watersheds dealing with water
quality, flooding to develop plans on watersheds dealing with water
quality, flooding, water and land management, and sedimentation
problems. These plans then form the basis for installing needed works
of improvement. The agency also works cooperatively with State and
local governments to develop river basin surveys and floodplain
management studies to help identify water and related land resource
problems and evaluate sound solutions. For fiscal year 2000, this
activity is proposed to be funded at $11.7 million.
WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS is the first and only
national program that helps local organizations plan and install
watershed-based projects on private lands. It provides site-specific
technical expertise and locally based watershed planning and financial
assistance for plan implementation. The Watershed Program provides a
process to solve local natural resource problems and avoid excessive
regulation. fiscal year 1998 funding for Public Law 534 and Public Law
566 was $101,036,000; the fiscal year 1999 funding level is
$99,443,000; and the fiscal year 2000 request is $83,423,000. The
authorized purposes of watershed projects include watershed protection,
flood prevention, water quality improvements, soil erosion reduction,
irrigation water management, sedimentation control, fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement, wetland creation and restoration, and public
recreation. The program empowers local people as decision-makers,
builds partnerships and requires local and State funding contributions
and ownership.
The funding request for fiscal year 2000 also includes $1 million
to educate the public about the condition of the aging infrastructure
installed under our watershed programs. NRCS has assisted project
sponsors to install over 15,000 individual measures since 1944. An
integral part of many of these projects was structures for flood and
water control, municipal and industrial water supply, and recreation.
Since their installation, conditions surrounding the structures have
changed due to an increase in population, residences built below the
structures, upstream land use changes, and changed Federal and State
dam safety regulations. By fiscal year 2000, approximately 2,000 of the
aging structures could require significant restoration.
Debt for Nature.--The fiscal year 2000 budget includes $5 million
as proposed legislation to help implement the Debt for Nature program.
Debt for Nature provides technical and financial assistance to USDA
borrowers with cash flow problems, who also have lands that require
conservation treatment. In exchange for debt forgiveness on their
lands, program participants agree to enroll environmentally sensitive
lands into conservation easement. USDA's Civil Rights Action Team
recommended that the program be implemented. The USDA farm loan program
has a significant number of limited resource borrowers who have a high
debt load and tight cash flow situation. The Debt for Nature program is
a win-win, in that it offers direct financial assistance to borrowers,
and also provides the public with protection of valuable natural
resources. The program will work to mitigate the adverse economic
implications of the ailing farm economy in many communities. The
proposal will also directly facilitate the reduction of soil erosion,
the implementation of the conservation buffer initiative, and the
conservation of diminished and other important fish and wildlife
habitat.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT (RC&D) is a program initiated
and directed at the local level by volunteers. The fiscal year 1998
appropriation was $34,377,000; the fiscal year 1999 appropriation is
$35,000,000; and the fiscal year 1999 budget request is $35,265,000.
This increase of $265,000 represent pay cost increases.
Each RC&D area encompasses multiple communities, various units of
government, municipalities, and grassroots organizations. The RC&Ds
represent a creative approach for helping citizens address multi-
jurisdictional natural resource and community development issues. NRCS
provides coordination to the program which serves as a catalyst for
these civic oriented groups to share knowledge and resources, and it
leverages public and private funds to solve common problems--including
economic development--in a given area. Assistance is obtained from the
private sector, corporations, foundations, and all levels of
government. Historically, every dollar of NRCS technical and financial
assistance for this program and applied directly to local projects, has
been matched by about $13 from other sources. By fostering local
ownership and self sustenance for conservation and rural development
projects, we believe that RC&D will contribute greatly to the legacy of
locally-led action. The fiscal year 2000 request of $35,265,000 will
allow NRCS to continue to support the 315 RC&D areas currently
authorized.
commodity credit corporation programs
NRCS also administers, on behalf of the Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC), several cost-share programs, including those set
forth in the 1996 Farm Bill and also provides technical assistance to
individuals and groups participating in the Conservation Reserve
Program, which is administered by the Farm Service Agency. The
conservation programs provided by the 1996 Farm Bill, which NRCS
administers on behalf of CCC, are the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP), the Farmland Protection Program (FPP), and Conservation
Farm Option (CFO), and the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). In addition,
NRCS administers the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), which
was funded by a transfer from CCC to NRCS. The 1996 Farm Bill also
amended the Food Security Act of 1985, to the continued implementation
of which NRCS administers on behalf of CCC.
The ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INCENTIVES PROGRAM (EQIP) provides in a
single, voluntary program flexible technical, financial, and
educational assistance to farmers and ranchers who face serious threats
to soil, water, and related natural resources on agricultural land and
other land, including grazing lands, wetlands, forest land, and
wildlife habitat. Assistance is provided in a manner that maximizes
environmental benefits per dollar expended, while assisting producers
with issues such as local environmental laws or community identified
environmental needs.
Funds of the CCC are used to fund the assistance provided under
EQIP. For fiscal year 1999, $174 million was available to implement the
EQIP. The program is primarily available in priority conservation areas
throughout the Nation. The priority areas consist of watersheds,
regions, or areas of special environmental sensitivity or having
significant soil, water, or related natural resource concerns that have
been recommended through a locally-led conservation process. For fiscal
year 1998, nearly 75 percent of the EQIP financial assistance funding
was provided within priority areas. Over 1,300 priority areas were
approved by the State Conservationists and about 655 of these were
funded. Funds are made available to the States based upon the quality
of the priority area proposal, local initiatives, and the environmental
needs of the affected areas.
The program has been very successful. We received nearly 55,000
applications in fiscal year 1998. After NRCS ranked the applications
based on criteria developed at the local and state level, FSA county
committees approved over 19,800 long-term contracts with farmers and
ranchers. The EQIP financial assistance on these contracts will exceed
$156 million.
The fiscal year 2000 proposal seeks an increase in EQIP funding to
$300 million. Based on the fact that requests for assistance far exceed
available funding, there is a need to continue to prioritize and focus
our efforts so that we meet our Congressional mandate to maximize
environmental benefits per dollar expended. We expect that in fiscal
year 2000, continued interest in animal nutrient management and the
release of the joint USDA/EPA AFO strategy will spur an increase in
EQIP participation by owners and operators of animal feeding
operations. The nutrient management focus of the program will help meet
national objectives of water quality, while involving farmers and
ranchers in voluntary and cooperative solutions.
The WILDLIFE HABITAT INCENTIVES PROGRAM (WHIP) provides for
implementing wildlife habitat practices to develop upland wildlife
habitat, wetland wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species
habitat and aquatic habitat. WHIP provides a significant opportunity to
restore native habitat, help landowners understand how to best meet
their own needs while supporting wildlife habitat development, and to
develop new partnerships with State wildlife agencies, nongovernmental
agencies and others.
WHIP is a solely voluntary program, whose projects encompass a wide
array of wildlife practices. Projects performed under the program
include advancing the following measures: upland wildlife habitat,
wetland wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species habitat,
fishery habitat and other approved activities.
State NRCS offices have made an enormous effort to develop
partnerships and outreach methods with government and private
organizations to develop a program that targets specific state
concerns. We estimate that approximately 1 million acres will be
enrolled in the program in 1999, at a cost of $20 million. In order for
WHIP to continue to be a successful national program, it needs to
remain available for all those interested in incorporating wildlife
into the overall management of their farm or ranch operations. The
fiscal year 2000 budget request includes legislation to authorize
continued funding of WHIP at $10 million. $8.1 million would be for the
implementation WHIP practices and $1.9 million for technical
assistance, certification, and status reviews on enrolled acres. Funds
for technical assistance are critical for the continued implementation
of program activities.
The FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM (FPP) protects prime or unique
farmland, lands of State or local importance, and other productive
soils from conversion to nonagricultural uses. It provides matching
funds to leverage funds from States, Tribes, or local government
entities that have farmland protection programs. The FPP establishes
partnerships with State, Tribes, and local government entities to
acquire conservation easements or other interests in land. It protects
strategic farmland from urbanization. It ensures that the valuable
farmlands are preserved for future generations and also helps maintain
a healthy environment and sustainable rural economy. The program was
originally funded in the 1996 Farm Bill at a level of $35 million. To
date, those funds have been exhausted, and local interest in the
program has been overwhelming. In the State of Union Address, the
President referenced the issue of urban sprawl and the troubling trend
of conversion of agricultural lands for development. The fiscal year
2000 budget proposes a total of $77.5 million for the Farmland
Protection Program in two components: $50 million in new discretionary
funding from the land and Water Conservation Fund to support the
President's Lands Legacy Initiative and $27.5 million in CCC funding
under proposed legislation.
WETLANDS RESERVE PROGRAM (WRP) is a voluntary incentive program to
assist owners of eligible lands to restore and protect wetlands and
necessary adjacent upland areas. WRP preserves, protects, and restores
valuable wetlands mainly on marginal agricultural lands where historic
wetlands functions and values have been either totally depleted or
substantially diminished. Wetland restoration of such marginal lands
provides landowners with a financial alternative to continued attempts
to produce agricultural products on such high risk lands. Program
delivery is designated to maximize wetland wildlife benefits, to
provide for water quality and flood storage benefits, and to provide
for general aesthetic and open space needs. Approximately 70 percent
the WRP project sites are within areas that are frequently subjected to
flooding and the flood storage being provided will lessen the severity
of future flood events. The WRP is making a substantial contribution to
the restoration of the nation's migratory bird habitats, especially for
waterfowl.
Cumulative acreage enrollment through fiscal year 1999 is expected
to reach 775,000 acres. For fiscal year 2000 we propose to enroll
almost 200,000 acres and essentially reach the 975,000 acre legislated
cap for the program. Technical assistance funding needed for the larger
enrollment effort in fiscal year 2000 will be $18,300,000.
From inception of the program in 1992 through 1998, interest in WRP
has been exceptional, providing approximately 665,447 acres enrolled in
the program through the end of fiscal year 1998, and enabling the
achievement of the long-standing goal to reach the presently authorized
acreage cap of 975,000 acres by the end of fiscal year 2000.
Historically, there have been more than five fold as many acres offered
than the program could enroll. Beginning with the fiscal year 1998
sign-up, landowners are provided with the continuous opportunity to
seek enrollment in the program. States periodically rank all unfunded
offers and seek allocation of funding for the highest ranked offers. By
following this process, the maximum opportunity for landowner
participation is provided and the WRP is assured of having the best
possible list of ranked offers available for funding during the year.
In response to the 1996 Farm Bill, the enrollment is separated into
three components (i.e., permanent easements, 30-year easements, and
cost-share agreements). Pursuant to the 1999 Appropriations Act,
enrollment is now being balanced to respond to the level of landowner
interest in each of these three components. The authorized level of
enrollment for 1999 is 120,000 acres. Thus far approximately 22,000
acres have been enrolled. The level of landowner interest in the three
components is presently 77 percent permanent easement, 18 percent 30-
year easement, and 5 percent cost-share agreement. While we project
that the backlog of unfunded acreage being offered in fiscal year 1999
will be 7 times greater than the actual acres enrolled in 1999.
Under the continuous sign-up process the backlog list for each of
the program components will continue to be updated. Once the fiscal
year 1999 enrollment process is completed, these lists will be
available for immediate use in selection of the 2000 enrollment.
conclusion
NRCS offers landowners a great deal of options and can provide
programs and resources that are tailored to an individual customers
needs. And the assistance is interactive. We expect to gain a full
understanding of the needs and goals of our customers and provide
planning and programs that a farmer and rancher can realistically
implement. This is what has made NRCS an attractive vehicle for
offering so many different kinds of assistance. It is also why when we
look toward emerging issues such as nutrient management and greenhouse
gasses, that NRCS is an obvious choice to lead the way. However, these
policy and financial commitments become moot unless the Department of
Agriculture and NRCS, its lead conservation agency, have sufficient
resources to deliver the technical assistance that farmers and ranchers
time and again say they need to take advantage of the conservation
opportunities now confronting them. Our partners in State and local
governments and the private sector, responding to widespread public
support for environmental protection efforts, have increased their
financial commitments to conservation on private land in recent years.
At the same time, they look to the Federal government for a continuing
commitment to technical assistance for private land and private
landowners, not the diminishing commitment in real dollars that has
been the trend over the past two decades. It is this technical
assistance that, when coupled with the contributions of our many public
and private-sector partners, will allow us to realize the full promise
of the 1996 farm bill and to look beyond. Given the needed resources in
this appropriation request, we can support the field conservationists
of NRCS to make it happen.
That concludes my statement. I am looking forward to working with
you in the months ahead to review the proposal and work together to
maximize service to our customers and help them be good stewards of the
land. I will take any questions that members of the committee might
have.
TIMING OF DISASTER PAYMENTS
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Mr. Schumacher.
One concern that we have is that it has taken so long to
get these payments that have been authorized and funded in this
disaster assistance package to the farmers. We were hopeful
that this could be handled with a little more dispatch than it
has been.
You mentioned in your statement postponing the signup date
until some time in April. It seems that, when we passed that
emergency assistance, we were promising funds would be
available, and you did, as you said, send out some of the
money. Where people were already on the rolls and already on
the list in the computers, those checks got sent out quickly.
We appreciate that and commend you for that.
But the other part of the program has not really produced
any money for farmers or any disaster assistance. It was called
an emergency program and we are getting asked: where is the
money and where is the assistance?
I know you had to design new software and you had other
problems. And these offices have worked very hard. I agree with
you here. The people out in the field are doing all that they
can. But it seems that there is not enough emphasis on this
program from the Washington level.
What can we expect in terms of getting the funds under this
program into the hands of farmers in view of the very serious
economic situation in which they find themselves this year?
Mr. Schumacher. Thank you, again, for your comment.
If I may just take a minute or two on this, this is very,
very important. A lot of farmers are interested in when they
are going to get their checks, and what else they have to do to
qualify for the different categories of disaster assistance. If
you would bear with me for a minute or two, I would like to
walk through it a bit.
When the bill was signed in November, as you said, the
computers worked very well, and we were able to issue the first
round of payments very quickly. There were no glitches, checks
went out, and people were actually commenting and asking how we
got those out so fast. It was terrific.
However, when we started the second phase of assistance,
complications began to set in. First, we had a number of, shall
we say, inquiries from both Senate and House members, asking
for some changes. There was an interesting dialogue for a few
weeks with members of Congress.
We did make a few adjustments. Some of them we could not
make, but some we did make, and that delayed it for a few
weeks.
Then we hit the California freeze. That hit us hard, and we
looked at making some further program adjustments because of
that. We have to work very hard on that.
So if we look at what is going well, we have $400 million
insurance, buy-up for the buy-down, clear and that is moving
reasonably well.
I think the dairy assistance program will work well. We
have that moving quite quickly. We are helping dairy farmers
and I think that will go fairly well.
I think the multi-year crop loss disaster assistance
program is going reasonably well. We need to sort out a key
issue of entities, and if you have further questions, I can ask
Ken Ackerman to address that. But that, by and large, is going
fairly smoothly once we have the entity issue sorted out. It
was certainly raised by other Members of the Senate.
The Livestock Assistance Program has sort of overwhelmed us
with the number of applications. We only have $200 million,
which we will have to prorate. We extended the signup to March
25. Payment will go forward, as I said, in April.
The biggest challenge right now is the single-year crop
loss disaster assistance program, Mr. Chairman. We had some
computer compatibility problems, which should be resolved this
week. The program has been extended to April 9. Once we have
the computers fixed, we will get that done.
I think it is very important that we get our software in
order because this will help farmers when we actually get down
to the final paperwork. This is because if we get the computers
set up right, which we think we can get done fairly quickly,
producers will not have to reconstruct their 1998 records. This
is very important. And they will not have to come into the
offices with a reconstruction of their prior year records
either. If we can take the time now to get it right, then we
will get those payments out in late spring.
We have done a lot of work. We have more work to do, and we
promise we will be getting that assistance out.
We have taken one additional measure. I am very pleased
that Carolyn Cooksie is here; she is our Deputy Administrator
for Farm Loan Programs, under Keith Kelly. With the
supplemental coming down there is tremendous workload on farm
credit by her group. What we are going to do is let farmers do
some income assignments, using an estimate of what the farmers
are likely to get in crop loss and livestock feed assistance
payments. I think it will be helpful for farmers to have those
amounts reflected in their cash flow when they come in to see
loan officers at the local level.
So we are trying to be flexible and timely. It is
complicated. But I think, by and large, we are working it
through and we will get those payments out fairly soon.
LIVESTOCK ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Senator Cochran. With respect to the Livestock Assistance
Program, is there any date that you can give us that we can
pass on to our farmers and let them know when they may expect
to actually receive payments?
Mr. Schumacher. Parks, do you want to comment on that?
Mr. Shackelford. Early April.
Mr. Schumacher. In early April.
Senator Cochran. We know that you cannot make a final
decision on how much money an individual farmer gets until the
signup has been complete. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Schumacher. Yes, we have to factor that.
Senator Cochran. Because it is all prorated.
Mr. Schumacher. Right.
Senator Cochran. So can you estimate at this point, based
on the applications you have received, how much money this is
going to mean to individual farmers? Can you give us an
estimate of that?
Mr. Schumacher. Keith mentioned that it is 25 percent to 30
percent on the Livestock Assistance Program.
Senator Cochran. For the Livestock Assistance Program, yes?
Mr. Schumacher. Yes. It's 25 percent to 30 percent. The
factor will take it down because the demand has been so high.
Senator Cochran. Considering the demand and how high it has
been, is the Department considering asking for any additional
funds for this program?
Mr. Schumacher. Our supplemental that we sent up does not
include this. We want to get the available funds out as quickly
as possible, and we have not formally considered an additional
request for this within the Administration.
COTTON PROGRAM
Senator Cochran. Mr. Collins, you mentioned the export
situation and a lot of the prices that are affected by that,
the breakdown in some of these markets. In the cotton program,
you talked about the Step 2 program and that you were out of
money.
Is it not a fact that the Administration requested a cut in
funding for this program last year and that you have requested
no money for the program this year?
Mr. Collins. That is a fact, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Why haven't you?
Mr. Collins. I think it was simply a question of budget
priorities. It was a question of looking at the various needs
that we had within our mandatory spending. We simply decided
that the cotton Step 2 program was not among the top priority
items.
That does not acknowledge that there is not an effect by
not having a Step 2 program. I think we have seen one this
year.
USE OF EXPORT PROGRAM AUTHORITIES
Senator Cochran. We hope that the Administration will be
more aggressive also in these export enhancement programs. We
noticed that the EEP Program and the Dairy Export Enhancement
Program, and other programs may not be as aggressively utilized
by the Department given the downturn in our sales in overseas
markets as they should have been.
Tell us how the Department has utilized these existing
authorities. Some of this does not depend upon funding that
this Committee provides. You have CCC authority that you can
use. But there does not seem to be any aggressive work going on
in this area.
Am I wrong? If I am, tell me how I am wrong about that.
Mr. Schumacher. You know, the Australian Prime Minister
called me an ``avaricious looter'' for some of our aggressive
use of our GSM. I was quite surprised at that, Mr. Chairman. I
don't normally get those kinds of comments. Particularly, I
think we have been very, very aggressive in terms of the
utilization of our CCC authorities on food aid to Russia and to
other countries associated with the President's food aid
initiative announced last July.
On the Dairy Export Incentive Program, I think we are at
the right level, and we have rolled up some unused balances
from prior years to even more aggressively use the program. We
have certainly heard from some of our competitors as they felt
we went beyond our authorities. But we felt that that was the
right thing to do and think that it has been very effective and
the program has been fully utilized.
On the Export Enhancement Program itself, as you recall,
when the EU tried to subsidize barley into this country, we
took very, very aggressive steps and used our EEP authorities.
But, overall on EEP, we have not used it in the last couple of
years because we felt that the utilization of the other
authorities of the CCC would give us a more targeted response,
especially on wheat.
Senator Cochran. Senator Kohl.
DAIRY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
With respect to the $200 million in assistance to dairy
producers, do you have a target date for the distribution of
that money?
Mr. Schumacher. Yes. We would like to get that out in early
April, if we can. It's sometime in April.
Senator Kohl. The money is to be distributed in early
April?
Mr. Schumacher. If we can make that target.
We have pretty well completed all of our analysis and a
number of proposals have been made. We are examining that
program at the highest levels in the USDA at the moment, and we
hope to have an announcement fairly shortly, Senator.
We are going to keep the program as simple as possible. So
dairy farmers will get their payments in the spring flush.
Senator Kohl. Can you give us some indication with respect
to the general principles that you will use in your decisions
as to how to distribute that money? I am talking about will it
be on the basis of trying to help small family farmers? Or will
it be on the basis of number of units, like factory farms,
things of that sort? Give us some indication of where you are.
Mr. Schumacher. Well, the proposals we are putting forward
are not quite formally at the Secretary's level at the moment,
but they are very, very near to getting there. But, certainly,
we would be tilting toward helping family operators.
Senator Kohl. OK.
I would like to ask you with respect to the ongoing efforts
at USDA to reform U.S. dairy policy, to what extent does
current dairy policy still serve to avoid disruptions of
supplies of fluid milk to consumers? And, have not changes in
technology and transportation vastly reduced or even eliminated
those kinds of problems?
Mr. Schumacher. Keith or Mike Dunn, would you respond?
DAIRY POLICY
Mr. Collins. I will respond.
I think that certainly the current dairy policy--and by
that you are referring to Federal milk marketing orders, I
believe, which have the purpose of ensuring adequate fluid
supplies to fluid users. I think the question is are they still
as relevant today as they were when they were conceived in the
1930's.
I think economists have looked at this question in a lot of
detail and have come to the conclusion that there still is a
purpose to be served in ensuring a stable, adequate, high
quality supply of milk to fluid users. I think that is one of
the reasons why Congress did not eliminate the Federal Milk
Marketing Order Program in 1996.
Nevertheless, I think that the 1996 Farm Bill suggested
that the whole program needed to be looked at. The changes in
technology and transportation that you are talking about, the
ability to truck milk 1,000 miles with almost no loss in
temperature of the milk, and quality of the milk mean that we
had to go back and take a very hard look at the incentives that
are in the program to ship milk from one region to another.
That has been the whole purpose behind the work we have
done in Federal milk marketing order reform.
So I think the answer is that there is probably a general
consensus that many of the provisions of orders still have a
usefulness, but that the levels at which they are set may not
be appropriate.
Senator Kohl. All right. In connection with that, how can
dairy policy be shaped in order to eliminate or reduce undue
harm to any one region of the country? What is USDA doing to
help establish a policy that can benefit all dairy producers?
Mr. Collins. This is the essence of Federal marketing order
reform.
We did propose a rule last year. We took 4,000 or so
comments on that rule. We are in the process of issuing a final
rule.
I can only say that I can guarantee you, Senator Kohl, that
the final rule will be issued within the next 4 to 5 weeks
because the statutory deadline is April 4.
So we will have a final rule, and I hope you will see in
that final rule that we have addressed some of your concerns,
that we have tried to design a dairy policy that more reflects
the technology change in the marketplace and that does impart a
sense of equity across the Nation. But it will be up to you to
make that judgment when you see it.
IMPACT OF TRADE AGREEMENTS ON DAIRY PRICES
Senator Kohl. Thank you.
Secretary Schumacher, you mentioned in your statement the
efforts you are making to promote dairy exports through the
Dairy Export Incentive Program. In terms of trade, we need also
to consider the effect of imports on dairy producers.
What effect are dairy imports having on domestic prices?
And, in particular, what has been the impact of NAFTA, GATT,
and the WTO on domestic prices?
Mr. Schumacher. The dairy imports are under tight quotas.
We have not seen much impact on dairy imports--some on the high
value cheeses. But I notice that we are getting much more
competitive on some of the specialty cheeses and high value
cheeses in different parts of the country.
With respect to NAFTA, we have done very well in Canada and
Mexico. Exports continue to rise, nearly $13 billion between
our two NAFTA partners. It has been a real success. But on
dairy and poultry in Canada, we have not done well under the
existing NAFTA and Canadian Free Trade Authorities.
We lost the dairy case with Canada. Certainly in the next
round we are going to take that up again because there is a
wonderful market in Canada with their supply management system.
Canada theoretically is supposed to be free trading under
NAFTA. But on dairy and poultry, we do not really have as much
access as we really need to have to that market.
We will be taking that up aggressively--and they are well
aware of that--in the next round of the WTO starting in Seattle
in November.
OPPORTUNITIES AND OBSTACLES TO DAIRY EXPORTS
Senator Kohl. In addition to the Dairy Export Incentive
Program, what opportunities do we have to support dairy exports
and what specific obstacles do you see?
Mr. Schumacher. Chris, would you join us on that?
Chris is running the Dairy Export Incentive Program.
I think we have had some success, especially, for example,
on some of the powders in Mexico where there is a strong
demand. They are privatizing further down there. We have had a
number of inquiries even yesterday for additional powder. So I
think there is pretty good demand for that.
Our biggest problem, Senator, to be quite frank, is the
European Union. Their inability to eliminate export subsidies
on dairy is really hurting us very badly. That, again, is
something we are going to be very aggressive on in the next
round. We need a level playing field with those tremendous
subsidies they have on the export side. It is killing us in the
long term. There is no question about that.
Chris, did you want to amplify on that?
Mr. Goldthwait. I would make two points.
Senator Cochran. Would you identify yourself for the
record, please?
Mr. Goldthwait. I'm Chris Goldthwait, the General Sales
Manager at the Department.
I would add two points to what the Under Secretary has
said. First of all, we are already competitive in world markets
with respect to some specialty dairy products--for example,
whey powder and ice cream.
I think the second important thing is that, as the Under
Secretary said, our dairy industry is beginning to look forward
to the aftermath of the next trade round, at which point we
hope we will have eliminated the European export subsidies.
We foresee that we are going to be competitive in a much
broader range of dairy products in the absence of the
distortions caused by the EU export subsidies. And we are
already positioning ourselves through the use of the DEIP
Program for that situation where, for example, just in the past
few months we have introduced a special use of the program for
specialty cheeses where we think, once the cheeses are
introduced to foreign buyers, they will demand a premium over
the generic market cheeses.
Mr. Schumacher. If I may, Senator, I just want to clarify
one important issue.
In the original poultry and dairy situation we did not do
well. But we did recently win a WTO case in Canada, and I am
very pleased about that. I mean how can we export when they
have a 300 percent tariff against us?
We did win that one.
Senator Kohl. Okay.
There are many small farm operations, as you know, that are
finding it increasingly difficult to compete in an environment
of large corporate interests. For a number of reasons, the
small operator is finding it more and more difficult to balance
rising production costs with shrinking leverage in the
marketplace.
To what extent is the current downturn in prices especially
harmful to small operators?
Mr. Schumacher. I think this is one of the most difficult
issues we are facing. The operators, for example, in Minnesota
and Wisconsin--Mike, you may want to join us on this one--for
them I think the average is going to be very difficult. It is
buffeted, to some extent, by low feed prices and a drop in
interest rates.
But certainly, as the dairy prices go down, it will
probably be unduly hurtful to family operators with 50, 70, 80
cows.
Senator Kohl. Is this a cyclical thing or is there
something more deep operating in the marketplace that makes
these small operators more and more likely to go out of
business permanently?
Mr. Schumacher. I have been for many years working with
small dairy farmers in different parts of the country. As we
see some of the big dairy feedlot operations expanding in the
Southwest and in the West, and in some cases in the Rocky
Mountain Foothills, they have certain advantages of water,
three times a day milking, and lower costs in the Southwest
because of the better climate. It has made them a little bit
more competitive on these large operations. There are also
cheaper labor costs.
So it is going to be a difficult time, I think, with lower
dairy prices in the next couple of years for smaller operators
in the North-Central and the Northeastern part of the United
States.
We are even hearing from the Southeast extensively. A
number of commissioners are constantly calling me to assist on
dairy as well.
Mike, do you want to add to this?
Mike has been our lead on dairy. Maybe he could make a
comment. This is Michael Dunn.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Dunn, would you state for the record
your title.
Mr. Dunn. I am Michael Dunn, Under Secretary for Marketing
and Regulatory Programs.
Certainly, we are concerned about all small farmers.
Senator Kohl, if you are addressing specifically dairy
producers, last year the basic formula price averaged a little
over $14. That was an outstanding year. In March, when the BFP
did drop down to $10.88, we had some hearings on whether or not
we should establish a base price, a floor price. Most folks
indicated that that should be about $13.50.
So at $14 BFP last year, we had a very, very good year.
As Mr. Collins has indicated, unfortunately, we may not see
that this coming year. So that will, I believe, force us to do
a lot more innovative things than we have in the past.
Senator Kohl. What do you expect will be the price of feed
this year on average?
Mr. Collins. As I indicated in my opening statement, I
thought it might be very close to the 1997 level, which was a
little over $12 per cwt. It was $12.05 in 1997, which was a
year of great financial stress for dairy producers.
This past year, as Mr. Dunn said, it was $14.20.
All along over the last few months, I have been thinking it
might be about midway between the two years. But if you have
seen what has happened in milk markets over the last couple of
weeks, notably a 1-day drop in the BFP futures of over 60 cents
this week, I am now thinking it is probably going to be much
closer to the $12.05 than to the $14.20--maybe between $12.00
and $12.50, probably.
Senator Kohl. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Senator Durbin.
AGRICULTURAL TRADE
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the witnesses for joining us today.
Could I ask some general questions on trade, Mr. Collins?
Perhaps others could help?
We have been told that our trade deficit continues to rise
in this country at alarming rates. Usually, we have had a
positive trade surplus in the agricultural accounts. Is that
still a fact?
Mr. Collins. It is still a fact, although this year will be
the lowest in over 10 years.
Senator Durbin. On the agriculture account?
Mr. Collins. On the agriculture account. It will be about
an $11 billion surplus. A couple of years ago, it was as much
as $27 billion or $28 billion.
Senator Durbin. So are we continuing to import more food or
are exports going down? Or both?
Mr. Collins. Both.
Senator Durbin. Both at the time?
Mr. Schumacher. I think exports, Senator, have gone down
like $10 billion. Imports just chug along at about $1 billion
extra. So it is a gradual rise in our imports and a sharp,
relatively sharp, drop in our exports, although I think we are
still well ahead of where we were on exports in the first 3
years of this decade.
EXPORT TACTICS
Senator Durbin. Secretary Schumacher, you also mentioned
that we have come into some controversy about tactics in terms
of encouraging export products. Could you be more specific?
Mr. Schumacher. Yes.
Tim Galvin, Chris Goldthwait, and the fine folks we have in
the Foreign Agricultural Service have done an absolutely
spectacular job in the overseas area.
For one, we have doubled the GSM program credits, as I
mentioned in my testimony earlier, especially in Asia.
We have also had major increases in our food aid donations
in terms not only of existing programs, but we have put 8
million tons additional into the pipeline. That is now moving
forward. Most of that will be shipped this year.
In terms of meat volume--if we look back 10 or 12 years--
the really major change that has occurred is the extraordinary
performance of our poultry exports until the Russian problem
hit. We now have a net value surplus on beef. And our pork
continues to do very, very well on a volume basis.
So on volume, we are doing quite well on the red meats and
certainly were doing superbly on the poultry until the Russian
thing hit. But when it did hit, we then put 50,000 tons of
poultry on donation, and then 200,000 tons or so on P.L. 480,
Title I. We heard some criticism from some of our trading
partners.
But I think it is legal. We are well within our WTO
obligations, unlike the Europeans, who are bumping up against
them.
So we continue to be very aggressive in the use of those
programs and will be very active in the WTO, whether it is on
cherries, or apples from the West, or other issues that we are
dealing with--for example, the long-standing problem we have
had on beef hormones. That is coming to a head on May 13 and we
are working hard on that as well.
So we have been very aggressive and we certainly have been
criticized by some of our trading partners for that. But so be
it.
NAFTA TRADE INCREASES
Senator Durbin. I note from testimony here that it appears
that the bottom has dropped out of the Pacific Basin demand for
U.S. exports. I think there is some indication that the NAFTA
trade, though, has increased. Is that what your testimony has
indicated?
Mr. Schumacher. That is correct, Senator. We are doing
actually quite well with our Mexican partners and are holding
our own in Canada. But what is interesting is Japan. They
continue to be our single largest trading partner but trade has
dropped off $3 billion or $4 billion, mostly in value, because
of their recession. That has certainly had an impact since they
are unwilling to open up some of their markets not only to
ourselves but to their neighbors. That has exacerbated the
recession in Malaysia, Thailand, and other big markets where
trade has fallen off as well.
So the bulk of that drop has been in Asia. We are holding
steady in South America. The whole Western Hemisphere is $18
billion and is holding pretty steady. We continue to do
reasonably well in Europe with a two-way trade of about $18
billion.
In Russia, we were not selling a great deal, except for
poultry. I think that is why the work of Tim and Chris on
poultry will be helpful.
CROP INSURANCE
Senator Durbin. If I could switch to another topic, I have
to leave very briefly. I wanted to talk about the risk
management aspect of this.
I have supported disaster assistance. There have been times
when I have needed it in my home State and other States have
needed it. I have tried to be sensitive to their needs.
We have said for a long time, though, that we are going to
try to encourage producers to buy crop insurance, to provide
for themselves, and that there would be some penalty attached
to it if they did not. We have had a variety of different
approaches in this area in the past, suggesting that if you did
not buy the crop insurance, you would not be eligible for
disaster assistance.
I listened to your testimony and it suggested that we are
still having a very difficult time convincing producers to buy
crop insurance. I don't know if that is a fair characterization
of what you said.
Mr. Schumacher. I think what we have tried to do is this.
The Congress delinked the program payments from crop insurance
so that it was not mandatory so there was some drop-off. But I
think what we try to do now with this disaster is to roll
forward the $400 million so that we make crop insurance more
affordable this coming year, as I indicated, to buy down the
buy-up coverage. I think that has been popular.
We are also widening very much the crop insurance, for
example, our whole farm adjusted gross revenue in pilot
programs. And, as indicated, we have 4, 5, or 6 major
initiatives in our white paper, and we will be expanding on
those in hearings coming up in the next 10 days.
Senator Durbin. I want to take a closer look at that. A few
years ago we got into it and discussed the fact that we were
selling crop insurance in areas where God had instructed us not
to.
We had had crop failures 70 percent of the time, but we
still sold the insurance policy as if maybe next year it will
come around. I would like to get an update on that, perhaps,
and see how we are doing in that regard.
Thank you very much for your testimony.
Senator Cochran. Next is the distinguished Senator from
North Dakota.
FARM SUPPORT
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Let me thank the representatives of the Department of
Agriculture. We have put you through some difficult times with
the disaster program that we developed last fall. We also thank
the Chairman of the Subcommittee who was instrumental in the
Senate in helping move that, and the Ranking Member as well.
What we have provided for you is a very substantial task.
Your agency does a lot of good work under difficult
circumstances, and I appreciate that.
Having said that, let me just tell you that, as I look
through the budget here, I am reminded that the Department of
Agriculture was initiated under President Abraham Lincoln with
12 employees. We have come a long way since Abe Lincoln created
the Department of Agriculture. But, as I read your statement,
Mr. Collins--and you are an economist, right?
Mr. Collins. Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan. I taught economics for a couple of years. I
always say that I was able to overcome that. But it is an
interesting field. [Laughter.]
Your testimony was really very interesting to me. But my
central thesis is I don't really think we need a Department of
Agriculture at all--we can move all of the other functions
elsewhere in government--unless the central goal is to maintain
a network of family producers, and family farmers in our
country.
If that is not the goal, in my judgment we should just
abolish USDA and move some of these other things around to
another agency.
But if our central goal is to maintain a network of family
farm producers in our country, then the question, as I look
through your statement and others, is how are we going to do
that? The price of wheat in North Dakota this week is about
$2.60 or $2.70 a bushel.
Price adjusted, those are Depression Era prices. That goes
back to the Great Depression.
Your statement, Mr. Collins, indicates that that probably
will not improve in the coming year. And if that is the case, I
want to ask a series of questions.
Congress has said under the current farm program that we
want farmers to operate in the free market and we are going to
create a decreasing level of support in our farm program. So we
are now in a sliding scale of downward support prices at a time
when we have wheat prices equivalent, in price adjusted terms,
to those of the Great Depression.
Last fall we did something to try to help people get into
this spring. But the fact is it does not make anybody whole.
If we do nothing, are we not going to lose a massive
quantity of family farmers? I mean, you did not have a lot of
discussion in your presentation about family farming. Your
discussion was about aggregate numbers with respect to income
and so on.
NUMBER OF FARMERS
Are we not, under the current scheme of the farm program of
declining price supports, at a time when we have seen a
collapse of commodity prices and no expectations from you that
they are going to improve? Are we not going to see a wholesale
reduction in the number of farmers out in this country?
Mr. Collins. I think we will certainly see a decrease.
Surprisingly, if you look at farm numbers, they have been quite
stable over the last 5 years, at around 2.2 million farms. That
is our revised estimate based on the census of agriculture. The
census of agriculture has 1.9 million farms, but the annual
survey that we do shows 2.2 million.
Within that category, though, there have been some
substantial changes, particularly, as you characterize it, the
small family farm in the middle, the one who says they are
principally engaged in agriculture, the one who is trying to
get most of their income from agriculture, but whose annual
sales might be $50,000 to $200,000. Those are the ones who have
been under tremendous stress and, in many cases, those are the
ones who have gone out of business, or they become smaller, or
they become larger.
There has been a lot of dynamic change in that area.
So yes, I would look out over the next couple of years and
if this situation that we have now persists for any appreciable
time, I would think we are going to put tremendous pressure on
those farms.
Senator Dorgan. I think those numbers are completely at
odds with what is going on in the country.
My home county has gone from 5,000 people to 3,000 people
in a 20-year period, and in recent years it has accelerated. If
you stand on a section line and look in any direction, you can
name the farmers that are gone who were there 5 years ago, 3
years ago, or 10 years ago.
Mr. Collins. Sure.
Senator Dorgan. So the aggregate data is at odds with what
you see out in the country, I think. Most of these farmers are
leaving and what we have is a skeleton out there. These small
towns are drying up as a result of it.
The reason I am asking the question is this. It seems to me
that the real pile driver here on the budget question is what
must Congress do to respond to a circumstance of Depression-
level prices? Is the Freedom to Farm bill with decreasing price
supports--at a pretty pathetic level at this point--going to do
anything? Or is it just sort of waiting while we see a
wholesale collapse of the family farm structure?
And if that is the situation, then do we not have a
requirement, both from the Department of Agriculture to
recommend, and the President to recommend, and the Congress to
respond, for some new, significant initiative that says this
country wants to have a network of family farmers in its
future?
FARM POLICY CHOICES
Mr. Collins. Maybe I could start that and Mr. Schumacher
could chime in since you are fundamentally asking a policy
question as well.
The answer to the first part of your question about how the
Farm Bill will perform is this. Clearly, in 1996, we took away
some of the counter-cyclical effects of the Farm Bill. There
still is a very modest counter-cyclical cushion in there. That
is the loan deficiency payment, which is kicking in. But,
admittedly, it is a level that is at a fairly low rate relative
to production expenses for many farmers.
Senator Dorgan. A couple of dollars a bushel below
production levels.
Mr. Collins. For many farmers. I agree with that.
There is also the AMTA payment on top of that, which has
been running at $5.5 billion, but, as you say, it will decline
to $4 billion by the end of the period.
So there is some support being provided by government. I
mean, we will spend in fiscal year 1999 $18 billion on farm
price and income support programs. The last time we did that
was in the 1980's.
So I would not characterize the current farm program as
simply walking away.
On the other hand, farmers have seen their costs rise over
time. The fact that there are not the counter-cyclical benefits
of the earlier Farm Bill, combined with the world economic
problems and the shrinking demand, there is no question that
this Farm Bill is not going to offset that kind of income loss.
Then that becomes a policy question, how you want to deal
with that.
In 1996, the policy choice was to move away from affecting
market prices, to, in a sense, decouple the program to the
extent that it could be decoupled.
If you are going to go that route, then the only choice for
enhancing farm income is through larger direct payments to
farmers.
If you are not going to go that route, then you have to
make the choice: do you want somehow to have government affect
supply and more directly intervene in market prices? Those have
been the choices on the table for a long time.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I recognize that I asked a
policy question, but the implication of a change of policy that
I think is necessary has huge budget ramifications. That is the
reason I did.
I look at the numbers bureau by bureau, and so on. All of
that is just moving nickles and dimes around. If we are not in
a circumstance where we have family farmers given the
opportunity to survive during these tough times, then all of
this, in my judgment, is basically for naught. I would just as
soon consult Abe Lincoln and maybe get rid of USDA--that is not
my choice, of course--and move the other things around.
I essentially want the central feature here to be a feature
that says we want to maintain a network of family farmers, and
the budget implications of doing that, from a policy
standpoint, is what we ought to be discussing.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Burns.
Senator Burns. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan, we can do only one thing to eliminate the
attrition of small farmers: pass a law that you cannot build a
tractor any more than 65 horsepower on the drawboard. That will
do it--pure and simple.
I thank you for coming today and appreciate it very much.
PRODUCTION AGRICULTURE
Senator Burns. I do want to say that, as for the root of
our problem, we are probably working on the wrong end of it
when we start talking about the economic climate of American
agriculture at the production level.
I think our good friend at Auburn University made a good
point. Since 1984, we have only seen food prices go up about 3
percent, but we have seen increased profitability both in the
banking, meat processing, grain companies, and transportation.
The good times have rolled on. Also there has been increased
profitability in our grocery stores. But we have seen farm
income drop almost over 30 percent.
We can make it through any kind of economic decline in any
of the commodities if those prices on the decline are reflected
in the end product, because we consume everything we produce--
but at a price. We have not seen that happen at this time,
however, and no commodity is making any money at the production
level.
Oil is $7 a barrel. As for mining, the environmentalists
are trying to run that out of Montana. There is also timber,
and certainly no product from the farm.
What I am saying is at the production level nobody is
making any money.
However, on the other end of it, on the front end of the
grocery store and where the consumers pay, they are doing
fabulously well, as Wall Street would indicate.
So I think we are working on the wrong end of this thing.
Exports in pork, as you brought up, Mr. Schumacher, have a
$15 live weight on hogs. We ought to be covering the world in
hogs. There is nobody, not even the Taiwanese, who could
produce hogs at that level.
I am just at odds as to where the answer lies.
I think this bodes hard times for the rest of the economy,
but it has not come yet and I thought it would be here by now.
So I was wrong about that. Of course, I have not been right on
much, anyway.
But I am right on one thing, though. Everybody got worried
about Y2K and I went up to the Montana Department of Livestock
and filed for that brand, Y2K. [Laughter.]
That cost $50. The other day a guy called up and said he
would like to have something to commemorate the turning of the
century, but you own that brand. Would you take $500 for it.
Now I'll have to look at that. That might be a good trade.
I don't know. [Laughter.]
I just want to say that my message here is that we are
working on the wrong end of this thing. We are not getting any
support from our processors, purveyors, and retailers--none.
I think that is our big problem. We are just not getting
our share of that consumer dollar. I did not see pork chops go
down in price at the grocery store. Did anybody go to Giant
Food recently? Your pork chops cost the same, don't they? They
cost the same.
Mr. Collins. No. The Consumer Price Index for pork chops
for January was about 10 percent lower than for January 1998.
So they are going down somewhere in this country.
Senator Burns. But, I'll tell you, it's just like moving
the Rock of Gibraltar.
Mr. Collins. It is hard, I admit.
Senator Burns. Yes, it is hard to do.
But I think that is where the problem lies, and I don't
think anybody has come up with any answers. I sure have not
come up with any. But that is where we have to work on it. That
is what the USDA has to do, start going to our companies and
saying listen, folks, we have to get some dollars back to the
farm, and that is where you come in.
You could become an advocate for production agriculture
because you have the power to do it. You have the power to call
up any CEO in this country and they will return your call. But
we are not doing that. We are not doing that.
Those are the areas where we have to work.
I was in Minneapolis yesterday and talked to some pretty
large sized, important folks there. I am going to continue to
work with those folks and try to get ourselves out of this
situation. I don't think the Government could do it.
I don't think this Federal Government can deal with the
problem that we have with our friends to the North. I don't
think the Government can do it.
I think producer to producer we can do it. We can do
something about the rate of exchange, and we can help the
Canadian farmer if we can raise his income level. This is
because when the water comes into the bay, all boats go up.
We have to get them in a position to where they are making
money, too. We have a great production and we are very
proficient. We do everything. There is no part of the American
economy that is more efficient than agriculture at the
production level. I mean, we are good.
Senator Cochran. Excuse me. We have a vote on now.
Senator Burns. Really? Then I will go vote now and will
just shut up. [Laughter.]
But I want to make that point. You are sitting in a
position where you can do something and you have to call those
folks in. That is where it is at. We could eat our way out of
anything.
If you pick up a farm paper in Missouri, it says to come
and get your hogs: free hog, free Christmas pig. And nobody is
doing too much about that.
I say that that is your role.
It is good to see you are better, Jim Baker. I was worried
about you a little bit. I thought you were on the casualty list
there for a little while.
Let's go vote.
Senator Cochran. The Committee will stand in temporary
recess so that we can go to the floor for this vote. We will be
back very shortly.
Thank you.
[A brief recess was taken.]
Senator Cochran. The Committee will please come to order.
CROP INSURANCE PROGRAM
Earlier this month, the Secretary of Agriculture in a
speech he made announced some proposals to strengthen the Crop
Insurance Program. My question is, is there a specific
legislative vehicle that will be introduced at the
Administration's request to authorize changes in the program?
If so, what will the changes be? What are the costs estimated
to be? Will there be any kind of additional funding request
made of this Congress this year for crop insurance?
Mr. Schumacher. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would
like to ask Ken Ackerman, if he could, to join us at the table.
Ken will be testifying extensively in the next few weeks and he
could help us address that question. He is the man on the spot.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Mr. Ackerman, tell us what your official title is these
days.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My official title these days is Administrator of the Risk
Management Agency.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Mr. Ackerman. I guess on your question, as Mr. Schumacher
mentioned, I will be testifying in more detail on this over the
next 2 weeks before the authorizing committees--before the
Senate Agriculture Committee on March 17 and on the House side
on March 10.
We will be putting more detailed proposals on the table.
The Secretary proposed a white paper at the time the budget
came out on February 1 that outlined our ideas for reforming
crop insurance.
The process we would like to follow this year is to try to
reach consensus within the farm community, with commodity
groups, and with the House and Senate members on both sides of
the aisle on the basic ideas to reform crop insurance, and then
address the budget issues.
We recognize that it will be an expensive project. The
Secretary has said it will cost at least $1 billion. We have
been refining our budget estimates, and I hope to be able to
testify on that in more detail over the next couple of weeks.
But we do recognize that we do have to address the budget
issues in order to accomplish legislation this year.
Senator Cochran. One of the elements of a proposal that we
have heard is that you are suggesting that $1 billion may be
needed to subsidize premium costs to induce farmers to purchase
revenue assurance policies. Is that going to be part of the
proposal?
Mr. Ackerman. Yes, that would be part of the proposal. The
number of $1 billion, or ``at least $1 billion,'' would cover
the entire package. As I said, we are refining what that
overall number would be.
But, clearly, the biggest expense item in either our
package or any of the other proposals that have been discussed
would clearly be toward creating better incentives for farmers
to buy up to higher levels of coverage.
One of the biggest problems we have had in crop insurance,
in our experience last year as Mr. Schumacher mentioned, is too
many farmers were either uninsured or underinsured. We found
that those farmers who had catastrophic level coverage, for
instance, tended to be very disappointed in that coverage in
the event that they had real significant losses.
We feel that revenue insurance should be fully supported.
Under crop insurance currently it does not get a full subsidy,
as with MPCI, multi-peril crop insurance.
So yes, that is part of our package of proposals and, yes,
that would have a significant budget impact.
Senator Cochran. One of the problems in the South is that
rating inequities put Southern farmers at a disadvantage, and
that is a serious problem in the minds of a lot of producers in
our part of the country.
What can be done to deal with that in an effective way?
Mr. Ackerman. I guess there are two parts to the answer on
that. The fact that farmers find crop insurance not accessible
enough, not affordable enough, is a general problem nationwide.
We think that has to be addressed by creating better incentives
through subsidy--through better targeting the subsidy system.
But specifically on rates in the South, we recognize we
have an issue with rates on cotton. Cotton planting patterns
have changed a lot in the last few years, and a lot of the rate
base on cotton goes back 10 or 20 years.
We are doing a study specifically on our cotton rates right
now and we have made that an agency priority. We have brought
in some outside advisors, some outside university people to
look at our rates. We have had a number of meetings with the
National Cotton Council to discuss the rating system, and we
expect that we will be able to report our findings to you
probably within the next 2 or 3 months.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much. Your answers are very
helpful.
Mr. Ackerman. Thank you.
CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM
Senator Cochran. I have a series of questions now that deal
with the Natural Resources Conservation Service. You may want
to invite Mr. Reed to come forward to help answer these
questions.
It is my understanding that limitations placed on the
Commodity Credit Corporation technical assistance funds are
severely hampering the ability of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service staff to provide technical assistance to
land owners. If the section 11 cap, as it is called, is not
fixed, what will be the impact on NRCS support for the
Conservation Reserve Program?
Mr. Reed. Senator Cochran, our estimate right now is that,
based on the current dollars that are available, we have enough
money to do CRP-type work, provide technical assistance, up to
about the 15th of May.
We estimate, based on what the Secretary plans to accept in
the 18th signup, that we need approximately $28 million in
order to provide the anticipated technical assistance that is
needed.
NRCS STAFF YEAR REDUCTION
Senator Cochran. For the record, I think we should identify
the Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, who is
Chief Pearlie Reed. We appreciate your being here today.
We understand also that the fiscal year 2000 budget request
will result in a reduction of staff for the Natural Resources
Conservation Service. What impact is this going to have on NRCS
and its ability to carry out its functions as required by law?
Mr. Reed. Well, based on basic soil and water conservation
work that the policy makers in this country are expecting us to
do and all of the additional things that the policy makers are
putting on our plate, namely the massive animal waste workload,
the emerging water quality issues, and global climate change
initiatives, we are being asked to do too much.
The proposed 1,055 staff year reduction for the NRCS for
fiscal year 2000 will be something that will, quite frankly,
get us in a position where we cannot deliver on those
priorities that have been established for us.
Senator Cochran. This may not be a question that you are
supposed to answer, but I am curious to know how much funding
would be necessary to add to the NRCS budget request to ensure
that you have the staff to meet your responsibilities?
Mr. Reed. Approximately $90 million over and above the
fiscal year 1999 level for conservation technical assistance.
WATERSHED FACILITIES
Senator Cochran. We recognize the fine work you have done,
that the agency has done, over the last 40 years in putting
flood control structures and other watershed projects in place
that benefit local communities and production agriculture. Tell
us, if you can, what you are going to do about the problem of
maintenance requirements and the deterioration of these
watershed infrastructure facilities. We understand that this is
a problem, that because some of these structures were
constructed so long ago, they now are not doing the job that
they were expected to do, and are creating, in some cases,
public safety and health risks. We need to know about this and
what can be done about it.
Mr. Reed. Mr. Chairman, starting in the late forties up to
about 1962, under P.L. 534 and 566 and the RC&D program, we
built approximately 10,000 or so dams out in the countryside
that were designed to last for 50 years.
Those dams have functioned as they were designed to
function. Now they are filling up with sediment and they are to
the point where there is a need out in the countryside for some
major, major rehabilitation.
I should add that it is really not a maintenance problem,
it is not an operations problem. It is a problem with the
system having functioned based on the life expectancy that the
dams were designed for.
Starting about 1962, we started to design these dams to
last 100 years. So for those that were constructed since 1962,
we have a little bit longer before we need to be concerned
about their life expectancy.
But the major thing right now is that I am of the opinion,
we are of the opinion in the NRCS that we have a potential
major public health and safety situation out in the
countryside: the roads, the bridges, and other parts of the
infrastructure out there, namely water supplies, recreation
facilities. Indeed, a lot of development has gone in the flood
plain below some of these structures.
We are of the opinion that, if this issue is not addressed,
it is just a matter of time before we have some major, major
disasters--loss of life, loss of property, and all of the
things that go along with that.
Our lawyers tell us that it is not the NRCS's or Federal
Government's responsibility for these projects, that it is a
local issue. My concern is that it is a major public health,
public safety issue, and I think it is our responsibility to
bring that to the attention of the policy makers in this
country and let them decide how best to deal with it.
Senator Cochran. Is there any specific amount in the budget
submission that is designed to deal with this problem, or to
educate communities about the problem, or to do anything in
regard to it?
Mr. Reed. There is approximately $1 million for an
education effort.
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Senator Cochran. Let me ask you about some of the other
programs that the agency is involved with.
We know that, because of the economic problems in
production agriculture, there are some programs that do provide
some financial benefits to help farmers. I am curious to know
your reaction to the benefits that are available and the
sufficiency of these benefits. Conservation programs are some
that have been very important to me personally, and we have
been actively involved in trying to design the programs so that
they are workable.
I would like your reaction to these conservation programs.
I have in mind the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Wildlife
Habitat Incentives Program, which we were able to get
authorized a couple of years ago; and EQIP, which has become
very well known. Describe to us what is being done in the
administration of these programs to help farmers.
Mr. Reed. Let me just tick off the programs. Of course, the
biggest one is CRP. Then we have the Wetlands Reserve Program,
the WRP Program. In the President's budget we are proposing
that a $5 million amount be made available for Debt for Nature.
Senator Cochran. For what? I'm sorry?
Mr. Reed. For Debt for Nature. Basically, that is a program
that has been authorized but never funded that would provide
technical assistance and financial assistance to farmers in
such a way where maybe they could provide easements and things
like that to offset certain kinds of debts.
Senator Cochran. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Reed. I would like to offer to provide for you for the
record some specific examples of situations out in the
countryside where farmers have been able to keep their farms,
of farmers who are in situations where they have been able to
get out of severe economic stress because of the WRP program,
because of the Wetlands Reserve Program. But I am not prepared
to talk about those specifically today.
Senator Cochran. Okay. That would be helpful to have in the
record and we would appreciate your submitting that for
inclusion in the record.
[The information follows:]
Conservation Program Assistance to Producers During Times of Economic
Stress
USDA Conservation Programs \1\ provide financial, technical, and
education assistance to aid farmers and ranchers attain their
conservation goals, comply with environmental requirements, and achieve
longer term resource sustainability. These programs mitigate not only
the vagaries of weather but also the violent shifts in agricultural
markets while providing long term productivity gains and reduced
reliance on purchased inputs. Several examples are cited below that
depict how conservation programs assist producers during times of
economic stress and over the long term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USDA conservation programs cited here include the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
(WHIP), Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), and Emergency Watershed Program
(EWP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mississippi, Iowa, and Maine--EQIP helps producers reduce costs and
contributes to long term income while providing environmental benefits.
Regardless of the economic hardships being experienced by
producers, there is an ever increasing number of local and State
environmental laws and regulations that must be addressed. In Iowa.
State legislation requires producers to stop using agricultural
drainage wells for the disposal of agricultural land surface runoff.
EQIP priority areas in Humboldt and Pocahontas Counties are being used
to provide assistance for developing environmentally safe methods of
runoff disposal and to comply with this legislation, while helping
producers minimize costly outlays to meet this requirement. A similar
State mandate in Mississippi requires the elimination of underground
pits for the disposal of poultry carcasses. EQIP priority areas in East
Central Mississippi and in the Upper Pearl River watershed are helping
the small, family poultry farmers meet the new regulations.
A second way that EQIP assists farmers in economic stress is with
the establishment of natural resource conserving practices that
maintain or enhance the long-term economic viability on the farm.
Farmers under economic stress commonly make investments that provide
near term income even though investing in conservation of natural
resources can enhance longer term sustainability and economic
potential. For example. the Passamaquoddy Tribe in Maine is using EQIP
for forest and wildlife habitat conservation and management purposes
that will ultimately improve their forestland income. They are also
establishing integrated crop and pest management techniques with EQIP
assistance that reduce reliance on costly agrochemicals while
maintaining yields on their blueberry lands.
The economic stresses stemming from adverse market conditions can
often impact small, limited resource. and minority farmers more
severely than larger operations with more capital. Limited resource
farmers in Mississippi were found to have a higher percentage of their
forest lands being inadequately managed or not reforested after
harvesting because they had to invest their limited funds in farm
operations with a quicker income return. EQIP has provided financial
assistance to these limited resource producers for reforestation
purposes that will primarily improve the local natural resources while
helping longer-term economic returns.
WYOMING--flow WHIP provides supplemental income
In Wyoming, thirty landowners in one country entered into WHIP
agreements for land surrounding two state wildlife management areas.
The State's wildlife areas are rich in water and wetlands, yet lacked
upland bird habitat and nesting cover, and thus limited overall
wildlife benefits. The land enrolled in WHIP provides the missing
habitat for pintails, mallards, pheasant, and sharptails as well as
neotropical migratory birds. In addition, the participants can lease
their land during hunting season as a source of additional income and
enterprise diversification. This, in turn, benefits the local economy.
Senator Cochran. There is one parochial question on this
subject that I wanted to bring up.
The legislature in our State authorized $5 million from the
sale of bonds last year to be used for the rehabilitation of
watershed infrastructures. The State can only use this money if
some match is provided from the Federal Government. That is the
provision of the statute that the legislature passed.
The agency has authorized a pilot project for the
rehabilitation of an aging project. Would the agency consider
Mississippi as a possibility for this pilot program?
Mr. Reed. Absolutely. [Laughter.]
But let me tell you that in the fiscal year 1998
appropriations, you provided the authorization for us to do
that and I think it was approximately $1 million. We have
obligated those funds for this pilot project in the State of
Oklahoma. So, as it has been explained to me by our lawyers, in
order for us to proceed elsewhere with pilot projects, we would
have to get the appropriate authorizations or appropriations to
do so.
Senator Cochran. Okay. We will work on that. Maybe we need
some new lawyers. [Laughter.]
HONEY LOANS
Let me ask you something, Mr. Secretary, about a revision
that we put in the emergency appropriations title last year to
the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill that had to do with
marketing loans for honey producers. It is not probably widely
known, but Congress approved this program because honey
producers, like many others involved in agriculture, faced
seriously low prices. The Department has delayed implementing
this program, and I am curious to know why.
Congressman Skeen, who is chairman of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on the House side, and I learned that the
Department also had assumed to not implement the program in the
manner intended.
We wrote a letter recently to try to spell that out. We
would like the delays to end, but we have not gotten a reply to
our letter and no regulations implementing the program have
been published.
We would like to have regulations promulgated so that the
Department could implement the program. Can we expect action on
that? Or is there any reason why the Department is just
refusing to carry out the provision of section 1122 of the 1999
Agriculture Appropriations Act?
Mr. Schumacher. Thank you. Again, with your permission, I
would ask Mr. Parks Shackelford, who is running that program
and is here today, to reply.
Mr. Shackelford. I am the Associate Administrator for
Programs at the Farm Service Agency.
Actually, we very strongly intend to implement the program.
The difficulty was that, unlike some of the other no net cost
programs, this legislative language required that it be run at
no net cost and did not provide an exemption for administrative
costs.
We have worked with the industry trying to determine a way
that we can provide the loans at a reasonable cost to cover the
administrative costs and still be workable to the industry.
I think our staff has come up with some creative ideas--for
example, the fact that we will be getting interest payments and
can offset some of the costs.
The regulation is in clearance. We hope it will be
published very soon and that we will be able to get these loans
out to the industry.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
COTTON PROGRAM
Dr. Collins, we mentioned earlier in the hearing the Step 2
Certificate Program for cotton. It seems to have worked very
well to promote cotton exports overseas and to ensure that
domestic mills have access to domestic cotton at competitive
prices.
Could I ask you a couple of questions about this? We
observed, when we were talking about it earlier, that funds
have been exhausted under existing authorities. What is the
intention of the Department with respect to seeking additional
funds?
Mr. Collins. I do not think the Department has any stated
position on that at this time, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. What is your assessment of the value of
these certificates to domestic cotton producers?
Mr. Collins. I want to be very careful how I answer that
because I remember a year ago you asked me that and I got a
flood of mail afterwards based on my response. [Laughter.]
I would say that there are a couple of things we could look
at.
One is what has happened since the Step 2 Program
terminated in mid-December. What has happened since then is
that we have only made a net increase of about 100,000 bales in
sales of cotton--that is the sales minus the cancellations we
have had since then. That would be, by all historical
standards, a very poor performance on export sales.
So I would have to say that the world has been looking for
a Step 2 payment this year for us to be able to sell cotton. So
this is a year in which the Step 2 Program would have made a
big difference.
As we look out to 1999, however, I think the effect would
be lessened. This is a year in which we had a very small crop
in the United States but we had large supplies around the
world. As a result, we had the unusual situation of low U.S.
supplies and low prices. These do not usually come together.
As we look out to 1999, we may see a situation where we
have large U.S. supplies but again low prices. With those large
U.S. supplies, I think we would be in a better position to
compete, and I think the effect of the Step 2 program probably
would not be great.
However, there is an effect. I mean, I think it does
increase domestic mill use and it does increase export sales.
But it depends on the world conditions in each season as to how
effective it would be.
CROP INSURANCE
Senator Cochran. During the last brief recess we had, the
so-called President's Day Recess, I ran into a few of my
friends who are in the cotton business, cotton growers. They
think that the Step 2 program is something that they really
need, and they would like very much to have it extended.
For the first time, I understand we have a new crop
insurance product called Crop Revenue Coverage, offered for
sale in our State for rice producers. We have received a number
of calls from producers about this product, and there is some
concern that the availability has influenced planting decisions
and may have affected the rice market.
This coverage, as I understand it, does not serve as a
price guarantee for the quantity of rice a farmer produces. In
other words, it is not similar to a put option. Is that
correct?
What are your thoughts about the influence and the
availability this product has had on planting decisions and
market prices?
Mr. Ackerman. Senator, as for the product you are referring
to, there are two related products. So it is important to
distinguish.
There is a product called Crop Revenue Coverage which is a
widely available product on a number of crops. But this is the
first year it has been offered for rice. It is different than a
put option.
What it does is give a farmer a guarantee on their revenue.
In other words, it will cover you if prices move down, but only
if your revenue, the price times yield, falls below a certain
floor.
It will also give you a protection if the price moves
upward.
This is different than a put option because a put option is
based on the price standing alone. CRC, as an insurance based
revenue product, is based on price times yield. This is a
product that we reinsure, back, subsidize, and that we are very
fully engaged in.
There is an additional product that is a private sector
product offered by the same company, called CRC Plus. CRC Plus
is what is called an add-on product which basically enhances
the price guarantee. In this case, it does it, I believe, by 3
cents.
There were some concerns that, because of changes in the
rice price since the time the prices for these tools were set
several months ago, that may have influence on some planting
decisions by farmers.
CRC Plus is a product that we do not reinsure. It is a
purely private product. The only review function we have for it
is to see whether it impacts the risk borne by the Government
on the underlying product.
At this point, I can tell you the sponsoring company is
reviewing the situation. They are considering a number of
options. We have not seen any direct indication that CRC Plus
is affecting rice prices.
Obviously, the availability of any insurance tool, if it is
a good insurance tool, would be to give farmers more confidence
to plant a crop. If it is having that kind of beneficial
impact, that may not necessarily be a problem. But it is a new
tool. Like many of the new revenue tools, we are learning by
experience this year because we are dealing in a time of
volatile prices and we have a new generation of crop insurance
products on the market today that are price sensitive. We are
learning a lot of lessons this year about how they operate when
markets are volatile, particularly when market prices change
after the initial prices are set on products.
We have had that happen before with traditional crop
insurance products if we set a price election on a crop and
then the market moves away from it. When you have a price
sensitive product, that concern can be compounded.
We are tracking this very closely. We have been in very
direct contact with the companies, simply to be on top of the
situation. But CRC Plus is a purely private product.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
MONITORING FOOD AID TO RUSSIA
Mr. Schumacher, in your statement which you submitted to
the Committee you point out that the United States and Russia
have established a monitoring program, which is new and
unprecedented, to help ensure that food aid reaches the
populations for which the aid is intended.
Could you describe this program and how it works? Or, is it
working to get the food aid to the targeted populations?
Mr. Schumacher. Yes. It has been really an unprecedented
monitoring system that we put in place. The first shipments of
seeds should arrive in St. Petersburg on March 12 and we'll be
kicking in the monitoring as that starts. We've put enormous
effort into ensuring that the agreements that we have signed
with the Russian Government will be adhered to and we'll know
where this product is going.
With your permission, I will ask Mr. Goldthwait to take a
minute or two to go into the very important details to assure
all of us that this is going to take place well.
Senator Cochran. All right.
Mr. Goldthwait. Senator Cochran, the monitoring and
oversight program has actually three parts to it.
First of all, there is an element that the Russian
Government itself is undertaking. They are setting up a special
unit within the Ministry of Interior basically to do individual
tracking of the shipments within Russia. That is what they are
doing.
What we are doing has two components. It has what I call a
real time reporting component where, instead of getting all of
our reporting on the disposition of commodities after the fact,
traditional in USDA food aid programs, we are actually going to
be getting reporting on the discharge of the commodities within
48 hours after they reach the Russian ports and the movement of
the commodities on an ongoing basis to, ultimately, their
endpoint of disposition.
That is the second element.
The third element is an extensive spot checking effort,
actual people on-site, going out and, first of all, talking to
the people that are to receive the commodities before the
commodities are going to be delivered, alerting local media as
to what to expect. Then the people will actually be observing
the discharge of commodities at the ports, visiting the
railheads and storage locations as they are distributed
internally, and, ultimately, going to the end delivery point
and observing the commodities as they arrive in the designated
regions.
The actual plan for the disposition of the commodities for
all of the commodities is available on the FAS website.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 FSA STAFFING
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Mr. Schumacher, the Administration's supplemental funding
request, which was submitted last week, includes $42.7 million
for Farm Service Agency salaries and expenses to accommodate
the increased county office workload.
Does the fiscal year 2000 budget request accommodate the
agency's workload requirements as well? Will it result in any
staff reductions?
Mr. Schumacher. Yes, the fiscal year 2000 budget includes a
reduction of 752 in staffing.
Senator Cochran. That's 752 staff years?
Mr. Schumacher. Yes, 752 FTE's, full-time equivalent staff-
years. That's a reduction in the budget for the year 2000 for
permanent employees.
Senator Cochran. What will be the practical consequences of
that? Will farmers suffer because of that, the programs?
Mr. Schumacher. We are going to be looking hard at
additional forms of efficiency. We will be going through an
administrative convergence to make sure that, as we move
forward into some consolidation, we're putting people behind
counters and not in administrative offices. However, sometimes
we have county offices that are very thinly staffed, and we can
do better if we combine two offices. We will work closely with
Congress on these proposals.
So we are making some efficiencies there as well, sir.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Cochran. I have some additional questions and other
members of the Committee may, as well, which I will submit. I
request that you respond in writing in a timely fashion.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Cochran
farm ownership loans
Question. The fiscal year 2000 President's budget request proposes
an increase of $42,400,000 in budget authority for direct farm
ownership loans resulting in an increase to provide 500 additional
loans for minority farmers and to help reduce the backlog of unfunded
loan applications. What is the current backlog that exists for direct
farm ownership loans?
Answer. There are 1,214 direct farm ownership loan applications on
hand as of March 2, 1999.
agricultural conservation program
Question. There has been a $33,300,000 carry over balance available
for the Agricultural Conservation Program for several years now. Why
hasn't this money been used for ACP cost-sharing agreements and when
does the agency expect this money to be obligated?
Answer. The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
repealed the ACP and incorporated its objectives into the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program. The remaining funds are available only for
valid prior years' obligation adjustments.
Question. When will all cost-sharing agreements be completed?
Answer. The last multi-year cost-share agreement was entered into
during fiscal year 1996 for water quality incentive practices. Those
practices are completed over a 3- to 15-period. The last ACP long-term
agreements were entered in fiscal year 1995 and are contracts for 3 to
10 years.
tree assistance program
Question. The unobligated balance of $3,200,000 brought forward
from prior years for the Tree Assistance Program is available for use
in fiscal year 1999. Does the agency plan to use these funds in fiscal
year 1999?
Answer. The unobligated balance of $3,200,000 brought forward from
the prior years for the Tree Assistance Program will be used in fiscal
year 1999. Any unobligated balance at the end of fiscal year 1999 will
expire according to Public Law 105-277.
Question. If yes, then for what purposes?
Answer. This funding will be used to provide cost-share payments to
orchard and vineyard growers who suffered losses due to fire blight
infestation (a destructive disease caused by bacteria) that was caused
by a natural disaster.
loans for irrigation systems
Question. The Committee conference report accompanying the fiscal
year 1999 Agricultural Appropriations Act states that the conferees
expect USDA to provide guaranteed loans for installing irrigation
systems for farmers in areas declared a disaster due to droughts. Have
any loans been provided for this purpose? If not, why?
Answer. Providing funds to install irrigation systems is an
authorized purpose for guaranteed loans. FSA does not gather data on
the use of loan funds for specific purposes, so we are not able to
fully respond to this question.
livestock pricing
Question. Hog Prices have dropped as low as $7 per hundredweight in
some parts of the country. Cattle prices reached around $80 per
hundredweight at the first of the year, and have hovered in the $60-70
range in some parts of the country. Does USDA have any plans to provide
any emergency relief to cattle farmers?
Answer. USDA recently authorized $20,000,000 of section 32 funds to
support the beef industry. USDA is currently purchasing beef roasts and
ground beef. In fiscal year 1999, USDA has purchased $66,000,000 worth
of beef with Section 32 funds to fulfill entitlement needs for the
1998-99 School Lunch Program.
Question. What authority does USDA have to assist the livestock
industry?
Answer. The Agricultural Marketing Service assists the livestock
industry under Section 32 of the Act of 1935 (Public Law 320).
suspension of loans for hog production facilities
Question. The Federal Register contained a notice on January 26,
1999, that temporarily suspends direct Rural Economic Development Loan
and Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan financing for the
construction of specialized facilities used for the production of hogs.
How many loan applications will be affected by this suspension?
Answer. In addition to the suspension you mentioned, on January 8,
1999, FSA suspended direct and guaranteed loans for construction or
expansion of specialized facilities used for the production of hogs. We
do not know how many applications were affected by these temporary
suspensions.
Question. Will these applications be considered for funding once
the suspension is lifted or will all appropriations be obligated by
that time?
Answer. When the suspensions are lifted, applications will be
considered for funding. The suspensions are indefinite in duration so
it is impossible to say what the availability of funds will be when
they are lifted.
Question. What will be the determining factors to lift this
suspension?
Answer. The suspensions will be lifted when the Secretary
determines that resumption will not contribute to oversupply and
continue to depress hog prices.
small hog operations payment program (shop)
Question. Many hog farmers claim that the $50,000,000 assistance
that will be provided to them is too small to help medium and large hog
producers. Was this assistance directed towards the smallest producers?
Answer. The Small Hog Operations Payment Program (SHOP) was
directed towards small hog operations, which may or may not be an
individual producer.
Question. How is a ``small producer'' defined by USDA?
Answer. A small hog operation is defined as any hog operation whose
gross income for 1998 was $2,500,000 or less. The operation must also
have marketed less than 1,000 hogs during the last 6 months of 1998 and
must still be in business.
Question. Is USDA considering additional emergency assistance for
small and medium-sized producers?
Answer. Approximately $50,000,000 of Section 32 funds were
authorized for SHOP. The Section 32 provisions invoked permit direct
payments to farmers to reestablish their purchasing power. If
additional assistance is needed to help hog farmers reestablish their
purchasing power, providing additional Section 32 program assistance
would be considered.
delivery of emergency programs
Question. Please give an update on the delivery of the following
emergency programs: wool and mohair recourse loans, honey recourse
loans, indemnity payments for cotton producers, and emergency
assistance provided in Title IX, Section 1124.
Answer. There are no programs available for wool. The CFR
regulations for honey and Mohair Recourse loan programs were filed on
March 3, 1999. Notice LP-1673, instructing county offices to publicize
the programs, accept applications and disburse loans was issued to
State Offices on March 4, 1999. Application forms for both programs are
available on the FSA electronic bulletin board system. The forms are
also available to applicants with Internet access on the Price Support
Division web site (www.fsa.usda.dafp.psd).
In terms of indemnity payments for cotton, USDA was to make a
$5,000,000 payment to the State of Georgia to help fund an indemnity
fund, which was to be established and managed by Georgia, to compensate
cotton producers in Georgia for losses incurred in 1998 or 1999 as a
result of bankruptcy of a warehouseman or other party. In order for
USDA (CCC) to pay Georgia the $5,000,000, Georgia was required to
contribute a matching $5,000,000. Georgia has until July 1, 1999 to
establish the fund and until January 1, 2000 to make all the payments.
To do this, Georgia had to pass a law allowing it and to
appropriate the funds. The Georgia legislature has passed the law and
drawn up the paperwork to appropriate the funds, and the documents were
still awaiting signature by the Governor. If the fund is not
established by Georgia by July 1, USDA shall make available our
$5,000,000 to provide partial compensation to cotton producers.
Funding for emergency assistance shown in the fiscal year 1999
Appropriations Act, Section 1124, was further broken down in Section
763. As required in Section 763, paragraph b, $27,000,000 was
transferred to the Secretary of Commerce, $20,000,000 was transferred
to the Economic Development Administration, and $7,000,000 was
transferred to the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. An
additional $5,000,000 was transferred to the Small Business
Administration, in accordance with Section 763, paragraph c. We are
also working with the State of Alaska to offer $18,000,000 in emergency
aid to individuals with family incomes below the federal poverty level
in connection with fishery failures.
farm loans
Question. The Secretary of Agriculture announced that USDA will
postpone certain loan payments for farms suffering severe financial
distress from low prices. The loan deferment announcement included 1998
farm ownership and operating payments due January 1, 1999. These
payments will instead be added at the end of the repayment period along
with loan servicing authorities, including debt rescheduling and
forgiveness, to assist farmers. What will be the cost of delaying these
payments, if any?
Answer. We estimate that there will be no additional cost to the
Government as the amount set aside continues to accrue interest at the
note rate and will be due and payable when the loan matures.
Question. Besides the 1998 farm ownership and operating payments
due January 1, 1999, what other loan payments will be postponed by this
deferment?
Answer. All FSA Farm Loan Program loans may receive disaster set-
aside. These include payments on Farm Ownership, Operating, Soil and
Water, Emergency, Economic Emergency and Rural Housing loans for farm
service buildings that were impacted by the 1998 disasters and low
commodity prices. Non-program farm type loans may receive disaster set-
aside if the borrowers also have any of the regular Farm Loan Program
loans types listed above.
Question. The fiscal year 2000 President's budget request proposes
an increase of $28,000,000 for emergency loans for a total of
$53,000,000 in program level that will provide about 852 loans. Based
on the fiscal year 1999 demand for emergency loans and the supplemental
request, is the fiscal year 2000 request for this program still
appropriate?
Answer. It is not possible to predict the frequency and severity of
natural disasters. Hopefully, normal weather patterns will be prevalent
in fiscal year 2000, and the high demand for emergency loans
experienced in fiscal year 1999 will not be repeated.
Question. In the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Act, the
limitation on the amount of both a farm ownership and an operating loan
was raised to $700,000. How has this affected the type of loans that
are being made? Are larger loans being made to fewer people?
Answer. Yes, larger loans are being made to fewer people. Thus far
in fiscal year 1999, the average loan amount has increased. Farm
ownership loans increased 12 percent (from $177,127 to $199,053) and
operating loans increased 14 percent (from $123,879 to $141,287).
Question. To what extent has this change contributed to the
increased demand/shortfall of fiscal year 1999 emergency funds for
these loans?
Answer. For the past 8 years, the average loan size has been
increasing 2 to 5 percent each year. We believe the increased loan size
has contributed to exhausting our loan funds so early in the year.
Question. Many banks that lend to farmers are turning away those
that are on the brink of losing everything, so there is an increasing
demand for USDA farm credit loans. How is this affecting the demand for
USDA's direct and guaranteed farm operating and ownership loans and the
availability of funds?
Answer. Demand for both direct and guaranteed loans has increased
significantly in fiscal year 1999 compared to fiscal year 1998 due to
low commodity prices and numerous natural disasters. Due to this growth
in demand for FSA farm loan assistance, there will be a shortage of
funds in all FSA direct and guaranteed loan programs in fiscal year
1999. On February 26, the President requested supplemental funding to
provide an additional $1,100,000,000 in financing to farmers and
ranchers.
cotton
Question. Funds for the Step 2 competitiveness provision for cotton
were exhausted in December, 1998. USDA announced a special import quota
under Step 3 on Thursday, February 25, 1999. In the absence of
additional Step 2 funds do you expect domestic cotton consumption and
exports to decline for the 1999/2000 marketing year?
Answer. USDA has not yet published the official 1999/2000
projections for cotton in the monthly World Agricultural Supply and
Demand Estimates (WASDE) report. However, at USDA's recent Agricultural
Outlook Conference, estimates placed 1999-crop domestic mill use for
all kinds of cotton at between 10,000,000 and 10,500,000 bales, roughly
the same as the level now expected in 1998/99. Exports of cotton for
1999/2000 were estimated at the conference to range from 5,000,000 to
6,000,000 bales. This would represent an increase of between 600,000
and 1,600,000 bales (about 25 percent) from the exports estimated for
1998/99. Ending stocks of cotton for 1999/2000 are projected to
increase about 2,000,000 bales, to about 5,400,000 bales, an increase
of nearly 60 percent from the carryover stock level from 1998/99.
Question. Will Step 3 import quotas continue to open on a weekly
basis and if so, for how long?
Answer. Step 3 import quotas will continue to trigger as long as
the Friday-Thursday average U.S. quotation for middling 1-3/32'',
delivered C.I.F. northern Europe, exceeds the northern Europe index by
3.00 cent per pound or more. The spread between the U.S. quote and the
northern Europe index for the current crop is now about 15 cents. On
Tuesday, March 15, the first indication of the forward-crop prices was
published. Though there was some improvement noted in the competitive
position of U.S. cotton, the spread still appears to be about 10 cents.
Thus, the Step 3 quotas can reasonably be expected to continue
triggering for many weeks.
Question. In the absence of additional Step 2 funds, does USDA have
any authority which, if utilized, would make US cotton more competitive
and which would serve to close import quotas?
Answer. Both Step 1 and Step 3 still are in effect. By its design,
Step 3 is supposed to start and stop automatically with no action
required of--or permitted to--USDA. It has started this year at a time
when it was needed. The actual importation of cotton likely will stop
when the cotton is no longer needed. We cannot stop the continual
announcements of new, unneeded import quotas. Since the adjustment of
the U.S. northern Europe quote will be zero in the absence of Step 2,
only the market can stop those superfluous announcements. Under Step 1,
USDA has authority to reduce the marketing loan repayment price, also
known as the ``adjusted world price'' or AWP, whenever the U.S.
northern Europe quotation exceeds the northern Europe price, as long as
the calculated AWP is less than 115 percent of the loan rate. (We use
the ``A'' Index to represent the northern Europe price.) Factors to be
considered in determining whether a Step 1 adjustment should be made
are specified in the law. They are: (1) the U.S. share of world
exports, (2) the current level of cotton export sales and cotton export
shipments, and (3) other relevant data, as available. Under that last
category, we at USDA have considered the volume of loan activity to be
very important.
The theory behind the adjustment of the AWP under Step 1 is that
the authority can be used when it becomes clear that cotton is being
maintained in the loan program and is not flowing into the market. The
competitive position of U.S. cotton is being hurt as a result of the
impediment to flow. With larger loan deficiency payments or gains from
the lower loan repayment price, farmers are believed likely to forgo
loans or redeem loans. Cotton will become available to the market.
Competitiveness will be served.
We have no experience that would tell us if this theory is valid.
The few instances in which Step 1 was invoked in the 1991 crop year did
not appear to affect loan activity. However, the provision had just
recently been enacted, and it is possible that it was not used
aggressively enough. It does increase budget exposure, and that always
has been an important consideration. Between January 1994 and December
1997, Step 1 adjustments were not possible because the AWP was too
high.
There are two schools of thought on the implementation of Step 1
adjustments: (1) Step 1 adjustments to the AWP should be used sparingly
and intermittently to entice farmers to redeem loans or forgo loans as
needed to relieve temporary constrictions in market flow; or (2) Step 1
should be incorporated into a larger pricing strategy designed to
enhance U.S. competitiveness in world cotton trade.
Under the first approach, if heavy loan placements appear imminent,
it is argued that a reduced AWP could help move cotton into the market
instead of to the loan. These results are predicted because farmers
will perceive either that they will earn a larger marketing loan gain
if they redeem loan cotton or that they will earn a larger LDP by
deciding not to place the cotton in the loan. Under this line of
reasoning, the key ingredient for Step 1 to work properly is
uncertainty. Farmers should never be sure whether USDA will again
announce a Step 1 adjustment in the following week. Therefore, to take
advantage of the increased benefit, they must move in the current week.
One thing we have learned recently concerning this approach is that,
once farmers become cognizant of the mere possibility that Step 1 might
be invoked, they tend to hold their cotton off the market so they do
not ``miss'' the extra benefit. This defeats the purpose of Step 1.
Under the second approach, Step 1 should be operated during a
specific period to provide ``carry-plus'' so that U.S. cotton can be
offered in world trade at more competitive prices. The AWP would float
at some level under where it would regularly be. The loan deficiency
payment rate or gain from marketing loan redemptions would be constant
from week to week, while the AWP would fluctuate from week to week, as
it does now. This approach would, in effect, move the pricing structure
downward and should contribute to competitiveness. It would not
encourage speculative holding, as the first approach appears to do.
Under this approach, Step 1 could function in the same general manner
as Step 2 had functioned before the funding went dry, i.e., as a means
of reducing the U.S. price level in both domestic and international
trade.
loan deficiency payments
Question. There is a $750,000 per ``person'' limitation on
cumulative loan deficiency payments (LDPs). During 1998, USDA took
action which increased eligibility for LDPs (silage and high aflatoxin
corn) and the amount of LDPs (adjustments to the county-posted price).
As a result of these actions, does USDA expect some commodities pledged
as collateral for CCC loans to be forfeited as producers hit the
payment eligibility limits?
Answer. Department commodity analysts do not expect appreciable
amounts of grain, soybeans or cotton to be forfeited from the 1998
crops. There may be individual producers whose operations are of such a
size that they may reach the $75,000 limit on loan deficiency payments
(LDPs) and marketing loan gains, but most will not.
Using LDP rates determined recently, over 2,000 acres of soybeans
would be required to generate a payment of $75,000 at the national
average yield. In the Mississippi Delta and the Southeast, with the
poor yields of 1998, between 3,000 and 4,000 acres of soybeans would be
required. At the height of the corn LDP about 6 weeks ago, to hit the
$75,000 limit would have required over 3,000 acres of corn in the Delta
and over 4,000 acres in the Southeast. In the case of cotton, about
1,000 acres would be required to generate loan deficiency payments of
$75,000 in the Mississippi Delta or the Southeast.
Most farms have more than one of these commodities planted. The
acreage required to reach the $75,000 limit is, therefore, something
over 1,000 acres. Most producers have had a chance to organize their
operations so that they have avoided large acreage on a single
operation. Most have had a chance to avail themselves of the ``three-
entity'' rule, effectively doubling the acreage required to hit the
limit. The analysts do not expect the payment limit to affect many
producers or cause the forfeiture of many bushels or bales.
Question. Does USDA expect to require some producers to repay LDPs,
resulting from audits which identify overpayments?
Answer. Yes, some producers will be required to repay their LDP's
if an overpayment occurred.
Question. Does USDA expect to advise some producers with
commodities still under loan that they cannot redeem those commodities
at the world price even though the commodities have been contracted for
future delivery using USDA approved options contracts?
Answer. If a producer should reach the $75,000 limitation of LDP or
marketing loan gains, no further marketing loan gains could be
permitted that producer for 1998-crop commodities. In that case, the
producer would be informed that 1998-crop loans could no longer be
redeemed at reduced rates, such as the AWP, in the case of cotton.
Question. Under the cost reduction authority of current farm law,
does USDA have authority to forgive interest and loan principal on
commodities under loan?
Answer. We have determined that loans could be repaid at less than
the original loan rate under the cost reduction option.
Question. If so, what conditions would warrant the use of that
authority?
Answer. Under the provisions of Section 1009 of the Food Security
Act of 1985, as amended, the redemption amount due on a commodity loan
may be reduced if the reduction will cause a saving to the Federal
Government of: (1) interest receipts that otherwise might be lost; (2)
receipts of loan principal that would be lost if the collateral were
forfeited in satisfaction of the loan; or (3) reduction or elimination
of handling, storage, and carrying charges that otherwise might accrue
to the Government because of a forfeiture.
Question. Is USDA contemplating the use of that authority for any
commodity in the immediate future?
Answer. No, we are not anticipating using that for any commodity in
the immediate future.
acreage reporting
Question. What is the current status of acreage certification by
the Farm Service Agency (FSA)?
Answer. Producers are required to certify acreage for the following
benefits:
--Production Flexibility Contract Payments--fruits and vegetables
--Loans and LDPs--Acreage of the crop for which a loan or LDP is
being requested
--CRP annual rental payments--CRP acreage according to CRP-1 appendix
--NAP--Crop acreage for which a NAP benefit may be requested
--Quota Tobacco and Peanuts--All quota tobacco, except burley, and
peanuts
Question. If producers voluntarily report acreage, what action is
taken by FSA?
Answer. County offices accept FSA-578's from all producers who wish
to report their acreage for any FSA program purpose.
Question. Are there requests for FSA acreage data by other agencies
or organizations?
Answer. The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) uses
the data to evaluate the accuracy of acreage surveys done annually. FSA
acreage totals are used as a secondary source of State and national
crop estimating programs. They also use the data when allocating State
estimated in support of county estimates programs.
Private insurance companies, reinsured by Risk Management Agency
(RMA), use and rely on FSA acreage to verify crop insurance acreage
information reported by producers.
FSA also provides acreage and production information related to the
tobacco and peanut programs to RMA electronically for use by private
crop insurance companies. This program allows producers to obtain crop
insurance without providing production certification to companies.
Natural Resources Conservation Service uses FSA acreage information
to develop producer crop rotation plans for compliance with the highly
erodible land conservation provisions.
The Boll Weevil Eradication Program, administered by the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, has historically relied heavily on the
FSA acreage information.
Question. Is USDA cooperating with NASA in the development and
utilization of cropping and other data collected by satellites?
Answer. In April 1998, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was
signed by the Secretary of Agriculture and Administrator of NASA. The
MOU provides a framework for cooperation and coordination to facilitate
research, development, transfer, and utilization of satellite data in
implementing precision agriculture techniques and managing resources.
Following the signing of the MOU, USDA helped NASA identify research
priorities in the areas of agriculture, forestry, and range resource
management. NASA offered to fund research in these priority areas in a
NASA Research Announcement which drew about 180 research proposals from
the national remote sensing community. By March 1999, through a series
of panels--co-chaired by USDA and NASA--those proposals, that
demonstrated the most potential for developing improved remote sensing
applications were selected for funding.
livestock price reporting
Question. Secretary Glickman has stated that there is a need for
greater authority to require packers to report livestock and meat
prices through a mandatory program. He also has indicated that he plans
to take ``specific steps'' to collect additional price information
under existing law. Does the Department have a legislative proposal to
submit to Congress to grant USDA the authority to require livestock
price reporting?
Answer. USDA has drafted proposed legislation to grant USDA the
authority to require mandatory livestock price reporting. The proposed
legislation currently is at OMB for clearance.
Question. What ``specific steps'' under existing law will the
Department take to help determine if there is evidence of price
manipulation or unfair pricing activity by packers? What are the
existing authorities for these ``specific steps''?
Answer. The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
(GIPSA) has broad authority to collect information from subject firms,
conduct investigations, and interview parties to carry out its
enforcement responsibilities under the Packers and Stockyards (P&S)
Act. GIPSA will use transaction data collected under the mandatory
reporting pilot investigation included in USDA's fiscal year 1999
appropriation to investigate pricing issues affecting the cattle and
sheep industries. In the hog industry, GIPSA is conducting an
investigation of hog procurement contracts and marketing agreements to
assess their use and reasons for price differences among producers.
Question. It has been reported that a Federal investigation last
year showed that the prices meatpackers report for hogs are lower than
the actual transaction prices. I have also heard that Secretary
Glickman is seeking a Justice Department probe into possible hog price
fixing, and USDA is investigating price spreads between farms, packers,
and retailers. When will the Department finish the investigation?
Answer. GIPSA's Western Cornbelt Hog Procurement Investigation,
which was completed last year, showed that the quality of a ``base
hog'' as reported in public market news reports was lower than the
average quality of hogs purchased by packers. Thus, prices reported for
a ``base hog'' were lower on average than actual transaction prices
during the period of the investigation. Secretary Glickman has asked
the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to examine
the current record price spread in pork. USDA's investigation of price
spreads was initiated as a result of Secretary Glickman's Pork Crisis
Task Force. A time frame for completion of this investigation has not
yet been set.
Question. How have the low prices that farmers are receiving for
their hogs been affected by this ``possible hog price fixing''?
Answer. USDA has not alleged that low prices for hogs resulted from
``possible hog price fixing.'' A large supply of hogs was and continues
to be the most important factor pressuring prices. Other factors likely
played a role in the precipitous price drop seen at the end of 1998,
and USDA is committed to determining whether practices in violation of
the P&S Act played a role.
Question. What other activities have been undertaken by the
Department to address this issue?
Answer. USDA has undertaken a number of activities to address the
issues raised by the recent hog price crisis. In addition to an
investigation of price spreads, GIPSA is conducting a comprehensive
review of hog contract provisions and a review of recent hog slaughter
plant closings.
meat labeling
Question. A National Cattlemen's Association survey indicates 78
percent of consumers polled want to know where their grocery meat comes
from. What is the Department's position on country-of-origin meat
labeling?
Answer. Currently the Department does not have an official position
on country-of-origin labeling for meat and meat products.
Question. How will this affect the cost of meat to consumers?
Answer. We are not sure of the effect of country-of-origin meat
labeling on the cost of meat to consumers since we have not conducted
any consumer cost analysis.
Question. What, if any, actions has the Department taken regarding
this issue? If not any, does the Department have any plans to take
action in the future?
Answer. As directed by the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999, USDA is
conducting a study of the potential effects of mandatory country-of-
origin labeling on imported beef and lamb muscle cuts. As part of this
study, USDA will review the regulations and policies governing USDA
grading of imported meat and the use of the U.S. grade stamp on meat
imported into the U.S. We plan to submit the report to Congress in
April, as directed.
dairy production disaster assistance program
Question. An additional $3,000,000 was appropriated in the fiscal
year 1999 Appropriations Act for the dairy production indemnity
program. Has this money been distributed to dairy farmers?
Answer. Yes, and approximately $750,000 of that remains
undesignated.
Question. Geographically speaking, which States in the country
benefitted from this additional assistance?
Answer. California received approximately $1,400,000, New York
received $200,000, and Georgia and Florida received approximately
$150,000 each.
Question. What was the average payment for a qualified dairy
farmer?
Answer. The average payment was approximately $7,775 per dairy
operation.
dairy market assistance
Question. The fiscal year 1999 Agriculture Appropriations Act
provides $200,000,000 in disaster assistance for dairy producers. The
law gives the Secretary of Agriculture the discretion to distribute
this assistance in a manner that he sees fit. How is this assistance
being allocated and distributed to dairy farmers given that dairy
prices were at a high last year and are predicted to fall in 1999?
Answer. The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, provides
that $200,000,000 shall be available to provide market loss assistance
to dairy farmers in a manner determined by the Secretary. The record
high milk prices of last fall have been replaced with below average
prices. The Basic Formula Price (BFP), which is the price that the
Federal Milk Marketing Order system sets for milk used in manufacturing
and is the price mover for fluid milk, declined from $16.27 per cwt in
January to $10.27 per cwt in February. The $6.00 decline from January
to February is more than twice the previous record monthly drop of
$2.52 per cwt in November 1996. The February BFP is over $2 below the
past 5-year average BFP in February--$12.51 per cwt. However, the drop
will not be fully reflected in milk checks until April due to the lag
in fluid milk price changes. The sudden plummet in the BFP resulted in
a sense of urgency to get immediate and direct help to dairy farmers in
a timely fashion.
USDA will make payments under the Dairy Market Loss Assistance
Program based on a dairy operation's first 26,000 cwt of milk produced
and marketed in either 1997 or 1998, whichever is the highest. Targeted
to family-sized operations, the amount of eligible production is about
the annual production of a herd of 150 cows. The final payment rate per
cwt will be calculated after signup ends, but USDA expects the rate to
be between 18 and 20 cents per cwt and the maximum benefits to be about
$5,000 per dairy operation.
Question. What criteria has the Department developed to determine
which farmers are eligible to receive this assistance?
Answer. All dairy operations that produced and commercially
marketed milk from cows in the United States from October 1998 to
December 1998 are eligible.
Question. What is the time line for the delivery of this program
assistance to eligible farmers?
Answer. Producers must apply at their local Farm Service Agency
office between April 12 and May 21, 1999. Payments are expected to be
made in mid-June.
grocery mergers
Question. Across the nation, we are seeing consolidation in all
areas of business. The supermarket industry is no exception. What
impact will the consolidation of this industry have on prices paid to
farmers for their goods and the prices charged to consumers?
Answer. At the national level, the concentration of sales among
chain and other grocery retailers has traditionally been relatively
low, but has been increasing in the past few years. In 1997, over two
hundred grocery store chains operated in the United States, along with
several thousand independent grocers. The four largest chains,
accounted for approximately 23 percent of all supermarket sales. At the
local level, where competition for consumer dollars occurs,
concentration of sales is generally considerably higher, but varies
across local areas and has not increased significantly since 1990. The
four largest supermarket operators accounted for 96 percent of sales in
Miami but only 52 percent in New York, with other metropolitan areas
falling between the two.
Consolidation can make firms in the supermarket industry more
efficient and benefit both farmers and consumers. For example, larger
firms may contract directly with farmers for fruits and vegetables.
Improved efficiency and eliminating intermediaries can mean higher
prices for producers and lower retail prices for consumers. Farmers
have historically marketed very little of their production directly to
retailers. Thus, the competition between retailers for farm level
products has not been an important factor affecting farm prices. More
critical to farm prices is the overall demand for agricultural goods
and the competition among traditional first buyers of farm goods like
grain elevators and meat packers.
Consolidation may be creating a food system that is slower to
respond to market forces. Lower farm prices may not be passed through
to consumers as quickly when supermarket chains are fewer and larger
and face fewer competitors. When this happens, farm prices may stay low
longer because retail price cuts are not being used to work off the
supply-demand imbalance that caused farm prices to fall.
natural resources conservation service staffing
Question. In the fiscal year 2000 President's budget request for
the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) a staff level of
1,055 is decreased from the fiscal year 1999 level. Why is the number
of staff being decreased when the proposal of several new
Administrative initiatives are in the fiscal year 2000 budget request
in the conservation area?
Answer. The NRCS budget increases are primarily for grants,
easements, and other financial assistance directly for producers.
However, the technical assistance required to support these initiatives
and the acreage reduction from fiscal year 1999 for the Conservation
Reserve Program result in 1,055 fewer staff years. Most of the
reductions will take place in the field because past reorganizations
have drastically reduced staff above the field level. This will result
in a substantial reduction in the level of service provided to
landowners and landusers in such areas as planning assistance,
implementation of conservation practices, construction projects,
resource inventories and reduced levels of implementation for some cost
share programs.
Question. Is the agency's funding strained under the current
workload and staff level? Why?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget does not provide full funding
for all the technical assistance needed to implement the proposed
program activities, but all the staff years are counted as being funded
in the 11,194 FTE ceiling shown in the budget. The fiscal year 2000
does not request any additional for the emergency watershed protection
program. There is a $25,300,000 short fall to pay for the technical
assistance necessary to implement Wetlands Reserve, Farmland
Protection, and Conservation Reserve programs. The short fall exists
because the cost to service these programs exceeds the CCC Section 11
cap on technical assistance.
community/federal information partnerships
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request proposes an increase
of $5,000,000 and 20 full-time employees (FTE) for the Community/
Federal Information Partnerships (CFIP). $1,500,000 would be used to
hire 10 additional FTEs. From where will the other 10 FTEs come and
what work are they currently doing?
Answer. The explanatory notes mistakenly identified 20 FTEs for the
Community/Federal Information Partnerships. This initiative would only
require the addition of 10 FTEs.
air quality
Question. In the fiscal year 2000 budget request and agency
programming, how does NRCS plan to work with American farmers who face
air quality compliance problems?
Answer. Both the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) and
the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) help American farmers who face
air quality problems. EQIP enables NRCS to direct financial assistance
to farmers with air quality problems. For example, in California there
are four serious PM-10 non-attainment areas. In fiscal year 1998, NRCS'
California State Office addressed air quality problems in the following
ways: $15,000 for education grants to local Resource Conservation
Districts and Air Quality Management Districts that helped publicize
methods for controlling on-farm road dust; $300,000 for statewide
concerns cost-shared at 75 percent with farmers for dust suppression on
farm roads and chipping almond residues as an alternative to burning;
and, within geographic priority areas, local work groups supported cost
sharing on air quality mitigation practices. Similar levels of spending
are planned for fiscal year 1999. The CRP has also mitigated air
quality problems on thousands of acres across the nation (e.g.,
Washington).
Question. What funding is requested for this purpose, if any, and
what amount of funding is needed to get the job done?
Answer. NRCS is not requesting specific funds for technical
assistance in the current budget cycle to address air quality
compliance. However, in response to the question regarding the funding
needed to get the job done, NRCS estimates that about
$25,000,000 will be needed to begin addressing compliance issues
through the Conservation Operations Program. These funds would be used
to train existing field staff and to employ new staff to increase
specialized technical assistance available to agency customers in
defined air quality non-attainment areas.
Question. How is the agency working in cooperation with both the
Environmental Protection Agency and USDA's Air Quality Task Force in
representing the needs and interests of the American farmer on air
quality issues?
Answer. Pearlie Reed, Chief, NRCS, chairs the Agricultural Air
Quality Task Force (AAQTF). The AAQTF is comprised of representatives
of agricultural production, agricultural industry, science, and health,
including a representative of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. AAQTF recommendations regarding oversight, coordination, and
science of agricultural air quality are transmitted to the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Administrator of EPA. To date, the AAQTF developed
a Memorandum of Understanding, signed by Secretary Glickman and
Administrator Browner (NRCS A-3A75-8-30), to facilitate cooperation on
agricultural air quality between USDA and EPA and has recommended
priorities for air quality research. NRCS has also located a liaison
with EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards in North
Carolina. USDA staff from NRCS, FS, ARS, and CSREES and EPA staff from
the Office and Air Quality Planning and Standards and the Office of
Research and Development are meeting regularly on agricultural air
quality issues.
grazing lands conservation initiative
Question. In fiscal year 1997, fiscal year 1998, and fiscal year
1999 $15,000,000 was earmarked for the continuation of the grazing
lands conservation initiative. Please update the Committee on this
initiative and include any money in the fiscal year 2000 President's
budget request for this project.
Answer. NRCS continues to work successfully with the National GLCI
Steering Committee and other partners to develop and coordinate NRCS'
commitment to meeting the needs of local farmers and ranchers
responsible for management of the nations grazing lands. The fiscal
year 2000 President' budget does not specify additional appropriations
to implement this initiative. NRCS continues to expand on past
accomplishment which includes the availability of grazing land
specialists in all states. The following is a report of NRCS fiscal
year 1998 accomplishments due to increased emphasis and demand for
technical assistance for the Nation's grazing lands. Fiscal year 1999
activities are ongoing and are not available at this time
accomplishments
Staffing
In 1998 hired 45 new employees and 421 employees allocated the
majority of their time to providing technical assistance on GLCI
activities.
Training
Over 16,000 individuals, including NRCS employees, and personnel
from other agencies, and private grazing landowners and managers
received training.
Technical Assistance
Technical assistance was provided on over 14,000,000 acres of
grazing land. The conservation practice Prescribed Grazing was applied
to over 11,500,000 acres.
Grazing Land Projects
There are 324 grazing land projects nationwide that demonstrates
grazing land management and technologies.
Public Education and Awareness
NRCS conducted over 1,000 public awareness and education and
awareness activities to over 202,000 individuals.
demonstration projects language
Question. The appropriation language proposed in the fiscal year
2000 budget request deletes the prohibition on demonstration projects.
This deletion will provide NRCS the ability to have demonstration
project to educate and share conservation techniques with small farmers
and financially limited landowners. Please explain the need for this
change in law.
Answer. This change is proposed to allow NRCS the flexibility
needed to efficiently and effectively implement its Civil Rights
Outreach program. Demonstration projects are often the most effective
way to work with groups of underserved farmer and ranchers. However,
the current language in the Conservation Operations appropriation
account prevents us from conducting demonstration projects, and our
lawyers tell us authorities granted under other NRCS programs are
inadequate to carry out this type of demonstration project.
clean water action plan
Question. As a part of the President's Clean Water Action Plan, all
States have prioritized their watersheds according to the need for
water quality and natural resource restoration or protection. This
process is known as the Unified Watershed Assessment. Of the requested
increase of $31,000,000 for conservation technical assistance (CTA),
how much is allocated for the Clean Water Action Plan?
Answer. All of the requested increase in CTA funding is for
implementation of Clean Water Action Plan initiatives (Animal Feeding
Operation strategy--$8,000,000; locally-led conservation--$20,000,000;
and watershed health monitoring--$3,000,000).
unified watershed assessment
Question. How much is being spent on the Unified Watershed
Assessment process currently and how much is allocated for fiscal year
2000?
Answer. For fiscal year 1999, there was no funding specifically
allocated to NRCS for the Unified Watershed Assessment (UWA) process.
NRCS support for the UWAs in fiscal year 1999 came as a part of ongoing
program efforts. The fiscal year 2000 budget request proposes a
$3,000,000 increase for additional environmental monitoring and
research work, a portion of which will provide data and information
needed to establish base information and evaluate program outcomes for
Federal resources used in UWA priority areas.
animal feeding operations draft strategy
Question. Another component of this Clean Water Action Plan is the
Animal Feeding Operations (AFO) draft strategy. The fiscal year 2000
budget request proposes an increase of $8,000,000 and 97 staff years to
support this initiative. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates
that there are 450,000 animal feeding operations and 6,600 concentrated
animal feeding operations in this country. It believes that a large
number of these will need to develop or revise their waste management
plans. How much is currently being spent on this initiative and how
many staff years are working on it?
Answer. NRCS will spend $53,500,000 ($37,000,000 Conservation
Technical Assistance and $16,500,000 EQIP) in fiscal year 1999 to
provide technical assistance through the locally-led planning and
implementation process to help AFO owners and operators address water
quality issues related to animal agriculture. The small watershed
progra contributes technical assistance dollars also, however, data is
not available to identify specific contributions. Starting with this
year, NRCS is tracking through its accountability system how its staff
time is used to address the needs of AFO owners and operators, by
specific program and activity, for all employees.
Question. What kind of demand from farmers is there for this
technical support through Conservation Operations since no cost-share
assistance will be provided.
Answer. NRCS currently assists approximately 10,000 AFOs annually
through a variety of programs (i.e., Conservation Operations, EQIP, and
the small watersheds program) to prepare animal waste management plans,
provide technical engineering and agronomic expertise, design and build
structures, and implement land management practices. Regularly these
farmers seek our technical assistance before they determine whether or
not to apply for financial assistance from a variety of potential cost-
share sources, including USDA and state and local agencies. Thus,
initially they will receive planning assistance, for example, through
the Conservation Operations program, but they may ultimately receive
implementation assistance through a different or non-USDA financial
assistance program. Our accountability system is not currently
capturing the data we need to provide specific demand numbers; however,
we anticipate that the pending issuance of the Unified National
Strategy for AFOs will significantly increase the demand by AFO owners
and operators for technical assistance.
Question. How does this demand compare to the demand for technical
and cost-share assistance provided through the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP)? Is not this work not addressed through EQIP?
Please explain.
Answer. The primary source of USDA financial assistance to AFO
owners and operators is the Environmental Quality Incentive Program
(EQIP), which has been funded at $200,000,000 in 1997 and 1998 and
$174,000,000 in 1999. Approximately 45 percent of the funds in each of
these years fund contracts with AFOs to develop and provide cost share
incentives to help implement nutrient management plans. The requests
for financial assistance funds for AFOs during each of those years was
approximately three times the amount available. It is likely that the
Unified AFO Strategy, as well as the increased attention to this issue
by states, will further increase the demand for both technical and
financial assistance from USDA. It should also be noted that EQIP is
specifically designed to encourage the leveraging of other sources of
technical, educational and financial assistance funds.
Question. The fiscal year 2000 Budget Justification Notes state
that the $8,000,000 for AFO will be combined with approximately
$1,000,000 in climate-related AFO pilot projects and $11,000,000 in
redirected conservation technical assistance funds. This will bring the
total to $20,000,000 for the AFO conservation technical assistance.
What sort of climate change-related AFO pilot projects are planned?
From what area of conservation technical assistance will the
$11,000,000 be redirected?
Answer. The AFO pilot projects will demonstrate and test various
greenhouse gas mitigation strategies and monitoring mechanisms, as well
as a variety of financial assistance mechanisms under existing
authorities. Examples of potential pilot projects include compost-based
waste handling facilities, constructed Wetlands for waste management,
rotational grazing systems, and improved feed/forage efficiency.
Conservation technical assistance funds are to be used to maintain
and improve the soil, water, and related resources of the Nation's
nonpublic lands by reducing excessive soil erosion; reducing
agricultural nonpoint source pollution of water; improving irrigation
efficiency; making more effective use of water; reducing upstream flood
damages; improving range condition; and restoring, maintaining, and
improving wetlands. Thus, the allocation of the $11,000,000 will be
made with the requirement that the funds be used to address the needs
of AFOs.
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request proposes an increase
of $15,000,000 for activities supporting the Global Climate Change.
What is currently being spent on these activities?
Answer. NRCS has funded its Global Climate Change research program
at $1,200,000 in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999. Prior years
were funded at $1,500,000. Funds were distributed and utilized as
follows:
--50 percent to the National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln Nebraska
($600,000). Conservation and Wetlands Reserve Programs carbon
sequestration effects, conducted jointly with ARS and
University Cooperators, changes in soil climate (moisture and
temperature) and associated rates of carbon sequestration, Soil
Carbon map production, National soil carbon stock analysis
--40 percent to NRCS state offices for University cooperator research
projects ($442,000). Most funds directed toward a long term 8-
state (TX, LA, OR, IN, ND,MN,NH,UT) comprehensive wetlands
study which includes rates of change in carbon stocks.
--10 percent to universities in response to RFP's on climate change
and carbon sequestration ($162,000).
soil carbon studies
Question. Which agency conducted the soil carbon studies? What is
NRCS' role in expanding this study?
Answer. Several agencies within USDA, including the ARS and the FS,
are conducting soil carbon studies. NRCS is engaged in a multi-year
effort related to Global Change. As a result, seven technical volumes
have been published on soils and global change and five more are
currently in process. Most of these publications were proceedings from
scientific meetings organized jointly by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, the Agricultural Research Service, the Forest
Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration and the Ohio State University. Titles include:
Management of Carbon Sequestration in Soil, Soil Management and the
Greenhouse Effect, and Soil Processes and the Carbon Cycle. One volume
was a special synthesis report on The Potential for U.S. Cropland to
Sequester Carbon and Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect. Similar reports on
the potential for U.S. grazing lands and U.S. forestlands are currently
in production.
The carbon cycle research projects undertaken by the NRCS are
directed at terrestrial soil carbon interactions with atmospheric
biochemical fluxes. This knowledge will enable circulation models to
more accurately describe, at the regional scale, the impacts of
agriculture and forestry on greenhouse gas levels, and to project
adaptation capacity.
The NRCS cooperative soil survey data is the first building block
essential to understanding the terrestrial carbon pool. To establish
the scientific basis for a terrestrial carbon inventory, refinement of
soil carbon data across soils, climate regimes, and under various
management systems and land uses is required. The fiscal year 2000
Global Change budget initiative in NRCS begins to address this
requirement. Specific components include the following:
NRCS will enhance the national soils data bases through five
initiatives: Accelerate digitizing of county level soil surveys, and
update the state level soil mapdatabase, which are the primary
geospatial data layers linked to the national soils attribute database,
Complete the National Soil Information System (NASIS) development
effort to achieve on-line database access, Add ``use-dependent'' soil
carbon data and soil pedon descriptions to the NASIS database, Develop
on-line, a real-time georeferenced soil pedon database Develop the
Ecological Site Information System (ESIS: a cooperative FS/BLM/NRCS
effort) for range and forestland.
Evaluations, including field validation and calibration, of
modeling, remote sensing, and statistical inventory approaches to field
level, regional and national scale carbon stock assessments that are
sensitive to the land management practices and agronomic systems that
impact soil carbon levels.
--Directed field soil sampling and increased laboratory analysis
capacity
--Development, testing and application of improved sampling,
inventory and analysis protocols
This enhanced NASIS database, and associated databases, models,
inventory and assessment products will be applicable to integrated
environmental and agricultural sector policy impact analysis, as well
as providing scientifically grounded tools for potential carbon
crediting or trading programs. It will enable carbon cycle, land use,
and socio-economic models and inventories to utilize soil carbon data
that reflect actual biophysical and human induced variability in soil
carbon stocks.
Focus of the first year's effort in these carbon studies (Global
Change Research Program, $12,000,000) will be in major agricultural
regions on major crops in common production systems, and expanding into
about 25 percent of non-federal range and forest lands.
The initiative also has a component (Climate Change Technology
Initiative, $3,000,000) that includes pilot projects for delivery of
carbon enhancing/emission reducing conservation systems.
Incentives, planning tools, and technical assistance for
conservation systems that comprehensively enhance soil carbon
sequestration and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while also achieving
water quality, wildlife and other environmental benefits will be field
tested and evaluated.
Pilots will be conducted on croplands, grazing lands, and animal
feeding operations, using existing financial and technical assistance
programs. Innovative management systems and field carbon prediction and
planning tools being developed by ARS will be field applied and
evaluated.
Example of systems and practices that build soil organic carbon,
and reduce greenhouse emissions that will be piloted may include:
Cropland, use of cover crops, field application of organic amendments,
reduced tillage and residue management systems,nutrient management,
establishment of landscape buffers; Animal production and grazing land
establishment of grass based animal feeding systems, establishment of
aerobic compostig operations alternative management systems for
confined animal manure handling.
Attention will be paid to technology and delivery systems
appropriate for limited resource, small scale, and underserved clients.
measurements of sequestration of soil organic carbon
Question. Once the measurement and incentive systems are developed
and applied, sequestration of soil organic carbon will be measured and
verified. Which agency will carry out the measurements of sequestration
of soil organic carbon?
Answer. NRCS does not anticipate conducting extensive measurement
of carbon sequestration. NRCS is cooperating with ARS and others to
direct selected field carbon measurements to develop, validate and
verify models that could be used at various scales to predict carbon
sequestration. Models that are being developed to predict soil carbon
sequestration are compatible with existing programs in use in the NRCS
field offices to plan and predict the erosion control benefits of
conservation systems. The intent is to create a seamless system, into
which data need be entered only one time to predict erosion rates and
carbon sequestration rates for farming system options selected by
farmers. The information infrastructure is being designed to be
available on the Internet, so that farmers or private sector
consultants may utilize the available information and analytic tools
independent of federal conservation programs. These tools may also be
applied by NRCS in national and regional carbon stock inventories in
addition to other natural resource condition assessments, such as
erosion in the National Resources Inventory. Field measurement
validation of models will be conducted by NRCS in cooperation with the
Agricultural Research Service. Field level measurement for verification
may be conducted by NRCS or others as appropriate, based on the type of
program or private contractual agreement in place for carbon storage.
global climate change
Question. Will any of this work address the study by the Pew Center
on Global Climate Change that indicates global warming will change
where crops are currently grown in the U.S.? (The study indicates crop
acreage and livestock operation will shift northward.)
Answer. The NRCS budget request includes $200,000 which will be
contributed to the Agricultural Sector and regional global climate
change assessment reports that are being coordinated through the USDA
Global Change Program Office and the USGCRP.
tracking grazing conservation assistance program funds
Question. In the fiscal year 1999 Senate Report, the Committee
directed the agency to establish a system to provide an accounting of
funds used for the grazing conservation assistance program within
conservation operations. What has the agency done to address this
directive?
Answer: NRCS has established an accountability system that meets
the directive. The National Performance and Results Measurement System
(PRMS) captures data from all levels of NRCS. It provides easy and
timely access to agency accomplishments. Time and Cost Accounting
System (TCAS) is part of the accountability system to collect
information on how employees spend their time. Specific to the GLCI
earmark, PRMS and TCAS collectively will allow the agency to monitor
and report progress in staffing, training, technical assistance,
projects and outreach activities. Additionally the NRCS has also
implemented a workload analysis system to address future GLCI workload
requirements.
plant materials centers funding
Question. Please explain how the $1,000,000 for the plant materials
centers in the fiscal year 1999 Senate Report has been used to continue
development of warm season grasses for use in the Conservation Reserve
Program and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. How has the agency
encouraged the development and transfer of technology among all the
Department's natural resources conservation programs?
Answer. The $1,000,000 was distributed among plant centers doing
work with warm season grasses. Some of the species under study include:
eastern gama grass, bluestems, switch-grass, dropseed, gramas, and
Indiangrass. All of these species are natives that provide critical
food and/or habitat (e.g., cover) for wildlife. Consequently, they
represent a core group of plants that are available for use in the
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. Many of the same species are also
important components of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). In the
Great Plains, for example, bluestems, Indian grass, and switch-grass
are widely used to restore and stabilize highly erodible lands. In
recent years, the Plant Materials Program has developed and released
cultivars that are now in high demand for the CRP. Without these
releases, it is doubtful that the CRP would be very functional.
Despite past success, however, there is an ongoing need to develop
better materials and technical information on warm season grasses. The
$1,000,000 has enabled this work to continue actively at 16 Plant
Materials Centers. Centers that are involved include ones in Arizona,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
Montana, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Texas (3 centers), and
Washington. These centers have studies underway with warm season
grasses to develop better selections and more advanced technology.
Technology development and transfer in the Plant Materials Program
has advanced along a broad front. Cooperative work is underway with the
National Park Service, Department of Defense, Department of
Transportation, and Agricultural Research Service. The Plant Materials
Program serves as a source of technology for application-oriented
information. The Natural Resources Conservation Service encourages work
of this sort. It is promoted as one way to avoid duplicative efforts
among other natural resources conservation programs. Technology
transfer is achieved through printed materials, oral presentations, and
electronic transfer. Last year, for example, the Plant Materials
Program had 310 written materials and 469 oral presentations. Written
materials included technical notes, plant guides and fact sheets,
symposium/poster materials, and progress reports. Oral presentations
included training sessions, tours, and local/regional/national
presentations. Electronic transfer was also accomplished via an
Internet homepage. The address is: http://plant-
materials.nrcs.usda.gov.
priority area pilot projects under eqip
Question. Please explain the progress that the NRCS has made in
addressing the Committee's directive in the fiscal year 1999 Senate
Report regarding the priority area pilot programs under the guise of
EQIP.
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 Senate Appropriations Report, the
Committee ``directs the agency to evaluate the applications for fiscal
year 1999 and proceed to provide adequate funding for not less than two
national priority area pilot projects.'' NRCS is in the process of
establishing the two national priority areas called for in the Senate
Report.
In the interim, to meet the Committee's direction, $5,650,000 was
allocated in fiscal year 1999 to increase funding to two priority areas
previously identified and approved by NRCS State Conservationist, and
recognized by NRCS as having national significance. Of this amount,
$1,300,000 was allocated to Mississippi for the Mississippi Delta
region. The funds will be expended in several smaller priority areas
approved in this region. The second area of national significance is
the Colorado River Salinity Control effort. Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming
were allocated a total of $4,350,000 for use in priority areas where
salt reduction is occurring in cooperative efforts with other local,
State, and Federal agencies and groups.
wetlands reserve program easements
Question. How has the agency addressed the acceptance of WRP bids
and the goal that landowners be offered a choice among permanent and
nonpermanent easements as well as cost-share agreements?
Answer. Landowners are offered the opportunity to sign up for one
or more of the categories of WRP projects. The offers for each category
are ranked with others of the same category and funds are allocated to
fund the best offers from each of the three types. The amount of
enrollment from each category is proportional to the level of landowner
interest.
cooperative agreements supporting wrp
Question. Please describe the existing cooperative agreements with
private conservation organizations to support the implementation of the
WRP.
Answer. Cooperative agreements are in effect with a number of
private conservation entities. They include the California Waterfowl
Association, Ducks Unlimited, Great Swamp Conservancy (New York), Iowa
Natural Heritage Foundation, Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Foundation,
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Pheasants Forever, and the
Wisconsin Waterfowl Association. The type of services included in the
various agreements include: site evaluation and planning assistance to
landowners; engineering field topographic surveys and structure design;
on-site restoration implementation assistance; nest structure
conservation and placement; funding assistance to primarily limited
resource landowners; and administrative assistance with realty title
clearance and land survey issues. In the Lower Mississippi River Valley
States of Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, the assistance is in
the form of engineering field topographic surveys and structure design,
on-site restoration implementation assistance, nest structure
construction and placement and cost-share assistance to limited
resource landowners.
transfer of watershed accounts to conservation operations
Question. What is the purpose of the new appropriations language
proposed in the Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request that
transfers funding for Watershed Surveys and Planning to Conservation
Operations?
Answer. Appropriating the funds to the water resources planning and
construction accounts shows the total program costs of planning,
technical assistance and construction during the fiscal year.
Transferring these planning and technical assistance funds to the
Conservation Operations account shows the costs for most of NRCS field
activities in one appropriation account.
Question. What is the purpose of the new appropriations language
proposed in the Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request that
transfers funding for technical assistance for Watershed and Flood
Prevention Operation to Conservation Operations?
Answer. Appropriating the funds to the water resources planning and
construction accounts shows the total program costs of planning,
technical assistance and construction during the fiscal year.
Transferring these planning and technical assistance funds to the
Conservation Operations account shows the costs for most of NRCS field
activities in one appropriation account.
flood prevention program funding
Question. The decrease of approximately $16,000,000 in the proposed
fiscal year 2000 budget request for Watershed and Flood Prevention
Operations is based on the possibility that no Public Law 534 projects
will score high enough for environmental and economic benefits to be
funded. Is this correct? What will this money be used for instead?
Answer. The decrease in the Watershed and Flood Prevention
Operations of $16,000,000 is not directly related to the fact that in
recent years, $15,000,000 of the total appropriation for watershed
operations has been designated for Public Law 534. It has been NRCS'
position that since all projects are funded by the same appropriations,
both Public Law 534 and Public Law 566 projects should stand on their
own merits in terms of economic and environmental defensibility. For
this reason all projects in contention for funding are evaluated using
the same criteria. To this point, Public Law 534 projects have competed
well with those being considered.
If no Public Law 534 projects were found to be economically and
environmentally defensible in the near term then all available funds
would be used to fund Public Law 566 projects.
public law 534 watershed projects criteria
Question. For Public Law 534 watershed projects, there are 23
unserviced applications and 24 projects in the planning process. Will
these be assessed under this new criteria of environmental and economic
benefits in order to be addressed? When does the agency plan to move
forward on the unserviced applications and the others in the planning
process?
Answer. The environmental and economic defensibility is considered
for each project in contention for funding. In many ways these
challenges are addressed in the planning process as a means of ensuring
an appropriate investment of both federal and local dollars. The
program statutes require that all projects must be economically
defensible. It is doubtful that all necessary permits could be obtained
unless it can be clearly demonstrated that a given project is also
environmentally defensible. However, decisions for funding are not
based solely on any one criteria. Consideration is given to other
factors including existing threats to life and property that would be
addressed by the project, and the needs of economically depressed
communities.
As to when the NRCS will move forward with unfunded authorized
Public Law 534 projects and unfinished watershed plans is dependent on
three key variables: sponsor commitment; the amount of Public Law 534
funding available to support the technical assistance necessary to
complete the work; and, the amount of financial assistance available to
complete the project.
Local sponsors are required to make commitments regarding
landrights, liability, and securing the non-federal funds required in
cost share projects. Sponsors are also required to obtain all necessary
permits prior to implementation of their projects. Many of the
authorized projects on which there has been no activity, and those with
incomplete watershed plans have been placed in a hold status at the
request of local sponsors. They simply have not wanted to accept the
risk and uncertainties associated with readying their projects for
funding in light of the drastic decline in appropriations for watershed
operations.
risk management agency
Question. In the fiscal year 2000 President's budget request an
increase of $715,000 is proposed for civil rights activities for the
Risk Management Agency (RMA). What activities is the Risk Management
Agency currently doing in the civil rights area?
Answer. RMA has significantly increased outreach activities aimed
at assuring that ALL farmers and ranchers can equally access all risk
management tools and programs. We have designated a full time National
Outreach Coordinator as well as regional coordinators in the Regional
Service Offices to implement the National Outreach plan. To assure that
we reach all small and limited resource and traditionally under served
farmers and ranchers, we have entered into cooperative agreements with
eleven (11) community based and other organizations, summarized below,
to provide risk management education and technical program assistance.
We are reviewing four outreach proposals for consideration in fiscal
year 2000. The Office of Civil Rights and Community Outreach Staff
recently mailed out approximately 400 letters to community groups and
organizations requesting that they get the message out to their
constituents on the Emergency Financial Assistance to Farmers announced
by President Clinton.
In addition, RMA is currently working on the following initiatives
relating to civil rights:
Data Collection.--RMA and the Office of General Counsel have
developed data and reporting regulations and procedures for reinsured
companies to begin collecting civil rights data in the fall of 1999.
The data will be used to determine how effectively RMA programs are
reaching underserved groups and identify areas where additional
outreach is needed.
Civil Rights Compliance Reviews.--RMA is currently developing
procedures, based on guidelines furnished by the Department, for
conducting on-site civil rights/EEO evaluations and training for
reinsured companies. The first of these training sessions is scheduled
to begin on July 1, 1999.
Diversifying the Delivery System.--The Office of Civil Rights and
Community Outreach is working with reinsured companies to recruit and
hire minority Agents. We are providing the companies with a list of
minority insurance agents who may be interested in selling crop
insurance. We are also inviting the companies to recruit at National
Conferences, e.g., Minorities in Agriculture and Natural Sciences
(MANRRS) scheduled in April, and at the 1890 and 1994 Land Grant
Colleges and Universities.
Cooperative Agreements.--RMA has cooperative agreements with the
following organizations:
--Federation of Southern Cooperatives--Provides program technical
assistance and training to small and limited resource farmers
in 12 southern states, and is conducting a customer survey.
--Toppenish High School--Promote and encourage community efforts and
government agency participation in developing the project to
utilize the high school to educate local farmers and deliver
outreach efforts. The Washington State FAC, including the
Spokane RMA Regional Service Office will work with the project
coordinator on this initiative.
--Intertribal Agriculture Council--This agreement is funded by RMA
and other USDA agencies to support specific goals to inform
Indian producers and tribal governments of programs and program
technical assistance which may be available to them in the
conservation of their natural and agricultural resources.
--Rural Coalition/Coalition Rural--The Coalition will sponsor an
annual conference which will include representatives from
approximately 90 community-based organizations (CBOs). These
representatives will be trained on several USDA programs. They
will provide USDA training to members of their respective CBOs
through workshops and one-on-one consultations.
--Hmong American Community, Inc.--Provides risk management education,
program training and information to Hmong and other Southeast
Asin farmers in California.
--Bringing Rural America Venture Opportunities--RMA is partnering
with Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization to
create technology-based jobs on Indian lands and surrounding
economically disadvantaged rural areas. Tribal entities (Indian
Nations) will establish small start-up technology companies.
Initial services provided will be software development for
USDA.
--Lac du Flambeau (LDF) Band of the Lake Superior, Chippewa Indians,
Lac Du Flambeau, WI--The LDF tribe will initiate an
agricultural and resource management program to provide
disadvantaged farmers and ranchers on the LDF Indian
reservation with the technical assistance and infrastructure
necessary to assure success. The LDF Band will provide
assistance to the LDF Indian tribe by allowing them to begin
providing food, jobs and income for their tribal members.
--University of California, Cooperative Extension--Will develop a
directory and guide of Agricultural programs and services for
small farmers in San Joaquin Valley.
--National Black Farmers Association, Inc.--Will provide training and
technical assistance programs to disadvantaged farmers in 16
counties in Virginia.
--First American Curriculum Development Project--RJS & Associates
will develop five major (both print and computer assisted
instructional) curriculum units tailored to meet the needs of
American Indian agribusinesses. RJS & Associates will work with
the twenty-nine tribally controlled land grant colleges in the
development of this curriculum. This project will also identify
and develop potential employees (American Indians) for RMA and
other USDA agencies to address under representation in the
workforce.
Question. How much of your current resources are being spent on
civil rights activities?
Answer. There was no separate funding provided for Civil Rights
activities in RMA's fiscal year 1999 appropriation, but the Civil
Rights staff has estimated $207,000 is needed for ongoing activities.
Question. How much will the survey which RMA plans to commission
with North Carolina A&T State University cost? How was this 1890 Land
Grant University chosen to do this survey?
Answer. We are currently estimating $25,000 for the survey. We have
not made a commitment to North Carolina A&T at this time--other
universities are also being considered. North Carolina A&T is being
considered because it has the capacity to conduct surveys and provide
professional analysis.
risk management education
Question. An increase of $3,000,000 for Risk Management Education
activities is also proposed in the President's fiscal year 2000 budget
request. What amount of resources and on which activities is the RMA
currently spending on education?
Answer. Since its beginning in fiscal year 1998, the Risk
Management Education (RME) initiative has never received operating
(A&O) funding. All expenditures for RME have come from the FCIC Fund.
In the enacted 1998 Agricultural Research Title, Public Law 105-185,
certain expenditures from the FCIC Fund (including those for RME) were
capped at $3,500,000 per year as part of a measure to permanently fund
the crop insurance program. For fiscal year 1999, $1,000,000 of the
$3,500,000 FCIC cap has been allocated to RME activities.
The fiscal year 1999 RME budget is as follows:
Item Amount
Direct Producer and Trainer Education (local workshops)... $550,000
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service (continued development of the Internet Library). 100,000
Publications.............................................. 250,000
FFA Essay Contest......................................... 50,000
Curriculum Development.................................... 50,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
TOTAL............................................... 1,000,000
public outreach
Question. How much is RMA currently spending on public outreach
activities?
Answer. We are spending an estimated $260,000, with an additional
$330,000 possible for a nationwide mailing to approximately 1,000,000
producers should the proposed reform measures be approved.
international crop insurance
Question. Why is the RMA considering an expansion into an
international crop insurance program and what purpose will this program
serve?
Answer. RMA's international work assignments are in response to
requests made by various nations and emerging economies through USDA's
Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) foreign agricultural posts.
Inquiries are handled on a case by case basis depending upon the
individual request. Generally, initial briefings are handled by FAS
Agricultural Attaches and other FAS personnel traveling overseas on
other business. When there is a need for further technical assistance,
RMA receives a request from FAS and a one or two hour meeting is held
during which various RMA program staff are asked to brief the
international representatives regarding: (1) How the U.S. crop
insurance program is designed; (2) What benefits US producers receive;
(3) The program's delivery mechanism, i.e., the Standard Re-insurance
Agreement (SRA) which RMA uses to contract for delivery services with
private sector insurance providers, and (4) Answers regarding any
specific questions which are asked.
Recent inquiries include: Japan has made two separate inquiries as
to how the Dairy Options Pilot Program (DOPP) works; France requested
information regarding revenue products, status of current legislative
proposals, whether there is a possibility of new legislation which
would restore price protection to US producers; Australia has inquired
about potential legislative changes and inquired about Risk Management
Education strategies; Rumania has requested USDA/RMA to provide
training for four Rumanians on starting a crop insurance program
utilizing a public-private partnership.
Since the beginning of 1998, delegations from the following
countries, international producers' groups, or international re-
insurers have made requests through FAS to the Risk Management Agency:
Argentina, Austria, Australia, Brazil, Canadian Crop Insurance Research
Directors, Czech Republic, European Corn Growers' Association, France,
Germany Farmers' Union, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, New
Zealand, Peru, Poland, Republic of South Africa, Rumania, Russia,
Sweden, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.
Interest has also been expressed by the World Bank for RMA
availability for representatives to speak at tentative upcoming
seminars and/or participate in other local conferences.
In addition, under the auspices of the U.S.-Republic of South
Africa (RA) Bi-National Agreement (Bi-National) and in response to a
specific request from the RA, the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) funded a grant to USDA/RMA which
includes a section on creating crop insurance pilots for the RA. The
general purpose of Bi-national is to foster stability for a new
democracy with a newly enfranchised majority population and an emerging
economy. Vice-President and Secretary Glickman participated in signing
ceremonies for the Bi-National in South Africa in mid-February. With
funding (approximately $300,000) from USAID, RMA will give assistance
to RA so that crop insurance pilots and a subsequent education and
training program can be created. Private insurance companies and their
international re-insurers can be expected to participate in the
project.
Development of an international perspective for agricultural
production insurance can assist local U.S. producers in two ways:
--One: Level playing field issues for U.S. producers: WTO-GATT
agreements (within the framework of the Annex II negotiations)
call for the phase-out of direct subsidies to participating
nations' agricultural producers by the year 2020; and the FAIR
ACT of 1996 legislated the phase-out of U.S. producers' direct
subsidies (with AMTA payments slated to end in 2002). As AMTA
payments decline, U.S. farmers are being forced to compete in
foreign markets with international producers who still receive
large direct subsidies. RMA's assistance to foreign inquiries
has a long range goal of assisting other nations reduce their
producers' subsidies so that all farmers receive the same kinds
of assistance, i.e., sell/compete on a ``level playing field''
under similar conditions.
--Two: Spreading the risk so that the cost of insurance can be cheaper
for U.S. producers: Reinsurance companies, who are investing
and taking risk on one side of the world, are seeking ways in
which they can spread out or mitigate their own risk taking.
Having global access to successful farming endeavors on all
parts of the globe, rather than in just one hemisphere, can
help to mitigate the risks.
Question. What is the estimated cost of this program.
Answer. To date, RMA does not have a specific budget for
international activities. Other than the USAID funds through the Bi-
National Agreement, RMA expenditures have, for the most part, been
revenue neutral because of FAS' participation in the program and the
ability of FAS and RMA to work together. Other RMA costs are minimal,
e.g., limited to the sharing of materials which are already developed
for U.S. farmers. If RMA were to take a more pro-active approach to the
creation of an international crop insurance program, either additional
Congressional funding or a Memorandum of Understanding would be
necessary.
crop insurance reform
Question. The current crop insurance program was intended to
eliminate the need for ad hoc disaster assistance in appropriations
bills. Why do you think your proposed reform package would eliminate
the need for ad hoc disaster assistance?
Answer. By addressing the concerns that farmers have raised
regarding the program, we would increase participation and coverage
nationally so that when natural disasters strike, farmers would have an
adequate safety net to see them through the financial hardships. The
Administration's proposal addresses the problems most often expressed
by producers as to why the crop insurance program does not work for
them. The plan would raise the current level of protection associated
with catastrophic risk protection to some level that is more meaningful
than the current 50/55 (yield/price) coverage available. At the same
time the proposal would increase the current subsidy level for buy-up
coverage. Producers often complain that subsidies above the 65/100
coverage level are necessary to make effective coverage more
affordable. The plan would also provide incentives for all coverage
plans including the increasingly popular revenue plans. The
Administration's proposal also seeks to address concerns raised by
multi-year disasters and would authorize some form of umbrella coverage
to assist farmers who have suffered repetitive crop losses due to
natural disaster.
The Administration's proposal would also seek authorization to
offer limited coverage for livestock which is currently restricted by
statute and would continue to emphasize the role of risk management
education to ensure that farmers are aware of available options,
including market mechanisms, to protect them from financial losses.
key initiatives
Question. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request proposes
an increase of $7,000,000 to inform producers about risk management
tools and alternatives. Also this increase would be used to expand
research and create programs to cover more crops and expand the range
of programs offered to existing crops. What is the agency currently
spending on these program initiatives and how will the success of these
initiatives be measured?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, it is estimated that $1,000,000 of the
available $3,500,000 in the FCIC Fund will be used for Risk Management
Education activities and programs. This is an important part of the
crop insurance program in that it informs producers, through
educational programs in local workshops, of risk management tools
available to them, and also provides train-the-trainer sessions for
educational partners, such as lenders and crop insurance agents. The
remaining portion of the funds available, $2,500,000, will be used to
maintain and improve current crop programs and to research new
programs, to assure that farm producers have a cost-effective means of
managing their risk through a strengthened safety net of risk
management tools. A portion of this funding may also be used for the
Public Outreach and Civil Rights activities. Civil Rights activities
are estimated at $207,000, and Public Outreach activities are estimated
at $590,000.
RMA uses several methods of measuring the effectiveness of the RME
initiative. First, evaluations are administered at all workshops and
training sessions. These are used by local program planners to get
feedback from producers as to which elements of training meet their
needs so that future training sessions can be more effective. Second, a
professional evaluator has been contracted through the Cooperative
State Research, Education and Extension Service to examine larger
projects funded through the RME initiative. Third, a survey project
funded by RMA and conducted by four Land Grant universities will
identify producers' risk management awareness and skill levels over
several diverse agricultural areas and among small and limited resource
farmers. Follow up surveys in the future will show the extent to which
the RME initiative has been effective in raising producers' ability to
manage risk.
RMA will contract to assess the value of the Public Affairs support
for the risk management education initiative. Key elements of the
contract will include market research, to determine what producers know
about the crop insurance program; the development of an outreach plan
to inform producers of knowledge that was lacking; developing and
producing materials and information to reach targeted audiences; and a
final evaluation of the venture to see if the goals were met. The type
of evaluation conducted will depend heavily on the funds made available
for the effort.
The success of the Civil Rights outreach initiatives will be
measured through initial producer surveys, with a follow up survey with
a year or two. Success will also be measured by the level of program
participation of minority and small, limited resource producers, as
well as the number of fee waivers granted to minorities and limited
resource farmers in 1999 and 2000, as compared with 1998.
RMA will measure the success of its research and development of new
crop programs by evaluating premium income, insured acreage,
participation, and actuarial soundness of pilot programs relative to
performance goals established for the pilot at program inception. RMA
will measure the success of its expansion of existing crop programs and
overall program effectiveness by evaluating the degree to which U.S.
agricultural production is covered by RMA insurance products.
Currently, RMA covers an estimated 62 percent of U.S. agricultural
production as allowed by the Act. As new crop programs and plans of
insurance are made available, RMA will look to cover an increasing
share of the total U.S. agricultural production. In addition,
evaluations are made to assess producer acceptance, the ability of
products to provide a viable economic benefit in times of yield or
revenue loss, and whether product design adversely affects product
delivery. These evaluations assist RMA in determining whether products
should be eliminated, modified, or expanded.
funding for crop insurance improvements
Question. The Budget makes no recommendations for offsets to pay
for any changes to crop insurance statutes. I understand that several
billion dollars will be necessary. How does the Department propose to
pay for these improvements?
Answer. In its white paper, ``Strengthening the Farm Safety Net,''
the Administration states its intentions to seek consensus among
producers, the Congress, and other stakeholders as to the nature of the
changes needed. Once that consensus is built, agreement will be needed
on the difficult task of finding the best way to finance those
improvements. RMA is ready to work with Congress to develop a package,
finalize the package, and work through everyone's ideas in a
responsible manner regarding this issue.
foreign market development cooperator program
Question. In past years, this Administration has proposed that the
Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) directly fund certain costs
supported by the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) and that
appropriations for the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program be
reduced to offset these and other proposed increases in the FAS
appropriation. Now, the President's fiscal year 2000 budget proposes
that the Cooperator Program be funded by the CCC rather than the FAS
appropriation. Why has the Administration reversed its position, both
as to the program costs which should be borne by the CCC and the level
of funding for the Cooperator Program?
Answer. The budget proposes to continue funding for the Cooperator
Program at $27,500,000, unchanged from estimated fiscal year 1999
level. However, the proposal to shift Cooperator Program funding from
the discretionary category to the mandatory category of the budget
would free up an equal amount of discretionary spending for other
worthy purposes. This proposal is consistent with provisions of the CCC
Charter Act which authorize the use of CCC funds for export promotion
and market development activities. Program funding for other market
development activities carried out by FAS is already provided through
CCC and this change would consolidate the source of funding and
financial management activities for these various programs. By
providing a permanent authorization for CCC funding, the proposal would
provide stability for future program activities and would thereby
enhance long-term planning by program participants.
Question. The fiscal year 2000 request assumes savings in
appropriations from proposed legislation to shift funding for the
Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program from the direct
appropriation of the Foreign Agricultural Service to the Commodity
Credit Corporation. While the appropriations request for FAS is not
reduced, the $27,500,000 in savings is nonetheless reflected in the
total discretionary appropriations proposed by the President for this
Subcommittee. If the legislative proposal to shift funding for the
Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program to the CCC is not enacted
by the Congress, what reductions in appropriations does the Department
propose to offset the $27,500,000 in fiscal year 2000 appropriations
required to continue funding for this program?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget was submitted on the basis of
current law, which includes funding for the Cooperator Program in the
FAS appropriation. Also included in the fiscal year 2000 budget is a
legislative proposal to shift for the Cooperator Program to CCC. If
this legislative proposal were adopted by Congress, the amount
requested for FAS in fiscal year 2000 would be reduced accordingly.
Question. Please provide a table showing the total amount of
funding available for the Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program
in fiscal years 1997 through 1999, and the amount proposed for fiscal
year 2000, showing for each fiscal year the amount of federal funding,
non-federal funds, and any federal carryover balance.
Answer. I will be glad to provide that information for the record.
[The information follows:]
COOPERATOR PROGRAM FUNDING
[Fiscal years 1997-2000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 Estimate 2000 Estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAS Funding..................................... $27,500 $28,000 $27,500 $27,500
Non Federal Funds............................... 47,200 43,900 44,000 44,000
Federal Carryover Balance....................... 10,400 12,200 9,700 7,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Provide a breakdown of how FMD Cooperator Funds were
allocated in each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
Answer. I will be glad to provide that information for the record.
[The information follows:]
COOPERATOR FUND ALLOCATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Forest & Paper Association..... $1,613,300 $2,251,499
American Peanut Council, Inc............ 522,978 420,168
American Seafood Institute.............. 134,669 68,832
American Seed Trade Association......... 174,178 153,605
American Sheep Industry Association..... 108,635 132,935
American Soybean Association............ 5,504,712 4,285,948
Cotton Council International............ 2,297,114 1,092,657
Leather Industries of America........... 253,283 102,073
Mohair Council of America............... 10,853 26,143
National Cottonseed Products Association 153,551 58,497
National Dry Bean Council............... 49,759 65,754
National Hay Association................ 52,682 ..............
National Renderers Association.......... 615,878 870,130
National Sunflower Association.......... 258,994 275,176
North American Millers' Association..... 19,140 33,529
Protein Grain Products International.... 17,539 ..............
U.S. BeefBreeds' Council................ 28,535 49,267
U.S. Dairy Export Council............... 239,242 436,390
U.S. Grains Council..................... 4,502,234 4,820,089
U. S. Hide, Skin & Leather Association.. 84,159 102,973
U S. Livestock Genetics Exports, Inc.... 657,891 585,987
U.S. Meat Export Federation............. 1,031,626 601,958 U.S.
Wheat Associates........................ 6,904,601 5,067,903
USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council.......... 73,492 106,529
USA Poultry & Egg Export Council........ 1,121,758 1,262,484
USA Rice Federation..................... 1,558,393 1,118,970
Western Growers Association............. 10,804 10,504
Unallocated Funds....................... .............. 3,500,000
-------------------------------
Cooperator Total.................... 28,000,000 27,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
reverse trade mission program
Question. The fiscal year 2000 request proposes an increase of
$250,000 to create a reverse Trade Mission Program. Please explain why
this new program is needed to focus on the export potential of high-
value products and trade opportunities in the food service and hotel-
restaurant-institution section and why this cannot be done through
existing market development, promotion and outreach activities.
Answer. This proposal represents a low-cost/high-return investment
activity that will expose foreign importers, retail-oriented business,
and related trade officials to the diversity and quality of U.S. food
products in addition to the superior U.S. food safety, production and
marketing systems. This activity can be undertaken using existing
market development authorities; however, there are no funds currently
available that would allow this program to be implemented without
necessitating a reduction in funding for other market development
activities.
overseas currency fluctuations fund
Question. For fiscal year 1999, the conference committee did not
approve the Administration's request recommended in the Senate bill to
establish a $2,000,000 revolving fund to enable the Foreign
Agricultural Service to manage overseas currency fluctuations. The
conference committee did not take a position on the merits of this
proposal but pointed out the Administration had not yet developed a
plan for this activity as requested in the fiscal year 1998 conference
agreement. I do not find this plan in the President's budget, as the
conferees expected. In fact, after two years of advocating a mechanism
to allow the Foreign Agricultural Service to handle overseas currency
fluctuations, I find no such proposal in the President's fiscal year
2000 budget. Why?
Answer. Section 705 of the General Provisions submitted with the
Department's fiscal year 2000 budget estimates includes proposed
language to allow ``up to $2,000,000 of the appropriation shall remain
available until expended solely for the purpose of offsetting
fluctuations in international currency exchange rates, subject to
documentation by the Foreign Agricultural Service''. This language will
allow the establishment of an overseas buying power maintenance account
to assist FAS manage unanticipated changes in the costs of overseas
operations associated with exchange rate losses or gains and overseas
inflation. This proposal is budget neutral and responds to conference
report language which directs the Department to develop a plan for
establishing an account to manage overseas currency fluctuations.
export market expansion
Question. Please describe how the Department has utilized existing
authorities including, but not limited to, the Export Enhancement
Program, the Food for Progress program, Public Law 480, and GSM credit
programs to facilitate additional sales and donations to maintain and
expand export markets.
Answer. The Department has sought to maximize the use of its
available tools to maintain and expand U. S. agricultural exports
during this period of world financial turbulence. For example under the
Section 416(b) program, the Department is responding to financial and
other crises around the world by donating over 5,000,000 metric tons of
wheat and wheat products (flour and bulgur). Also under the Section
416(b) program, we are donating smaller quantities of corn and non-fat
dry milk to needy countries. By comparison, the Section 416(b) program
shipped almost no commodities in fiscal year 1998.
We also continue to facilitate exports under the Dairy Export
Incentive Program. From July through January, bonuses of nearly
$80,000,000 were awarded for exports of nearly 70,000 metric tons of
U.S. nonfat dry milk, over 3,000 tons of whole milk powder and 4,000
tons of cheese.
The Export Enhancement Program has been used sparingly in recent
years due to world supply and demand conditions. However, last May, the
EEP was reactivated to announce an allocation of frozen poultry to six
Middle East countries and an EEP initiative for barley was announced to
Algeria, Cyprus and Norway.
Under the Food for Progress program, USDA programmed more
commodities in fiscal year 1998 than it did in fiscal year 1997,
getting very close to the 500,000 metric tons (MT) ceiling permitted
under the program. USDA successfully programmed commodities to a wider
range of countries and regions in fiscal year 1998. By region,
commodities were programmed as follows: 50 percent to Eastern Europe
and the Former Soviet Union, 30 percent to Africa, Asia and the Middle
East, and 20 percent to Latin America. For fiscal year 1999, USDA
expects to program close to that level again and has focused its
efforts on programming a broader range of commodities, including
planting seeds, canned salmon, green and yellow peas, and non-fat dry
milk for Russia.
Under the Public Law 480 Title I program in fiscal year 1998, USDA
signed agreements with 25 countries providing approximately 1,300,000
metric tons of commodities. For fiscal year 1999, USDA expects to
maximize U.S. agricultural commodity shipments under Public Law 480 by
focusing on non-wheat commodities, given the availability of the wheat
under the President's Food Aid Initiative. For example, USDA expects to
program 975,000 MT of commodities (excluding the special Russia
program) in fiscal year 1999 including 20 percent as wheat. This
compares to 1,300,000 metric tons of commodities programmed in fiscal
year 1998 which included 77 percent of wheat. Shipments of feed grains,
soybean meal, vegetable oil, and rice are expected to increase as a
result.
Under the GSM export credit guarantee programs, USDA expanded the
scope of the program in fiscal year 1998 in response to the world
financial crisis. Approximately $4.000,000,000 in sales were registered
in fiscal year 1998, compared to $2,900,000,000 in fiscal year 1997.
The projected sales registrations of $4,700,000,000 in fiscal year 1999
are designed to support expansion and maintenance of U.S. agricultural
exports.
In response to the Russian financial crisis, the Department is
making broad use of Public Law 480 title I, Section 416(b), and the
Food for Progress programs to ship approximately 3,100,000 metric tons.
This is into a market that purchased only very limited quantities of
U.S. grains in recent years.
public law 480 program
Question. The Public Law 480 title I Program not only provides food
aid to targeted developing countries but is intended to promote future
markets in these countries. At a time when market expansion is
critical, why is the Administration proposing to reduce funding for the
program?
Answer. A higher program level for Public Law 480 assistance might
have been preferred, but the targets for discretionary spending which
were established to help balance the budget make it extremely difficult
to allocate additional funds to the program. We will be able to
supplement Public Law 480 food assistance in 2000 with commodities to
be made available under the Food for Progress Program.
Question. Please provide for the record the Public Law 480 funding
allocations, by title, and by country and commodity, for each of fiscal
years 1998 and 1999, to date.
Answer. I will provide for the record the Public Law 480 funding
allocations, by title, and by country and commodity, for each of fiscal
years 1998 and 1999, to date.
[The information follows:]
PUBLIC LAW 480 FUNDING ALLOCATIONS, COMMODITY BY COUNTRY
[Commodity Value $000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 480 Commodity By
Commodity/Country --------------------------------- Country Totals
Title I Title II Title III \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 1998
Beans:
Albania.................................................... ......... 39 ......... 39
Angola..................................................... ......... 660 ......... 660
Bosnia-Herzegovina......................................... ......... 1,525 ......... 1,525
Bulgaria................................................... ......... 657 ......... 657
Burkina Faso............................................... ......... 1,007 ......... 1,007
Burundi.................................................... ......... 381 ......... 381
Cape Verde Islands......................................... ......... 758 ......... 758
Ghana...................................................... ......... 55 ......... 55
Guatemala.................................................. ......... 560 ......... 560
Haiti...................................................... ......... 220 ......... 220
Honduras................................................... ......... 852 ......... 852
Kenya...................................................... ......... 1,455 ......... 1,455
Liberia.................................................... ......... 1,100 ......... 1,100
Mozambique................................................. ......... 495 ......... 495
Nicaragua.................................................. ......... 165 ......... 165
Rwanda..................................................... ......... 2,323 ......... 2,323
Serbia..................................................... ......... 928 ......... 928
Unspecified................................................ ......... 1,123 ......... 1,123
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ ......... 14,302 ......... 14,302
================================================
Bulgur:
Ethiopia................................................... ......... 543 ......... 543
India...................................................... ......... 6,091 ......... 6,091
Liberia.................................................... ......... 4,444 ......... 4,444
Peru....................................................... ......... 1,733 ......... 1,733
Sierra Leone............................................... ......... 5,564 ......... 5,564
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ ......... 18,376 ......... 18,376
================================================
Corn:
Angola..................................................... ......... 5,973 ......... 5,973
Cape Verde Islands......................................... ......... 1,266 ......... 1,266
El Salvador................................................ ......... 262 ......... 262
Guatemala.................................................. ......... 70 ......... 70
Guyana..................................................... 67 ......... ......... 67
Kenya...................................................... ......... 3,639 ......... 3,639
Korea, North............................................... ......... 13,880 ......... 13,880
Rwanda..................................................... ......... 245 ......... 245
Somalia.................................................... ......... 133 ......... 133
Sudan...................................................... ......... 1,866 ......... 1,866-
Tanzania................................................... ......... 2,023 ......... 2,023
Uganda..................................................... ......... 4,018 ......... 4,018
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ 67 33,375 ......... 33,442
================================================
Corn Soy Blend:
Angola..................................................... ......... 314 ......... 314
Bolivia.................................................... ......... 575 ......... 575
Burundi.................................................... ......... 1,256 ......... 1,256
Cape Verde Islands......................................... ......... 251 ......... 251
Cameroon................................................... ......... 628 ......... 628
Cote d'Ivoire.............................................. ......... 170 ......... 170
Ethiopia................................................... ......... 892 ......... 892
Gambia..................................................... ......... 487 ......... 487
Ghana...................................................... ......... 100 ......... 100
Guatemala.................................................. ......... 1,240 ......... 1,240
Haiti...................................................... ......... 75 ......... 75
Honduras................................................... ......... 534 ......... 534
India...................................................... ......... 45,609 ......... 45,609
Indonesia.................................................. ......... 188 ......... 188
Kenya...................................................... ......... 637 ......... 637
Korea, North............................................... ......... 9,420 ......... 9,420
Liberia.................................................... ......... 1,413 ......... 1,413
Madagascar................................................. ......... 1,149 ......... 1,149
Nicaragua.................................................. ......... 980 ......... 980
Peru....................................................... ......... 1,947 ......... 1,947
Rwanda..................................................... ......... 69 ......... 69
Sierra Leone............................................... ......... 1,143 ......... 1,143
Sudan...................................................... ......... 2,000 ......... 2,000
Tanzania................................................... ......... 1,162 ......... 1,162
Uganda..................................................... ......... 710 ......... 710
Unspecified................................................ ......... 1,884 ......... 1,884
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ ......... 74,832 ......... 74,832
================================================
Cornmeal:
Benin...................................................... ......... 277 ......... 277
Bolivia.................................................... ......... 5 ......... 5
Burundi.................................................... ......... 1,174 ......... 1,174
Cote d'Ivoire.............................................. ......... 182 ......... 182
Haiti...................................................... ......... 241 ......... 241
Lesotho.................................................... ......... 522 ......... 522
Mali....................................................... ......... 740 ......... 740
Rwanda..................................................... ......... 1,244 ......... 1,244
Sierra Leone............................................... ......... 431 ......... 431
Somalia.................................................... ......... 822 ......... 822
Uganda..................................................... ......... 1,317 ......... 1,317
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ ......... 6,953 ......... 6,953
================================================
Lentils:
Angola..................................................... ......... 319 ......... 319
Bolivia.................................................... ......... 86 ......... 86
Burundi.................................................... ......... 265 ......... 265
Ethiopia................................................... ......... 283 ......... 283
Haiti...................................................... ......... 405 ......... 405
Peru....................................................... ......... 1,113 ......... 1,113
Rwanda..................................................... ......... 430 ......... 430
Sierra Leone............................................... ......... 1,436 ......... 1,436
Sudan...................................................... ......... 1,969 ......... 1,969
Unspecified................................................ ......... 358 ......... 358
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ ......... 6,662 ......... 6,662
================================================
Peas:
Angola..................................................... ......... 547 ......... 547
Benin...................................................... ......... 138 ......... 138
Bolivia.................................................... ......... 415 ......... 415
Burkina Faso............................................... ......... 226 ......... 226
Burundi.................................................... ......... 984 ......... 984
Ghana...................................................... ......... 28 ......... 28
Haiti...................................................... ......... 1,207 ......... 1,207
Kenya...................................................... ......... 256 ......... 256
Liberia.................................................... ......... 1,240 ......... 1,240
Mali....................................................... ......... 176 ......... 176
Mauritania................................................. ......... 124 ......... 124
Mozambique................................................. ......... 655 ......... 655
Peru....................................................... ......... 1,889 ......... 1,889
Rwanda..................................................... ......... 1,945 ......... 1,945
Sierra Leone............................................... ......... 647 ......... 647
Sudan...................................................... ......... 963 ......... 963
Tanzania................................................... ......... 825 ......... 825
Uganda,.................................................... ......... 1,595 ......... 1,595
Unspecified................................................ ......... 552 ......... 552
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ ......... 14,411 ......... 14,411
================================================
Rice:
Angola..................................................... 1,699 ......... ......... 1,699
Benin...................................................... ......... 509 ......... 509
Bulgaria................................................... ......... 176 ......... 176
Burkina Faso............................................... ......... 1,914 ......... 1,914
Cape Verde Islands......................................... ......... 348 ......... 348
Cote D'Ivoire.............................................. ......... 293 ......... 293
El Salvador................................................ ......... 831 ......... 831
Ethiopia................................................... ......... 139 ......... 139
Ghana...................................................... ......... 864 ......... 864
Guatemala.................................................. ......... 1,493 ......... 1,493
Haiti...................................................... ......... 501 ......... 501
Honduras................................................... ......... 933 ......... 933
Indonesia.................................................. 10,000 26,894 ......... 36,893
Jamaica.................................................... 5,000 ......... ......... 5,000
Korea, North............................................... ......... 8,958 ......... 8,958
Madagascar................................................. ......... 1,515 ......... 1,515
Mauritania................................................. ......... 867 ......... 867
Nicaragua.................................................. ......... 1,903 ......... 1,903
Peru....................................................... ......... 2,664 ......... 2,664
Serbia..................................................... ......... 260 ......... 260
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ 16,699 51,063 ......... 67,762
================================================
Sorghum:
Eritrea.................................................... 2,000 ......... ......... 2,000
Ethiopia................................................... ......... 5,850 ......... 5,850
Kenya...................................................... ......... 131 ......... 131
Niger...................................................... ......... 262 ......... 262
Somalia.................................................... ......... 983 ......... 983
Sudan...................................................... ......... 6,285 ......... 6,285
Zambia..................................................... ......... 635 ......... 635
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ 2,000 14,145 ......... 16,145
================================================
Soybean Meal:
Guatemala.................................................. ......... 3,136 ......... 3,136
Guyana..................................................... 700 ......... ......... 700
Nicaragua.................................................. ......... 242 ......... 242
Philippines................................................ 10,000 ......... ......... 10,000
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ 10,700 3,378 ......... 14,077
================================================
Soybeans:
Indonesia.................................................. 12,000 ......... ......... 12,000
Kenya...................................................... ......... 377 ......... 377
Kyrgyzstan................................................. 6,675 ......... ......... 6,675
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total.................................................. 18,675 377 ......... 19,051
Bolivia.................................................... ......... 773 ......... 773
Burkina Faso............................................... ......... 1,954 ......... 1,954
Ghana...................................................... ......... 244 ......... 244
Guatemala.................................................. ......... 336 ......... 336
Haiti...................................................... ......... 4,279 ......... 4,279
Madagascar................................................. ......... 23 ......... 23
Peru....................................................... ......... 671 ......... 671
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total.................................................. ......... 8,280 ......... 8,280
================================================
S.F. Cornmeal:
Bolivia.................................................... ......... 45 ......... 45
Burkina Faso............................................... ......... 1,638 ......... 1,638
Burundi.................................................... ......... 2,051 ......... 2,051
Gambia..................................................... ......... 246 ......... 246
Korea, North............................................... ......... 6,550 ......... 6,550
Niger...................................................... ......... 862 ......... 862
Rwanda..................................................... ......... 2,927 ......... 2,927
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ ......... 14,3187 ......... 14,318
================================================
S. F. Sorghum Grits:
Ghana...................................................... ......... 1,053 ......... 1,053
Mauritania................................................. ......... 253 ......... 253
Niger...................................................... ......... 462 ......... 462
Sudan...................................................... ......... 359 ......... 359
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ ......... 2,128 ......... 2,128
================================================
Tallow:
El Salvador................................................ 2,352 ......... ......... 2,352
Guatemala.................................................. 2,879 ......... ......... 2,879
Nicaragua.................................................. 750 ......... ......... 750
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ ......... 5,981 ......... 5,981
================================================
Vegetable Oil:
Albania.................................................... 3,969 54 ......... 4,023
Angola..................................................... 2,653 2,267 ......... 4,920
Bangladesh................................................. ......... 433 ......... 433
Benin...................................................... ......... 542 ......... 542
Bosnia-Herzegovina......................................... ......... 1,291 ......... 1,291
Bulgaria................................................... ......... 596 ......... 596
Burkina Faso............................................... ......... 1,643 ......... 1,643
Cape Verde Islands......................................... ......... 172 ......... 172
El Salvador................................................ 2,361 ......... ......... 2,361
Eritrea.................................................... ......... 388 ......... 388
Ethiopia................................................... ......... 7,181 ......... 7,181
Gambia..................................................... ......... 914 ......... 914
Ghana...................................................... ......... 804 ......... 804
Georgia.................................................... 5,038 ......... ......... 5,038
Guatemala.................................................. ......... 1,761 ......... 1,761
Guinea..................................................... ......... 1,257 ......... 1,257
Haiti...................................................... ......... 2,908 ......... 2,908
Honduras................................................... ......... 506 ......... 506
India...................................................... ......... 18,227 ......... 18,227
Kenya...................................................... ......... 6,637 ......... 6,637
Kyrgyzstan................................................. 3,283 ......... ......... 3,283
Liberia.................................................... ......... 4,823 ......... 4,823
Madagascar................................................. ......... 2,895 ......... 2,895
Mali....................................................... ......... 623 ......... 623
Mauritania................................................. ......... 307 ......... 307
Mozambique................................................. ......... 3,967 ......... 3,967
Nicaragua.................................................. 2,200 497 ......... 2,696
Niger...................................................... ......... 108 ......... 108
Pakistan................................................... ......... 2,754 ......... 2,754
Peru....................................................... ......... 32,835 ......... 32,835
Rwanda..................................................... ......... 2,057 ......... 2,057
Serbia..................................................... ......... 1,497 ......... 1,497
Sierra Leone............................................... ......... 4,495 ......... 4,495
Sudan...................................................... ......... 2,050 ......... 2,050
Tajikistan................................................. ......... 452 ......... 452
Uganda..................................................... ......... 4,515 ......... 4,515
Unspecified................................................ ......... 1,445 ......... 1,445
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ 19,504 112,900 ......... 132,404
================================================
Wheat:
Albania.................................................... 3,229 ......... ......... 3,229
Angola..................................................... 3,884 ......... ......... 3,884
Armenia.................................................... 13,282 ......... ......... 13,282
Bangladesh................................................. 5,964 23,432 ......... 29,396
Benin...................................................... ......... 194 ......... 194
Bolivia.................................................... 6,580 615 ......... 7,195
Bosnia-Herzegovina......................................... 6,181 1,639 ......... 7,821
Cape Verde Islands......................................... ......... 1,105 ......... 1,105
Eritrea.................................................... 8,000 ......... 3,199 11,199
Ethiopia................................................... ......... 13,118 6,480 19,598
Georgia.................................................... 8,320 ......... ......... 8,320
Ghana...................................................... ......... 6,813 ......... 6,813
Guatemala.................................................. 1,500 ......... ......... 1,500
Guyana..................................................... 6,835 ......... ......... 6,835
Haiti...................................................... ......... ......... 7,154 7,154
Honduras................................................... ......... 982 ......... 982
Jordan..................................................... 18,000 725 ......... 18,725
Mongolia................................................... 3,124 ......... ......... 3,124
Mozambique................................................. 3,499 11,861 4,502 19,862
Nicaragua.................................................. 8,300 ......... ......... 8,300
Pakistan................................................... ......... 2,055 ......... 2,055
Peru....................................................... 10,000 ......... ......... 10,000
Rwanda..................................................... ......... 2,901 ......... 2,901
Sri Lanka.................................................. 10,000 ......... ......... 10,000
Tajikistan................................................. 4,939 1,478 ......... 6,417
Uganda..................................................... ......... 1,367 ......... 1,367
Zimbabwe................................................... 10,000 ......... ......... 10,000
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ 131,636 68,284 21,335 221,256
================================================
Wheat Flour:
Albania.................................................... ......... 165 ......... 165
Algeria.................................................... ......... 296 ......... 296
Bolivia.................................................... ......... 5,262 ......... 5,262
Bosnia-Herzegovina......................................... ......... 3,014 ......... 3,014
Bulgaria................................................... ......... 1,684 ......... 1,684
Chad....................................................... ......... 296 ......... 296
Djbouti.................................................... ......... 183 ......... 183
Egypt...................................................... ......... 788 ......... 788
Haiti...................................................... ......... 6,028 ......... 6,028
Mali....................................................... ......... 296 ......... 296
Peru....................................................... ......... 1,919 ......... 1,919
Rwanda..................................................... ......... 79 ......... 79
Serbia..................................................... ......... 3,079 ......... 3,079
Unspecified................................................ ......... 1,379 ......... 1,379
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ ......... 24,467 ......... 24,467
================================================
Wheat Soy Blend:
Benin...................................................... ......... 454 ......... 454
Bolivia.................................................... ......... 621 ......... 621
Ghana...................................................... ......... 221 ......... 221
Haiti...................................................... ......... 691 ......... 691
Indonesia.................................................. ......... 3,655 ......... 3,655
Mauritania................................................. ......... 275 ......... 275
Nepal...................................................... ......... 388 ......... 388
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ ......... 6,305 ......... 6,305
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 1999
Barley:
Armenia.................................................... 8,160 ......... ......... 8,160
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ ......... 8,160 ......... 8,160
================================================
Beans:
Angola..................................................... ......... 1,868 ......... 1,868
Burkina Faso............................................... ......... 1,410 ......... 1,410
Dominican Republic......................................... ......... 1,325 ......... 1,325
El Salvador................................................ ......... 387 ......... 387
Ethiopia................................................... ......... 297 ......... 297
Guatemala.................................................. ......... 2,728 ......... 2,728
Haiti...................................................... ......... 220 ......... 220
Honduras................................................... ......... 6,149 ......... 6,149
Nicaragua.................................................. 9,201 825 ......... 10,026
Unspecified................................................ ......... 1,034 ......... 1,034
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ 9,201 16,242 ......... 25,443
================================================
Beef:
Russia..................................................... 256,200 ......... ......... 256,200
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ ......... 256,200 ......... 256,200
================================================
Bulgur:
Guatemala.................................................. ......... 3 ......... 3
India...................................................... ......... 6,842 ......... 6,842
Liberia.................................................... ......... 1,227 ......... 1,227
Peru....................................................... ......... 1,419 ......... 1,419
Sierra Leone............................................... ......... 3,028 ......... 3,028
Unspecified................................................ ......... 1,727 ......... 1,727
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ ......... 14,245 ......... 14,245
================================================
Corn:
Angola..................................................... ......... 1,110 ......... 1,110
Bosnia-Herzegovina......................................... 3,201 ......... ......... 3,201
Ecuador.................................................... 5,000 ......... ......... 5,000
El Salvador................................................ ......... 313 ......... 313
Eritrea.................................................... 6,000 ......... ......... 6,000
Guatemala.................................................. 5,200 7,145 ......... 12,345
Honduras................................................... 6,403 2,546 ......... 8,948
Kyrgyzstan................................................. 6,253 ......... ......... 6,253
Nicaragua.................................................. ......... 1,015 ......... 1,015
Russia..................................................... 50,150 ......... ......... 50,150
Somalia.................................................... ......... 399 ......... 399
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ 82,207 12,527 ......... 94,734
================================================
Afghanistan................................................ ......... 791 ......... 791
Angola..................................................... ......... 462 ......... 462
Bolivia.................................................... ......... 301 ......... 301
Gambia..................................................... ......... 524 ......... 524
Guinea..................................................... ......... 57 ......... 57
Guatemala.................................................. ......... 899 ......... 899
Honduras................................................... ......... 584 ......... 584
India...................................................... ......... 43,919 ......... 43,919
Kenya...................................................... ......... 355 ......... 355
Liberia.................................................... ......... 923 ......... 923
Madagascar................................................. ......... 641 ......... 641
Nicaragua.................................................. ......... 490 ......... 490
Peru....................................................... ......... 1,350 ......... 1,350
Sierra Leone............................................... ......... 571 ......... 571
Sudan...................................................... ......... 374 ......... 374
Unspecified................................................ ......... 2,678 ......... 2,678
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ ......... 55,021 ......... 55,021
================================================
Cornmeal:
Benin...................................................... ......... 217 ......... 217
Guinea..................................................... ......... 445 ......... 445
Haiti...................................................... ......... 98 ......... 98
Honduras................................................... ......... 3,l59 ......... 3,159
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ ......... 3,919 ......... 3,919
================================================
Lentils:
Bolivia.................................................... ......... 258 ......... 258
Egypt...................................................... ......... 358 ......... 358
Ethiopia................................................... ......... 387 ......... 387
Haiti...................................................... ......... 1,428 ......... 1,428
Liberia.................................................... ......... 580 ......... 580
Peru....................................................... ......... 619 ......... 619
Russia..................................................... 10,649 ......... ......... 10,649
Sierra Leone............................................... ......... 1,833 ......... 1,833
Sudan...................................................... ......... 1,969 ......... 1,969
Unspecified................................................ ......... 1,206 ......... 1,206
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ l0,649 8,639 ......... l9,287
================================================
Nonfortified Nonfat Milk:
Russia..................................................... 73,200 ......... ......... 73,200
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ 73,200 ......... ......... 73,200
================================================
Peas:
Bolivia.................................................... ......... 842 ......... 842
Cameroon................................................... ......... 165 ......... 165
Haiti...................................................... ......... 569 ......... 569
Guinea..................................................... ......... 250 ......... 250
Liberia.................................................... ......... 267 ......... 267
Peru....................................................... ......... 776 ......... 776
Unspecified................................................ ......... 275 ......... 275
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ ......... 3,144 ......... 3,144
================================================
Rice:
Angola..................................................... 4,176 ......... ......... 4,176
Burkina Faso............................................... ......... 1,954 ......... 1,954
Cameroon................................................... ......... 948 ......... 948
Cote D'Ivoire.............................................. 5,000 ......... ......... 5,000
Dominican Republic......................................... ......... 4,396 ......... 4,396
El Salvador................................................ ......... 695 ......... 695
Ghana...................................................... ......... 245 ......... 245
Guatemala.................................................. ......... 2,358 ......... 2,358
Honduras................................................... ......... 9,787 ......... 9,787
Indonesia.................................................. 38,000 7,686 ......... 45,686
Jamaica.................................................... 5,000 ......... ......... 5,000
Madagascar................................................. ......... 102 ......... 102
Nicaragua.................................................. ......... 2,855 ......... 2,855
Peru....................................................... ......... 1,296 ......... 1,296
Russia..................................................... 48,792 ......... ......... 48,792
Unspecified................................................ ......... 732 ......... 732
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ 100,968 33,054 ......... 134,022
================================================
Pork:
Russia..................................................... 43,850 ......... ......... 43,850
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total.................................................. 43,850 ......... ......... 43,850
Russia..................................................... 156,000 ......... ......... 156,000
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ 156,000 ......... ......... 156,000
================================================
Salmon:
Russia..................................................... 7,800 ......... ......... 7,800
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ 7,800 ......... ......... 7,800
================================================
Seeds:
Russia..................................................... 32,535 ......... ......... 32,535
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ 32,535 ......... ......... 32,535
================================================
Sorghum:
Ghana...................................................... ......... 443 ......... 443
Philippines................................................ 1,000 ......... ......... 1,000
Somalia.................................................... ......... 917 ......... 917
Sudan...................................................... ......... 3,872 ......... 3,872
Zambia..................................................... ......... 635 ......... 635
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ 1,000 5,867 ......... 6,867
================================================
Soybean Meal:
Georgia.................................................... 2,117 ......... ......... 2,117
Guyana..................................................... 5,000 ......... ......... 5,000
Honduras................................................... 1,711 ......... ......... 1,711
Kyrgyzstan................................................. 3,303 ......... ......... 3,303
Philippines................................................ 9,000 ......... ......... 9,000
Russia (USAPEEC)........................................... 59,800 ......... ......... 59,800
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ 80,931 ......... ......... 80,931
================================================
Soybeans:
Guatemala.................................................. 3,800 ......... ......... 3,800
Russia..................................................... 43,472 ......... ......... 43,472
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ 47,272 ......... ......... 47,272
================================================
S. F. Bulgur:
Bolivia.................................................... ......... 353 ......... 353
Burkina Faso............................................... ......... 2,279 ......... 2,279
Ghana...................................................... ......... 187 ......... 187
Guatemala.................................................. ......... 251 ......... 251
Haiti...................................................... ......... 4,054 ......... 4,054
Madagascar................................................. ......... 355 ......... 355
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total.................................................. ......... 7,480 ......... 7,480
Bolivia.................................................... ......... 68 ......... 68
Chad....................................................... ......... 435 ......... 435
Unspecified................................................ ......... 1,360 ......... 1,360
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ ......... 1,863 ......... 1,863
================================================
S. F. Sorghum Grits:
Ghana...................................................... ......... 1,595 ......... 1,595
Mauritania................................................. ......... 261 ......... 261
Sudan...................................................... ......... 1,185 ......... 1,185
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ ......... 3,041 ......... 3,041
================================================
Tallow:
El Salvador................................................ 5,000 ......... ......... 5,000
Guatemala.................................................. 1,000 ......... ......... 1,000
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ 6,000 ......... ......... 6,000
================================================
Vegetable Oil:
Angola..................................................... 4,361 1,287 ......... 5,648
Bangladesh................................................. ......... 3,206 ......... 3,206
Benin...................................................... ......... 472 ......... 472
Bosnia-Herzegovina......................................... 3,549 ......... ......... 3,549
Burkina Faso............................................... ......... 1,261 ......... 1,261
Cameroon................................................... ......... 81 ......... 81
Djibouti................................................... ......... 135 ......... 135
Dominican Republic......................................... ......... 1,011 ......... 1,011
El Salvador................................................ 5,000 108 ......... 5,108
Ethiopia................................................... ......... 2,294 ......... 2,294
Gambia..................................................... ......... 1,239 ......... 1,239
Georgia.................................................... 2,199 ......... ......... 2,199
Ghana...................................................... ......... 1,806 ......... 1,806
Guinea..................................................... ......... 442 ......... 442
Guatemala.................................................. ......... 1,193 ......... 1,193
Haiti...................................................... ......... 3,666 ......... 3,666
Honduras................................................... ......... 3,711 ......... 3,711
India...................................................... ......... 26,653 ......... 26,653
Kenya...................................................... ......... 6,673 ......... 6,673
Liberia.................................................... ......... 126 ......... 126
Madagascar................................................. ......... 1,170 ......... 1,170
Mauritania................................................. ......... 208 ......... 208
Mozambique................................................. ......... 5,607 ......... 5,607
Nicaragua.................................................. ......... 840 ......... 840
Peru....................................................... ......... 37,884 ......... 37,884
Russia..................................................... 13,780 ......... ......... 13,780
Serbia..................................................... ......... 2,989 ......... 2,989
Sierra Leone............................................... ......... 1,688 ......... 1,688
Sudan...................................................... ......... 2,532 ......... 2,532
Uganda..................................................... ......... 4,380 ......... 4,380
Unspecified................................................ ......... 3,142 ......... 3,142
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ 28,889 115,805 ......... 144,695
================================================
Wheat:
Benin...................................................... ......... 248 ......... 248
Cape Verde Islands......................................... ......... 303 ......... 303
Ethiopia................................................... ......... 3,260 ......... 3,260
Ghana...................................................... ......... 6,671 ......... 6,671
Honduras................................................... ......... 1,116 ......... 1,116
Indonesia.................................................. 12,309 ......... ......... 12,309
Madagascar................................................. ......... 253 ......... 253
Mozambique................................................. ......... 8,837 ......... 8,837
Pakistan................................................... 13,724 ......... ......... 13,724
Russia..................................................... 27,200 ......... ......... 27,200
Uganda..................................................... ......... 1,838 ......... 1,838
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ 53,233 22,525 ......... 75,759
================================================
Wheat Flour:
Bolivia.................................................... ......... 5,843 ......... 5,843
Chad....................................................... ......... 197 ......... 197
Djibouti................................................... ......... 296 ......... 296
Haiti...................................................... ......... 6,072 ......... 6,072
Mali....................................................... ......... 197 ......... 197
Peru....................................................... ......... 1,223 ......... 1,223
Serbia..................................................... ......... 3,483 ......... 3,483
Unspecified................................................ ......... 1,257 ......... 1,257
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ ......... 18,567 ......... 18,567
================================================
Wheat Soy Blend:
Benin...................................................... ......... 512 ......... 512
Ghana...................................................... ......... 198 ......... 198
Haiti...................................................... ......... 1,102 ......... 1,102
Mauritania................................................. ......... 275 ......... 275
------------------------------------------------
Sub-Total................................................ ......... 2,087 ......... 2,087
================================================
Undesignated:
Unspecified (Private Trade)................................ 10,000 ......... ......... 10,000
------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................. 10,000 ......... ......... 10,000
================================================
Allocated Commodities...................................... 1,123,437 469,000 18,969 1,611,406
Reserve.................................................... 115,343 144,972 18,969 279,284
================================================
Program Totals............................................. 1,238,780 613,972 37,938 1,890,690
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Allocations do not include transportation costs.
cochran fellowship program
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes to maintain FAS
funding for the Cochran Fellowship Program at a level of $3,500,000.
Are available resources sufficient to extend fellowships to all
countries which seek to participate in the program? If not, what
additional funding would be required to meet these requests?
Answer. The success of the Cochran Fellowship Program to initiate
and pursue short- and long-term trade objectives and to influence
public- and private-sector decision makers has led to increased
requests to initiate the program in countries around the world. For
fiscal year 2000, we have had requests from our Agricultural Affairs
Offices to start a Cochran Program in Oman, India, Sri Lanka, Cambodia,
and Pakistan, and expect requests for several additional African,
Middle Eastern, and Latin American countries. The most frequent
requests for the Cochran Program are to provide training in areas
related to WTO/CODEX agricultural issues, food safety, sanitary and
phytosanitary (SPS) issues, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and
biotechnology. At present, the Cochran Fellowship Program is able to
provide a fellowship to about twenty-five percent of its potential
candidates.
Question. Please provide fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999
program participant levels by country and region.
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, a total of 567 participants from 48
countries received training. This information is presented by country
and by region.
[The information follows:]
[Numbers of Participants]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 1994-1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFRICA
Cote d' Ivoire......................... 4 155
Iraq.................................... \1\ 78
Algeria................................. \1\ 82
Tunisia................................. 9 34
South Africa............................ 20 87
Namibia................................. \1\ 5
Kenya................................... 3 8
Uganda.................................. 3 5
Senegal................................. 4 7
-------------------------------
Subtotal............................ 43 461
===============================
ASIA
Korea................................... 7 210
Taiwan.................................. \1\ 99
Malaysia................................ 14 180
Singapore............................... \1\ 113
Hong Kong............................... \1\ 47
China................................... 30 250
Thailand................................ 15 153
Indonesia............................... 3 43
Philippines............................. 15 77
Vietnam................................. 23 42
-------------------------------
Subtotal............................ 107 1,214
===============================
LATIN AMERICA
Mexico.................................. 8 597
Venezuela............................... 15 277
Trinidad & Tobago....................... 4 91
Caribbean............................... 8 24
Colombia................................ 22 113
Panama.................................. 7 49
Chile................................... 4 15
Costa Rica.............................. 3 3
Guatemala............................... 5 5
Brazil.................................. 8 8
-------------------------------
Subtotal............................ 84 1,182
===============================
NEW INDEPENDENT STATES (NIS)
Russia.................................. 46 487
Ukraine................................. 39 213
Belarus................................. \1\ 42
Kazakstan............................... 25 126
Kyrgyzstan.............................. 17 80
Uzbekistan.............................. 13 81
Turkmenistan 7 55
Tajikistan 7 41
Armenia................................. 11 69
Moldova................................. 17 84
Georgia................................. 7 47
Azerbaijan.............................. 7 24
-------------------------------
Subtotal............................ 196 1,349
===============================
NON-EU EUROPE
Turkey.................................. 17 336
Yugoslavia.............................. \1\ 94
Poland.................................. 18 502
Hungary................................. 10 145
Czech Republic.......................... 15 216
Slovakia................................ 3 95
Bulgaria................................ 12 184
Malta................................... \1\ 2
Albania................................. 5 49
Croatia................................. 6 36
Slovenia................................ 15 65
Latvia.................................. 6 31
Estonia................................. 6 33
Lithuania............................... 7 29
Romania................................. 13 37
Bosnia.................................. 4 4
-------------------------------
Subtotal............................ 137 1,858
===============================
TOTALS.............................. 567 6,064
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Did not participate in the program
We estimate we will be able to provide training for 760
participants in fiscal year 1999. In addition to the countries listed
above, we are starting pilot Cochran Programs in Tanzania, Ghana,
Nigeria, and Morocco.
Question. Please provide examples of the benefits of the 1998
Cochran Program to U.S. agriculture.
Answer. The Cochran Fellowship Program provides a cost effective
tool in promoting U.S. agricultural exports, addressing policy issues
such as are related to food safety, biotechnology, and other non-tariff
barriers to trade; promoting mutually beneficial trade and business
linkages, as well as fostering goodwill with the United States.
--A fiscal year 1997 Vietnamese participant has purchased about two
containers of U.S. pistachios per month since his training in
May 1997. The estimated value is about $300,000 per year.
Several Vietnamese participants in a fiscal year 1998
Supermarket Management Program bought 18 containers of U.S.
consumer ready products as a result of their training and
attendance at the Food Marketing Institute/National Association
of State Departments of Agriculture (FMI/NASDA) Food Expo in
Chicago in May 1998.
--The Agricultural Trade Office in Shanghai, China reports that a
fiscal year 1998 Produce Marketing team member purchased, for
the first time, two containers of California table grapes after
his training. Another team member increased his purchase of
U.S. celery from 10 to 15 containers per week. Chinese seafood
importers purchased 1,700 tons of yellow fin sole, three
containers of squid, two containers of conch, and five
containers of frozen scallops from the U.S. after their May,
1998, Cochran training. More U.S. seafood sales are expected in
the future.
--U.S. Wheat Associates and the Cochran Program organized a Grain
Marketing & Import Management training program for Armenia and
Georgia in fiscal year 1998. U.S. Wheat writes: ``. . . we felt
we had phenomenal success in bringing this industry core to the
U.S. commercial wheat market. Following, and as a direct result
of that program, we saw several cargoes of U.S. wheat purchased
commercially.''
--The Agricultural Office in Beijing, China states: ``We continue to
see double digit growth in the U.S. export of high value
products to China and we firmly believe that the Cochran
Program is a major reason for this growth.''
--The team leader of the fiscal year 1998 China Beef Grading program
was promoted to Vice Chancellor at Nanjung Agricultural
University. As a result of the program, China developed their
first beef grading system. According to the Shanghai ATO ``. .
. our strengthened connections between the Vice Chancellor and
USDA will help USDA and many of its cooperators for many years
to come.''
--A Thailand Cochran participant reports that he purchased large
quantities of raw popcorn, raw almonds, prunes, and other
fruits and nuts after his May, 1998 Cochran training in
supermarket management. The FAS Agricultural Officer in
Thailand states: ``the ongoing economic crisis in Thailand may
be forestalling additional sales that could be attributed to
participation in the program, but the groundwork has been laid
for such sales.''
--Prior to her departure from the U.S., a Hungarian participant
purchased eight containers (20 foot) of walnut meal, 8
containers of almonds, as well as 400 cases of Maraschino
cherries.
During fiscal year 1998, 42 Cochran fellows from 14 countries
participated in training programs directly related to providing
information on the safety of the U.S. food and fiber system as well as
providing direct contact with U.S. counterparts. In addition, 11
participants from 4 countries received training in biotechnology and
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). As a result, these countries have
a better understanding of the U.S. food safety and biotechnology
systems. For example:
--The FAS Agricultural Office in Poland states that Cochran-trained
veterinarians were able to help release two shipments of U.S.
cheese which had been held up.
--The new Minister of Agriculture in Lithuania, Dr. Edvardas Makelis,
is a 1996 graduate of the Cochran Fellowship Program. The
Agricultural Affairs Office in Poland states that Minister
Makelis . . . '' warmly expressed his appreciation for his
participation in USDA's Cochran Fellowship Program in 1996 and
stated that he would like to expand opportunities for
cooperation between the Ministry of Agriculture and USDA. The
Minister offered to help resolve the problem of trade barriers
in livestock genetics that has prohibited U.S. exporters to
supply livestock semen and embryos to Lithuania.''
--After his training, a lawyer of the Hungarian Ministry of
Agriculture, one of the drafters of Hungary's new act on
Genetically Modified Organisms helped to arrange a
biotechnology seminar in Budapest and is a good contact (for
USDA) to the Government of Hungary for the recently established
Biotechnology Association.
--The Agricultural Office in Malaysia states that a Cochran
biotechnology participant ``. . . acquired beneficial
information from the program which was put to use in her
research work on plant genetic modification, and this has
enabled her to participate actively in the Malaysian
Modification Advisory Group.''
--The Agricultural Office in Brazil states that the Cochran training
in food regulations improved the understanding of Brazilian
food regulators of the concept of consistency and transparency
of information related to food inspection and trade under the
WTO. It also improved the confidence of Brazilian food
regulators of the U.S. food inspection system, and food
certification for export.
--The Agricultural Attache in Bulgaria states: ``One company involved
in the Fiscal year 1998 High Value Products team has contacted
the office and said it plans to import U.S. products. Two
members of the fiscal year 1998 Meat Products Team are
currently using U.S. meat and additives for meat processing
because of the visit.''
--The Agricultural Office in Austria states that a Czech company
started to import U.S. cranberries as a result of their Cochran
Program visit to the U.S. distributor. Fiscal year 1997 South
African participants have purchased California wine ($12,000)
and two containers of processed cheese ($62,000).
--A staff member of the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture states:
``Thank you for allowing us to work with the Cochran Fellowship
Program to bring cheese buyers from Mexico to Wisconsin. I have
already been back to Mexico to meet with the buyers and I am
very excited about the potential business for Wisconsin cheese
companies. One Wisconsin cheese manufacturer was able to
introduce their products into Mexican stores and predicts
$200,000 of sales annually to the Mexican market.''
--The New Jersey Department of Agriculture hosted a Russian seafood
importer. They report that ``our companies had the opportunity
to gain a better understanding of how to conduct business in
Russia.''
--The FAS Agricultural Officer in Vietnam writes: ``The Cochran
Program has provided a key for unlocking some of the more non-
transparent areas of the Government of Vietnam (GVN) import
regime. This has been extremely helpful in the context of the
Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) negotiations. This access has
enabled us to advocate on behalf of U.S. companies in Vietnam
and has led to increased sales of U.S. commodities. We also
have been better able to explain the import regulations to
USDA/FAS for dissemination to potential exporters.''--South
African Cochran alumni are helping formulate agricultural
policy. For example, one participant is helping consolidate a
draft of the South African national agricultural policy paper
focusing on public/private sector partnerships; another is
formulating agricultural credit policy at the national level;
and others are involved at the provincial and local levels in
policy areas such as rural electrification, market information
systems, land tenure and regional trade.
market access program
Question. Please provide the Market Access Program allocations for
fiscal year 1998, including the amount of the grant, and the recipient
company, commodity, and targeted markets.
Answer. The information is provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR02.029
Question. Please provide for the record a list of the benefits of
the Market Access Program to U. S. agriculture in each of the fiscal
years 1997 and 1998.
Answer. The information is provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
1997 MAP BRAND EXPENSES BY STATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company City State Zip Promoted--Produce Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green Connection, Inc.............. Anchorage................... AK........... 99501........... Potted Tropical foliage Plants and Flowers..................................... $2,550
Transcon Trading Co., Inc.......... Bentonville................. AR........... 72712........... animal feed.................................................................... 51,222
American Eagle Beverages, Inc...... Temple...................... AZ........... 85283........... Beverages...................................................................... 204,410
Azmex Foods, Inc................... Mesa........................ AZ........... 85202........... Dairy Products................................................................. 33,000
Black Mountain Brewing Co.......... Cave Creek.................. AZ........... 85331........... Beer........................................................................... ...........
Chez De Prez Cheesecake, Inc....... Phoenix..................... AZ........... 85017........... cheese cake.................................................................... 110,000
Adams & Brooks, Inc................ Los Angeles................. CA........... 90007........... Candy.......................................................................... 1,658
Alta Genetics...................... Hughson..................... CA........... 95326........... Bovine Genetics................................................................ 18,310
America's Classic Foods............ Sun Valley.................. CA........... 91352........... Mixed & Processed: Bakery products, hard and soft ice cream.................... 8,475
Apcal, Inc......................... Visalia..................... CA........... 93278........... Natural & Processed Almonds, Shelled & Inshell Pistachios...................... 4,439
Arciero Winery..................... Paso Robles................. CA........... 93447........... Wine........................................................................... 6,179
Ariel Vineyards.................... Napa........................ CA........... 94558........... wine........................................................................... 1,043
Babe Farms......................... Santa Monica................ CA........... 93456........... vegetables..................................................................... ...........
Bay Pac Beverages.................. Pleaston.................... CA........... 94588........... juice, sport drinks............................................................ 40,009
Bell-Carter Foods, Inc............. Visalia..................... CA........... 93291........... Canned Ripe Olives............................................................. 6,918
California Natural Products........ Santa Barbara............... CA........... 93121........... Bard Valley Medjool Dates...................................................... 10,000
California Grocer Inc.............. San Rafael.................. CA........... 94903........... Salad Dressing, Mayonnaise, Jams............................................... 96,357
California Sun Dry Foods........... San Mateo................... CA........... 94404........... tomatoes....................................................................... ...........
CenzoneTech Inc.................... San Marcos.................. CA........... 92069........... enzymes, acid, lactose......................................................... 11,351
Chains, lnc........................ Fremont..................... CA........... 94538........... Fresh, frozen, canned, grocery product line.................................... ...........
Christopher Ranch.................. Gilroy...................... CA........... 95020........... Condiments..................................................................... ...........
Concannon Vineyard................. Livermore................... CA........... 94550........... wine........................................................................... 5,874
Craft Beers International.......... San Diego................... CA........... 92122........... beer........................................................................... 616
Crichton Hall Vineyard............. Napa........................ CA........... 94573........... wine........................................................................... ...........
Cuvaison Winery.................... Calistoga................... CA........... 94515........... wine........................................................................... ...........
Delicato Vineyards................. Manteca..................... CA........... 95336........... wine........................................................................... 13,588
Deloach Vineyards, Inc............. Santa Rosa.................. CA........... 95401........... wine........................................................................... 11,500
Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream........... Oakland..................... CA........... 94618........... Dairy Products................................................................. ...........
Dry Creek Vineyard................. Healdsburg.................. CA........... 95448........... Wine........................................................................... 1,500
DXR International, Inc............. Lafayette................... CA........... 94549........... grocery products............................................................... 1,710
Emilio Guglielmo Winery............ Morgan Hill................. CA........... 95037........... wine........................................................................... ...........
Entertainment Foods, Inc........... Calabasas................... CA........... 91302........... grocery products............................................................... 30,000
Extraordinary Export............... San Anselmo................. CA........... 94960........... Sauces, sodas, rice noodles, maple syrup & pancake mixes....................... 1,784
Fantastic Foods, Inc............... Petaluma.................... CA........... 94954........... Natural & Health Foods......................................................... ...........
Fernando's Foods Corporation....... Los Angeles................. CA........... 90040........... Mexican, other burritos/wraps, appetizers...................................... 0
Four Seasons Farms................. Ripon....................... CA........... 95366........... almonds, roasted, flavored, candied............................................ 7,388
Franciscan Estate Selections....... Rutherford.................. CA........... 94573........... California Wine................................................................ 2,577
Frontier Trading................... San Diego................... CA........... 92106........... grocery products............................................................... 200,000
Garden Of Eatin' Inc............... Pismo Beach................. CA........... 93449........... Condiments..................................................................... 32,098
Garuda International, Inc.......... Santa Cruz.................. CA........... 95063........... Natural & Health Foods......................................................... 3,899
Geyser Peak........................ Geyserville................. CA........... 95441........... wine........................................................................... 15,513
Golden State Vintners.............. Cutler...................... CA........... 93615........... wine........................................................................... 86,512
Golden West Nuts, Inc.............. Ripon....................... CA........... 95366........... Almonds........................................................................ 44,957
Goods and Sevices Int'l............ South El Monte.............. CA........... 91733........... Non-Chocolate Soft Candy-Lemon, Lime, Cherry, orange flavor.................... 60,000
Grand Export, Inc.................. Hayward..................... CA........... 94544........... grocery products............................................................... ...........
Great Crescent International Inc... Rolling Hills Est........... CA........... 90274........... crackers, cookies.............................................................. 12,480
Greater Pacific Foods.............. Pleasanton.................. CA........... 94566........... grocery products............................................................... ...........
Harris Ranch Beef Company.......... Selma....................... CA........... 93662........... Beef........................................................................... 18,716
Herman Goelitz, Inc................ Fairfield................... CA........... 94533........... Confectionery.................................................................. 105,508
Hill & Thoma Wines................. Santa Rosa.................. CA........... 95404........... California Wine................................................................ 101
Hilltop Ranch...................... Ballico..................... CA........... 95303........... Blanched Diced, sliced, whole Almonds, and Brown Almonds,...................... 8,000
Hughson Nut Marketing, Inc......... Hughson..................... CA........... 95326........... Almonds........................................................................ 28,757
Imagine Foods, Inc................. Palo Alto................... CA........... 94306........... ice cream, puddings, beverage.................................................. 38,448
International Food Concepts........ Calabasas................... CA........... 91302........... Breakfast Cereals/Fruit Juices................................................. 200,000
Isis Management, Inc............... Carmel...................... CA........... 93921........... Loaves of: Banana Nut, poppyseed, pumpkin, zucchini............................ ...........
J. Lohr Winery..................... San Jose.................... CA........... 95126........... wine........................................................................... 648
J.R. Wood, Inc..................... Atwater..................... CA........... 95301........... Frozen Fruits & Vegetables, Smoothie Starters, Baby Food....................... 18,900
Jewel Date Company................. Palm Desert................. CA........... 92260........... processed products............................................................. 35,685
Kashi Company...................... La Jolla.................... CA........... 92038........... Cereals........................................................................ 2,641
Kautz Ironstone Vineyards.......... Murphys..................... CA........... 95247........... wine........................................................................... 17,500
Kendall-Jackson Winery............. Santa Rosa.................. CA........... 95403........... wine........................................................................... 11,864
Kenwood Vineyards.................. Kenwood..................... CA........... 95452........... Wine........................................................................... 7,072
La Tapatia Tortilleria, Inc........ Fresno...................... CA........... 93701........... Tex-mex Foods.................................................................. ...........
Lady-J, Inc........................ Menlo Park.................. CA........... 94025........... Snack Foods.................................................................... 50,000
Louis M. Martini Winery............ St. Helena.................. CA........... 94574........... California Wine................................................................ 1,188
Lyons Magnus....................... Fresno...................... CA........... 93702........... juice, beverages, snack foods, syrups, flavored toppings....................... 7,783
MCC Foods America, Inc............. Carson...................... CA........... 90745........... Soups; Chinese pasta, egg flower, hot & sour. Sauces, stir fry................. ...........
Merryvale Vineyards................ St. Helena.................. CA........... 94574........... wine........................................................................... 40,127
Nancy's Specialty Foods............ Newark...................... CA........... 94560........... quiche......................................................................... 57,487
National Raisin Co................. Fowler...................... CA........... 93625........... raisins........................................................................ 16,323
New Jamaican Gold, Inc............. San Francisco............... CA........... 94124........... canned iced coffee............................................................. 62,377
Newton Vineyard.................... St. Helena.................. CA........... 94574........... wine........................................................................... 1,288
Ocean Breeze Export Inc............ Exeter...................... CA........... 93221........... Fresh California Broccoli Crowns, Cherries, Citrus, and T...................... 2,075
Oceanica Trade Investment, Inc..... Redondo Beach............... CA........... 90277........... seafood products............................................................... 9,249
Otis McAllister, Inc............... San Francisco............... CA........... 94111........... Fruit Juices................................................................... 44,354
Pacific American Fish Co., Inc..... Los Angeles................. CA........... 90021........... Squid.......................................................................... 3,000
Pacific Grain Products, Inc........ Woodland.................... CA........... 95776........... Various flavored Chips and Crackers, Industrial Snacks......................... 3,553
Pacific Trading Ventures........... Walnut Creek................ CA........... 94596........... yogurt, ice cream, fruit juice, cookies, popcorn, salty s...................... 1,880
Pamela's Products.................. So. San Francisco........... CA........... 94080........... Snack Foods.................................................................... 7,342
Pangburn Candy..................... Los Angeles................. CA........... 90007........... Lollipops, Butter Toffee Nuts, Coffee Candy.................................... ...........
Prince Of Peace Enterprises, Inc... San Francisco............... CA........... 94124........... Beverages...................................................................... 144,727
Purepak, Inc....................... Oxnard...................... CA........... 93032........... Sliced strawberries, organic; sorbet, soups, strawberries...................... 19,208
R.W. GarciaCo., Inc................ San Jose.................... CA........... 95112........... Salad Eatos-Flavored Chip Strips, Dips and Salsas, Tortilla.................... 1,462
Renaissance Vineyard & Winery, Inc. Renaissance................. CA........... 95962........... wine........................................................................... 3,390
Rio Del Mar Foods, Inc............. Orinda...................... CA........... 94563........... almond, prune, raisin, cherries, date, apricot, tomato......................... 65,712
Round Hill Winery.................. St. Helena.................. CA........... 94574........... wine........................................................................... 979
Royal Pacific Foods................ Pleasanton.................. CA........... 94566........... grocery products line.......................................................... 13,892
Safeway Inc........................ Walnut Creek................ CA........... 94598........... Grocery Products Line.......................................................... 2,582
Samyang Foods USA.................. Los Angeles................. CA........... 90026........... Instant Cup/Package Noodles, Premixed Rice w/ nuts & dried..................... 25,830
Schug Carneros Estate Winery....... Sonoma...................... CA........... 95476........... wine........................................................................... 11,196
Sea And Farmfresh Importing Company Alhambra.................... CA........... 91803........... seafood........................................................................ 31,474
Sierra Nut House, Inc.............. Fresno...................... CA........... 93721........... Dried Soup Mixes, Organic Wheat Grains, Chocolate Covered...................... ...........
Simon Home Foods Company........... San Diego................... CA........... 92110........... Pretzels....................................................................... 6,180
Simonian Fruit Co.................. Fresno...................... CA........... 93711........... fruit.......................................................................... ...........
Smith-Anderson Enterprises, Inc.... Huntington Park............. CA........... 90255........... California Wine................................................................ 18,500
Spectrum Naturals Inc.............. Sebastopol.................. CA........... 95472........... Condiments..................................................................... ...........
State Fish Company, Inc............ San Pedro................... CA........... 90731........... seafood........................................................................ 2,689
Summerfield Foods,Inc.............. Santa Rosa.................. CA........... 95401........... Fat Free; Soup, Refried beans, Chili Cookies; `Car', 'C........................ 4,517
Sutter Home Winery, Inc............ St. Helena.................. CA........... 94574........... wine........................................................................... 56,477
The California Winery.............. Ceres....................... CA........... 95307........... wine........................................................................... 45,765
Timber Crest Farms................. Healdsburg.................. CA........... 95448........... dried fruits & tomatoes & Condiments........................................... 1,113
Traditional Medicinals Inc......... Sebastopol.................. CA........... 95472........... Natural & Health Foods......................................................... 185,520
Triad Worldwide, Inc............... Clovis...................... CA........... 93613........... nuts, raisins, canned goods, grocery products.................................. 149,529
Ventana Vineyards.................. Monterey.................... CA........... 93940........... wine........................................................................... 1,354
Very Special Chocolates, Inc....... Azusa....................... CA........... 91702........... Candy.......................................................................... 6,156
Well-Pict, Inc..................... Watsonville................. CA........... 95076........... Fresh Fruit.................................................................... 25,942
Wenix International Corp........... Los Angeles................. CA........... 90017........... Seafood........................................................................ 10,000
Wente Bros......................... Livermore................... CA........... 94550........... wine........................................................................... 249,999
Western Sierra Packers, Inc........ Terra Bella................. CA........... 93270........... Citrus/Oro Blanco/Melogold..................................................... ...........
Wild Rice Exchange................. Yuba City................... CA........... 95993........... rice........................................................................... 42,440
Wines Of America, Ltd.............. Larkspur.................... CA........... 94939........... Wine........................................................................... 13,567
World Variety Produce, Inc......... Vernon...................... CA........... 90021........... fruit, vegetables.............................................................. ...........
Worldwide Sires, Inc............... Hanford..................... CA........... 93230........... Frozen Bovine Semen............................................................ 51,018
Yorkville Cellars.................. Yorkville................... CA........... 95494........... wine........................................................................... ...........
ZB Industries, Inc................. San Pedro................... CA........... 90733........... Frozen Seafood Entrees, Frozen Stir-Fry Vegetables............................. 6,689
Great Western Tortilla Co.......... Denver...................... CO........... 80216........... salsas, tortilla chips......................................................... 15,056
Leprino Foods...................... Denver...................... CO........... 80211........... Dairy Products................................................................. 4,149
Western Export Services, Inc....... Denver...................... CO........... 80202........... grocery products, malt beverage, Beer.......................................... 144,799
International Marketing Systems, Shelton..................... CT........... 06484........... grocery products............................................................... ...........
Ltd..
Lincoln Snacks Company............. Stamford.................... CT........... 06905........... Popcorn........................................................................ 60,578
Newman's Own Inc................... Westport.................... CT........... 06880........... salad dressing................................................................. 24,534
Pepperidge Farm Incorporated....... Norwalk..................... CT........... 06851........... crackers, cookies, soup, croutons.............................................. 17,477
Affair International, Inc.......... Miami Beach................. FL........... 33140........... Canned soft drinks............................................................. 4,593
Arnet Pharmaceutical Corp.......... Hialeah..................... FL........... 33016........... Vitamins....................................................................... 50,000
DLF International, Inc............. Vero Beach.................. FL........... 32962........... Fresh Grapefruit............................................................... 13,658
Florida European Export-lmport Co., Miami....................... FL........... 33158........... Fresh Fruits and Vegetables.................................................... 6,408
Garcia Canning Co., Inc............ Tampa....................... FL........... 33164........... boiled peanuts, white kidney beans, black beans, chili beans................... ...........
I.M.G. Enterprise Inc./Cherry Lake Groveland................... FL........... 34736........... Fresh Grapefruit............................................................... 29,250
Fa.
International Pet Products, Inc.... New Port Richey............. FL........... 34652........... Pet food....................................................................... 192,357
Ital Florida Foods, Inc............ Miami....................... FL........... 33167........... Pasta, ziti, spaghetti, macaroni, fetuccini.................................... ...........
Perky's Food Service Concepts, Inc. Tampa....................... FL........... 33610........... Dough, refrigerated dry mixes, Pizza products, various, P...................... 1,892
Sunny Ridge Farm................... Lake Hamilton............... FL........... 33851........... processed food................................................................. ...........
Tropical Blossom Honey Co., Inc.... Edgewater................... FL........... 32132........... Honey, Hot Sauces, Spice Mix, Fruit Drinks, Coconut Toast...................... 4,763
Allied Foods, Inc.................. Atlanta..................... GA........... 30318........... Pet foods...................................................................... 35,344
American Tanning & Leather Company. Griffen..................... GA........... 30223........... Alligator Hides................................................................ 3,061
Chihade lnternational, Inc......... Stone Mountain.............. GA........... 30083........... Citrus Juices.................................................................. 176,851
The Matterhorn Company............. Marietta.................... GA........... 30062........... Ice Cream Sandwiches........................................................... ...........
Equipment Team Hawaii.............. Honolulu.................... HI........... 96820........... fruit.......................................................................... 50,183
French Gourmet Inc................. Honolulu.................... HI........... 96813........... Bakery Products................................................................ 96,893
Hawaiian Host, Inc................. Honolulu.................... HI........... 96817........... Chocolate Covered Macadamia nuts and Other Related Products.................... ...........
Pleasanton Corporation............. Waimanalo................... HI........... 96795........... Tropical Plants................................................................ ...........
M. Miyamoto Orchids, Inc........... Walanae..................... HI........... 96792........... Various Orchid Genera.......................................................... ...........
American Pop Corn Company.......... Sioux City.................. IA........... 51102........... popcorn........................................................................ 168,932
American Protein Corporation....... Ames........................ IA........... 50010........... Porcine/Bov. Immunoglobulin, Plasma & Alb...................................... 19,198
Ampc, Inc.......................... Ames........................ IA........... 50010........... 80 Percent WPC................................................................. 46,649
Burke Corp......................... Nevada...................... IA........... 50201........... Meat Toppings.................................................................. 15,025
Elite Genetics..................... Waukon...................... IA........... 52172........... Sheep Semen.................................................................... 19,843
Kemin Industries, Inc.............. Des Moines.................. IA........... 50301........... Swine Feed, Dog Food-dry, Cat Food-dry......................................... 1,075
Maplehurst Genetics................ Keota....................... IA........... 52248........... Frozen Bovine Semen............................................................ 3,000
Midamar Corporation................ Cedar Rapids................ IA........... 52406........... poultry, processed meats....................................................... 8,341
Triple F. Inc...................... Des Moines.................. IA........... 50322........... Animal Feed Additives.......................................................... 4,154
Agri Beef Co....................... Boise....................... ID........... 83707........... Beef........................................................................... ...........
Gering And Son..................... Nampa....................... ID........... 83687........... Canned & Frozen Foods.......................................................... ...........
Idaho Pacific Corporation.......... Ririe....................... ID........... 83443........... Seasoned & regular Potato Granules, Potato Flakes, Potato...................... 8,399
Idahoan Foods...................... Lewisville.................. ID........... 83431........... potato products................................................................ 127,981
Market Makers, Inc................. Boise....................... ID........... 83701........... Further processed chicken...................................................... 13,209
Beer Nuts Inc...................... Bloomington................. IL........... 61701........... peanuts, Cashews............................................................... 5,630
Coffee Masters..................... Ingleside................... IL........... 60041........... instant cappuccino and cocoa................................................... 1,802
Eli's Chicago's Finest Cheasecake.. Chicago..................... IL........... 60634........... Baked Cheese Cake.............................................................. 3,620
Essen Nutrition Corp............... Romeoville.................. IL........... 60446........... sauces, syrup, mixes, salad dressings, mayonnaise.............................. 12,738
Ferrara Pan Candy Company.......... Forest Park................. IL........... 60130........... Confectionery.................................................................. 1,230
Lawrence Foods, Inc................ Elk Grove Village........... IL........... 60007........... jellies & preserves, ice cream toppings, fillings.............................. 666
Little Lady Foods, Inc............. Elk Grove Village........... IL........... 60007........... French Bread Pizza, pizza products............................................. 7,703
LP International................... Chicago..................... IL........... 60632........... Salsas, Taco Shells............................................................ 13,351
Milk Specialties Co................ Dundee...................... IL........... 60118........... Horse & Dairy Feed............................................................. 2,80X
Park Foods L.P..................... Barrington.................. IL........... 60010........... Drink Mixes, Cake Mixes, Bakery Products & Ingredients......................... ...........
Roney-Oatman....................... Aurora...................... IL........... 60506........... ice cream, frozen shakes....................................................... 8,084
Sahagian & Associates, Inc......... Oak Park.................... IL........... 60302........... Corn Sticks & popcorn kernels.................................................. 2,424
The Bruss Company.................. Chicago..................... IL........... 60641........... Beef........................................................................... ...........
TKI Foods, Inc..................... Springfield................. IL........... 62708........... Meal Replacement............................................................... 7,068
Vienna Sausage Manufacturing Co.... Chicago..................... IL........... 60647........... Value added meats.............................................................. 17,451
Dairy Chem Laboratories, Inc....... Noblesville................. IN........... 46060........... Starter Distillates............................................................ 3,609
Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc.......... Evansville.................. IN........... 47711........... pet food (cat, dog)............................................................ 85,864
B&H General Supply & Marketing Co.. Leawood..................... KS........... 66211........... Mayonnaise, Salad Dressing..................................................... 154,522
Pines International................ Lawrence.................... KS........... 66044........... Wheat Powder, tabs............................................................. 95,877
Thompson's Pet Pasta Products...... Kansas City................. KS........... 66105........... Pet food....................................................................... 170,767
Age International, Inc............. Frankfort................... KY........... 40601........... bourbon........................................................................ ...........
Heaven Hill Distilleries, Inc...... Bardstown................... KY........... 40004........... wine........................................................................... 61,345
Korbel Brands...................... Louisville.................. KY........... 40201........... Wine/Brandy.................................................................... 23,500
Bruce Foods Corporation............ New Iberia.................. LA........... 70562........... Ethnic Foods................................................................... 79,643
Burris Mill & Feed, Inc............ Franklinton................. LA........... 70438........... shrimp feed and tilapia feed................................................... 1,299
Chef Paul Prudhomme's Magic Season. Harahan..................... LA........... 70183........... Sauces and Spices.............................................................. 19,209
Crown Products, Inc................ Metairie.................... LA........... 70002........... Alligator Hides................................................................ 146,933
Crystal International Corporation.. New Orleans................. LA........... 70119........... Trading Company General Groccry Line........................................... 260,000
KSM Seafood Corporation............ Baton Rouge................. LA........... 70821........... Seafood and Aquaculture........................................................ 35,069
M.B.A. International Company....... Metairie.................... LA........... 70011........... Trading Company General Grocery Line........................................... 5,000
Mcllhenny Company.................. Avery lsland................ LA........... 70513........... Sauces and Spices.............................................................. 171,674
Panola Pepper Corp................. Lake Providence............. LA........... 71254........... Hot Sauce, Jalapeno Hot Sauce, Extra Hot Hot Sauce............................. 5,580
Boston Beer Company................ Boston...................... MA........... 02130........... Beer........................................................................... 25,248
East Coast Seafood, Inc............ Lynn........................ MA........... 01903........... American Lobster, Skate, Monkfish, & Dogfish................................... 106,677
Ethnic Gourmet Foods Inc........... Farmingham.................. MA........... 01702........... Dinners (Frozen Indian)........................................................ ...........
Nasoya Foods, Inc.................. Ayer........................ MA........... 01432........... Mayonnaise, salad dressing, tofu, seasoning mixes.............................. 493
Pishev Corporationlnternational.... Boston...................... MA........... 02109........... Chum Salmon, Hake, Smelt, and Rockfish......................................... 51,253
U.S. Mills, Inc.................... Needham..................... MA........... 02194........... Cereal......................................................................... 7,877
Chemgen............................ Gaithersburg................ MD........... 20877........... feed enzyme.................................................................... 8,531
PTC International.................. Baltimore................... MD........... 21202........... Chicken wings, cakes, pies, cheesecakes........................................ 2,265
Purdue Farms, lnc.................. Salisbury................... MD........... 21801........... Parts and further processed chicken............................................ ...........
S.E.W. Friel....................... Queenstown.................. MD........... 21658........... Tomato Juice, Vegetable Juice, Corn, Succotash................................. ...........
Sea Watch International, Ltd....... Easton...................... MD........... 21601........... seafood/processed foods........................................................ 30,000
U.S. Grain Company................. Towson...................... MD........... 21204........... Pet food....................................................................... 28,626
Wilkins-Rogers, Inc................ Ellicott City............... MD........... 21043........... Bakery Products................................................................ ...........
Country Egg Farm................... Turner...................... ME........... 04282........... Shell Eggs..................................................................... ...........
Jasper Wyman & Son................. Milbridge................... ME........... 04658........... Wild Blueberries, Pie filling.................................................. ...........
The Lobster Co..................... Kennebunkport............... ME........... 04046........... Lobster........................................................................ 2,043
American Soy Products.............. Saline...................... MI........... 48176........... fruit and vegetable juice...................................................... 653
Argo Associates, Inc............... Bloomfield Hills............ MI........... 48304........... Beverage Concentrate........................................................... 19,732
Awrey Bakeries, Inc................ Livonia..................... MI........... 48150........... Bagels, Biscuits, Brownies, Cakes, Coffee Cakes, Cookies,...................... 10,510
Cherrex Corporation................ Okemos...................... MI........... 48864........... Frozen Cherries, Cherry Concentrate............................................ 55,203
Groeb Farms, Inc................... Onsted...................... MI........... 49265........... honey.......................................................................... 20,001
Honee Bear Canning................. Lawton...................... MI........... 49065........... Canned Cherries (Pitted Red Tart, Dark Sweet).................................. 40,656
Kalsec Inc......................... Kalamazoo................... MI........... 49005........... extractives of paprika, hops and capsicum...................................... 20,982
Purity Foods International......... Okemos...................... MI........... 48864........... Microwave Popcorn.............................................................. 198,967
Advanced Nutritionals Corporation.. Minneapolis................. MN........... 55369........... Health drink & Health Gel...................................................... 55,298
Dahlgren & Company, Inc............ Crookston................... MN........... 56716........... Dairy Products................................................................. 20,824
Davisco Foods International, Inc... Le Sueur.................... MN........... 56058........... Whey Protein concentrate WPC, Refined Edible Lactose........................... 3,738
Grist Mill Co...................... Lakeville................... MN........... 55044........... fruit snacks, granola bars..................................................... 26,938
Knight Seed Co., Inc............... Burnsville.................. MN........... 55337........... Confection Sunflowers, Dry Edible Beans, Soybeans.............................. 13,768
Lamex Foods, Inc................... Edina....................... MN........... 55435........... chicken broth.................................................................. 21,066
Link Industries.................... Minong...................... MN........... 54859........... kippered beef regular flavor, and black pepper................................. 17,388
Northland Organic Foods............ Saint Paul.................. MN........... 55105........... Beans, Frozen Veggies, Pkg. Foods.............................................. 34,271
Quali Tech, Inc.................... Chaska...................... MN........... 55318........... Toasted Corn Germ, Flavor Particulates......................................... 6,544
Sigco Sun Products, Inc............ Breckenridge................ MN........... 56520........... Sunflower Inshell.............................................................. 107,940
Ventures East, Inc................. Excelsior................... MN........... 55331........... Beef........................................................................... ...........
Zinpro Corporation................. Eden Prairie................ MN........... 55944........... Roasted Corn, Beans, Margarita Mix, Vinegars, Marinade......................... 15,497
American Berkshire Association..... Skidmore.................... MO........... 64487........... Pork........................................................................... ...........
Bolinger Marketing Inc............. California.................. MO........... 65018........... potted meat.................................................................... 1,661
International Ingredient St. Louis................... MO........... 63116........... feed ingredients............................................................... 42,296
Corporation.
Raskas Foods, Inc.................. Clayton..................... MO........... 63105........... Cream Cheese................................................................... 35,000
Vital-EX Company................... Kansas City................. MO........... 64190........... athlete/men/women vitamins..................................................... ...........
American Poultry International, Ltd Jackson..................... MS........... 39236........... Chicken parts.................................................................. 2,500
De Beukelaer Corporation........... Madison..................... MS........... 39110........... grocery products............................................................... 34,498
Sussie's of Mississippi, Inc....... Marks....................... MS........... 38646........... Fruitcakes, Liqueur Cakes, Cheesecakes......................................... 9,172
Huckleberry Haven,Inc.............. Hungry Horse................ MT........... 59919........... Pancake mix, jams, toppings, fillings, flavored honey.......................... 2,951
I'tchik Herbs...................... Crow Agency................. MT........... 59022........... Herbal teas, Herbal tea mixes.................................................. 825
Montana Genetics International, Inc Bozeman..................... MT........... 59715........... Montana Angus Genetics......................................................... 5,974
Prickly Pear Ranch................. Helena...................... MT........... 59601........... Bovine Genetics................................................................ 4,443
American Sales International....... Charlotte................... NC........... 28209........... Shallowford Farms/Popcorn, Carolina's Best/ Popcorn............................ 2,491
Beacon Sweets, Inc................. Mooresville................. NC........... 28115........... Hard candy & Gummy candy in the shaped as watch/footprint...................... 7,747
E. Boyd & Associates, Inc.......... Raleigh..................... NC........... 27624........... corn, corn products............................................................ ...........
Mr. B's Fun Foods.................. Connelly Springs............ NC........... 28612........... Cotton Candy, Caramel Popcorn.................................................. 3,051
Pogue Industries, Inc.............. Raleigh..................... NC........... 27615........... pasta, popcorn, sauces......................................................... 102,469
The Original Log Cabin Homes, Ltd.. Rocky Mount................. NC........... 27802........... log cabins..................................................................... 141,223
Triangle Products.................. Charlotte................... NC........... 28247........... Pet food, popcorn, snack foods................................................. 8,089
Harvest Fuel, Inc.................. Walhalla.................... ND........... 58282........... Calf Feed...................................................................... 872
Minn-Dak Growers, Ltd.............. Grand Forks................. ND........... 58208........... Mustard; ground, dehydrated, flour, & Sunflower Kernels........................ 8,950
Specialty Commodities, Inc......... Fargo....................... ND........... 58106........... Sunflower (in shell), Sunflower kernel......................................... 8,829
All NaturaULean Limousin Supreme... Kearney..................... NE........... 68848........... All Natural Limousin Beef...................................................... ...........
Brown's Best Foods................. Lincoln..................... NE........... 68524........... Beans; whole, dried, instant powdered, quick cooking flak...................... 3,877
Excalibur Sires.................... Rochester................... NE........... 59906........... Bovine Genetics................................................................ 2,350
Heartland Beef Sales, Inc.......... Omaha....................... NE........... 68106........... Beef w/peppers and onions, Portioned sliced beef, poultry...................... 27,963
Morrison Farms..................... Clearwater.................. NE........... 68726........... microwave popcorn.............................................................. 20,377
Biosan Laboratories, Inc........... Derry....................... NH........... 03038........... Health/Diet.................................................................... 24,675
Seawise, Inc....................... Portsmouth.................. NH........... 03801........... Conch, Sea Cucumber............................................................ 2,705
American Standard Products, Inc.... Hasbrouck Heights........... NJ........... 07604........... Shrimp Feed.................................................................... 16,126
Goody, Inc......................... East Brunswick.............. NJ........... 08816........... pretzels....................................................................... 400,001
International American Supermarkets Piscataway.................. NJ........... 08854........... Processed Sweet Corn, Bakery, snacks, vegetables............................... 474,615
Jersey Asparagus Farms, lnc........ Pittsgove................... NJ........... 08318........... Asparagus Seed & Crowns........................................................ 4,398
Kwik Enterprises................... Oakhurst.................... NJ........... 07753........... Snack Food..................................................................... 20,207
Lucille Farms...................... Montville................... NJ........... 07045........... Cheese......................................................................... ...........
Sovereign Trading Company.......... Englishtown................. NJ........... 07726........... cereal, fruit, juice, pet food, vegetables..................................... ...........
Trinidad Benham Co................. Carlstadt................... NJ........... 07072........... Corn Oil....................................................................... ...........
TRT International.................. Elizabeth................... NJ........... 07201........... mayonnaise..................................................................... 50,000
Wakefern Food Corporation.......... Edison...................... NJ........... 08837........... Fruit, Vegetables, Dairy, Juice, Cereal, Snack Food............................ 662
World Finer Foods,lnc.............. Bloomfleld.................. NJ........... 07003........... TexMex, Condiment, Veggies, Pet Food, Bakery, Health/Diet...................... 199,126
Blue Sky Natural Beverage Co....... Santa Fe.................... NM........... 87501........... Beverages...................................................................... 2,947
Impact Confections, Inc............ Roswell..................... NM........... 88202........... Lollipops; various shapes and sizes............................................ 3,069
J-K Products International......... Albuquerque................. NM........... 87192........... processed products............................................................. 16,348
Stahmann Farms, Inc................ San Miguel.................. NM........... 88058........... pecan nuts..................................................................... 4,533
Alle Processing Corporation........ Maspeth..................... NY........... 11378........... cooked corned beef, pastrami, knockwurst, kosher hot dogs...................... ...........
Amal Meat Corp..................... Jamaica..................... NY........... 11432........... grocery products/condiments.................................................... 50,000
Baldwin Vineyards.................. Pine Bush................... NY........... 12566........... Wine........................................................................... 5,710
Calico Cottage Candies,lnc......... Mineola..................... NY........... 11501........... Dry Fudge Candy Mix............................................................ 14,175
Dr. Konstantin Frank............... Hammondsport................ NY........... 14840........... Wine........................................................................... ...........
Export Trade Of America............ New York.................... NY........... 10003........... Canned Vegetables.............................................................. 137,035
Global Beverage Company............ Rochester................... NY........... 14625........... beverages...................................................................... ...........
Global Export Marketing Company.... New York.................... NY........... 10001........... TexMex, Salad Dressing, condiments, Vegetable.................................. 88,453
Hansmann's Mills, Inc.............. Bainbridge.................. NY........... 13733........... Bakery Products, Condiment..................................................... ...........
Harry's Premium Snacks............. Hicksville.................. NY........... 11801........... potato chips, tortilla chips, pretzels......................................... ...........
Hunter & Hillsberg................. Syracuse.................... NY........... 13207........... maple syrup/candy/cream, wine.................................................. 12,500
Interfrost......................... East Rochester.............. NY........... 14445........... Frozen Corn.................................................................... 165,000
Koy Shack, Inc..................... Hicksville.................. NY........... 11802........... dairy products, pudding........................................................ 67,913
Lamoreaux Landing Wine Cellars..... Lodi........................ NY........... 14424........... Wine........................................................................... 1,723
Leosons Overseas Corp.............. Albany...................... NY........... 12205........... Vegetables (Can/Frozen), Fruits (Can/Dry/Fresh), Cereals....................... ...........
Northeast Group.................... Monsley..................... NY........... 10952........... grocery products............................................................... ...........
Ontario International, Inc......... Syracuse.................... NY........... 13206........... Fresh Vegetables............................................................... 55,000
Certified Angus Beef............... Wooster..................... OH........... 44691........... Beef........................................................................... 28,644
Kahiki Foods, Inc.................. Columbus.................... OH........... 43213........... Meals-Entrees.................................................................. 2,898
Lean Value Sires................... New Carlisle................ OH........... 45344........... Lean Value Sires swine semen................................................... 5,250
Select Sires....................... Plain City.................. OH........... 43064........... Frozen Bovine Semen............................................................ 13,500
Smith Dairy Product Company........ Orrville.................... OH........... 44667........... yogurt, ice cream, dairy products.............................................. 14,793
Woodbury Vineyards................. Westlake.................... OH........... 44145........... Wine........................................................................... ...........
King B Gourmet Foods............... Enid........................ OK........... 73702........... Miscellaneous processed foods.................................................. 6,740
Oklahoma Joe's Smokers............. Stillwater.................. OK........... 74075........... Sweet & Spicy Seasoning (Dried, Steak Seasoning ( Dry Meat..................... ...........
Golden Temple Bakery, Inc.......... Eugene...................... OR........... 97402........... Cereals........................................................................ 24,701
Oregon Potato Company.............. Boardman.................... OR........... 97818........... Potato Flakes.................................................................. 13,908
Piazza Pizza....................... Clackamas................... OR........... 97015........... Pizza.......................................................................... ...........
Sabroso Company.................... Medford..................... OR........... 97501........... Fruit Juice.................................................................... 4,621
Trailblazer Food Products.......... Portland.................... OR........... 97230........... Chowder, Truffle Cakes, Sauces, Preserves, Syrups Pie Filling.................. 300
Western Family Foods, Inc.......... Tigard...................... OR........... 97223........... grocery products............................................................... 19,578
Wholesome & Heany Foods, Inc....... Portland.................... OR........... 97214........... Natural & Health Foods......................................................... 18,652
Yoshida Food Products.............. Portland.................... OR........... 97220........... Condiments..................................................................... 37,986
Ag-Link International, Inc......... Tunkhannock................. PA........... 18657........... Frozen Bovine Semen & Embryos.................................................. 6,800
Anderson Bakery Company............ Lancaster................... PA........... 17602........... Pretzels....................................................................... ...........
Better Baked Foods, Inc............ North East.................. PA........... 16428........... prepared foods................................................................. ...........
Chenango Valley Pet Foods.......... Allentown................... PA........... 18103........... Pet Food....................................................................... 200,000
Goldenberg Candy Co................ Philadelphia................ PA........... 19140........... Confectionery.................................................................. 147,500
Herr Foods Inc..................... Nottingham.................. PA........... 19362........... Snack Food..................................................................... 3,025
Jack And Jill Ice Cream Company.... Bensalem.................... PA........... 19020........... Ice Cream...................................................................... 83,638
JDM Commodities.................... Berwyn...................... PA........... 19312........... Beer........................................................................... 1,500
North American Pet Products, Inc... Lancaster................... PA........... 17603........... dog foods...................................................................... 201,754
S.B. Global Trading Co............. Flourtown................... PA........... 19031........... TexMex, Bakery Products........................................................ 57,026
Sire Power, Inc.................... Tunkhannock................. PA........... 18657........... Frozen Bovine Semen............................................................ 9,000
Snyder's Of Hanover, Inc........... Hanover..................... PA........... 17331........... Snack Food..................................................................... ...........
Sweet Street Desserts, Inc......... Reading..................... PA........... 19605........... snack foods.................................................................... 11,466
York Import & Export, Inc.......... Lancaster................... PA........... 17603........... Vanilla Extract................................................................ 1,226
Ziegler Brothers, Inc.............. Gardeners................... PA........... 17324........... Shrimp, larval, trout, tilapia, salmon and flake feeds......................... 8,670
Sterling Merchandising, Inc........ San Juan.................... PR........... 00922........... Yogurt, Ice Cream.............................................................. ...........
Tropical Fruit, S.E................ Guayanilla.................. PR........... 00656........... fresh mangoes.................................................................. ...........
Commodity Specialists Company...... E. Greenwich................ RI........... 02818........... Scallops....................................................................... 2,205
Deep Sea Fish...................... Wakefield................... RI........... 02880........... Seafood........................................................................ 4,821
Flynn Fisheries.................... Newport..................... RI........... 02840........... Squid, American Eel, Atlantic Mackerel, Atlantic Herring....................... ...........
SeaFresh USA Inc................... Narrangansett............... RI........... 02882........... Dogfish, Monkfish, Squid, Skate, Northern Shrimp............................... 15,312
International Industries Spartanburg................. SC........... 29302........... Trading Company General Grocery Line........................................... 17,102
Corporation.
Southland Log Homes, Inc........... Irmo........................ SC........... 29063........... Pre-Fab Log Homes.............................................................. ...........
Young Pecan Company................ Florence.................... SC........... 29502........... Tree Nuts...................................................................... 14,147
Hesco, Inc......................... Watertown................... SD........... 57201........... Barley, Soy, and Oat Products.................................................. 2,303
Flower City Nurseries.............. Smartt...................... TN........... 37378........... trees and shrubs............................................................... 3,476
Amy Foods, Inc..................... Houston..................... TX........... 77087........... egg rolls, chicken, seafood.................................................... 906
Biotics Research Corporation....... Stafford.................... TX........... 77477........... Food Supplement................................................................ 20,000
Bodacious Trust DBA Bo Know's BBQ.. Austin...................... TX........... 78750........... Barbecue; sauce, brisket rub, beans. Seasoning; steak.......................... ...........
Bovine Elite, Inc.................. College Station............. TX........... 77840........... Bovine Genetics................................................................ 4,078
Chung's Gourmet Foods.............. Houston..................... TX........... 77004........... Egg Rolls/Entrees.............................................................. ...........
Collin Street Bakery............... Corsicana................... TX........... 75110........... Bakery Products................................................................ 50,000
Gulf Pacific Rice Co., Inc......... Houston..................... TX........... 77024........... long grain milled rice, parboiled milled rice.................................. 39,725
Hygeia Dairy Company............... Harlingen................... TX........... 78551........... Dairy Products................................................................. ...........
International Grocers, Inc......... Houston..................... TX........... 77041........... grocery products............................................................... 32,140
Jardine Foods...................... Buda........................ TX........... 78610........... Trading Company General Grocery Line........................................... 9,794
Kayla Foods........................ Carrollton.................. TX........... 75006........... Yogurt, Ice Cream, Sherbet, Sorbet, Italian Ices............................... ...........
Merrick Petfoods, Inc.............. Hereford.................... TX........... 79045........... dog food and cat food, dog and cat treats...................................... 13,025
Progressive Laboratories, Inc...... Irvine...................... TX........... 75038........... Vitamins....................................................................... 3,485
Ricos Products..................... San Antonio................. TX........... 78204........... salsa, chips, cheese sauce..................................................... ...........
Sunday House Foods, Inc............ Fredericksburg.............. TX........... 78624........... Further processed chicken/turkey............................................... ...........
Texas Coffe Company................ Beaumont.................... TX........... 77705........... All purpose seasoning.......................................................... 7,448
The El Paso Chile Company.......... EL Paso..................... TX........... 79901........... Salsas, spicy dips, Margarita and Bloody Mary Mixes, Mustard................... ...........
United States Bilateral Trade Co... Ft. Worth................... TX........... 76107........... grocery........................................................................ 140,000
Agri-Products, Inc................. Woods Cross................. UT........... 84087........... Steak, Steak Sauce............................................................. 15,000
Clover Club Foods.................. Spanish Fork................ UT........... 84660........... potato and tortilla chips, asst. snacks........................................ ...........
Cookietree Bakeries................ Salt Lake City.............. UT........... 84123........... Snack Foods.................................................................... 48,983
Gossner Foods, Inc................. Logan....................... UT........... 84321........... grocery products............................................................... ...........
McFarland's Foods, Inc............. Riverton.................... UT........... 84065........... soup base (paste), chicken breast, chicken bacon............................... 6,358
Wilson Products Co................. Salt Lake City.............. UT........... 84104........... Premium Southwest Wraps........................................................ 7,502
ASB Group International............ Vienna...................... VA........... 22182........... Snack Food..................................................................... 363,276
Basco.............................. Disputanta.................. VA........... 23842........... Seafood and Aquaculture........................................................ ...........
Cheaspeak Bay Packing L.L.C........ Newport News................ VA........... 23607........... Conch, Dogfish, Monkfish....................................................... 6,979
CP Speciality Foods, Inc........... Portsmouth.................. VA........... 23701........... Sauces, Condiments, preserves, drink mixes, cheese dip......................... 4,150
International Seafood Distributors. Hayes....................... VA........... 23072........... Sea Scallops, Conch, Monkfsh, Crab, Dogfish, Eels.............................. 32,617
New Venture Developmcnt Corp....... Vienna...................... VA........... 22182........... yogurt, ice cream.............................................................. ...........
Sweet Mountain Magic............... Reston...................... VA........... 20194........... Sorbet Mix, soy based frzn dessert, roasted soynut butter...................... 930
Virga's Pizza Crust Of Va, Inc..... Portsmouth.................. VA........... 23701........... Miscellaneous processed foods.................................................. 4,625
Wanchese Fish Company.............. Hampton..................... VA........... 23663........... Scallops....................................................................... 3,124
Ben And Jerry's South.............. Burlington.................. VT........... 05403........... ice cream, yogurt.............................................................. 16,250
Cabot Creamery, Inc................ Cabot....................... VT........... 05647........... cheddar cheese................................................................. ...........
Holstein-Friesian Services, Inc.... Brattleboro................. VT........... 05302........... Bovine Genetics................................................................ 3,542
Rhino Foods, Inc................... Burlington.................. VT........... 05401........... Cheesecake..................................................................... 7,500
Agrisource, Inc.................... Bellevue.................... WA........... 98006........... vegetables, chips, condiments.................................................. 6,202
Airfresh Seafoods.................. Gig Harbor.................. WA........... 98335........... Salmon, Salmon caviar.......................................................... ...........
Alaska Smokehouse.................. Woodinville................. WA........... 98072........... Smoked Salmon.................................................................. 6,000
American Country Gourmet, Inc...... Steilacoom.................. WA........... 98388........... Beef Jerky..................................................................... ...........
Ames International, Inc............ Federal Way................. WA........... 98003........... Nuts & Nut Products............................................................ 7,458
Arrowac Fisheries, Inc............. Seattle..................... WA........... 98199........... Squid, Dogfish................................................................. ...........
Aspen International Export Inc..... Seattle..................... WA........... 98101........... grocery products............................................................... 4,255
Brown & Haley...................... Tacoma...................... WA........... 98401........... Confectionery, buttercrunch, boxed chocolate................................... 71,126
Cascade Clear Water Co............. Burlington.................. WA........... 98233........... beverages...................................................................... ...........
Chukar Cherry Company.............. Prosser..................... WA........... 99350........... Cherry & Berry Products........................................................ 16,102
Crystal Ocean Seafood, Inc......... Burlington.................. WA........... 98233........... dairy products................................................................. ...........
Da Vinci Gourmet, Ltd.............. Seattle..................... WA........... 98109........... seafood........................................................................ 51,500
Draper Valley Farms................ Mt. Vernon.................. WA........... 98273........... Further Processed Chicken Products............................................. ...........
Dungeness Oyster House............. Sequim...................... WA........... 98382........... Clams, Oysters, Geoduck, Dungeness Crab........................................ 978
Dutch Delights, Inc................ Othello..................... WA........... 99344........... fresh onions................................................................... 8,282
Excel Trade Limited................ Seattle..................... WA........... 98105........... Frozen Desserts................................................................ 32,993
Firman-Pinkerton Co., Inc.......... Wenatchee................... WA........... 98807........... fresh potatoes end onions...................................................... 450
Grigg & Sons....................... Quincy...................... WA........... 98848........... Washington Fresh Onions........................................................ ...........
International Market Brands........ Kirkland.................... WA........... 98034........... Canned & Frozen Vegetables/processed chicken................................... 143,798
Interocean Seafoods Company........ Seattle..................... WA........... 98134........... frozen, canned & fresh seafood................................................. 14,000
Les Boulangers Associes, Inc (LBA). Seattle..................... WA........... 98148........... thaw, proof & bake serve bakery products....................................... 2,686
Liberty Orchards Co., Inc.......... Cashmere.................... WA........... 98815........... Snack Foods.................................................................... 26,866
Lucks Food Decorating Co........... Tacoma...................... WA........... 98409........... processed foods................................................................ 2,559
Marinelli Shellfish................ Seattle..................... WA........... 98189........... Clams, Oysters, Mussels, Crabmeat, Dungeness Crab.............................. 3,730
Molly's Foods, Inc................. Bellingham.................. WA........... 98225........... fruits......................................................................... 9,365
Northwest Packing Company.......... Vancouver................... WA........... 98666........... Tomato Products, Canned, Cherries, Plums, & Pears.............................. 14,501
Peninsula Seafoods, Inc............ Port Angeles................ WA........... 98362........... Black Cod...................................................................... ...........
Phoenix Marketing.................. Bellevue.................... WA........... 98005........... Grocery Products Line.......................................................... 31,140
Roman Meal Company................. Tacoma...................... WA........... 98409........... Grain Products................................................................. 55,276
Seattle Chocolate Co............... Seattle..................... WA........... 98134........... Chocolate Truffles, Chocolate bars............................................. 0
Squamish Seafoods.................. Squamish.................... WA........... 98392........... Clams, Oysters, Geoduck, Dungeness Crab........................................ 2,180
Staton Hills....................... Wapato...................... WA........... 98951........... Wine........................................................................... 1,364
Stockpot Soups..................... Redmond..................... WA........... 98052........... soup........................................................................... 4,529
Vanguard Trading Services, Inc..... Issaquah.................... WA........... 98027........... grocery products............................................................... 36,176
21St Century Genetics.............. Shawano..................... WI........... 54166........... Frozen Bovine Semen............................................................ 26,000
ABS International.................. DeForest.................... WI........... 53532........... Bovine Genetics................................................................ 36,876
Allied Processors, Inc............. Boyceville.................. WI........... 54725........... Food Ingredients............................................................... ...........
Beehive Botanicals................. Hayward..................... WI........... 54843........... Propolis Tincture; Propolis Throat Spray, Gourmet Honey........................ 3,601
Cedar Crest Ice Cream.............. Cedarburg................... WI........... 54220........... Ice Cream, Reduced Fat Ice Cream............................................... 1,274
Century Foods International........ Sparta...................... WI........... 54656........... Dairy Products................................................................. ...........
Cher-Make Sausage Co............... Manitowoc................... WI........... 54220........... Kippered Teriyaki Beef, Mozzarella & Beef Stick................................ 1,149
Cumberland Packing Corporation..... Racine...................... WI........... 53403........... Dairy Conc..................................................................... 40,843
Gardetto's......................... Milwaukee................... WI........... 53221........... Pretzels, Snak-ens............................................................. 14,791
Honey Acres Inc.................... Ashippun.................... WI........... 53003........... Fruit Flavored Honey Creme Spreads, Honeybears................................. l,139
Hsu's Ginseng Enterprises, Inc..... Wausau...................... WI........... 54402........... ginseng/roots, slices, tea, capsules........................................... 140,002
Jones Dairy Farm................... Fort Atkinson............... WI........... 53538........... Pork sausage, bacon, hams...................................................... 30,000
Kaytee Products, Inc............... Chilton..................... WI........... 53014........... Pet food....................................................................... 21,488
Merrick's, Inc..................... Middleton................... WI........... 53562........... animal plasma, milk replacements............................................... 10,038
New Generations Dairy Cattle....... Brooklyn.................... WI........... 53521........... Bovine Semen................................................................... 9,292
Nueske's Hillcrest Farms Meats..... Wittenberg.................. WI........... 54499........... Smoked Pork Products........................................................... 497
Old Fashioned Foods, Inc........... Mayville.................... WI........... 53050........... Cheese Sauces & Salsas......................................................... 39,607
SHK Foods, Inc..................... Fitchburg................... WI........... 53711........... Fully Cooked Bacon............................................................. ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 BRAND COMPANIES BY STATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company City State Zip Promoted--Produce Expenses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Franciscan Vineyards.......... Rutherford............ CA..... 94573..... wine.......................................................... $27,500
Frontier Trading.............. San Diego............. CA..... 92106..... grocery products.............................................. 5,000
Geyser Peak................... Geyserville........... CA..... 95441..... wine.......................................................... 30,000
Global Merchandising Corp..... San Francisco......... CA..... 94124..... Spices, cookies, peanuts...................................... 15,000
Golden State Vintners......... Cutler................ CA..... 93615..... wine.......................................................... 155,000
Golden West huts, Inc......... Ripon................. CA..... 95366..... Almonds....................................................... 95,000
Great Crescent International Rolling Hills Est..... CA..... 90274..... crackers, cookies............................................. 30,000
Inc.
Green Foods Corporation....... Oxnard................ CA..... 93030..... Barley pet and nutritional supplement......................... 5,000
Hard-Shelled Int'l............ Long Beach............ CA..... 90813..... Spiny Lobster................................................. 30,700
Helrazor, Inc................. Saratoga.............. CA..... 95070..... Condiments.................................................... 15,000
Herman Goelitz, Inc........... Fairfield............. CA..... 94533..... Confectionery................................................. 322,500
Hughson Nut Marketing, Inc.... Hughson............... CA..... 95326..... Almonds....................................................... 20,000
H.A. Williams International... Richmond.............. CA..... 94804..... Cookies and biscuits.......................................... 5,000
Imagine Foods, Inc............ Palo Alto............. CA..... 94306..... ice cream, puddings, beverage................................. 25,000
INI International............. Richmond.............. CA..... 94804..... Pasta, oils, sauces, condiments etc........................... 20,000
Internationai Commodity Sonoma................ CA..... 95476..... Processed, deli meats......................................... 10,000
Consultants, Inc.
Jewel Date Company............ Palm Desert........... CA..... 92260..... processed products............................................ 25,000
Joseph Gallo Farms............ Atwater............... CA..... 95301..... Cheeses/Dairy Products........................................ 10,000
Kashi Company................. La Jolla.............. CA..... 92038..... Cereals....................................................... 10,000
Kautz Ironstone Vineyards..... Murphys............... CA..... 95247..... wine.......................................................... 67,000
Kenwood Vineyards............. Kenwood............... CA..... 95452..... Wine.......................................................... 16,000
Laurel Glen Vineyard.......... Glen Ellen............ CA..... 95442..... wine.......................................................... 5,000
Les Vins de' Amour............ Huntington Beach...... CA..... 92647..... Juices, wine, cookies, canned fruit, soft drinks.............. 10,000
Lion Enterprises.............. Fresno................ CA..... 93702..... raisins....................................................... 37,500
Louis M. Martini Winery....... St. Helena............ CA..... 94574..... California Wine............................................... 15,000
Lundberg Family Farms......... Richvale.............. CA..... 95974..... Rice products................................................. 15,000
Mashuga Nuts, Inc............. San Rafael............ CA..... 94903..... Nut & Cookies................................................. 18,000
Mayacamas Fine Foods, Inc..... Sonoma................ CA..... 95476..... Pastas, Soups, Sauces......................................... 5,000
Merryvale Vineyards........... St. Helena............ CA..... 94574..... wine.......................................................... 55,000
Mooney Farms.................. Chico................. CA..... 95973..... sun dried tomato pesto, tomatoes, kiwi fruit.................. 45,000
Mrs. Leeper's, Inc............ San Diego............. CA..... 92127..... Pasta......................................................... 15,000
Nancy's Specialty Foods....... Newark................ CA..... 94560..... quiche........................................................ 15,000
National Raisin Co............ Fowler................ CA..... 93625..... raisins....................................................... 37,500
Newton Vineyard............... St. Helena............ CA..... 94574..... wine.......................................................... 8,200
Oceanica Trade S Investment, Redondo Beach......... CA..... 90277..... seafood products.............................................. 10,000
Inc.
Organic Ingredients, Inc...... Aptos................. CA..... 95003..... .............................................................. 10,000
Otis McAllister Inc........... San Francisco......... CA..... 94111..... Fruit Juices.................................................. 25,000
Pacific Grain Products, Inc... Woodland.............. CA..... 95776..... Various flavored Chips and Crackers, Industrial Snacks........ 20,000
Pacific Micro-Brews Walnut Creek.......... CA..... 94595..... Microbrewed ales.............................................. 5,000
Distributing, Inc.
Paramount Farms............... Bakersfield........... CA..... 93380..... Pistachios.................................................... 50,000
Prince Of Peace Enterprises, San Francisco......... CA..... 94124..... Beverages..................................................... 150,000
Inc.
Purepak, Inc.................. Oxnard................ CA..... 93032..... Sliced strawberries, organic; sorbet, soups, strawberries..... 65,000
Quady Winery.................. Madera................ CA..... 93639..... wine.......................................................... 11,000
Renaissance Vineyard & Winery, Renaissance........... CA..... 95962..... wine.......................................................... 10,000
Inc.
Roma Exporting Company, Inc... San Diego............. CA..... 92101..... Italian products, oil, cold-cuts, sauces, pasta............... 5,000
Round Hill Winery............. St. Helena............ CA..... 94574..... wine.......................................................... 16,000
Royal Pacific Foods........... Pleasanton............ CA..... 94566..... grocery products line......................................... 10,000
Rutherford Benchmarks, Inc.... St. Helena............ CA..... 94574..... wine.......................................................... 10,000
R.H. Phillips'................ ...................... CA..... 95627..... Wine.......................................................... 10,000
R.W. Garcia Co., Inc.......... San Jose.............. CA..... 95112..... Salad Eatos-Flavored Chip Strips, Dips and Salsas, Tortillas.. 10,000
Sahara Natural Foods, Inc..... San Leandro........... CA..... 94577..... Soup, salad mixes, seasonings, rice, dips..................... 25,000
Sato Agricultural Trading Fresno................ CA..... 93710..... Fresh fruits.................................................. 5,000
Company.
Schug Carneros Estate Winery.. Sonoma................ CA..... 95476..... wine.......................................................... 19,000
Sea And Farmfresh Importing Alhambra.............. CA..... 91803..... seafood....................................................... 56,000
Company.
Sequoia Grove Vineyards....... Napa.................. CA..... 94558..... wine.......................................................... 2,000
Shafer Vineyards.............. Napa.................. CA..... 94558..... wine.......................................................... 2,000
Shoei Foods USA............... Marysville............ CA..... 95901..... Dried fruit & nuts............................................ 48,000
Smith-Anderson Enterprises, Huntington Park....... CA..... 90255..... California Wine............................................... 25,000
Inc.
Soltec Corporation............ San Fernando.......... CA..... 91341..... Cookies, candies, juices, condiments, sauces, cakes, vege..... 5,000
Sonoma Creek Winery........... Sonoma................ CA..... 95476..... wine.......................................................... 2,000
Spring Mountain Vineyard...... St. Helena............ CA..... 94574..... wine.......................................................... 7,500
Spring Tree Food Corporation.. Oakdale............... CA..... 95361..... Nuts.......................................................... 15,000
State Fish Company, Inc....... San Pedro............. CA..... 90731..... seafood....................................................... 15,000
St. George Spirits............ Oakland............... CA..... 94618..... Brandies, dessert wines, grappa............................... 10,000
Summerfield Foods, Inc........ Santa Rosa............ CA..... 95401..... Fat Free Soup, Refried beans, Chili Cookies; `Car','C......... 15,000
Sun Maid...................... Kingsburg............. CA..... 93631..... California Raisins............................................ 150,000
Sunkist Growers............... Sherman Oaks.......... CA..... 91423..... Fresh Citrus.................................................. 2,531,247
Sunsweet Growers, Inc......... Pleasanton............ CA..... 94566..... Prunes........................................................ 641,000
The California Winery......... Ceres................. CA..... 95307..... wine.......................................................... 49,000
Traditional Medicinals Inc.... Sebastopol............ CA..... 95472..... Natural & Health Foods........................................ 5,000
Trans USA Corporation......... Richmond.............. CA..... 94806..... Vegetables, fruits, condiments................................ 20,000
Tri-Valley Growers............ San Ramon............. CA..... 94583..... Canned Vegetables, Popcorn.................................... 206,000
Turlock Fruit Company, Inc.... Turlock............... CA..... 95381..... Melons........................................................ 5,000
Valley Fig Growers............ Pleasanton............ CA..... 94588..... Dried Fruit................................................... 30,000
Ventana Vineyards............. Monterey.............. CA..... 93940..... wine.......................................................... 7,500
Very Special Chocolates, Inc.. Azusa................. CA..... 91702..... Candy......................................................... 91,000
Well-Pict, Inc................ Watsonville........... CA..... 95076..... Fresh Fruit................................................... 30,000
Wente Vineyards............... Livermore............. CA..... 94550..... Owine......................................................... 250,000
Western Bagel Baking.......... Van Nuys.............. CA..... 91405..... Bagels........................................................ 5,000
Wild Rice Exchange............ Yuba City............. CA..... 95993..... rice.......................................................... 35,000
Will-Pak Foods, Inc........... Harbor City........... CA..... 90710..... Instant side dishes, soups, chili, beans...................... 5,000
Wines Of America, Ltd......... Larkspur.............. CA..... 94939..... Wine.......................................................... 15,000
Worldwide Sires, Inc.......... Hanford............... CA..... 93230..... Frozen Bovine Semen........................................... 47,000
ZB Industries, Inc............ San Pedro............. CA..... 90733..... Frozen Seafood Entrees, Frozen Stir-Fry Vegetables............ 15,000
Colorado Came Tradin.......... Winter Park........... CO..... 80482..... Beef cattle, semen and embryos................................ 4,000
Great Western Tortilla Co..... Denver................ CO..... 80216..... salsas, tortilla chips........................................ 15,000
Lee Enterprises............... Denver................ CO..... 80222..... Beef.......................................................... 12,000
My Favorite Jerky LLC......... Boulder............... CO..... 80302..... Meat snacks................................................... 3,000
Rocky Mountain Chocolate Durango............... CO..... 81301..... Chocolate and non chocolate confectionery..................... 26,000
Factory.
Vancol Industries, Inc........ Denver................ CO..... 80229..... Carbonated soft drinks, flavored water........................ 25,000
Western Export Services, Inc.. Denver................ CO..... 80202..... grocery products, malt beverage, Beer......................... 2,000
American Popcorn Corp......... Greenwich............. CT..... 06830..... Salted, Cheese, Caramel, Chocolate, Fruit Popcorn............. 15,000
Amoona Inc.................... Milford............... CT..... 06460..... Prepared Foods................................................ 50,000
International Marketing Shelton............... CT..... 06484..... grocery products.............................................. ...........
Systems, Ltd.
Newman's Own Inc.............. Westport.............. CT..... 06880..... salad dressing................................................ 45,000
Donovan Brown & Associates.... Lakeland.............. FL..... 33801..... Fruit Juices.................................................. 22,500
Edimar International.......... Miami................. FL..... 33175..... Condiments, Sauces, Pastas, Peanut Butter..................... 10,000
Imperial Packers and Hialeah............... FL..... 33010..... Lugareno Superior Spanish Sausages............................ 4,500
Purveyors, Inc.
Perky's Food Service Concepts, Tampa................. FL..... 33610..... Dough, refrigerated dry mixes, Pizza products................. 7,000
Inc.
Allied Foods, Inc............. Atlanta............... GA..... 30318..... Pet foods..................................................... 10,000
American Tanning & Leather Griffen............... GA..... 30223..... Alligator Hides............................................... 12,000
Company.
Coffees of Hawaii, Inc........ Kualapuu.............. Hl..... 96757..... Coffee........................................................ 15,000
Equipment Team Hawaii......... Honolulu.............. HI..... 96820..... fruit......................................................... 5,000
French Gourmet Inc............ Honolulu.............. HI..... 96813..... Bakery Products............................................... 105,000
Hawaiian Host, Inc............ Honolulu.............. HI..... 96817..... Chocolate Covered Macnuts and Other Related Products.......... 44,000
Hawaiian Sun Products......... Honolulu.............. HI..... 96819..... Nut and Fruit Products........................................ 25,000
Naturipe Berry Growers, Inc... Pahoa................. HI..... 96778..... Frozen Fruits................................................. 25,000
American Pop Corn Company..... Sioux City............ IA..... 51102..... popcorn....................................................... 13,000
American Protein Corporation.. Ames.................. IA..... 50010..... Porcine/Bov. Immunoglobulin, Plasma & Alb..................... 9,000
Ampc, Inc..................... Ames.................. IA..... 50010..... 80 percent WPC................................................ 7,000
Burke Corporation............. Nevada................ IA..... 50201..... Beef/Pork Protein............................................. 2,000
Devansoy Farms, Inc........... Carroll............... IA..... 51401..... Soy products.................................................. 3,000
Diamond V Mills, Inc.......... Cedar Rapids.......... IA..... 52407..... Feed.......................................................... 8,000
Maplehurst Genetics........... Keota................. IA..... 52248..... Frozen Bovine Semen........................................... 3,000
Midamar Corporation........... Cedar Rapids.......... IA..... 52406..... poultry, processed meats...................................... 7,000
Midwestern Soybean Mason City............ IA..... 50402..... soybeans (dry, edible)........................................ 3,000
International.
Mrs. Clark's Foods, Inc....... Ankeny................ IA..... 50211..... Fruit drink concentrate, juices, salad dressing, condiments... 3,000
Natural Products, Inc......... Grinnell.............. IA..... 50112..... Soy protein products, bakery ingredients, humanitarian........ 6,000
Nutra-Flo Company............. Soiux City............ IA..... 51106..... Dry animal protein feed ingredient............................ 7,000
Sioux Honey Association....... Sioux City............ IA..... 51101..... Honey......................................................... 49,000
Triple F. Inc................. Des Moines............ IA..... 50322..... Animal Feed Additives......................................... 1,000
Idaho Pacific Corporation..... Ririe................. ID..... 83443..... Seasoned & regular Potato Granules, Potato Flakes............. 25,000
Idahoan Foods................. Lewisville............ ID..... 83431..... potatoe products.............................................. 20,000
Magic Miles Ud., Inc.......... Nampa................. ID..... 83651..... Potato flakes................................................. 39,000
Universal Frozen Foods........ Boise................. ID..... 83706..... Frozen Potato Products........................................ 8,500
American Food Service, U.S.A.. Chicago............... IL..... 60626..... Spray oils, snack cakes, peanut bars, baking mixes, etc....... 4,000
Andrew Glueck................. Chicago............... IL..... 60614..... Popcorn, microwave, popping................................... 2,000
Berner Cheese Company......... Dakota................ IL..... 61018..... Aerosol Cheese Sauce, Cheese Sauce, Cheese Topping............ 5,000
Clarkson Grain Co., Inc....... Cerro Gordo........... IL..... 61818..... Food grade soybeans........................................... 6,000
Distributors International Ltd Batavia............... IL..... 60510..... Assorted crackers, baking mixes, breakfast cereals etc........ 6,000
Eli's Chicago's Finest Chicago............... IL..... 60634..... Baked Cheese Cake............................................. 3,000
Cheasecake.
Essen Nutrition Corp.......... Romeoville............ IL..... 60446..... sauces, syrup, mixes, salad dressings, mayonnaise............. 2,000
Ferrara Pan Candy Company..... Forest Park........... IL..... 60130..... Confectionery................................................. 10,000
Foulds, Inc................... Libertyville.......... IL..... 60048..... macaroni and cheese mix....................................... 3,000
Global Marketing Ltd.......... Niles................. IL..... 60714..... Organic plant extract fertilizers............................. 8,000
L P International............. Chicago............... IL..... 60632..... BBQ Sauce, Cheese Dips, Taco Sauce, Flour Tortillas etc....... 7,000
Land O'Frost.................. Lansing............... IL..... 60438..... processed poultry, meats, entree meals........................ 4,000
Little Lady Foods, Inc........ Elk Grove Village..... IL..... 60007..... French Bread Pizza, pizza products............................ 3,000
Milk Specialities Co.......... Dundee................ IL..... 60118..... Feed supplements for dairy cows............................... 4,000
Roney-Oatman.................. Aurora................ IL..... 60506..... ice cream, frozen shakes...................................... 1,000
Sahagian & Associates, Inc.... Oak Park.............. IL..... 60302..... Corn Sticks & popcorn kernels................................. 7,000
TKI Foods, Inc................ Springfield........... IL..... 62708..... Meal Replacement.............................................. 7,000
Vienna Sausage Manufacturing Chicago............... IL..... 60647..... Value added meats............................................. 3,000
Co.
Jones Popcorninc.DBA Clark New Albany............ IN..... 47150..... Popcorn, microwave and unpopped............................... 1,000
Snack.
Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc..... Evansville............ IN..... 47711..... pet food (cat, dog)........................................... 7,000
B & H General Supply.......... Leawood............... KS..... 66211..... Beans, Honey, Sauce, Salad Dressing, Mustard etc.............. 1,000
Pines International........... Lawrence.............. KS..... 66044..... Wheat Powder, tabs............................................ 6,000
Thompson's Pet Pasta Products. Kansas City........... KS..... 66105..... Pet food...................................................... 4,000
Korbel Brands................. Louisville............ KY..... 40201..... Wine/Brandy................................................... 50,000
Chef Paul Prudhomme's Magic Harahan............... LA..... 70183..... Sauces and Spices............................................. 5,000
Seasoning Bl.
Crystal International New Orleans........... LA..... 70119..... Trading Company General Grocery Line.......................... 270,000
Corporation.
J.T. Gibbons.................. New Orleans........... LA..... 70150..... Trading Company General Grocery Line.......................... 50,000
KSM Seafood Corporation....... Baton Rouge........... LA..... 70821..... Seafood end Aquaculture....................................... 25,000
Annie's Homegrown, Inc........ Chelsea............... MA..... 02150..... Macaroni/Cheese Dinners....................................... 20,000
Boston Beer Company........... Boston................ MA..... 02130..... Beer.......................................................... 15,000
Cape Cod Potato Chip Co....... Hyannis............... MA..... 02601..... SNKSL, Potato Chips........................................... 14,400
Decas Cranberry Sales, Inc.... Wareham............... MA..... 02571..... fresh/frozen cranberries...................................... 50,000
East Coast Seafood, Inc....... Lynn.................. MA..... 01903..... American Lobster, Skate, Monkfish, & Dogfish.................. 171,000
New England Natural Bakers, South Deerfield....... MA..... 01373..... Trail Mix, Dried Fruit, Nut Mix, Granola...................... 9,000
Inc.
Ocean Spray International, Inc Lakeville-Middleboro.. MA..... 02349..... Cranberry Products............................................ 336,604
U.S. Mills, Inc............... Needham............... MA..... 02194..... Cereal........................................................ 3,000
Welch Foods Inc., A Concord............... MA..... 01742..... Welch's 100 percent Grape Juices.............................. 10,000
Cooperative.
Welch Foods, Inc.............. Concord............... MA..... 01742..... Welch's Fruit Drinks, Fruit Juices............................ 695,391
John T. Handy Company......... Chrisfield............ MD..... 21817..... Seafood end Aquaculture....................................... 30,000
Maine Potato Growers, Inc..... Presque Isle.......... ME..... 07469..... Seed and Table Potatoes....................................... 5,000
American Health and Nutrition, Ann Arbor............. MI..... 48108..... Beans, buckwheat, wheat, sunflower seeds, rye, barley etc..... 3,000
Inc.
Cherrex Corporation........... Okemos................ MI..... 48864..... Frozen Cherries, Cherry Concentrate........................... 2,000
Graceland Fruit Cooperative, Frankfort............. MI..... 49635..... dried carrot, peach, apple, blueberry, cherry, cranberry...... 6,000
Inc.
Honee Bear Canning............ Lawton................ MI..... 49065..... Canned Cherries (Pitted Red Tart, Dark Sweet)................. 2,000
House of Flavors Inc.......... Ludington............. MI..... 49431..... Ice cream..................................................... 2,000
Kalsec Inc.................... Kalamazoo............. MI..... 49005..... extractives of paprika, hops and capsicum..................... 2,000
Purity Foods International.... Okemos................ MI..... 48864..... Microwave Popcorn............................................. 1,000
SunRich, Inc.................. Hope.................. MI..... 56046..... Organic corn sweeteners, soy beverages, seed corn etc......... 6,000
A.G. Beverage Corporation..... Minneapolis........... MN..... 55439..... Soft drink mixes, powder...................................... 5,000
Cafe Brenda Foods, Inc........ Minneapolis........... MN..... 55401..... Cous Cous Vegetable, Buckwheat Potato, Wild Pecan Rice........ 2,000
Cerveza Caliente Brewing St. Paul.............. MN..... 55104..... Beer.......................................................... 1,000
Company.
Dahigren & Company, Inc....... Crookston............. MN..... 56716..... Dairy Products................................................ 4,000
Davisco Foods International, Le Sueur.............. MN..... 56058..... Whey Protein concentrate WPC, Refined Edible Lactose.......... 6,000
Inc.
Knight Seed Company........... Burnsville............ MN..... 55337..... Dry edible beans, bird and small animal feed.................. 3,000
Lamex Foods, Inc.............. Edina................. MN..... 55435..... chicken broth................................................. 40,000
Link Industries............... Minong................ MN..... 54859..... kippered beef regular flavor, and black pepper................ 4,000
Northland Organics Food St. Paul.............. MN..... 55102..... Dairy feed, rice, prepared foods, soybean and grains.......... 6,000
Corporation.
Quality Ingredients Burnsville............ MN..... 55306..... Instant cappuccino, whip topping powder, non-dairy creamer.... 5,000
Corporation.
Ryt-Way Food Products......... Northfield............ MN..... 55057..... Microwave popcorn............................................. 1,000
Sigco Sun Products, Inc....... Breckenridge.......... MN..... 56520..... Sunflower Inshell............................................. 4,000
Sno Pac Foods................. Caledonia............. MN..... 55921..... Frozen fruits and vegetables.................................. 2,000
Zinpro Corporation............ Eden Prairie.......... MN..... 55944..... Roasted Corn, Beans, Margarita Mix, Vinegars, Marinade........ 7,000
Accelerated Genetics.......... Colombia.............. MO..... 65205..... US animal breeders............................................ 11,800
Farmland Industries, Inc...... Kansas City........... MO..... 64116..... Pet Foods..................................................... 2,000
Gastineau Log Homes, Inc...... New Bloomfield........ MO..... 65063..... Log homes (wood).............................................. 1,000
Hammons Products Company...... Stockton.............. MO..... 65785..... Shelled black walnuts, nutmeats............................... 3,000
HS Trading Co................. Manchester............ MO..... 63021..... Bagels, specialty cookie...................................... 53,000
International Dehydrated Springfield........... MO..... 65809..... Shelf stable broth, liquid fat, powdered meat, broth, fat..... 3,000
Foods, Inc.
International Ingredient St. Louis............. MO..... 63116..... feed ingredients.............................................. 7,000
Corporation.
John Volpi & Company, Inc..... St. Louis............. MO..... 63110..... Traditional Italian Prosciutto and Rotola..................... 12,000
Lochhead Vanilla Company LLC.. St. Louis............. MO..... 63132..... Vanilla powder, pure vanilla and other extracts, nutmeg....... 5,000
NeCo Seed Farms, Inc.......... Garden City........... MO..... 64747..... Soybeans...................................................... 7,000
Par-Way/Tryson Company........ St. Clair............. MO..... 63077..... Seasoned oil sprays, soybean oil.............................. 6,000
Raskas Foods, Inc............. Clayton............... MO..... 63105..... Cream Cheese.................................................. 3,000
RIBUS, Inc.................... St. Louis............. MO..... 63105..... Processing aid ingredient for foods........................... 4,000
T.C. Jacoby & Company, Inc.... St. Louis............. MO..... 63127..... Cheese and cream cheese....................................... 2,000
Prickly Pear Ranch............ Helena................ MT..... 59601..... Bovine Genetics............................................... 4,880
Advanced Nutritionals Maple Grove........... NC..... 55369..... Energy Drink Mixes............................................ 4,000
Coporation.
American Sales International.. Charlotte............. NC..... 28209..... Shallowford Farms/Popcorn, Carolina's Best Popcorn............ 5,000
Beacon Sweets, Inc............ Mooresville........... NC..... 28115..... Hard candy & Gummy candy in the shape of watch/footprint...... 17,000
Pogue Industries, Inc......... Raleigh............... NC..... 27615..... pasta, popcorn, sauces........................................ 2,000
PS International.............. Durham................ NC..... 27713..... Wheat flour, rice, popcorn, lentils, peas..................... 15,050
Agway Inc..................... Grandin............... ND..... 58038..... Hulled Millet, Confection Sunflower........................... 23,000
Golden Valley Elk Ranch....... Portland.............. ND..... 58274..... Elk velvet.................................................... 3,000
North American Bison New Rockford.......... ND..... 58356..... Bison Meat & Products......................................... 2,000
Cooperative.
SK Food International......... Wahpeton.............. ND..... 58074..... Salty Snacks.................................................. 4,000
Specialty Commodities, Inc.... Fargo................. ND..... 58106..... Sunflower(in shell), Sunflower kernel......................... 4,000
Excalibur Sires............... Rochester............. NE..... 59906..... Bovine Genetics............................................... 4,000
Heartland Beef Sales, Inc..... Omaha................. NE..... 68106..... Beef w/peppers and onions, Portioned sliced beef, poultry..... 2,000
Mann Hay Co., Inc............. Gothenburg............ NE..... 69138..... Dairy feed.................................................... 2,000
Morrison Farms................ Clearwater............ NE..... 68726..... microwave popcorn............................................. 6,000
Nebraska Bean, Inc............ Clearwater............ NE..... 68726..... Packaged beans and grain products............................. 4,000
Preferred Popcorn L.L.C....... Chapman............... NE..... 68827..... Raw yellow popcorn............................................ 5,000
Biosan Laboratories, Inc...... Derry................. NH..... 03038..... Health/Diet................................................... 60,000
American Caribbean Business, Roselle............... NJ..... 07203..... Grocery Prods--Veget, Canfr, Fruit, Snkfd, Snkcn, etc......... 12,500
Inc.
American Snack Exports Co..... Dayton................ NJ..... 08810..... Salty Snack Foods, SNKSL...................................... 15,000
American Standard Products, Hasbrouck Heights..... NJ..... 07604..... Shrimp Feed................................................... 6,000
Inc.
Angostura International Ltd... Cranford.............. NJ..... 07016..... FRTJU, CONDI-non-alcoholic mixers and sauces.................. 24,800
Elbron Holding Co............. Hackensack............ NJ..... 07606..... Grocery Prods-Condi, Juice, BkCer, Prodp, Snkpc, etc.......... 25,000
Goody, Inc.................... East Brunswick........ NJ..... 08816..... pretzels...................................................... 261,000
Jersey Asparagus Farms, Inc... Pittsgove............. NJ..... 08318..... Asparagus Seed & Crowns....................................... 5,000
Kwik Enterprises.............. Oakhurst.............. NJ..... 07753..... Snack Food.................................................... 25,500
Skaftafell International Oak Ridge............. NJ..... 07438..... Grocery Products.............................................. 12,500
Grocery.
Sovereign Trading Company..... Englishtown........... NJ..... 07726..... cereal, fruit, juice, pet food, vegetables.................... 35,000
S & A International........... Linden................ NJ..... 07036..... vegetables, condiments, cereals, snacks....................... 80,000
S & R Trading................. Edison................ NJ..... 08810..... Grocery Products.............................................. 12,500
TRT International............. Elizabeth............. NJ..... 07201..... mayonnaise.................................................... 60,000
Blue Sky Natural Beverage Co.. Santa Fe.............. NM..... 87501..... Beverages..................................................... 5,000
J-K Products International.... Albuquerque........... NM..... 87192..... processed products............................................ 5,000
Navajo Agricultural Products Las Cruces............ NM..... 88003..... Beans, alfalfa pellets........................................ 5,000
Industry.
Stahmann Farms, Inc........... San Miguel............ NM..... 88058..... pecan nuts.................................................... 5,000
Flavor Consultants............ Las Vegas............. NV..... 89128..... Soy proteins.................................................. 5,000
Amal Meat Corp................ Jamaica............... NY..... 11432..... grocery products/ condiments.................................. ...........
Anthony Road Wine Company..... Penn Yan.............. NY..... 14527..... Wine.......................................................... 2,000
Arcadian Estate Vineyards..... Rock Stream........... NY..... 14878..... wine.......................................................... 1,000
Baldwin Vineyards............. Pine Bush............. NY..... 12566..... Wine.......................................................... 7,000
Baycliff Co. Inc.............. New York.............. NY..... 10021..... PREPF, RICE, prepared foods and rice.......................... 6,250
Calico Cottage Candies, Inc... Mineola............... NY..... 11501..... Dry Fudge Candy Mix........................................... 7,500
Camiz International........... New York.............. NY..... 10001..... Cd FT, Dairy Prod, Snack Bakery Prod, Condiments.............. 80,000
Cayuga Ridge Estate Winery.... Ovid.................. NY..... 14521..... wine.......................................................... 4,000
Curtice Burns Foods........... Rochester............. NY..... 14625..... fruit fillings, frz veg, proc. tomatoes, pop corn snack....... 15,000
Dr. Konstantin Frank.......... Hammondsport.......... NY..... 14840..... Wine.......................................................... 4,000
Export Trade Of America....... New York.............. NY..... 10003..... Canned Vegetables............................................. 18,000
Glenora Wine Cellars, Inc..... Dundee................ NY..... 14837..... N.Y. Wine..................................................... 2,000
Global Beverage Company....... Rochester............. NY..... 14625..... beverages..................................................... 15,000
Global Export Marketing New York.............. NY..... 10001..... TexMex, Salad Dressing, condiments, Vegetable................. 75,000
Company.
Hansmann's Mills, Inc......... Bainbridge............ NY..... 13733..... Bakery Products, Condiment.................................... 17,500
Hunt Country Vineyards........ Branchport............ NY..... 14418..... wine.......................................................... 2,000
Hunter & Hillsberg............ Syracuse.............. NY..... 13207..... maple syrup/candy/cream, wine................................. 9,000
Kozy Shack, Inc............... Hicksville............ NY..... 11802..... dairy products, pudding....................................... 60,000
Lakewood Vineyards............ Watkins Glen.......... NY..... 14891..... wine.......................................................... 2,000
Lamoreaux Landing Wine Cellars Lodi.................. NY..... 14424..... Wine.......................................................... 4,000
Liberty Growers Inc........... Valatie............... NY..... 12184..... mixed fruits promoted in a group, pears, peaches & others..... 50,000
Loriva Supreme Foods Inc...... Ronkonkoma............ NY..... 11779..... Vegetable Oil................................................. 10,500
Mom 'n Pops................... New Windsor........... NY..... 12553..... Chocolate confectionery....................................... 3,000
New Source Co................. Brooklyn.............. NY..... 11230..... Juices, CONDI, BKCER, VEGET, Cn Fruit, SNKPC, CnSfd........... 25,000
Northeast Group............... Monsley............... NY..... 10952..... grocery products.............................................. 50,000
Old London Foods.............. Bronx................. NY..... 10461..... SNKBK, PROCP.................................................. 15,000
Ontario International, Inc.... Syracuse.............. NY..... 13206..... Fresh Vegetables.............................................. 26,000
Romeo's Exotic Juice Inc...... Brooklyn.............. NY..... 11205..... Other dairy products.......................................... 12,500
Unilink Inc./lnterffost Inc... East Rochester........ NY..... 14445..... SCORN-nut corn, VEGET, OTVEG, SNKPC--popcorn.................. 100,000
Wagner Vineyards.............. Lodi.................. NY..... 14860..... N.Y. Wine..................................................... 6,000
Candy Flowers, Inc............ Mentor................ OH..... 44060..... Chocolate and non chocolate confectionery..................... 24,000
Certified Angus Beef.......... Wooster............... OH..... 44691..... Beef.......................................................... 39,650
Four Comer Trading............ Columbus.............. OH..... 43214..... Dried soup mixes, dressings, flavored mustards, dried fr...... 6,000
Kahiki Foods, Inc............. Columbus.............. OH..... 43213..... Meals-Entrees................................................. 4,000
O Neil Foods, Inc............. Garfield Heights...... OH..... 44125..... Soy protein concentrate....................................... 2,000
Select Sires.................. Plain City............ OH..... 43064..... Frozen Bovine Semen........................................... 20,000
Smith Dairy Product Company... Orrville.............. OH..... 44667..... yogurt, ice cream, dairy products............................. 4,000
Weaver Meats, Inc............. Painesville........... OH..... 44077..... Snackfoods.................................................... 5,000
Agripac, Inc.................. Salem................. OR..... 97304..... Vegetables-canned and frozen.................................. 30,000
Amos Ranch.................... Camos Valley.......... OR..... 97416..... Simmental Semen............................................... 1,125
Golden Temple Bakery, Inc..... Eugene................ OR..... 97402..... Cereals....................................................... 30,000
Klamath Valley Botanicals, Ltd Chiloquin............. OR..... 80231..... Organic products, juices, algae, cereals...................... 5,000
Norpac Foods.................. Lake Oswego........... OR..... 97035..... Canned and Frozen Corn........................................ 10,000
Oregon Brewing Company, Inc... Newport............... OR..... 97365..... Various beers................................................. 5,000
Oregon Potato Company......... Boardman.............. OR..... 97818..... Potato Flakes................................................. 20,000
Piazza Pizza.................. Clackamas............. OR..... 97015..... Plzza......................................................... 10,000
Portland Brewing Company...... Portland.............. OR..... 97210..... Beer.......................................................... 25,000
Rossha Enterprises, Inc....... Keno.................. OR..... 97627..... Blue-green algae products..................................... 20,000
Turtle Mountain, Inc.......... Junction City......... OR..... 97448..... Frozen deserts................................................ 14,000
Western Family Foods, Inc..... Tigard................ OR..... 87223..... grocery products.............................................. 30,000
Ag-Link International, Inc.... Tunkhannock........... PA..... 18657..... Frozen Bovine Semen & Embryos................................. 5,417
Amerifood Snacks.............. York.................. PA..... 17404..... Snack foods................................................... ...........
Anderson Bakery Company....... Lancaster............. PA..... 17602..... Pretzels...................................................... 60,000
Bell Export Foods Group....... Philadelphia.......... PA..... 19106..... meat products, soups, cookies................................. 15,000
Chenango Valley Pet Foods..... Allentown............. PA..... 18103..... Pet Food...................................................... 75,000
Esporonto Exports Inc......... Langhorne............. PA..... 19047..... YOICE--yogurt and ice cream................................... 50,000
Goldenberg Candy Co........... Philadelphia.......... PA..... 19140..... Confectionery................................................. 270,000
International Custom Products Dubois................ PA..... 15801..... food ingred's, cheese & othr dairy prods, CONDI, PROCP........ 25,000
Inc.
Jack And Jill Ice Cream Bensalem.............. PA..... 19020..... Ice Cream..................................................... 60,000
Company.
Jeremy's Microbatch Ice Cream. Philadelphia.......... PA..... 19104..... ice cream and yogurt--YOICE................................... 5,000
John Lustig Meats Inc......... Quakertown............ PA..... 18951..... cold cuts-bologna, salami, rs bf, ht dogs, bf bkfst strip..... 15,000
LDI Inc. Vege Pretzel Co...... Hanover............... PA..... 17331..... SNKSL-pretzels................................................ 12,500
North American Pet Products, Lancaster............. PA..... 17603..... dog foods..................................................... 60,000
Inc.
Omega Pet Professionals Inc... Lithe................. PA..... 17543..... PETFD......................................................... 10,000
Premium Grocery Exports....... Lancaster............. PA..... 17604..... Condiments.................................................... 50,000
Sire Power, Inc............... Tunkhannock........... PA..... 18657..... Frozen Bovine Semen........................................... 9,000
Sweet Street Desserts, Inc.... Reading............... PA..... 19605..... snack foods................................................... 18,500
S.B. Global Trading Co........ Flourtown............. PA..... 19031..... TexMex, Bakery Products....................................... 75,000
Ziegler Brothers, Inc......... Gardeners............. PA..... 17324..... Shrimp, larval, trout, tilapia, salmon and flake feeds........ 15,000
Deep Sea Fish................. Wakefieid............. Rl..... 02880..... Seafood....................................................... 16,500
SeaFresh USA Inc.............. Narrangansett......... RI..... 02882..... Dogfish, Monkfish, Squid, Skate, Northern Shrimp.............. 7,800
Young Pecan Company........... Florence.............. SC..... 29502..... Tree Nuts..................................................... 10,000
International Brand Services, Somerville............ TN..... 38068..... Baked Goods................................................... 5,000
Inc.
American Fine Wines........... The Woodlands......... TX..... 77380..... wine.......................................................... 6,000
Billy Blues Food Corp......... San Antonio........... TX..... 78209..... Sauces and Spices............................................. 25,000
Blue Bell Creameries, L.P..... Brenham............... TX..... 77834..... Ice Cream/Yogurt.............................................. 5,000
Bovine Elite, Inc............. College Station....... TX..... 77840..... Bovine Genetics............................................... 4,000
Elgin Breeding Service........ Elgin................. TX..... 78621..... US Genetics-Bovine Semen...................................... 4,000
H & H Foods................... Mercedes.............. TX..... 78570..... Trading Company General Grocery Line.......................... 5,000
Jardine Foods................. Buda.................. TX..... 78610..... Trading Company General Grocery Line.......................... 15,000
Sunday House Foods, Inc....... Fredericksburg,....... TX..... 78624..... Further processed chicken/turkey.............................. 5,000
The El Paso Chile Company..... El Paso............... TX..... 79901..... Salsas, spicy dips, Margarita and Bloody Mary Mixes, must..... 94,000
Tri City Sales................ El Paso............... TX..... 79905..... Ethnic Foods.................................................. 20,000
Bear Creek Country Kitchens, Heber................. UT..... 84032..... Oils-organic.................................................. 30,000
Inc.
Cookietree Bakeries........... Salt Lake City........ UT..... 84123..... Snack Foods................................................... 127,000
McFarland's Foods, Inc........ Riverton.............. UT..... 84065..... soup base (paste), chicken breast, chicken bacon.............. 25,000
Norbest....................... Midvale............... UT..... 84047..... Further process turkey and whole turkey....................... 32,500
Parker International, Inc..... Salt City City........ UT..... 84111..... Beef Variety Meats............................................ 57,500
Tropical Sno.................. Draper................ UT..... 84020..... Frozen yogurt, Ices, lemonade, syrups......................... 5,000
AMS Genetics.................. Richmond.............. VA..... 23233..... Angus Embryo Promotion........................................ 4,000
ASB Group International....... Vienna................ VA..... 22182..... Snack Food.................................................... 100,000
Export Dairy Inc.............. Alexandria............ VA..... 22304..... Various Dairy Products-Butter, Cheese, YOICE, etc............. 7,000
International Seafood Hayes................. VA..... 23072..... Sea Scallops, Conch, Monkfish, Crab, Dogfish, Eels............ 28,000
Distributors.
Annie's Naturals.............. North Calais.......... VT..... 05650..... Condiments.................................................... 5,000
Maple Grove Farms Of Vermont.. St. Johnsbury......... VT..... 5819...... Bakery, Maple Product, Salad Dressing, Condiment, Sauce....... 12,500
Rhino Foods, Inc.............. Burlington............ VT..... 05401..... Cheesecake.................................................... 5,000
2020 Development Co., LLC..... Woodinville........... WA..... 98072..... Beverages..................................................... 30,000
Alaska Smokehouse............. Woodinville........... WA..... 98072..... Smoked Salmon................................................. 30,000
Ames International, Inc....... Federal Way........... WA..... 98003..... Nuts & Nut Products........................................... 25,000
Aspen International Export Inc Seattle............... WA..... 98101..... grocery products.............................................. 15,000
Brown & Haley................. Tacoma................ WA..... 98401..... Confectionery, buttercrunch, boxed chocolate.................. 70,000
Buckeye Bean & Herbs, Inc..... Spokane............... WA..... 99217..... Pastas, dry soup, bread, sauce mixes.......................... 10,000
Capilano Pacific, Inc......... Spokane............... WA..... 99217..... Pasta & dry mixes............................................. 10,000
Cascade Clear Water Co........ Burlington............ WA..... 98233..... beverages..................................................... 30,000
Chief Wenatchee............... Wenatchee............. WA..... 98801..... Fresh Fruit................................................... 5,000
Chukar Cherry Company......... Prosser............... WA..... 99350..... Cherry & Berry Products....................................... 5,000
DaVinci Gourmet, Ltd.......... Seattle............... WA..... 98108..... Mochas, dessert sauces, lattes................................ 26,000
Excel Trade Limited........... Seattle............... WA..... 98105..... Frozen Desserts............................................... 5,000
Global Trading Resource....... Bellevue.............. WA..... 98004..... Condiments and vegetable oils, flour, turkey.................. 10,000
International Market Brands... Kirkland.............. WA..... 98034..... Canned & Frozen Vegetables/processed chicken.................. 72,000
James Farrell & Company....... Seattle............... WA..... 98104..... Dairy products................................................ 32,000
Jana Brands, Inc.............. Bellevue.............. WA..... 98007..... Fish and squid................................................ 5,000
Les Boulangers Associes, Inc. Seattle............... WA..... 98148..... thaw, proof & bake serve bakery products...................... 15,000
(LBA).
Liberty Orchards Co., Inc..... Cashmere.............. WA..... 98815..... Snack Foods................................................... 20,000
Lucks Food Decorating Co...... Tacoma................ WA..... 98409..... processed foods............................................... 5,000
Marinelli Shellfish........... Seattle............... WA..... 98189..... Clams, Oysters, Mussels, Crabmet, Dungeness Crab.............. 37,000
Nally's Fine Foods............ Tacoma................ WA..... 98409..... Snack Foods................................................... 30,000
Northwest Packing Company..... Vancouver............. WA..... 98666..... Tomato Products, Canned, Cherries, Plums, & Pears............. 5,000
Pacific Valley Foods.......... Bellevue.............. WA..... 98005..... grocery products.............................................. 20,000
Pacific-Russia, Inc........... Woodinville........... WA..... 98072..... Canned meats, vegetables, fruit juices, soups etc............. 5,000
ProPak Inc.................... Mattawa............... WA..... 99349..... Onions........................................................ 15,000
Tree Top, Inc................. Selah................. WA..... 98942..... Fruit Juices, Apple Sauce..................................... 35,000
Vanguard Trading Services, Inc Issaquah.............. WA..... 98027..... grocery products.............................................. 25,000
Willow Wind Organic Farms..... Ford.................. WA..... 99013..... Frozen vegetables............................................. 12,000
ABS International............. DeForest.............. Wl..... 53532..... Bovine Genetics............................................... 46,000
Ace Baking Company Ltd........ Green Bay............. WI..... 54306..... Baked Goods................................................... 5,000
Beehive Botanicals, Inc....... Hayward............... WI..... 54843..... Honey products................................................ 1,000
Butter Buds Food Ingredients.. Racine................ WI..... 53403..... Dairy Concentrate............................................. 7,000
Century Foods International... Sparta................ WI..... 54656..... Dairy Products................................................ 1,000
CRI........................... Shawano............... WI..... 54166..... US Genetics-Bovine Semen...................................... 18,500
Gardetto's.................... Milwaukee............. WI..... 53221..... Pretzels, Snak-ons............................................ 8,000
Honey Acres Inc............... Ashippin.............. WI..... 53003..... Honeybears, gourmet honey, flavored honey creme spreads....... 7,000
Hsu's Ginseng Enterprises, Inc Wausau................ WI..... 54402..... ginseng/roots, slices, tea, capsules.......................... 2,000
Jones Dairy Farm.............. Fort Atkinson......... WI..... 53538..... Pork sausage, bacon, hams..................................... 50,000
Lactoprot USA, INC............ Blue Mounds........... WI..... 53517..... Processed cheese products..................................... 3,000
Merrick's, Inc................ Middleton............. WI..... 53562..... animal plasma, milk replacements.............................. 7,000
Native Wisconsin Ginseng Coop. Wausau................ WI..... 54402..... Wisconsin ginseng products (tea, capsule, honey etc.)......... 3,000
NaturalAmerican Ginseng Inc... Wausau................ WI..... 54401..... Ginseng products.............................................. 5,000
New Generations Dairy Cattle.. Brooklyn.............. WI..... 53521..... Bovine Semen.................................................. 10,000
Old Fashioned Foods, Inc...... Mayville.............. WI..... 53050..... Cheese Sauses & Salsas........................................ 9,000
Palermo's Villa, Inc.......... Milwaukee............. WI..... 53204..... Pizza products................................................ 1,000
Terra Prima Inc............... Hudson................ WI..... 54016..... Corn chips, soybeans.......................................... 7,000
WCA Services, Inc............. Monona................ WI..... 53716..... Ginseng capsules.............................................. 2,000
Wisconsin GinsenglHerb Marathon.............. WI..... 54448..... Extract, capsules, aloe-cranberry juice drink................. 2,000
Association.
World Royale.................. Marathon.............. WI..... 54448..... Ginseng capsules.............................................. 2,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Total Participant allowable budgets of 24 Million, with 15.2M designated by company, with 203K awaiting company address information.
overseas offices
Question. Provide a list of FAS overseas counselor/attache and
trade offices for fiscal year 1998 and 1999, and proposed for fiscal
year 2000, and the amount of funding and full-time equivalent staffing
levels provided for each.
Answer. A list of FAS overseas counselor/attache and trade offices
and the amount of funding and full-time equivalent staffing levels is
provided.
[The information follows:]
[Dollars in Thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 1998 Fiscal Year 1999 Fiscal Year 2000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign Agricultural Affairs On-Board On-Board On-Board
Funding Employ. Funding Employ. Funding Employ.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EUROPE
AUSTRIA........................... $697 4 $712 4 $712 4
BELGIUM, E........................ 207 1 218 1 218 1
BELG.USEU......................... 1,185 6 1,298 7 1,298 7
CZECH REP......................... 40 1 40 1 40 l
DENMARK........................... 170 2 183 2 183 2
FRANCE............................ 899 7 905 7 905 7
GERMANY........................... 727 6 832 7 832 7
GREECE............................ 203 2 220 2 220 2
IRELAND........................... 153 1 150 1 150 1
ISRAEL............................ 149 1 143 1 143 1
ITALY, EMB........................ 693 6 708 6 708 6
ITALY, FODAG...................... 206 1 231 1 231 1
NETHERLANDS....................... 775 4 778 5 778 5
PORTUGAL.......................... 147 1 157 2 157 2
SPAIN............................. 788 6 792 6 792 6
SWEDEN............................ 347 5 381 5 381 5
SWITZ, BERN....................... 77 ........... 27 ........... 27 ...........
SWITZ, GEN........................ 813 4 872 4 872 4
UNITED KINGDOM.................... 810 5 780 6 780 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL......................... 9,086 63 9,427 68 9,427 68
=============================================================================
WESTERN HEMISPHERE
ARGENTINA......................... 720 5 747 5 747 5
BRAZIL............................ 466 4 491 4 491 4
CANADA............................ 460 5 458 5 458 5
CHILE............................. 343 3 337 3 337 3
COLOMBIA.......................... 390 4 440 4 440 4
COSTA RICA........................ 380 3 407 3 407 3
DOM.REP........................... 340 2 380 2 380 2
ECUADOR........................... 165 2 138 2 138 2
GUATEMALA......................... 434 2 521 3 521 3
MEXICO............................ 893 8 985 8 985 8
PERU.............................. 311 3 327 3 327 3
VENEZUELA......................... 536 5 712 5 712 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL......................... 5,438 46 5,943 47 5,943 47
=============================================================================
AFRICA
ALGERIA........................... 32 ........... 35 ........... 35 ...........
BULGARIA.......................... 245 3 220 3 220 3
BANGLADESH........................ 40 1 39 1 39 1
COTE D'IVOIRE..................... 377 3 366 3 366 3
EGYPT............................. 438 3 442 3 442 3
INDIA............................. 340 8 365 7 365 8
KENYA............................. 314 1 299 1 299 1
MOROCCO........................... 246 2 250 3 250 3
NIGERIA........................... 370 2 475 2 475 2
PAKISTAN.......................... 289 3 301 4 301 3
ROMANIA........................... 32 1 35 1 35 1
SYRIA............................. 52 1 54 1 54 1
SERBIA-MONT....................... 37 1 38 1 38 1
SO.AFRICA......................... 594 5 745 6 745 6
TUNISIA........................... 75 2 77 2 77 2
TURKEY............................ 505 4 460 4 460 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL......................... 3,986 40 4,201 42 4,201 42
=============================================================================
ASIA
AUSTRALIA......................... 287 3 323 3 323 3
PRC............................... 936 4 923 4 923 4
INDONESIA......................... 529 5 501 5 501 5
JAPAN............................. 1334 12 1,390 12 1,390 12
KOREA............................. 501 5 528 5 528 5
MALAYSIA.......................... 235 3 288 3 288 3
NEW ZEALAND....................... 186 2 201 3 201 3
PHILIPPINES....................... 488 5 475 5 475 5
POLAND............................ 489 4 589 4 589 4
RUSSIA............................ 900 8 974 8 974 8
THAILAND.......................... 516 5 575 5 575 5
UKRAINE........................... 250 2 256 2 256 1
VIETNAM........................... 342 1 347 1 347 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL......................... 6,993 59 7,370 60 7,370 59
=============================================================================
TOTAL, FAA.................... 25,503 208 26,941 217 26,941 216
=============================================================================
AGRIGULTURAL TRADE OFFICES
SAO PAULO, Brazil................. 522 4 512 4 512 4
SHANGHAI, China................... 634 1 653 1 653 1
GUANGZHOU, China.................. 403 1 419 1 419 1
HAMBURG, Germany.................. 452 3 460 3 460 1
HONG KONG......................... 997 4 1,017 4 1,017 4
JAKARTA, Indonesia................ 179 1 347 1 347 1
MILAN, Italy...................... 349 2 345 2 345 1
TOKYO, Japan...................... 1,879 6 1,977 6 1,977 6
OSAKA, Japan...................... 446 3 476 3 476 3
SEOUL, Korea...................... 882 4 915 4 915 4
MEXICO CITY....................... 1,382 5 873 5 873 5
MOSCOW, Russia.................... 199 1 217 1 217 1
JEDDAH. Saudi..................... 90 1 93 1 ........... ...........
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia.............. 317 2 313 2 313 2
SINGAPORE......................... 876 3 854 3 854 3
SOUTH AFRICA...................... ........... ........... ........... ........... 370 1
DUBAI, U.A........................ 356 4 363 4 363 4
CARIBBEAN BASIN, USA.............. 417 3 415 3 415 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL, ATO.................... 10,380 48 10,254 48 10,531 44
=============================================================================
GRAND TOTAL................. 35,883 256 37,195 265 37,472 260
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Overseas managed on a head count basis, not PTk basis. Total includes FSN's as well as U.S. Foreign Service
personnel.
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES \1\
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
1998 \2\ 1999 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign Agricultural Affairs.................................... 7,590 7,902 7,948
Agricultural Trade Offices...................................... 3,795 3,952 3,972
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL....................................................... 11,38 11,854 11,920
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reimbursement to State Department.
\2\ Includes a $4.4 million base transfer.
export subsidy programs
Question. Provide the total amount of bonus awards to U.S.
exporters under the Export Enhancement Program and the Dairy Export
Incentive Program for fiscal year 1998 and for fiscal year 1999 to
date.
Answer. Bonus awards under the Export Enhancement Program for
fiscal year 1998 totaled $2,067,500. As of March 16, 1999, fiscal year
1999 awards totaled $27,762. For fiscal year 1998, Dairy Export
Incentive Program bonus awards totaled $110,159,692. As of March 16,
1999, fiscal year 1999 awards totaled $70,450,425.
Question. What are the maximum volume and spending limits for each
of these export subsidy programs consistent with U.S. World Trade
Organization obligations for each of fiscal years 1998, 1999 and 2000?
Answer. Quantity commitments are based on a July through June year,
while expenditure commitments are based on an October-September year.
For the years 1998, 1999 and 2000 maximum subsidies under the Uruguay
Round Agreement are provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
MAXIMUM VOLUME AND SPENDING LIMITS FOR EEP AND DEIP PROGRAMS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quantity Budget Quantity Budget Quantity Budget Quantity Budget
July/June Oct/Sept July/June Oct/Sept July/June Oct/Sept July/June Oct/Sept
1997-1998 1997-1998 1998-1999 1998-1999 1999-2000 1999-2000 2000-2001 2000-2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wheat................................................... 17,952 $604.8 16,809 $524.5 15,665 $444.2 14,522 $363.8
Feed Grain.............................................. 1,768 59.1 1,699 54.8 1,630 50.4 1,561 46.1
Rice.................................................... 178 10.4 132 7.7 85 5.0 39 2.4
Veg Oils................................................ 409 37.4 320 29.6 231 21.8 141 14.1
Beef.................................................... 20 29.2 19 27.1 18 25.0 18 22.8
Pork.................................................... 0.45 0.6 0.43 0.6 0.41 0.5 0.4 0.5
Poultry................................................. 32 18.6 30 17.3 29 15.9 28 14.6
Live Cattle (head)...................................... 12,490 15.2 12,O01 14.1 11,513 13.0 11,O24 11.9
Eggs (mil doz).......................................... 21 5.2 16 4.0 12 2.8 7 1.6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total EEP........................................... .......... 780.5 .......... 679.7 .......... 578.6 .......... 477.8
===============================================================================================
Butterfat............................................... 34 39.1 30 36.2 25 33.4 21 30.5
Nonfat Dry Milk......................................... 92 105.6 84 97.9 76 90.2 68 82.5
Cheese.................................................. 4 4.6 3 4.3 3 4.0 3 3.6
Other Milk Prod......................................... 7 8.6 5 5.8 3 2.9 0 0.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total DEIP.......................................... .......... 158 .......... 144 .......... 131 .......... 117
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Quantities rounded to nearest 1,000 metric tons unless otherwise noted. Budget in ($mil).
ccc export credit guarantees
Question. Provide a listing of the activities supported under each
of the four export credit guarantee activities in fiscal year 1998, and
in fiscal year 1999 to date: Supplier Credit Guarantees, Facilities
Guarantees, GSM-102, and GSM-103.
Answer. The attached report provides the requested information for
the Supplier Credit, GSM-102 and GSM-103 programs. The Facilities
Guarantees program availability is listed below; however, to date, no
projects have been guaranteed under this program.
Fiscal Year 1998 Allocations Under the Facilities Guarantee Program
Caribbean Region.--$20,000,000. Includes: Jamaica and Trinidad and
Tobago
Central America Region.--$30,000,000. Includes: Costa Rica, El
Salvador, Guatemala, and Panama
Southeast Asia Region.--$40,000,000. Includes: Indonesia,
Philippines, Malaysia and Thailand
Mexico.--$50,000,000
Peru.--$10,000,000
Russia.--$5,000,000
Fiscal Year 1999 Allocations Under the Facilities Guarantee Program
Baltic Region.--$10,000,000. Includes: Lithuania, Estonia and
Latvia.
East Africa Region.--$10,000,000. Includes: Kenya, Uganda and
Tanzania.
Southern Africa Region.--$30,000,000. Includes: Angola, Botswana,
Burundi, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia,
Rwanda, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, Democratic Republic of the
Congo (formerly Zaire), Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Caribbean Region.--$20,000,000. Includes: Jamaica, Trinidad and
Tobago.
Central America Region.--$30,000,000. Includes: Costa Rica, El
Salvador, Guatemala and Panama.
Southeast Asia Region.--$50,000,000. Includes: Indonesia,
Philippines, Malaysia and Thailand
Mexico.--$50,000,000
Turkey.--$10,000,000
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bond
foreign agricultural service
Question. Do you expect USAID to comply in fiscal year 1999 with
the requirement (7 USC 1724(b)(1)) that 75 percent of non-emergency
donations be in the form of processed, fortified, or bagged
commodities? If not, why not and what is USDA doing to assure future
compliance? In fiscal year 1998, USAID barely reached 50 percent in
supplying value-added commodities, yet other requirements, such as
monetization far exceeded requirements (15 percent statutory minimum
versus nearly 50 percent actual). What steps is USDA taking to restore
the balance required by law?
Answer. Based upon the approved level of fiscal year 1999 title II
non-emergency activities to date, it is expected that 63.6 percent of
the commodities will either be fortified, processed, or bagged. Part of
the decline in the use of these value-added commodities is the result
of an increase in the demand for bulk commodities that are suitable for
monetization (sale). In addition, there has also been a decline in the
number of direct feeding programs under title II which have
traditionally emphasized the use of value-added commodities. USAID has
been monitoring the decline in the use of value-added commodities and
has initiated discussions with the cooperating sponsors, domestic
commodity producer groups, and Congressional staff to emphasize the
importance of adhering to this mandate. In addition, USAID will issue
new guidance in the Federal Register explaining the importance of using
value-added commodities in title II activities, including both direct
distribution and monetization. It is the goal of USAID over the next
two years to significantly increase the percentage of value-added
commodities used in title II non-emergency activities when compared to
the percentage achieved in fiscal year 1998.
ccc section 11 funding cap
Question. It is our understanding that the limitation placed on CCC
technical assistance funds is undermining NRCS efforts to provide
technical assistance. If the Section 11 cap is modified, would that
help enable greater delivery success?
Answer. Modifying the Section 11 cap would enable NRCS to continue
to provide technical assistance for those programs that are funded by
the Commodity Credit Corporation. Without these funds, NRCS will not be
able to provide all of the technical assistance that is proposed in the
fiscal year 2000 budget.
staffing reduction impact on mission
Question. What reduction in force at NRCS does the budget envision
and how will that impact NRCS mission performance?
Answer. The NRCS budget indicates a reduction of approximately
1,055 FTE would be necessary to stay within the amount of technical
assistance funding. This reduction would come through a combination of
furloughs, early and optional retirements, buy-outs, and reductions-in-
force. The primary impact of these FTE reductions will occur at the
field level. The result will be substantial reductions in the level of
service provided to landowners and landusers in such areas as planning
assistance, implementation of conservation practices, construction
projects, resource inventories and reduced levels of implementation for
some cost share programs.
benefits of watershed structure
Question. Many in our state suspect that OMB has never met a
structure that they liked and fail to see the multiple benefits of the
watershed program.
Answer. The annual benefits of both structural and non-structural
practices are easily defended. Though NRCS assists project sponsors in
the consideration of a wide array of alternatives, including
structural, non-structural, land treatment and floodplain easements,
there are many situations in which the use of structural measures are
the only solution to address the problem.
The benefits of the existing flood projection projects became
abundantly apparent during recent flooding events in Texas. In the fall
of 1998, a band of severe thunderstorms swept along the Interstate 35
corridor. The San Antonio region, extending northward through the New
Braunfels and into the Austin area, was hit especially hard. The
heaviest rainfall fell in Bexar, Hays, Comal, Guadalupe, and Caldwell
Counties. Rainfall in these areas totaled between 18 and 31 inches,
with rain falling at a rate of 2-3 inches per hour for prolonged
periods. This was the most rainfall recorded since records have been
kept, beginning in 1885.
In spite of these conditions, the loss of life and property damage
was greatly reduced in those watersheds protected by Public Law 566
floodwater retarding structures. In the Upper San Marcos River
Watershed alone, the floodwater protection structures resulted in an
estimated $20 million in benefits. These include flooding depths, which
were reduced by 6-8 feet in the City of San Marcos. Had these
structures not been in place, the likelihood of loss of life and
tremendous property loss would have been a certainty.
food and agriculture policy research institute
Question. Mr. Collins, what is your knowledge of the Food and
Agriculture Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) in the context of our
nation's interests in economic intelligence and informing the public of
economics and policy of agriculture and food?
Answer. I am very familiar with the work of the university
consortium, FAPRI. They have an excellent record of collecting and
reporting on global agricultural information, projecting long term
trends in agricultural markets and analyzing key policy options. FAPRI
makes their analysis available through publications and briefings,
including frequent briefings to USDA staff and others in Washington,
D.C.
Question. If the work of this consortium and potentially others is
so important, can you tell me how much money your department is putting
or wants to put into the support of these centers?
Answer. USDA provided $800,000 to FAPRI, specifically the
University of Missouri and Iowa State University in fiscal year 1999.
No funds have been requested in USDA's budget for fiscal year 2000.
Question. Apparently OMB is not supportive of funding the centers.
Nevertheless, would you and others in the Department like to see these
policy research centers supported.
Answer. I would like to see FAPRI continue its work and maintain a
strong base of financial support. However, it is the policy of USDA
that funds now used to support centers such as FAPRI should be used for
competitively awarded, peer reviewed grants that meet National goals.
Question. In 1996 and in 1998 laws were passed at Congress's
initiative which provided authority for policy research centers to be
supported. What can be done to adequately overcome the obstacles so
that we can ensure that these benefits continue being provided.
Funding for FAPRI has continued, even though not requested by USDA.
At USDA, funding decisions are complicated by limits on available
funds and priorities of needs, FAPRI has done an outstanding job of
communicating its contributions to parts of its rural constituents,
USDA and Congress. But FAPRI's contributions are less well known and
understood in the broader research and education community in which is
exists. I understand that FAPRI will be making an effort to broaden its
communications among the research and education community's leadership
and with other parts of USDA. The best way for FAPRI to maintain
funding is to continue to usefully serve the needs of rural people by
providing unique, relevant, competent, and timely information and
analysis.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Burns
crop insurance
Question. Why was there no funding included for crop insurance
reform in the USDA fiscal year 2000 budget?
Answer. We wish first to come to agreement on the needed changes,
then identify the costs and work with Congress in a responsible manner
to find the required funding.
farm and foreign agricultural services budget
Question. President Clinton promised to bring trade in line with
agriculture. Yet, the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services budget was
decreased by nearly $6.5 billion. Two of the main programs for export,
the Export Enhancement Program and the Food for Peace program, were
reduced by $56 million and $772 million respectively. With 70 percent
of Montana's grain being sent for export we cannot afford to lose these
important programs. How will the Administration restore this money? Why
has the funding currently in the Export Enhancement Program not been
distributed to producers? How will USDA restore lost export
opportunities to producers?
Answer. Although the budget shows a reduction in the overall
program level for USDA international activities in 2000, this is
primarily due to the sizeable increase in food aid programming during
1999 which results from extraordinary circumstances this year. For
2000, the budget assumes food aid programming will return to a more
traditional level. On the other hand, the 2000 budget provides a total
program level of $6.5 billion for USDA international activities; this
is considerably higher than the actual level for 1998 of $5.7 billion.
commodity credit corporation programs
Question. Several programs important to export enhancement were
cut. The Commodity Credit Corporation Program was cut by $5.8 billion,
the Dairy Export Incentive Program by $15 million and the Food for
Progress program by $24 million. With today's global market situation,
producers cannot afford to have the few opportunities they have for
export reduced. How will USDA restore lost export opportunities to
producers?
Answer. During the past year, USDA has responded vigorously and
creatively to developments in world financial and commodity markets. As
a result, the level of programming for many of our export activities
has increased substantially. For example, in response to the financial
crisis in Asia, USDA expanded the level of CCC export credit guarantees
made available. As a result, sales registrations under the guarantee
programs were 40 percent higher during 1998 compared to the previous
year. The expanded level of guarantee programming is expected to
continue in both 1999 and 2000.
This fiscal year, USDA has greatly expanded the level of foreign
food assistance programming, and the overall level of U.S. foreign food
assistance will total as much as 10 million metric tons this year. This
increase results from the President's Food Aid Initiative under which 5
million metric tons of wheat and wheat products will be made available
to countries requiring assistance in meeting their food import needs.
It also reflects a major package of food assistance for Russia which
will total more than 3.1 million metric tons, including 1.5 million
metric tons of wheat to be made available under the President's Food
Aid Initiative.
Question. The CCC provides an important service for private
negotiations with other countries. Agricultural producers have an
increasing need for avenues to market their products through private
entities. The budget cut to CCC makes them more dependent on the
federal government, rather than giving them opportunities to expand
marketing channels. How does the USDA intend to provide producer
assistance for marketing, private or otherwise?
Answer. There are currently only two USDA programs that are
categorized as export promotion programs--the Market Access Program
funded at $90 million and the Foreign Market Development Cooperator
Program funded at $27.5 million. However, FAS administers various other
agricultural export assistance programs including the Emerging Markets
Program, Section 108, and the Cochran Fellowships.
Last fall, the FAS began a new initiative--known as the Unified
Export Strategy (UES)--to more effectively coordinate strategic
planning and resource allocation processes across these various
agricultural export assistance programs. The UES was developed to
streamline the application process for these programs and facilitate
better use of complementary marketing tools and resources. Through the
submission of a single proposal, organizations may apply for assistance
under the Market Access Program, the Foreign Market Development
Cooperator Program, the Emerging Markets Program, Section 108 and make
recommendations for trade policy initiatives, Cochran Fellowships, or
Export Credit Guarantee programs.
In addition, the fiscal year 2000 budget proposes a new program,
Quality Samples Program (QSP). The QSP would use CCC funds to assist
U.S. commodity organizations in providing commodity samples to foreign
importers in order to promote a better understanding and appreciation
for the high quality of U.S. agricultural commodities.
trade barriers
Question. Trade inequities continue to be a major problem,
especially with Canada, the European Union and China. When will the
Foreign Agricultural Service step in to reduce trade barriers and
resolve international trade disputes?
Answer. Unfortunately, U.S. agricultural exports are subject to
import duties and non-tariff trade restrictions in nearly every foreign
market. Many of these restrictions are permitted under international
trade rules, just like U.S. tariffs and import requirements. FAS has
worked diligently over the years to identify and seek the removal of
barriers which are not consistent with international trade rules or
which are particularly restrictive for U.S. exports. There are many
examples of FAS activities which have helped to remove or prevent the
imposition of barriers to U.S. exports. These include the use of the
WTO Committee on Agriculture to obtain the removal of WTO inconsistent
trade barriers, bilateral talks to open the Japanese market for U.S.
wood products through deregulation of its housing sector, removal of
Chilean and Brazilian restrictions on U.S. wheat, new access to
Taiwan's market as part of its WTO accession, and many other specific
cases.
Some trade restrictions are more difficult to resolve than others.
The inequities with Canada, the EU and China that you mention are the
best examples.
FAS, in cooperation with other USDA agencies and the U.S. Trade
Representative continue to work on these issues, and we have made some
progress. For example, the December 1998 Record of Understanding with
Canada begins to address many of Canada's barriers to U.S. exports and
the Veterinary Equivalency Agreement with the European Union is an
important step towards resolving many of our differences on food safety
issues with Europe. We also have had a number of market access gains in
China, getting them to allow access for U.S. grapes and a number of
livestock products. On other issues where we have not yet been able to
reach agreement, the United States has vigorously pursued our rights
under international agreements. We will continue to work with our
trading partners on these issues, and will be prepared to take the
necessary action if acceptable resolutions cannot be reached.
natural resources conservation service
Question. Why was funding for the GLCI (Grazing Lands Conservation
Initiative) held level under the NRCS budget rather than be increased?
This program is invaluable to ecosystem management. This program
provides education and technical assistance to agricultural producers.
Answer. NRCS utilized congressional recommendations to maintain
level funding for GLCI. NRCS did provide technical assistance staffing
to assist in the voluntary application of conservation on grazing
lands, including GLCI, that exceeded $33 million in fiscal year 1998.
Question. Funding should be increased from $15 million to at least
$20 million. How will USDA implement an increase for GLCI?
Answer. Should GLCI be earmarked at $20 million NRCS will continue
to implement a program to provide for additional staffing, training,
technical assistance, public awareness and project activities in an
attempt to meet increasing workload demands.
emergency appropriations
Question. Congress appropriated approximately $6 billion to come to
the aid of farmers and ranchers, as an emergency supplemental
appropriation. Many producers have seen none of this money due to
deadlines and extensions. When will USDA be held accountable for this
funding and disperse it to the people who desperately need it?
Answer. While RMA is responsible for only $400 million of this
assistance, these funds have already impacted farmers by providing them
with the assurance of risk protection on their 1999 crop at a reduction
of 30 percent or more in premium costs. Some farmers have applied the
savings toward the purchase of higher levels of coverage, others can
look forward toward more cash flow, which could enhance their ability
to obtain credit. As for the rest of the emergency funding, it is our
understanding that the requirements for prorating the funds available,
as well as the need to help farmers make informed decisions among the
choices in assistance for multi-year losses, have challenged USDA's
field staff. Significant staff reductions over the last several years
have also contributed to the difficulty in being timely in providing
assistance. However, we are confident that USDA will eventually receive
high marks for carrying out this responsibility in a fiscally sound and
fair manner.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byrd
farm service agency
Question. Once again, my questions concerning the Farm Service
Agency (FSA) are targeted toward the issue of staff reductions. While I
understand, and supported, necessary FSA staff reductions that occurred
nationwide as a result of the USDA Reorganization Act of 1994 and the
1996 Farm Bill, I am puzzled about reports that West Virginia is again
being requested to reduce staff. I am particularly puzzled by the
recent reduction proposal in light of the fact that West Virginia
implemented the previous rounds of required reductions, and that I
understood that the Congress provided funds last year to avoid further
staff reductions in FSA during fiscal year 1999. Can you please explain
this situation to me in detail?
Answer. Yes, Congress did provide $40,000,000 in emergency funding
included in the 1999 appropriations act which has allowed FSA to
maintain about the same staffing levels in 1999 as in 1998, rather than
separate additional personnel during the current crisis in production
agriculture. That $40,000,000 did not provide funding for additional
personnel to deal with greatly increased agency workload, however. West
Virginia did reduce permanent full-time (PFT) staffing from fiscal year
1994 through fiscal year 1998 by about 21 percent; however, this trend
was nationwide with Midwestern and Northwestern States reducing PFT
staffing by over 25 percent. The average nationwide decrease for PFT
employees was just over 23 percent from 1994 through 1998. West
Virginia has used and continues to effectively use shared management,
office collocations and consolidations since the streamlining process
began in 1994. After significant office consolidations in 1995,
employment has been evaluated and adjusted over the last 3 years to
maximize service within available funding. Of the 377 FSA county
offices closed in some 37 states, 15 of these offices were in West
Virginia. In fiscal year 1999 FSA began addressing the imbalance of the
number of FSA employees relative to existing National workload. FSA
established temporary ceiling goals for each State to work toward. This
has allowed State Executive Directors to manage more efficiently and
position themselves for realistic permanent staffing levels. We
emphasize that no State is under any mandate to reduce the number of
``on board'' employees nor will any State lose any monies allocated to
date.
Question. Can you please provide me with a report on your views of
the FSA's role in West Virginia?
Answer. Actual workload in West Virginia for fiscal year 1998
indicates that present staffing is very closely aligned with current
workload conditions in comparison to many other States where emergency
and disaster programs have generated an extensive backlog of workload.
FSA continually monitors workload in States to determine areas of
increased workload and moves both human and monetary resources to those
areas based on availability to provide the most effective and efficient
service to its customers. State Directors are using a variety of
management tools to ensure service to producers by initiating employee
details, overtime, directed reassignments, shared management and office
collocation and consolidation.
natural resources conservation service
Question. I have long supported the important work of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in West Virginia. The state NRCS
staff, including Bill Hartman and Paul Dunn, have done a fine job in
implementing watershed and conservation programs in West Virginia that
have made a positive impact to the state's rural communities, and I
commend them for their efforts. My questions pertain to several West
Virginia NRCS projects. Please provide a status report on the Potomac
Headwaters Land Treatment Watershed Project, complete with pertinent
timetables and participation rates.
Answer. This land treatment watershed project is entering the third
year of operation. During the first two years, 212 long term contracts
were executed with landowners who agreed to install needed animal waste
storage facilities and mortality composters, relocate or treat animal
feeding operations to prevent pollution, and follow an agreed to
nutrient management plan. Planned in these contracts are 216 storage
structures, 94 composters, 75 feedlot improvements, 15 feedlot
relocations, and 35,600 acres of nutrient management. As of this date
84 storage structures, 25 composters, 18 feedlot improvements, and 6
feedlot relocations have been completed. Funding for new contracts in
fiscal year 1999 is $2,000,000, which will allow about 52 additional
farmers to enter the program, bring the total participation rate up to
83 percent. With these new contracts included (264 total) the estimated
cost is $10,000,000. Of this amount, $5,350,000 is Federal cost,
$1,070,000 a state cost, and the remaining $4,280,000 a landowner
expense. Upon completion the Potomac Headwaters Project will yield the
following benefits:
Potomac Headwaters Benefits
Total acres benefited................................... 1,787,850
Monetary agriculture benefits........................... $1,131,100
Public facilities benefited (no.)....................... 59
Farms benefited (no.)................................... 264
Disadvantaged benefited (no.)........................... 8,718
Direct beneficiaries (no.).............................. 72,654
Incidental recreation (no. water bodies)................ 26
Erosion (tons).......................................... 8,200
Lakes/reservoirs protected (acres)...................... 2,969
Animal waste (average annual tons)...................... 90,733
Chemical and nutrient management (acres)................ 35,600
Domestic water supply (no.)............................. 60
Sponsor costs (as reported in plan)..................... $10,700,000
Sponsor operation. Maintenance, and replacement (as
reported in plan)................................... $294,400
Tons commercial fertilizer displaced by available litter 90,720
The long-term contracts with the landowners are 10 years in
duration. All conservation practices will be installed during the first
five years of the contract. The remaining years are an operation and
maintenance period to assure compliance with program requirements.
flood control structures in west virginia
Question. Please provide a full list of all flood control projects
in West Virginia that are currently under construction, the cost
associated with that construction, and a timetable for the completion
of each project.
Answer. The following is a list of flood control projects under
construction in West Virginia, including the Federal construction cost
and the timetable for completion:
--Cranberry Creek Channel Improvement Project, Raleigh County, WV
Federal Cost: $16,355,289
--Completion Date: May 1999--(completed except for landscaping, which
will be completed May 1999)
--Little Whitestick Channel Improvement Project, Raleigh County, WV
Federal Cost: $4,019,016
Construction bids received on February 10, 1999
Completion Date: August 2001
--Upper Mud Recreation Facilities, Lincoln County, WV
Cost: $1,278,197.08
Completion Date: June 1999
west virginia flood control projects with feasibility studies
Question. Please provide a full list of flood control projects in
West Virginia for which feasibility studies have been completed.
Answer. The following is a list of flood control and other projects
West Virginia that have completed feasibility studies or are in some
phase of the planning process:
Plan Completed:
Inwood Watershed, Berkeley County.--The NRCS provided technical
assistance to the Eastern Panhandle Soil Conservation District and a
watershed group to develop a Local Implementation Plan (LIP). The LIP
addresses flooding in a rapidly developing area of Berkeley County.
This plan was completed in December 1998.
Plans Underway:
Deckers Creek Watershed, Preston and Monongalia Counties.--Water
quality is the primary purpose of this plan. Eleven treatment systems
are proposed to address acid mine drainage in Deckers Creek and
tributaries. Installation of systems over a ten-year period will raise
pH and improve water quality in 23.7 miles of stream. NRCS has
extensive water quality data to aid in design of effective systems. The
plan is 90 percent complete. Dunloup Creek Watershed, Fayette County--
The purposes of this project are flood protection, water supply, and
recreation. The NRCS is preparing a local implementation plan to
address these problems. A local watershed group is providing input to
the effort. The plan is about 95 percent complete.
Fayette County Water Resources Study.--This study is cooperatively
funded by the NRCS and the WVSCA. The planning effort will result in a
comprehensive water resources plan addressing water supply, water
quality, flooding, sewage, and recreation. A county-wide steering
committee is providing local input. The plan is about 98 percent
complete.
Hardy County Resources Study.--The Hardy County Commission has
requested a county-wide natural resources study. The county is
anticipating expansion of land and water resource needs with the
planned construction of Corridor H and associated economic development.
Kings Creek Watershed, Hancock County--This local implementation plan
evaluates and compares flood damage reduction alternatives. Non-
structural measures and limited channel improvement appear to be the
most economically feasible alternatives, based on planning studies. The
plan is about 95 percent complete.
Logan/Mingo Counties Resources Study.--Local officials and the
Pigeon Creek Watershed Association have requested NRCS assistance in
conducting a study of natural resources concerns and potential
solutions. The county is experiencing accelerated development with the
recent construction of Corridor G.
North Fork South Branch Potomac River Watershed, Grant and
Pendleton Counties.--Local citizens have formed a watershed association
to work with NRCS and other agencies to solve watershed problems. The
catalyst for the formation of the watershed association was two severe
floods in January and May 1996. The watershed association obtained the
sponsorship of the Potomac Valley Soil Conservation District and the
County Commissions and requested NRCS planning assistance. NRCS is
preparing a Watershed Management Plan utilizing the CBA planning
concept. The area of focus, as agreed to by the North Fork Watershed
Association and numerous involved agencies, interest groups, and other
stakeholders are water quality, flooding, streambank erosion, water
supply, grazing lands, wetlands, and forest management. The planning
process is about 40 percent complete.
Pleasant Valley Watershed, Marion County.--The NRCS is providing
technical assistance to the Monongahela Soil Conservation District and
a local watershed advisory group in developing a Local Implementation
Plan that will address flooding. This plan is 15 percent complete.
Upper Tygart Valley Watershed, Randolph County.--The NRCS is
providing assistance to project sponsors and the Upper Tygart Valley
Watershed Partnership in developing a Watershed Plan and NEPA
compliance document. Project purposes include water supply, water
quality, flood protection, fish and wildlife, and conservation land
treatment. This project is 10 percent complete.
Projects Underway: Public Law-566
Upper Mud River Watershed, Lincoln and Boone Counties.--The current
cost of the project is $23,800,000, including $13,300,000 Federal cost
and $10,500,000 non-Federal cost. One multi-purpose dam for flood
prevention and recreation was completed in 1994. Remaining work
consists of construction of recreation facilities. The fishing part of
these facilities was completed in 1996. The remaining recreation
facilities are under construction as a local contract ($2,556,000) and
are scheduled for completion in February 1999.
Little Whitestick--Cranberry Creeks Watershed, Raleigh County.--The
current Federal cost is $25,500,000. The 2.1 miles of channel
improvement on Cranberry Channel was completed in 1998. The 1.5 miles
of channel on Little Whitestick is presently being advertised for
construction bids, and the work is expected to begin in late April.
Local sponsorship is very strong. Landscaping work will be done during
this spring for the Cranberry Channel.
Mill Creek Watershed, Jackson and Roane Counties.--Six structures
are planned and five have been completed. The Federal cost is
$25,000,000. The final dam (No. 6) will be evaluated for feasibility.
Upper Buffalo Creek Watershed, Marion County.--Estimated Federal
cost is $30,100,000. The project has been modified by supplement dated
April 1994 to seven dams and 1.9 miles of channel improvement. All
seven dams have been completed. The channel improvement was completed
in October 1997 at a total cost of $5,109,228, and landscaping was
completed in April 1998. The subchannel will be extended a total of
1200 linear feet in three areas of Upper Buffalo Creek downstream of
the completed channel work. Bidding and contracting for the work will
take place in August 1999, with construction scheduled to start in
September. Estimated cost of the additional subchannel is $56,000.
Elk Twomile Creek Watershed, Kanawha County.--The project consists
of six single purpose flood prevention dams. Four have been completed.
The feasibility of proceeding with the remaining sites is being
evaluated.
Projects Underway: Public Law 534
Lost River Watershed, Hardy County.--The total estimated cost is
$37,700,000 of which $34,000,000 is Federal cost. The project includes
4 single purpose structures and 1 multipurpose structure. Dam No. 4
(single purpose FP) was completed in 1996. Dam No. 27 (single purpose
FP) was completed in December 1998. The three remaining dams remain
viable and are scheduled for construction over the next 5 years pending
Congressional appropriations. Local sponsorship is strong.
New Creek Watershed, Grant and Mineral Counties.--Nine of twelve
dams planned for this watershed have been completed. New measures
needed to replace protection provided by the remaining three dams and
to address other natural resources problems are being evaluated.
North and South Mill Creek Watershed, Grant and Pendleton
Counties.--The total estimated cost is $15,999,999 of which $12,800,000
is Federal cost. The project includes 5 single purpose structures and 1
multi-purpose structure. Three of the single purpose structures have
been installed with $5,300,000 Federal obligations through fiscal year
1990. Dam No. 7 (multipurpose dam--FP & Recreation) was completed in
December 1993 at a cost of $6,350,000. The recreation facilities were
completed in 1996. The two remaining dams are not feasible and will be
deleted from the project through preparation of a supplement.
Patterson Creek, Grant and Mineral Counties.--The estimated Federal
cost is $25,600,0000. The project includes 33 single purpose flood
prevention dams and one multi-purpose structure for flood prevention
and water supply. Thirty of the single purpose dams have been completed
along with the single multi-purpose dam. The feasibility of proceeding
with the two remaining dams is presently being evaluated.
South Fork Watershed, Pendleton and Hardy Counties, West Virginia
and Highland County, Virginia.--Twenty-three of 24 single purpose flood
preventiondams have been completed. One dam (No. 20) on the Upper South
Fork remains to be built. The local sponsors are presently not
interested in building this structure.
environmental quality incentives program
Question. Please provide a status report of the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program in West Virginia.
Answer. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program in West
Virginia has been very successful in the first 2 years of program
implementation, as evidenced by the high demand being placed on the
program by the State's farmers. The demand by farmers far exceeds
available funds. In fiscal years fiscal year 1997 and 1998, there was a
6:1 and 4:1 ratio, respectively. It is expected to be similarly high in
fiscal year 1999.
During fiscal year 1997 and 1998, $1,995,000 and $1,809,000,
respectively, were allocated here. The NRCS State Conservationist, with
the advice of the West Virginia State Technical Committee, including
the Farm Service Agency (FSA), selected four priority areas where most
of the funds would be used. These areas were over 250,000 acres in size
with typically between 100,000 to 150,000 acres of agricultural land
needing treatment. Ninety-five percent of funds were used to address
livestock-related natural resource concerns.
In fiscal year 1997, approximately $1,600,000 of financial
assistance were provided to 362 farmers for long-term contracts. These
contracts provided assistance on: 5,856 acres of prescribed grazing;
6,848 acres of nutrient management; 4,080 acres of pesticide
management; winter feeding areas and other conservation practices. In
fiscal year 1998, approximately $1,400,000 were distributed to 265
farmers for contracts that will treat 18,233 acres.
Priority areas were revised in fiscal year 1999, based on watershed
boundaries. There were a total of 24 priority areas identified
throughout the State. The largest agricultural area to be treated in
any priority area will be 50,000 acres, and 750 acres will be the
smallest. This revised approach will allow NRCS to quickly and more
thoroughly address the major natural resource concerns in a specific
watershed. It is anticipated that an increase of environmental benefits
will be attained with the watershed approach. Service center personnel
have completed one-on-one visits with farmers and are determining
contract costs for fiscal year 1999. Conservation plans and contracts
will be developed and awarded within the next 2 months. Of the
$1,584,000 allocated to the State, about $1,280,000 are available for
financial assistance.
West Virginia's soil conservation districts have convened the local
work groups for identification and prioritization of priority areas in
fiscal year 2000. The local work groups consist of local farmers,
conservation district supervisors, FSA county committeemen, and other
local, State, and Federal agencies.
status of alderson, west virginia plant materials center
Question. Please provide a status report on construction of the
Plant Materials Center in Alderson, West Virginia, and a flow chart
illustrating the release and award of funds appropriated for the
project.
Answer. The project is progressing well, and it should be completed
by late fall of 1999. Sufficient funds were provided to the Plant
Materials Center in the fiscal year 1999 budget to complete
construction work.
Construction of the seed barn is complete, and the building is now
being used as a temporary office. This building forms the hub for
operations at the center. Work on the office is underway, and the
building is now ``under roof'' with work proceeding on the interior. It
is about 60 percent complete. The building should be completed by May
and occupied by June. Specifications are due in April for the shop/
storage building, and construction is expected to start on it in June.
Construction on the final building, the greenhouse, is scheduled to
begin in July.
In addition to construction activities, there is a parallel effort
underway to bring field operations on-line. Weed control has been a
problem in many fields, but active control measures are underway to
eliminate it. Several of the fields have already been planted to
grasses and/or herbaceous species. In the spring of 1999, the center
will move part of the woody plant collection (50 clumps) from
Quicksand, Kentucky to Alderson. In the fall, the remainder of the
woody plants will be transferred.
With construction activities completed by fall and with field
studies also in place, it is anticipated that a Plant Materials Center
dedication can be held early in 2000.
Funds for the Plant Materials Center in fiscal year 1999 have been
provided to: (1) conduct operations, and (2) complete construction for
the project. A flow chart illustrating the release and award of funds
for the project in fiscal year 1999 may be found in the table on the
following page.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FLOW CHART, ALDERSON, WV PLANT MATERIALS CENTER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Fiscal Fiscal
Description of Construction & Related Year 1999 Year 1999 Timeline
Activity Funds Funds Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allocation of Congressional earmarked .......... 433,000 10/98
funds...............................
Allocation of Plant Materials Program .......... 267,000 10/98
funds...............................
----------------------------------
Total allocated................ .......... 700,000
==================================
Plant Materials Center Buildings
Seed barn & associated facilities 469,498 .......... 3/9
5,000 sq. ft. building, Pesticide
building, Roads/parking areas for
plant center, Sewage treatment
system for plant center, Drainage
system for plant center, Utility
distribution system for plant center
Specifications provided for office .......... .......... 10/98
building............................
Construction initiated for office .......... .......... 10/98
building............................
Construction completed for office .......... 200,000 5/99
building............................
Specifications provided for shop/ .......... .......... 4/99
storage building....................
Construction initiated on shop/ .......... .......... 6/99
storage building....................
Construction completed on shop/ .......... 250,000 9/99
storage building....................
Specifications provided for .......... .......... 6/99
greenhouse building.................
Construction initiated on greenhouse .......... .......... 7/99
building............................
Construction completed on greenhouse .......... 140,000 9/99
building............................
Other Physical Facility Developments
Seed cooler.......................... 55,000 .......... 3/99
Utility relocation................... 15,000 .......... 2/99
Transport equipment & plant materials 80,000 .......... 4/99
Transport equipment & plant materials .......... 67,000 12/99
Field irrigation system.............. .......... 35,000 11/99
Drainage system repair............... .......... 8,000 9/99
Pre fiscal year 1999 Funds Spent on 619,498 .......... .........
Capital Improvements................
----------------------------------
Total fiscal year 1999 Funds Spent/ .......... 700,000 .........
Estimated...........................
==================================
Total funds provided for capital 1,319,498 .......... .........
improvement.........................
==================================
Project completed.................... 12/99 .......... .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Kohl
farm safety net/emergency assistance
Question. Please provide an overview, to the extent possible by
State and commodity, of the levels of emergency assistance provided to
producers as a result of the $5.9 billion made available in the Omnibus
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999.
Answer. We are able to provide data only on market loss assistance
payments as of March 2, 1999.
[The information follows.]
MARKET LOSS ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS, FISCAL YEAR 1999
[As of March 2, 1999]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn Sorghum Barley Oats Wheat Upland Rice Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama......................................................... 3,055,087 527,052 2,792 15,994 2,832,130 13,243,767 35 19,676,857
Alaska.......................................................... .............. .............. 74,813 609 487 .............. .............. 75,909
Arizona......................................................... 607,873 133,091 186,456 2,604 2,490,656 17,588,927 .............. 21,009,607
Arkansas........................................................ 947,769 4,602,759 150 25,893 14,717,235 21,427,665 91,555,927 133,277,398
California...................................................... 4,277,254 153,685 1,754,401 27,261 13,477,508 33,365,517 46,464,170 99,519,796
Colorado........................................................ 16,566,695 1,878,009 1,546,463 25,352 27,715,428 0 0 47,731,947
Connecticut..................................................... 479,926 370 18 44 428 0 0 480,786
Delaware........................................................ 1,628,162 50,513 159,242 93 476,605 0 0 2,314,615
Florida......................................................... 1,303,271 127,815 2 8,424 498,414 1,920,085 186,713 4,044,724
Georgia......................................................... 8,279,950 628,464 54,143 42,786 7,693,982 22,228,410 0 38,927,735
Idaho........................................................... 1,111,108 6,843 6,426,883 20,669 26,997,389 0 0 34,562,892
Illinois........................................................ 211,778,311 2,214,520 23,104 96,529 18,927,303 0 0 233,039,767
Indiana......................................................... 104,850,882 121,653 15,958 28,790 9,789,595 0 0 114,806,878
Iowa............................................................ 264,647,969 75,600 32,115 473,118 888,156 0 0 266,116,958
Kansas.......................................................... 31,513,153 44,597,344 1,004,991 119,947 120,570,938 20,191 0 197,826,564
Kentucky........................................................ 22,937,515 436,701 127,618 3,868 5,351,049 1,679 8,219 28,866,649
Louisiana....................................................... 2,851,914 1,873,284 83 10,045 2,807,770 25,741,976 37,006,642 70,291,714
Maine........................................................... 372,089 0 41,319 18,574 4,668 0 0 436,650
Maryland........................................................ 5,995,735 89,950 259,795 2,171 1,507,804 188 0 7,855,643
Massachusetts................................................... 309,473 139 35 117 385 0 0 310,149
Michigan........................................................ 40,393,089 10,641 224,811 137,000 8,174,772 0 0 48,940,313
Minnesota....................................................... 120,338,415 7,864 5,891,823 556,601 34,750,683 0 0 161,545,386
Mississippi..................................................... 1,961,887 1,569,987 138 7,770 5,146,159 39,129,148 18,838,001 66,653,090
Missouri........................................................ 38,807,188 10,190,214 64,232 37,410 23,807,205 7,017,915 7,949,699 87,873,863
Montana......................................................... 895,361 7,211 11,033,044 93,899 51,647,661 0 0 63,677,176
Nebraska........................................................ 146,817,977 23,318,821 434,601 241,745 28,243,814 37 0 199,056,995
Nevada.......................................................... 21,114 3,146 128,878 2,640 324,854 0 0 480,632
New Hampshire................................................... 219,880 210 151 5 0 0 0 220,246
New Jersey...................................................... 1,111,363 5,349 36,147 1,471 238,504 0 0 1,392,834
New Mexico...................................................... 1,831,672 2,523,702 148,609 2,452 3,494,988 1,979,982 0 9,981,405
New York........................................................ 13,466,363 1,913 84,295 77,667 1,588,483 0 0 15,218,721
North Carolina.................................................. 15,079,245 261,607 186,621 25,170 5,820,753 10,307,976 0 31,681,372
North Dakota.................................................... 10,913,294 41,992 15,956,731 514,068 95,599,852 0 0 123,025,937
Ohio............................................................ 63,455,436 14,364 26,026 86,608 14,592,680 0 0 78,175,114
Oklahoma........................................................ 1,937,064 3,566,474 107,457 57,371 62,414,607 7,195,900 92,708 75,371,581
Oregon.......................................................... 490,221 7,037 1,524,044 32,143 16,259,803 .............. .............. 18,313,248
Pennsylvania.................................................... 10,626,350 37,510 167,882 73,948 937,725 .............. .............. 11,843,415
Rhode Island.................................................... 16,110 109 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 16,219
South Carolina.................................................. 5,179,954 121,042 68,335 23,362 3,711,968 5,694,969 28 14,799,658
South Dakota.................................................... 42,133,538 2,908,611 3,401,315 733,147 31,178,259 .............. .............. 80,354,870
Tennessee....................................................... 8,810,127 919,535 27,499 2,933 5,265,082 12,817,016 71,776 27,913,968
Texas........................................................... 27,959,935 38,267,920 216,912 156,518 45,341,714 95,595,806 35,336,426 242,875,231
Utah............................................................ 557,115 9,019 732,476 5,398 2,439,269 .............. .............. 3,743,277
Vermont......................................................... 732,519 6 4,198 928 4,233 .............. .............. 741,884
Virginia........................................................ 6,553,040 154,783 429,629 6,359 2,772,059 916,683 .............. 10,832,553
Washington...................................................... 1,457,889 836 5,275,135 12,386 39,833,089 .............. .............. 46,579,335
West Virginia................................................... 994,825 3,158 19,444 2,758 85,859 .............. .............. 1,106,044
Wisconsin....................................................... 59,833,540 14,223 455,612 399,266 1,708,404 .............. .............. 62,411,045
Wyoming......................................................... 1,153,385 2,131 724,578 21,215 2,368,116 .............. .............. 4,269,425
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totol....................................................... 1,307,262,032 141,487,207 59,081,004 4,235,126 744,498,525 316,193,837 237,510,344 2,810,268,075
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
timing and effect of assistance
Question. Please include any timetables available to indicate when
producers may expect to receive assistance plus an analysis of the
degree to which the assistance made available by the aforementioned Act
will remedy shortfalls in farm income due to either production or
market losses in 1999.
Answer. Within 10 working days of the omnibus bill's enactment,
USDA began making income loss assistance payments. By November 21,
1998, USDA had paid 1.4 million farmers more than $2.8 billion.
On November 12, 1998, USDA announced the Livestock Assistance
Program (LAP) and began taking applications on November 23, 1998. To
accommodate the extremely high demand for LAP, USDA extended the signup
for this program and now plans to close enrollment on March 25, 1999.
USDA will issue payments shortly thereafter. We estimate that the $200
million Congress appropriated for livestock assistance will be heavily
over-subscribed, and USDA, consequently, will be able to pay only a
portion of the total request.
On March 15, 1999, the sales closing date for the 1999 crop
insurance program, USDA will have disbursed the $400 million dedicated
to lowering crop insurance premiums--the Administration's down payment
on its commitment to strengthening the farm safety net by reforming and
improving crop insurance.
USDA has implemented the honey and mohair loan programs included in
the bill.
In the near future USDA's plans for the $200 million dairy
assistance program will be announced.
USDA now expects to make CLDAP payments in June, following a 6-
month signup program, the same length of time USDA ran the signup for
the 1988 disaster assistance program, the last time USDA had to
implement a major, new crop loss assistance program. While USDA was
able to use the 1988 program as a template for subsequent programs, we
could not do so for this year's program.
The additional resources sought by the Administration and approved
by Congress have been instrumental in keeping thousands of farmers and
ranchers in business during tough times. USDA is at your disposal to
provide any additional information about implementation of these
programs.
state of the farm economy
Question. Please provide any information available about the state
of health of the farm economy at present and the extent to which
producers may not be able to continue viable farming or ranching
operations this coming year even with the assistance provided in the
fiscal year 1999 Act.
Answer. The farm economic outlook for 1999 is not favorable. In
1998, the farm economy took a sharp downturn when bad weather
devastated many production regions from California to Florida, while
grain and oilseed prices nosedived as a result of large global
supplies, the deepening Asian financial crisis, and weak export demand.
Livestock prices also dropped due to large supplies, and hog prices
went into a free fall late in the year. Unfortunately, exports and
commodity prices likely will be even lower in 1999, causing increased
farm financial stress, particularly in grain and oilseed producing
areas, such as the Corn Belt States, that up to now have weathered the
economic downturn.
U.S. farm exports, for example, are expected to drop to $49 billion
in fiscal year 1999--down $4.6 billion from fiscal year 1998 and nearly
$11 billion from the peak in 1996. Net farm income is expected to drop
to $44.6 billion for 1999, a 7-percent decline from 1998 and a 16-
percent drop from 1996. Net income just for key field crops (wheat,
corn, soybeans, upland cotton and rice) will be 17 percent below the
average for the past 5 crop years for the 1998 crops, and for the 1999
crops, net income is projected to be 27 percent below the previous 5-
year average. USDA's revised baseline projections for the next 10 years
indicate that economic recovery will occur at a very gradual pace.
The nearly $6 billion in government assistance enacted last year is
helping to maintain farm income and ease financial hardship for many
producers. Direct government payments to producers reached nearly $13
billion in calendar year 1998 and will probably total at least $11
billion in 1999. Also, lower interest rates and fuel costs have helped
reduce production costs, offsetting some of the decline in cash
receipts for many producers.
However, aggregate measures of the health of the farm economy mask
a marked erosion in market income in many regions and commodity
sectors, and all signs now point to greater farm financial stress in
1999. Net cash income is currently projected to decline $3-4 billion.
Land values began declining in a number of Midwestern States during the
last half of 1998, after years of steady increases. The drop in income,
coupled with declining asset values for many producers, means many will
have difficulty obtaining credit, and those who do will use it for
variable cash expenses, not investment, and will find themselves
squeezed trying to repay debt out of current income. For the many
producers who struggled with cash flow in 1998 because of adverse
weather and low prices, problems likely will worsen in 1999.
As a result of increased financial stress in farm country, demand
for USDA farm loans in fiscal year 1999 has been extremely strong. Many
farm families who have been financing their business operations through
their own resources or with a minimum of commercial bank debt are now
seeking farm loan assistance. Commercial lenders are utilizing Farm
Service Agency loan guarantees to restructure the short-term
indebtedness of their customers into more favorable long-term rates so
that they can continue to provide financing. FSA is using all servicing
authorities, including rescheduling and reamortizing, deferring
installments, and debt writedowns to assist FSA borrowers.
However, funds are exhausted or will soon be exhausted for key
credit programs: all emergency loan funds and non-targeted direct farm
ownership loan funds have been obligated already; non-targeted
interest-assisted guaranteed loans and direct farm ownership loans will
be exhausted in March; funding for direct farm operating loans will
last into April, and guaranteed operating loan funding will be gone by
August. Credit is no substitute for income, but adequate credit is
essential to maintaining any farm operation.
For many farmers and ranchers the key to weathering the farm crisis
is duration: how long the period of low commodity prices will last.
According to a 1998 Iowa State University study of 1,200 Iowa farmers,
those in basically strong or stable financial condition can withstand a
year of low prices, but if these conditions were to continue for
several years, one-third of the farmers in the study would face
restructuring or liquidation.
There are many uncertainties that could affect market demand and
prices, and, hence, farmers' well-being over the next 1 to 2 years.
Weather is always key; so is the world economy for a farm sector as
export-dependent as American agriculture.
dairy policy reform
Question. Would you please provide your observations or suggestions
relating to changes in USDA programs to help move toward a more
rational and fair dairy policy through either regulatory action or
legislation? In particular, would you address steps that might be taken
to help find a policy of comity among all regions to eliminate the
otherwise unavoidable conflict and turmoil that would result from
regional compacts or other tools of geographic disparity?
Answer. On or before April 4th, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) will issue its final decision on consolidation and reform of
Federal Milk Marketing Orders as mandated by the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (1996 Act), as amended. In the
nearly 3 years since enactment of the 1996 Act, USDA has requested
information from all segments of the dairy industry and received nearly
4,500 comments on Federal order reform and consolidation. In addition,
USDA established agreements with dairy industry experts in the academic
community to analyze specific issues, including the Class I price
structure and replacement of the Basic Formula Price (BFP) for milk,
and conducted several listening sessions around the country before and
after release of USDA's proposed rule in January 1998. We believe this
meticulous approach in informing the public and obtaining input from
interested parties will yield a final decision that is in the best
interests of all segments of the dairy industry and be fair to all
areas of the country.
emergency precedents
Question. USDA recently announced the granting of $50 million to
hog producers to help offset the dramatic reduction in price. How does
the Department intend to address similar requests from producers of
other commodities (e.g. beef cattle, aquaculture, minor crops, etc.)
now that a precedent appears to have been established?
Answer. Hog producers were hit with the lowest prices in 5 decades,
and we made every effort to find a way to help producers. We would hope
to be able to help other producers in similar circumstances and are
working hard to shore up the safety net for all farmers and ranchers.
risk management reform
Question. It has been suggested that approximately $1 billion
should be directed to reform crop insurance, including an expansion of
revenue insurance. To what extent should the availability of any funds
be used to expand new programs rather than improve existing programs?
For example, during debate of the disaster assistance package last
Fall, certain Senators complained that there should be no ``crop
insurance requirements'' tied to assistance eligibility due to the fact
that existing programs in their state were not economically viable.
Should our commitment to make sure that existing crop insurance
programs work in all states be any less than to create new programs?
Answer. The Administration agrees that continual review of existing
crop insurance programs is as essential as developing new insurance
products and insuring new crops. Poorly designed or administered
programs that fail to meet the producers' needs are counterproductive
to the Administration's goal of strengthening the safety net for
agriculture.
As you note, some Senators stated last Fall, that the current
insurance program was not viewed as attractive for certain crops in
their states. Reasons vary, but dissatisfaction with premium costs are
a major factor. RMA develops premium rates from the experience in each
county and state. In some cases, the experience is poor, resulting in
high premium rates. Cotton is such a crop. RMA has undertaken an
extensive review of its experience for cotton in the states east of
Oklahoma and Texas. Participation in the cotton crop insurance program
at buyup levels in these states ranges from essentially nothing to over
50 percent of planted acres. The intent of this review is to understand
the causes of the poor experience that resulted in high rates in
certain of these states. Once this review is completed, adjustments to
premium rates for crop year 2000 can be considered. Similar reviews
will be undertaken for other crops in other areas as resources permit.
We are also initiating a pilot review of our methodology with the goal
to publish new rates in a test area in 2000.
effects of climate change
Question. To what extent is climate change having an impact of USDA
policies? Recent weather events lead to a conclusion that adverse
conditions are affecting agriculture more severely and more
significantly than in earlier decades, resulting in more volatile
markets, reduced farm income, and disruption of consumer expectations.
How is USDA responding to these changes in terms of long-term policy
and what recommendations would you make for Congressional action in
this regard?
Answer. Temperature increases can have both positive and negative
effects on crop and forest yields, with the difference depending on
location and on the magnitude of the increase. And, agricultural and
forestry systems are most sensitive to extreme climatic events such as
floods, wind storms, and droughts, and to seasonal variability. Climate
change could alter the frequency and magnitude of extreme events and
change seasonal patterns. Increases in rainfall intensity pose a threat
to agriculture and forestry and the environment because heavy rainfall
is primarily responsible for soil erosion, leaching of agricultural
chemicals, and runoff that carries livestock waste and nutrients into
water bodies. Adjustment costs are likely to be higher with greater
rates of change. While climate change is not expected to seriously
threaten the U.S. ability to produce enough food to feed itself through
the next century, regional production patterns are likely to be
affected.
Strategies such as changing planting and harvest dates, rotating
crops, selecting varieties for cultivation, changing irrigation
practices, using fertilizers and pesticides, and choosing cultivation
and forest management practices can lessen potential yield losses from
climate change and improve yields in regions where climate change has
beneficial effects.
We need to improve our understanding of how extreme events could
affect agriculture and forestry and develop appropriate management
systems for coping with these events. And, we need more research to
explain and predict how agriculture and forestry will be affected by
climate change. USDA investment in additional research on the
adaptation of appropriate strategies is needed to gain a better
understanding of the climatic factors that affect enterprise level
adoption such as information flow, access to capital, and the role of
global change public programs and policies.
We need Congressional support for our fiscal year 2000 research and
climate change technology programs so we can conduct this vital
research and demonstrate alternative management practices that not only
address the climate challenge but provide significant co-benefits in
the form of improved productive capacity of our soils, improved water
quality, and habitat protection. We would also welcome your ideas on
how USDA's programs can be augmented to include greenhouse gas
abatement and carbon sequestration. And, we look forward to working
with you to address the international challenge of reducing the
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases in the most cost-
effective way.
farm credit
Question. Reduced farm income increases the difficulty of obtaining
commercial credit. In many cases, commercial lenders are restricted by
State and Federal banking requirements in a manner that will adversely
affect farmers when cash flow, debt-to-assets ratios, or other
financial conditions cannot be met. What role is USDA taking with the
financial industry (including Federal and State regulators) to help
farmers overcome banking regulatory burdens?
Answer. FSA is increasing interest in the guaranteed program by
making the program more accessible and easier to understand for both
lenders and loan applicants. A Preferred Lender Program (PLP) has been
developed for lenders experienced with the FSA guaranteed loan
programs. Under the PLP, FSA will approve the lender's system of credit
management up front, and the lender will then be able to obtain a
guarantee under a simplified process tailored to each lender's own
policies. The application will consist of a one-page signed form
supplemented by a lender narrative addressing certain credit criteria.
Furthermore, the guarantee will be automatically approved if we do not
take any action within 14 days.
Question. Does USDA intend to seek additional levels of direct farm
credit for Farm Service Agency programs to help offset the growing
difficulty of farmers to obtain operating capital from commercial
lenders?
Answer. Improvements being made to the guaranteed program, along
with the higher level of available guaranteed loan funds, will
sufficiently supplement direct loan funds in fiscal year 2000 so that
the credit needs of family farmers can be fulfilled.
Question. Does USDA intend to seek additional farm credit funding
budget authority for fiscal year 1999?
Answer. A request for additional fiscal year 1999 FSA farm loan
funding of $1.1 billion was submitted to Congress by President Clinton
on February 26, 1999.
loan deficiency payment calculations
Question. It has come to my attention that differences in points of
delivery for certain commodities in Wisconsin and Minnesota are working
to the detriment of Wisconsin farmers in the calculation of Loan
Deficiency Payments (LDP's). In other States it has been determined
that the existing system for LDP calculations based on posted county
prices did not accurately reflect prices received by producers. Please
review the situation in Wisconsin and report your findings and actions
taken to ensure fair and equitable treatment for Wisconsin producers.
Answer. LDP's are calculated using county loan rates that are
established once a year and Posted County Prices (PCP's) that may
change daily. There is a common misconception that the PCP pricing
system was designed to ensure that all producers of a commodity have
the potential of earning the same marketing loan gain or LDP. In
actuality, the primary objective of the PCP system is to determine a
value as close as possible to the local cash market price in any given
area. The PCP system was designed to provide producers with equitable,
but not necessarily equal, value for their commodities.
The Kansas City Commodity Office (KCCO) conducts weekly surveys of
187 counties in major production areas throughout the nation to
determine if PCP's accurately reflect local market prices. The most
recent surveys for corn and soybeans were conducted on March 9 and
included four counties in Wisconsin. In general, the results indicate
that PCP's in Wisconsin accurately reflect local market conditions for
these commodities.
If you have specific questions concerning the PCP for a specific
commodity or region of Wisconsin, I encourage you to submit your
comments to the Farm Service Agency for further review.
study of dairy prices and the wto
Question. Section 151 of the Federal Agricultural Improvement Act
of 1996 calls for a study and report regarding the United States'
membership in the World Trade Organization and the potential impact of
such membership on domestic dairy prices, federal dairy programs, and
other related items. This report was to be provided to the House and
Senate Agriculture Committees no later than July 1, 1997. Please
provide information on the status of this report and, if complete,
would you please provide a copy to this subcommittee?
Answer. The study referred to was assigned to the Economic Research
Service (ERS). Unfortunately, the same staff that was working on this
report was also needed to do economic analysis related to the reform of
the Milk Marketing Order system. This slowed the progress on the study
considerably. The analysis for the section 151 study has been completed
and the report is currently being cleared within USDA. We plan to have
the report available within the next six months.
fsis user fees and farm income
Question. Please explain if you disagree that any FSIS user fees
imposed on meat and poultry companies would not be passed on to
producers. Do you believe the major meat and poultry companies act more
competitively in their relationship with consumers than with producers?
If so, please explain? If so, why is there so much concern expressed by
the Department and elsewhere about concentration within the
agricultural industry, especially in regard to the livestock sector and
the effect of concentration on farm prices?
Answer. We estimate that the impact of the user fees on producers
in the form of lower prices received would be minimal. We estimate that
most of the fees will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher
retail prices. We estimate that the cost will be passed onto consumers
and consumer demand for meat and poultry is relatively inelastic, so
this proposal would not have much impact on the market. The overall
impact on retail prices is estimated to be less than one cent per pound
of inspected and passed product.
emergency forestry assistance
Question. The fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Act included $10
million in emergency funding through the Forestry Incentives Program
(FIP) related to forest fires in Florida and disasters in other states,
including Wisconsin. What is the status of providing this assistance
and what plans for distribution of benefits do you intend to use?
Additionally, what timetable do you envision for delivery of this
assistance? Since the identified need for Wisconsin is nearly $1.3
million for disasters in 1998, and since the $10 million provided
nationally will not cover all identified needs, will the Department
reflect these shortfalls in emergency funding when making any
allocation to states based on an appropriation of FIP funding in fiscal
year 2000?
Answer. On February 16, 1999, $9 million in Forestry Incentives
Program (FIP) funds were allocated to 17 States to address
reforestation needs caused by wildfires and other natural disasters in
1998. A $1 million reserve is being retained for future assistance,
primarily tree planting needs, in Florida. USDA's Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) and Forest Service, along with State
foresters, carried out a thorough assessment of needs, which far exceed
available funds. NRCS intends to closely monitor the use of these
emergency funds. The Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget currently
does not request funding for the FIP program in fiscal year 2000.
sanctions
Question. Please provide an update on U.S. negotiations regarding
the lifting of sanctions against countries such as Cuba and Iran in
terms of the implications for agriculture. Please provide any
information relating to the effect the lifting of such sanctions would
have for U.S. producers.
Answer. With respect to Cuba, on January 5, 1999, the President
announced an initiative to enhance U.S. support of the Cuban people and
to promote a peaceful transition to democracy. As part of this
initiative, the U.S. is implementing certain ``new measures'' including
allowing exports of food and certain agricultural commodities to Cuba.
Exports are limited to non-governmental entities in Cuba so that
eligible recipients are effectively small ``mom and pop'' shops,
private farmers and restaurants. While this represents an important
first step, the immediate impact on the level of exports of agriculture
products to Cuba is likely not to be great. USDA will continue to work
with the Commerce Department in drafting the regulations that will
govern these sales.
If sanctions on Cuba were lifted, the U.S. could reasonably expect
to supply about half of Cuba's agricultural imports or about $350
million, if trade were resumed. According to some analysis, Cuba has
the potential to become a $1 billion market for U.S. agricultural
exports (only after substantial investments), making Cuba our second
largest market in Latin America.
Regarding Iran, in December the Treasury Department received a
request for approval of a license to broker a sale of approximately
$500 million in agriculture exports to Iran. While a sale of this kind
is currently prohibited under the terms of the comprehensive embargo
against Iran, the request is being given serious consideration by the
Administration. USDA is working to ensure that all points of view are
represented in the decision-making process.
If sanctions on Iran were lifted, despite heavy competition from
Australia, Canada and South America, it is not unreasonable to expect
that U.S. agricultural exports to Iran could reach $300 million per
year in a relatively short period of time and perhaps twice as much
within five years. Principle gains for U.S. exports would be in grains
and oilseed products.
assistance to russia
Question. There have been recent claims that Russia has executed
sales of wheat to Iraq. Although there appears to be no evidence that
these sales involved the conveyance of commodities originating in the
U.S. (notwithstanding the fungibility of commodities such as wheat)
these allegations do raise serious questions about the role of U.S.
assistance to Russia. Please provide information that outlines the
steps the U.S. is taking to ensure that food assistance to Russia is
actually being delivered to the populations intended.
Answer. In the agreements with the United States, the Government of
the Russian Federation agreed to export restrictions on commodities and
related products supplied as food aid. On January 29, 1999, the
Government of the Russian Federation published an official decree
formalizing this agreement. During recent meetings with senior USDA
officials, Russian Government officials at the highest levels denied
that Russia sold wheat to Iraq. If further claims surface, the Russian
Government is committed to addressing the problem or face suspension of
the food aid programs.
USDA is mounting an unprecedented real-time monitoring effort to
ensure that the food assistance provided to Russia is delivered to the
intended populations and to investigate any irregularities that arise,
including Russian food exports. As part of the original food aid
agreements, the Government of the Russian Federation was required to
submit work plans that provide detailed information about the handling
and distribution of food aid imports from the United States. These
documents provide the foundation for the U.S. monitoring effort.
A working group has been established in Moscow to review the work
plans, facilitate the operation of the programs and provide a forum to
address monitoring issues. In addition to the U.S. Government,
representatives of the key Russian ministries and commercial agents are
included in monitoring activities.
Finally, four USDA monitors have been detailed to Moscow and one to
Vladivostok to ensure, to the extent possible, that the agreements
between the Governments of the United States and the Russian Federation
are fulfilled. The team will be headed by the Agricultural Trade
Officer at the U.S. Embassy. In addition, a ``country team'' approach
has been adopted by the U.S. Embassy in Moscow so that all U.S.
Government agencies represented in Russia can support the monitoring
effort. The USDA monitors will coordinate with the Russian Ministry of
the Interior in its independent monitoring effort.
An additional key part of the USDA monitoring plan is to provide
widespread publicity about the arrival and distribution of food aid in
the areas where it is destined. By building a grass roots network with
local government officials, civic organizations and the press, USDA
will be able to multiply its monitoring effort considerably.
pakistan
Question. Last year, Congress took action relating to sanctions
against Pakistan in order to help protect U.S. agricultural interests
in that country. Now, we hear an opportunity exists to provide an
additional 200,000 tons of wheat to Pakistan, but since that nation is
in default on GSM loans, that sale (or any other) is in jeopardy. What
is USDA doing to help protect markets such as this?
Answer. On March 5, the Government of Pakistan paid a portion of
their arrears under the GSM-102 program and the program was
reactivated. However, on March 8 Pakistan purchased 300,000 metric tons
of Australian white wheat and U.S. exporters were unable to capture any
business. Although GSM credit has been available for two of the last
three tenders (including this one), Australia's surprisingly large
freight advantage this year has put its wheat just under U.S. offers,
on a landed basis. To assist in protecting our market in Pakistan, USDA
has donated a total of 300,000 metric tons of wheat under the Section
416(b) program to Pakistan. The wheat will be shipped this spring. In
addition, USDA is providing to Pakistan $15 million worth of additional
wheat and $10 million worth of soybeans under the title I concessional
sales program.
Question. To what extent is the Pakistan problem related to the
general financial pressures in that part of the world?
Answer. The Asian financial crisis is a contributing factor to
Pakistan's current financial woes, along with the economic sanctions
imposed after the nuclear tests in May, and Pakistan's own difficulties
(lawlessness, corruption) in mobilizing its economy effectively. The
extent to which financial problems in Asia have affected Pakistan's
finances in general and its ability to buy U.S. wheat in particular is
difficult to quantify.
For example, the value of cotton and textile exports, which
constitute about two-thirds of Pakistan's $7.5 billion export earnings,
is down about 15 percent this year compared to last (partly due to
reduced exports to Far Eastern markets as a result of the economic
downturn there and partly due to depressed prices in general as a
result of the global economic situation). At the same time, worker
remittances (a major source of foreign exchange) have virtually dried
up since the Government of Pakistan's hard currency bank accounts were
frozen last May following the nuclear tests.
Question. How many other trading partners, or potential trading
partners, are in similar situations?
Answer. In addition to Pakistan, Russia is also in arrears on GSM
payments, and, as a result, the GSM program in that country is
currently not operative. The GSM program in Ecuador was also recently
closed due to the major financial crisis there. Although GSM credit
guarantees are currently not available in Russia and Ecuador, USDA has
maintained a presence in both of these markets by providing extensive
food aid in fiscal year 1999. As with Pakistan, we will continuously
review the financial situation in Russia and Ecuador. Should there be
an improvement in the financial situation in these countries, USDA will
be prepared to reconsider the availability of GSM.
dairy export incentive program
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget reflects a decrease in this
program. Please provide information relating to this program's use in
fiscal year 1999 and reasons for the projected reduction in 2000.
Answer. The President's budget assumes that bonus awards under the
Dairy Export Incentive Program will reach $99 million in 2000, which is
just slightly below the level of $102 million projected for 1999.
However, these numbers are only projections of program activity. The
actual level of DEIP bonus awards in both 1999 and 2000 will be
determined by market conditions and the Uruguay Round Agreement subsidy
reduction commitments.
banana regime issues
Question. A February 3rd article in the Journal of Commerce
discusses the relationship of the current Banana Regime issue with the
overall economies in the Caribbean Basin and suggests that a U.S.
victory at the WTO may ultimately cause the U.S. more harm than good.
Would you please comment on that statement and provide an overview of
the implications of the Banana Regime issue on U.S. agricultural trade?
Answer. The issues in the EU Banana regime case ultimately test
whether the EU will provide access to its market on a fair and non-
discriminatory basis. While the Banana case does not present a
situation in which U.S. agricultural products are being denied access,
it does present a situation in which U.S. businesses that supply or
service agriculture (U.S. farm equipment manufacturers, fertilizer
producers, marketing firms, etc.) have suffered injury because of
discriminatory practices. Maintaining the principles of fair access to
the EU market is an important issue for U.S. agriculture in general.
The Banana case also tests whether the EU will comply with its
obligations under the WTO or will ignore the Dispute Settlement Body
(DSB) Panel rulings. If it ignores the DSB rulings, the benefits of the
Uruguay Round will be put at risk for all members.
The United States, and U.S. agriculture in particular, has a strong
interest in an effective WTO dispute settlement mechanism. Since the
WTO was established in 1995, the United States has received favorable
decisions in three agricultural cases and has three other cases pending
where preliminary findings have supported our positions. In addition,
the United States has resolved a number of agricultural issues through
the WTO consultation mechanism without going to a panel.
bioterrorism
Question. Please explain the steps USDA is taking, along with other
federal agencies, regarding the threat of intentional contamination of
our food supply as either part of an international terrorism threat or
any other means.
Answer. USDA is actively involved in the Administration's overall
policy initiatives to counter bioterrorism as required under
Presidential Decision directives 39, 62, 63, and 67. These initiatives
address prevention, consequence management planning and coordination.
Currently, the Under Secretary for Food Safety co-chairs the USDA task
force charged to develop the Department's Continuity of Operations Plan
(COOP), which is expected to be completed and tested by October of this
year.
USDA has organized an intra-departmental Food Emergency Rapid
Response and Evaluation team to respond to food emergencies, which may
include some bioterrorism emergencies. This team, headed by the Under
Secretary for Food Safety at USDA, is a coordinating mechanism for
strong ties with CDC, FDA, and the state and local public health
departments working together on the Foodborne Outbreak Response
Coordination Group. This group has developed a white paper describing
foodborne outbreak response coordination.
APHIS has requested $1.2 million in the fiscal year 2000
President's Budget to develop a national emergency management system to
meet the needs of emergency disease outbreaks and emerging animal
health issues including microbiological residues, manure management,
transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, and biological terrorism.
Components of the system would include prevention activities such as
surveillance and a national disease reporting system; preparedness
activities such as training and the development of response plans; and
response and-recovery activities. Of the $1.2 million, approximately
$700,000 would be used to survey for significant animal health events
including biological terrorism. APHIS would also conduct 4 training
sessions for Agency and State employees and industry representatives
regarding biological terrorism, decontamination procedures, and other
animal health events. The remaining $500,000 would be used to complete
a master plan for the new system and to develop a National Animal
Disease Reporting System and Geographical Information System.
Question. To what extent does the President's Food Safety
Initiative address this issue?
Answer. The President's Food Safety Initiative does not include any
funds for bioterrorism activities. However, the Initiative's emphasis
on strengthening the public health surveillance infrastructure for
foodborne diseases would also be important for early detection and
response to bioterrorist attacks on the food supply. For example, the
Initiative funds the development of FoodNet active disease surveillance
efforts and the PulseNet information system to enable Federal and State
laboratories to rapidly identify and link outbreak cases. This system
is proving to be an invaluable asset to the early detection of
naturally caused foodborne outbreaks, and it would also be important in
detection of an intentional contamination induced outbreak.
haccp implementation in small plants
Question. Please provide information regarding the effect HACCP
implementation is having on small firms. Since implementation of HACCP
at the small firm level is very recent, have there been any
unanticipated problems that should be considered by the Appropriations
Committee that might not have been known at the time the fiscal year
2000 budget request was being developed?
Answer. Approximately 2,200 small establishments were required to
implement Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems by
January of this year. At this time we have not encountered any serious
problems. As of February 24 of this year, only 13 out of 2,211 small
plants have had FSIS take enforcement action against them for failure
to fully meet HACCP requirements. All of these plants have provided
FSIS with corrective action plans and have been approved to continue
operating. Eight other plants have voluntarily requested that
inspection be suspended or withdrawn.
One of the vehicles FSIS uses to monitor HACCP implementation is
the HACCP Hotline, which is managed by the agency's Technical Service
Center at Omaha, NE. The HACCP Hotline has identified the following
items as the principal concerns expressed by owners and operators of
small plants.
[The information follows:]
Inclusion of critical control points for identified food hazards.
The use of control programs/good manufacturing practices in lieu of
critical control points.
The process for completing the pre-shipment review for plants
supplying products to hotels, restaurants, and institutions
pesticide data program
Question. Please provide information explaining the role of the
Pesticide Date Program (PDP) within the context of food safety. Also,
please provide information that directly links the PDP to the
availability of pesticides for producers, especially for producers of
minor crops.
Answer. During fiscal year 1998, EPA used PDP data for the re-
registration of iprodione, thiodicarb and methomyll. During this
process, EPA reassessed approximately 160 separate toleranes, of which,
about 60 were tolerances for minor crop uses. In addition, EPA is using
all available PDP data for the re-registration of organophosphate
pesticides. For example, EPA is preparing preliminary risk assessments
for azinphos methyl, methidathion, chlorphyrifos, malathion, diasinon,
dihlorvos, acephate, dimethoate, disulfoton, ethion, fenamiphos,
fonofos, ethdamidophos, oxydemeton methyl, parathion, parathion methyl,
phorate, phosalone, phosphamidon, and tetrahlorvinphos usine PDP data.
There are approximately 179 food uses covered by these data.
PDP provides data EPA needs to re-examine pesticide residues in
food to determine whether a tolerance i.e., maximum allowable
concentration) is ``safe.'' The term ``safe'' refers to a
toxicologically determined average daily intake to assure there is a
reasonable certainty of no harm from dietary exposure to a pesticide.
EPA gives consideration to the special susceptibilities and food
consumption patterns of infants and children, and uses available and
reliable data when making risk determinations. EPA uses PDP data to
make ``best'' (refined) exposure estimates resulting from pesticide
residues in foods. Furthermore, because PDP places emphasis on food
items highly consumed by infants and children, EPA uses PDP data to
address the special needs of this vulnerable population subgroup.
PDP also conducts studies (single serving-size portions)
specifically designed to evaluate acute (short term) exposure to
organophosphate and N-methylcarbamate pesticides. Data from these
studies are critical for the re-registration of these chemicals needed
to sustain minor crops. These data will be used in Monte-Carlo
analyses, a newly developed technique which has the capability to use
more realistic data.
In a related effort, EPA is testing statistical methods using PDP
single-servicing size data generated for specific high consumption
foods. These methods will be used to maximize use of PDP data on
composite (more than one unit in a sample) in order to project acute
dietary risk for other foods.
Approximately 88 percent of PDP data collected to date are for
pesticide residues on minor crops. PDP data are extremely useful in
retaining pesticide uses for minor crops. PDP data are being
extensively used in the re-registration of organophosphate pesticides
needed to sustain minor crops. EPA uses PDP data to replace previously
used ``worst case'' residue values (e.g., toleranes or farm-date field
trails to more accurately reflect residues in food near the time of
consumption.
invasive species
Question. Please provide information relating to potential cost to
the national economy due to the existing and potential introduction of
alien species for which USDA has regulatory jurisdiction. In what areas
of the nation are these problems the most serious?
Answer. On February 3, 1999, the President announced an Executive
Order to expand the effort to address the growing environmental and
economic threat of invasive species. This order establishes an
interagency Invasive Species Council with the Department's of
Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior with the Secretaries as co-chairs.
Experts estimate that invasive species already infest over 100 million
acres of the United States and is growing at a rate of 3 million acres
annually. The costs to the U.S. economy are about $123 billion
annually.
Question. Is there any way to better protect areas into which these
species may migrate in the immediate future?
Answer. The Council will develop a comprehensive plan to minimize
the economic, ecological, and human health impacts of invasive species
and determine further steps to prevent the introduction and spread of
invasive species.
Question. From a budgetary perspective, keeping in mind the
constrains on this subcommittee, what are the best strategies to
control the threat from these pests?
Answer. The USDA budget includes an increase of $16 million for
programs to combat invasive species by preventing entry, improving
monitoring and detection, providing rapid assessment and eradication,
increasing crosscutting research and technology, and developing
partnerships directed at education and outreach.
Question. Please provide information relating to potential cost to
the national economy due to the existing and potential introduction of
alien species for which USDA has regulatory jurisdiction. In what areas
of the nation are these problems the most serious? Is there any way to
better protect areas into which these species may migrate in the
immediate future? From a budgetary perspective, keeping in mind the
constrains on this subcommittee, what are the best strategies to
control the threat from these pests?
organic certification
Question. Please provide information regarding finalization of the
Organic Certification program. In which areas of the nation do you
believe this program will be the most important from both a producer
and consumer perspective?
Answer. ASM is in the final stages of issuing another proposed rule
for organizally-grown food. There were more than 275,000 comments on
USDA's previous proposed organic standard. We are revising our proposed
standards, and plan to issue another proposal later this year with
another public comment. While some areas of the country produce more
organic product than other, both producers and consumers nationwide
will benefit from the universal standard that this program will ensure.
wetlands reserve program
Question. Will the expected enrollments in the Wetlands Reserve
Program (WRP) in fiscal year 2000 bring total enrollments to the fully
authorized level? In the event the WRP enrollment authorization is met,
does USDA intend to request additional authorization? If so when and to
what levels?
Answer. The requested WRP acreage enrollment level for fiscal year
2000 will bring the total enrollment to the fully authorized level.
USDA does intend to request additional authorization once the present
acreage cap is reached. The request will be contained in the fiscal
year 2001 budget. The exact level is still under consideration but will
likely range from up to 200,000 to 250,000 acres per year for the
period fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2006.
Question. Since many watershed structures are reaching their life
expectancy, what does USDA plan to do to help avoid continuing
deterioration of these structures beyond educational activities? To
what extent does the current status of these structures present a
threat to public safety? Please explain if you believe the level of
activity needed to correct the problem of deteriorating infrastructure
does not rise above the normal maintenance requirement, and thereby
places the burden of repair solely on local watershed organizations.
Answer. The issue of the aging watershed infrastructure is a
growing concern because of potential safety and health risks to the
public. Between the 1940's and 1960's, local sponsors with the
assistance of USDA, constructed over 10,000 flood control dams that
were designed to last 50 years. Many of these dams and others of newer
design are in a higher hazard classification due downstream development
and will also require major construction.
It is our opinion that the sponsors of dams built under the Small
Watershed Program are responsible for the operations, maintenance,
rehabilitation as well as compliance with all state and federal laws
involving dam safety and environmental permits. USDA presently has no
statutory authority to provide financial assistance for rehabilitation.
USDA is assessing ideas on how to assist in addressing the problem
within current authorities.
USDA/NRCS is currently completing a ``Rapid Assessment of Known
Rehabilitation Needs'' of dams built under the Small Watershed Program
in the states of Arkansas, Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico,
New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia,
West Virginia and Wisconsin. While this assessment is strictly a
compilation of known rehabilitation needs, it will provide stakeholders
valuable information on future direction. Early findings of this
assessment are being provided for the record.
RAPID ASSESSMENT OF KNOWN DAM REHABILITATION NEEDS
[Includes only dams built under PL-534, PL-566, Pilot Projects, and
Resource Conservation and Development authorities of USDA]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Dams
Needing Estimated Cost
State \1\ Immediate \2\
Rehabilitation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................. 71 $24,000,000
Arkansas................................ 77 21,000,000
Colorado................................ 49 28,000,000
Georgia................................. 129 85,000,000
Illinois................................ 36 11,000,000
Indiana................................. 41 14,000,000
Iowa.................................... 284 20,000,000
Kansas.................................. 97 19,000,000
Kentuky................................. 105 20,000,000
Mississippi............................. 84 31,000,000
Missouri................................ 244 21,000,000
Nebraksa................................ 294 4,000,000
New Mexico.............................. 17 23,000,000
New York................................ 49 2,000,000
Ohio.................................... 46 7,000,000
Oklahoma................................ 190 53,000,000
Pennsylvania............................ 7 1,000,000
Tennessee............................... 43 12,000,000
Texas................................... 283 84,000,000
Virginia................................ 16 10,000,000
West Virginia........................... 24 54,000,000
Wisconsin............................... 42 3,000,000
-------------------------------
Totals for these states only...... 2,238 547,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These 22 states have 10,188 of project dams.
\2\ Does not include Operations and Maintenance costs.
\3\ Caution Preliminary Estimates: Subject to change upon detailed on-
site assessment.
resource conservation and development
Question. Do you believe Resource Conservation and Development
(RC&D) districts should be expanded in number or should the areas be
expanded geographically? Should the RC&D program contain a
``graduation'' requirement which would allow new districts to come into
the program as others leave due to either completion of RC&D goals or
inactivity?
Answer. At current funding levels, we do not believe Resource
Conservation and Development (RC&D) Areas should be expanded either in
number or geographically. Even at these levels, NRCS is finding it
difficult to meet the basic support needs of the 315 authorized RC&D
areas. There are 37 areas with applications currently requesting
designation by the Secretary of Agriculture with an additional 20
councils being formed.
Expansion.--RC&D Areas are typically multi-county, many being made
up of three or more counties. There may be locations where sufficient
similarities in issues, action priorities and other interests exist
such that designated areas could be expanded to incorporate all or
portions of adjacent applicant areas. This would be contingent upon
local Councils' willingness to adjust their boundaries, council
membership, priorities, etc., to accommodate the additional counties.
This will not work everywhere due to geographic distances or other
similar limiting factors. NRCS State Conservationists will be requested
to work with their State Associations and RC&D Councils to assess where
expansion can work and make the necessary adjustments. We expect this
will be viable in a few locations.
Graduation.--The RC&D program should only contain a ``graduation''
requirement for those RC&D Councils found to be inactive or performing
below a minimum level. This would be a `de-designation' of an RC&D
area. USDA, in consultation with the National Association of RC&D
Councils, Inc. has developed minimum performance criteria for RC&D
Councils. The 315 existing designated area councils will be requested
to assess their performance using this criteria this fiscal year and
identify actions to improve where needed. Inactive or limited
performance councils would be provided the opportunity to revise their
area plan and strengthen results. USDA could then determine to withdraw
assistance if insufficient progress occurs. We think this would be
rare.
The concept of ``Graduation'' is inconsistent with the program
objectives, and the needs of rural communities. Currently, there are
not any agreed upon measures of ``self sufficiency'' in the
professional field of rural development, let alone measures that also
include conservation of natural resources. This is not unique to USDA.
It is an issue that is endemic to the whole discipline of economic
development. USDA no longer provides RC&D financial assistance to
councils as the number of designated areas has increased. In recent
years, congressional appropriations for the program have declined in
real dollars. Some councils, no longer receiving financial assistance
due to budgetary constraints, characterize this as a form of
graduation. Complete ``Graduation'' would sever the basic partnership
of the USDA with Councils, providing a disincentive for councils.
In addition, local partners would be less likely to participate if
they felt their much of their energy and resources had to go toward
overhead and administrative costs rather than producing results for
their communities. One of the key attributes of the RC&D Program is
that participating organizations see their financial and ``in kind''
contributions put to work in local projects.
The idea of ``graduation'' does not recognize the need of poor
rural areas to sustain the program over the long term. The strength of
the program rests in the experienced local delivery network working in
partnership with USDA to address local, regional, and national
interests. USDA's technical assistance is viewed as the catalyst for
providing access to information and technical expertise, leveraging
other support, and providing continuity for the Council in addressing
new issues facing their communities.
A letter has been sent to the Appropriations Committee in response
to language in the fiscal year 1999 Agriculture Appropriations Bill.
The letter will provide further information and discussion of actions
USDA is undertaking to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the
RC&D Program.
rural housing rental assistance
Question. The budget request for 2000 would reduce the amount
available for Rental Assistance, in part by deferring a portion of the
funds until October 1, 2000. What effect would this action have on
current tenants of eligible housing facilities and on the USDA housing
programs generally?
Answer. This proposal should have no effect on the tenants of our
rental units. The rental assistance contracts cover a five-year period
and requesting the funds over a two-year period will have no effect
either on the owners of the projects or the tenants. Nor should this
approach have any effect on the housing programs in general.
formula research funding
Question. Formula Research Funding. For the first time in many
years, Congress in fiscal year 1999 appropriated funding level
increases for many of the Formula Funded Research Programs, such as the
Hatch Act, Smith-Lever, and other programs important to states and
rural areas. However, the fiscal year 2000 budget request, again, calls
for a significant reduction in these accounts. Please explain the
rationale for these reductions, the anticipated affect it will have on
state and county based research and extension activities, and the
extent to which USDA consulted with its state and local partners in
this decision.
Answer. As you know, the Administration supports a balanced
portfolio of funding for university-based agricultural research
including formula programs, competitive grants, special grants and
projects, and other programs such as Smith-Level 3(d).
Competitive grants are an important mechanism for achieving
accountability to taxpayers. The Agricultural Research, Extension and
Education Reform Act of 1998 sets specific standards for federally
funded agricultural research activities, including activities resulting
from formula funding programs. Section 101(a) requires that
agricultural research, extension or education activities address
priority concerns that are of national, multi-state or regional in
significance. The legislation also requires the Secretary of
Agriculture to set research priorities after consulting with persons
who conduct or use agricultural, research, extension or education and
that entities receiving formula funds also develop a procedure for
receiving such input into program development. Competitive grant
programs provide an opportunity for the Administration to meet that
statutory obligation to taxpayers. Following extensive consultation
with stakeholders including the National Research, Extension and
Education Advisory Board, the land grant university system, and
producer representatives, the Administration developed a list of
national agricultural research priorities for fiscal year 2000,
including food safety, methyl bromide alternatives, small farms, Food
Quality Protection Act implementation and water quality. Through the
competitive grants process, the Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension (CSREES) can ensure that scarce federal resources are
used to address these high priority concerns. States and localities may
still choose to invest the funds they receive through formula programs
or other sources to address issues of immediate state and local concern
as identified through their own stakeholder input process. Since they
are free to use those funds, as well as the funds they receive from
formula programs in the manner they choose, the impact of the proposed
fiscal year 2000 budget will vary from state to state.
The Administration does not believe that redirecting funds to
competitive grant programs is at the expense of our land grant
partners. In fiscal year 1998, land grant colleges and universities
received approximately 75 percent of the funds awarded under CSREES
competitive grant programs. If past percentages hold true, the proposed
$81 million increase in the National Research Initiative in fiscal year
2000 may result in $61 million in additional research to land grant
colleges and universities more than offsetting the proposed decrease in
formula funds and ensuring that federal research, extension and
education programs meet national priorities. The Administration also
believes focusing on competitive programs will allow USDA to leverage
research dollars from other agencies such as NSF, Environment
Protection Agency, and National Institutes of Health to agricultural
problems, thereby increasing the funding opportunities for land grant
partners. A broadly competitive grant program will also ensure that
scientific expertise from outside the land grant system will be brought
to bear on agricultural problems, thereby increasing the potential
return to taxpayers. Through this approach to research funding, the
Administration believes more resources can be devoted to agricultural
problems and we can continue to provide our farmers, ranchers and
consumers with world-class cutting edge research to meet the ever
increasing array of production, processing and nutritional challenges
that face them.
Question. Methyl Bromide. Please provide information regarding USDA
activities in fiscal year 1999 and in the fiscal year 2000 budget
relating to methyl bromide alternatives, including your expectations on
finding an acceptable alternative in the near term, and please note any
changes in program activities that may have resulted from last year's
extension of production phase-out from 2000 until 2005.
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, the Agricultural Research Service
(ARS) has nearly $14.4 million appropriated for research on methyl
bromide alternatives. The funds currently are distributed among 20 ARS
locations (see table below). About half of the funds are in the two
states that are most impacted by the impending loss of methyl bromide--
California ($4,373,900) and Florida ($3,029,400). The Honolulu, HI, and
Weslaco, TX, locations, where research on methyl bromide alternatives
for quarantine purposes is conducted, account for an additional 25
percent of the funding ($3,167,600). ARS sponsors field-scale
validations of the most promising alternatives identified in
experimental plots. Parallel programs are proceeding in Florida and
California ($250,000 each annually) will emphasis on tomatoes in
Florida and strawberries in California. Research teams that include ARS
and university scientists, extension personnel, and grower
representatives meet periodically to evaluate research results and plan
future trials. To help transfer the technology to growers, many of the
field-scale validations are done with active grower participation on
commercial farms. Such alternatives are being tested at seven
strawberry sites in California, scattered from just north of San Diego
to Watsonville and with one site in the Central Valley, to test
alternatives under a range of growing conditions. There are five sites
devoted to perennials. In Florida, there are five sites each for
tomatoes and strawberries. $50,000 of the Florida funds supports
extension efforts to facilitate adoption of alternatives.
ARS Funding for Methyl Bromide Alternatives Research--Fiscal Year 1999
Location:
Davis, CA................................................. $226,000
Fresno, CA................................................ 3,485,400
Riverside, CA............................................. 126,600
Salinas, CA............................................... 535,900
Washington, DC............................................ 241,200
Gainesville, FL........................................... 213,000
Miami, FL................................................. 1,219,300
Orlando, FL............................................... 1,597,100
Byron, GA................................................. 83,900
Tifton, GA................................................ 462,200
Honolulu, HI.............................................. 1,684,700
Manhattan, KS............................................. 70,800
Beltsville, MD............................................ 1,048,200
Stoneville, MS............................................ 182,200
Corvallis, OR............................................. 487,400
Charleston, SC............................................ 330,600
Weslaco, TX............................................... 1,482,900
Wenatchee, WA............................................. 209,200
Yakima, WA................................................ 258,000
Kearneysville, WV......................................... 435,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total.....................................................14,379,600
Current budget projections for fiscal year 2000 are similar to
fiscal year 1999.
Other USDA agencies with methyl bromide alternatives research
projects are the Forest Service (FS) and CSREES. In fiscal year 2000,
an increase of $5 million is provided in the CSREES budget for a new
integrated competitive grants program to support the discovery and
implementation of pest management alternatives for commodities most
affected by the methyl bromide phase-out. The new program will focus on
short and intermediate-term solutions for commodities at risk. Special
emphasis will be placed on activities targeting technology transfer of
research into practical management alternatives. The Forest Service has
reestablished nursery programs at Athens, Georgia, and St. Paul,
Minnesota, with the goal of developing integrated pest management
programs that will ensure high quality seedlings. In the post harvest
area, the Forest Service, together with the Foreign Agricultural
Service and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, has been
successful in negotiations to get U.S. heat-treated coniferous wood
accepted into Europe and kiln-dried lumber into Korea in lieu of
fumigation with methyl bromide. The Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service, which administers the National
Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program, has funded research on
biological control of soil borne disease organisms. ERS is analyzing
the economic tradeoffs associated with the methyl bromide phase-out,
which will augment USDA's effort to prioritize an alternatives research
program.
An acceptable alternative must allow growers to raise a profitable
crop reliably from year to year. In the short term, it is clear that
acceptable alternatives will have to come from among those already
under development and testing. Because methyl bromide is effective over
a wide range of soil types, climates, and crops, no single alternative
is available to replace all the uses. The most likely short-time
alternatives will be replacement fumigants that are already registered
but they may have to be augmented with other pesticides such as
herbicides. Other kinds of alternatives, such as resistant varieties,
biological control, and cultural improvements, show promise; but there
is not enough time to develop and adapt them to acceptable cropping
systems before the phase-out. Even for replacement fumigants, results
are mixed and not as consistent as methyl bromide--probably why the
replacements have not been widely adopted as long as methyl bromide is
available.
In summary, although there are likely to be short-term replacements
for some uses of methyl bromide, in most cases, the alternative is
likely to cost more and be less effective. Among the soil fumigation
uses, some of the more severe impacts will occur to the production of
strawberries in California and Florida, orchard crops and nurseries in
California, and vegetable crops in Florida. Serious economic
consequences and shifts in agriculture within states and among foreign
countries are expected.
The strategy for finding alternatives is not expected to change
because of the extension of the phase-out; there will just be more time
to look for solutions. The strategy remains to identify and develop
alternatives in laboratories and small plots, then test the most
promising in larger plots under a variety of conditions, and finally to
select the most effective and validate their effectiveness in
commercial field-scale settings. The final stages are done with the
cooperation of the agriculture industries and growers, many times on
grower land.
Question. Also, please compare USDA activities in methyl bromide
research to those of other federal departments or agencies in terms of
total expenditures and interims of a percentage of the total agency
budget.
Answer. Methyl bromide is primarily an agriculture chemical and as
such the USDA has primary responsibility for finding alternatives for
those uses. The Agricultural Research Service, the intramural research
arm of the USDA, has the primary lead within the USDA. The Cooperative
State Research, Education and Extension Service and the Forest Service
have small research efforts on methyl bromide alternatives. The
Economic Research Service conducts research on the impact of the methyl
bromide phase-out. Research expenditures by agency are summarized in
the following table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Fiscal Year Amount Percent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARS............................................................. 1999 $14,379,600 1.83
ARS............................................................. 2000 14,379,600 1.72
FS.............................................................. 1999 518,000 ( \1\ )
FS.............................................................. 2000 508,000 ( \1\ )
ERS............................................................. 1999 200,000 ( \1\ )
ERS............................................................. 2000 200,000 ( \1\ )
CSREES.......................................................... 1999 306,000 ( \1\ )
CSREES.......................................................... 2000 5,306,000 ( \1\ )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than 1 percent.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration have methyl bromide research programs,
although the focus of those programs relate to atmospheric ozone
depletion and the role of methyl bromide in that phenomenon.
Question. To what extent is USDA working with other departments or
agencies on methyl bromide research?
Answer. The USDA and EPA co-sponsor with Methyl Bromide
Alternatives Outreach, the International Methyl Bromide Alternatives
Research Conference each year where scientists, growers, exporters and
other members of the impacted agricultural community discuss the latest
methyl bromide alternatives technology. Also, the USDA is working
closely with the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs to identify and
resolve registration issues that impact the availability of potential
chemical alternatives to farmers. EPA has agreed to give high priority
to the registration of methyl bromide alternatives.
usda agency administration
Question. Section 754 of the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Act
directed that any submission of unauthorized user fees in the fiscal
year 2000 budget request before this subcommittee would have to include
certain additional information if the revenue for those fees was
necessary to meet the President's budget authority requirements. While
the budget authority request for FSIS appears to include the full
amount necessary for inspection and related activities in fiscal year
2000, the table found on page 379 of the Budget reflects a total
discretionary requirement for this subcommittee that assumes the $504
million in proposed revenues from unauthorized user fees for FSIS
activities. Please list by USDA agency and by amount any assumptions of
revenues from unauthorized user fees used to achieve the discretionary
spending total found on page 379 and, consistent with Section 754
please note the funding levels currently in the budget request
recommended for reduction in the event the fees in question are not
authorized prior to the convening of a committee of conference for the
fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill.
Answer. For fiscal year 2000 the budget is presented on a current
law basis and this is the amount that is shown on page 379 of the
Budget which lists discretionary proposals by appropriations
subcommittees. Last year the budget was presented on a net basis.
In addition, the President's statement when he signed the fiscal
year 1999 appropriations bill said, ``Section 754 of the Agriculture/
Rural Development appropriations section constrains my ability to make
a particular type of budget recommendation to the Congress. This
provision would interfere with my constitutional duty under the
Recommendation Clause, and I will treat it as advisory.''
county and state office streamlining
Question. To what extent are total agency costs in office
consolidations considered? For example, would USDA require relocation
of a State office for one agency in order for all State agencies to be
in a single location if the cost for the relocation exceeded the costs
of current locations?
Answer. FSA with NRCS and RD will be establishing a working group
comprised of representatives from management and the unions to develop
a plan for implementing office consolidations where these are not
already in place. The working group will be looking at every aspect of
plans to achieve savings under current budget resources. It is possible
that the benefits to producers and field offices of a common State
office location could outweigh a somewhat higher cost.
employee reductions and office closures
Question. Since budget constraints are resulting in lower service
levels in field offices due to increased workload and a reduced
workforce, has USDA conducted an evaluation to determine when the
continuation of a county office in a given location is of less
importance to the customer than the maintenance of ``service'' in the
area? At what point does the presence of a workforce in an area become
more important than the existence of a field office regardless of
whether that office can meet workload requirements?
Answer. The Agency is continually monitoring workload in States to
determine areas of increased workload and moves both human and monetary
resources to those areas based on availability to provide the most
effective and efficient service to its customers. State Executive
Directors have been charged to use all management tools available to
ensure that producers are served as expeditiously as possible using
details, directed reassignments of employees, shared management and
office collocation and consolidation to get the work accomplished. When
the cost of keeping a service center in operation exceeds the benefit
of service provided at the counter, States consider closure and
consolidation of operations to improve efficiency but only with
Congressional concurrence.
farm service agency federal and county employment status
Question. Please provide an update on activities relating to the
conversion of Farm Service Agency (FSA) county personnel to Federal
status.
Answer. No further discussion or action has been taken in
converting FSA county employees to Federal status. Currently, the
Secretary is on record as being in favor of this conversion. No
Congressional action has been taken to enact this proposal. However, on
October 21, 1998, the President signed Public Law 105-277, which
contains a section to provide permanent FSA county office committee
employees with Federal civil service status for only the purpose of
applying for USDA civil service vacancies.
farm service agency salaries and expenses
Question. The fiscal year 2000 request for FSA Salaries and
Expenses includes an $80 million increase, although that increase does
not take into account the additional $40 million provided as emergency
spending in fiscal year 1999 which reduces the actual increase to $40
million. To what extent has the FSA Salaries and Expenses account been
supplemented by carryover balances in past years and how much will be
available in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. FSA has both Federal offices and non-Federal county
offices, and the ability to obligate administrative funds for carryover
workload is authorized by a general provision in each year's
appropriation act, which is only applicable to the non-Federal county
offices. Funds obligated for carryover workload expenses are normally
kept at a minimum. Funds made available to county committees in a
fiscal year are based on actual and estimated workload and staff year
requirements according to the FSA County Office Work Measurement and
Funding Allocation System. Requirements are updated during the year to
take into account changing conditions. Programs administered by county
committees are highly volatile in nature and subject to rapid changes.
Such changes include weather conditions, domestic market prices, export
sales, legislative and policy changes. Many emergency programs end up
being quickly administered at mid-fiscal year or late in the fiscal
year. In a disaster situation the top priority is to furnish a check to
a farmer or rancher as quickly as possible, so most county offices must
end up delaying or completing the process of all necessary paperwork
according to required procedures in order to comply with Agency
procedures as well as satisfy general and specific audits by OIG and/or
GAO.
Obligated carryover in fiscal year 1997 amounted to $63.8 million
of which $50.8 million was designated for use in fiscal year 1998 and
$13 million for use in fiscal year 1999. The ending obligated carryover
for fiscal year 1998 was actually $32.1 million which includes the $13
million brought forward from fiscal year 1998 and programmed for fiscal
year 1999. The $32.1 million is for carryover workload expenses to be
completed in fiscal year 1999. There is currently no expected carryover
estimate for fiscal year 2000, given 1999 funding enacted.
Question. To what extent will the $80 million increase described in
the fiscal year 2000 budget request actually reflect an increase in
funding available to maintain personnel?
Answer. The increase is actually $40.5 million. The 1999 funding
level includes the additional $40 million provided by the emergency
appropriations title of the 1999 Act. This funding identified as
administrative support for the emergency programs allowed FSA to
maintain fiscal year 1998 staffing levels into fiscal year 1999. An
increase of approximately $40.5 million over the fiscal year 1999
enacted level is required to sustain critical program delivery,
including pay costs at a reduced staffing level, offset by some
decreased operating costs. After adjusting fiscal year 1999 for $32.1
million in obligated carryover funding, the actual net increase for
fiscal year 2000 amounts to only $8.4 million. Therefore, the small
increase in total availability actually requires a decrease in staffing
because of pay and related costs.
Question. In what manner does the agency expect to reduce the
staffing levels to those included in the budget documents by the end of
fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Fiscal year 2000 Explanatory Notes reflect a decrease of
752 staff years in the Federal and non-Federal staffing level, from
fiscal year 1999 staffing of 16,545 FTE's to fiscal year 2000 staffing
of 15,793. FSA has no buyouts or RIF's planned for fiscal year 2000.
The Agency hopes to achieve the 752 decrease in staff years through
attrition.
Question. What effect will this have on the administration of
programs and the level of service afforded customers?
Answer. Because workload, particularly for marketing assistance
loans, loan deficiency payments and farm loans, is expected to increase
in fiscal year 2000, the proposed reduction of 752 staff-years proposed
will pose a formidable challenge to FSA. The Agency will strive for
maximum efficiency in program delivery as it continues with its re-
engineering efforts for program and administrative services. But
ultimately, these reductions will negatively impact program delivery in
terms of delays in delivering payments to farmers, and in implementing
emergency and disaster programs across the nation, particularly in
locations already minimally staffed as a result of previous agency
downsizing.
conservation technical assistance
Question. To what extent will the restrictions on Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) Section 11 reimbursements affect the administration
of conservation programs in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Section 161 of the 1996 farm bill amended Section 11 of the
CCC Charter Act to limit the uses of CCC funds for reimbursable
agreements and transfers and allotments of funds to State and Federal
agencies. In fiscal year 2000, after adjusting the cap to remove the
Emerging Markets Program from the base, the total expenditure of CCC
funds for such uses may not exceed $36.2 million. The budget projects
obligations under the revised cap for reimbursable agreements will
total $36.2 million in fiscal year 2000, excluding funding for
technical assistance for the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Technical assistance needs in
fiscal year 2000 for the WRP are estimated to total $18.3 million, with
$2.0 million provided from unobligated prior year appropriations and
$9.8 million from funds available under the Section 11 cap, leaving a
shortfall of $6.5 million. Technical assistance needs in fiscal year
2000 for the CRP are estimated to total $18.1 million.
Question. Does USDA plan any action, either administratively or
through requests to Congress, to correct any serious problem posed by
the Section 11 limitation?
Answer. No funds for CRP technical assistance in fiscal year 2000
are available from unobligated prior year appropriations, no CCC
funding has been provided for, and we are therefore attempting to
determine appropriate actions to resolve the funding shortfall.
food gleaning savings
Question. Food gleaning savings. As efforts at food gleaning become
more successful, will there be any anticipated future savings for USDA
feeding programs? If so, when might these be realized and to what
levels might they reach?
Answer. It is highly unlikely that even a large-scale increase in
food recovery and gleaning could significantly reduce the need for
funding for other USDA nutrition assistance programs in the near
future, particularly given that emergency feeding organizations
throughout the country are now reporting that they are struggling to
keep up with a dramatically rising demand for food from families at
risk of hunger--particularly from working poor families who may not be
eligible for food stamps.
A 1998 report by the Second Harvest Food Bank Network indicated
that approximately 21 million Americans rely on emergency food through
that network--and many food banks are currently reporting that the
number of people they are serving is growing, even under the optimal
economic conditions that now exist. If USDA obtains the $15 million in
funds requested and reaches the ambitious goal of increasing the amount
of food recovered and gleaned each year by 33 percent, that would
provide approximately 500 million additional pounds of food a year,
which equals roughly three meals a day for 450,000 people. While this
would be a significant number of people served, it would be less than 3
percent of the estimated 21 million people served by the current
emergency feeding system. Thus, USDA anticipates that most of the
additional food provided under such a scenario would help nonprofit
feeding organizations meet their increasing need, rather than reducing
the burden of Federal nutrition assistance programs.
advisory committees
Question. Please provide an update on the status of nominations to
the USDA Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee (APAC). Wisconsin has a
candidate that represents the small and medium-sized family dairies
that are prevalent in the Midwest. What is the Department's status on
completing those nominations?
Answer. The charters for the Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee
for Trade expires April 3, 1999. To ensure continued operations of both
the committees, it is the Department's intention to recharter all of
the committees and make the membership appointments no later than the
end of March, 1999.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Durbin
food aid programs
Question. Under Secretary Schumacher, you mentioned using the Food
Aid Initiative to reduce U.S. wheat surpluses. Beyond what you have
already done using pork in aid programs to Russia, are there other
avenues the Department can explore to increase the use of pork and
other commodities in foreign food aid programs? Possibly to Nicaragua
or Honduras? Are there any plans for the near future? What tangible
benefits would this type of aid have on U.S. pork producers?
Answer. The Department is always vigilant to the possibility of
helping U.S. pork producers through our food aid programs, as evidenced
by our donations of pork to Russia. In the case of Nicaragua, Honduras,
and other Central American countries hit by Hurricane Mitch, we did
closely examine the possibility of donating live hogs or pork to those
countries. However, due to a combination of serious logistical problems
with delivery of these kinds of products to Central America following
the hurricane, and, for some of the countries, a lack of interest in
receiving such products, no food aid donations of live hogs or pork
have been made to those countries this year. Small donations of hogs or
pork products such as the one that was considered but later rejected
for Central America could not be expected to have any significant
impact on U.S. hog or pork prices.
conservation reserve program
Question. The Natural Resources Conservation Service is expected to
provide an estimated $55-70 million in technical assistance for the
Conservation Reserve Program, and $11.8 million for the Wetlands
Reserve Program. Yet, the NRCS could see a shortfall of $50-60 million
in fiscal year 1999 because of the Section 11 cap in the 1996 Farm
Bill. Is the Department concerned about the shortfall in funding? What
is the Department doing to alleviate the shortfall?
Answer. Yes, the Department is concerned about the shortfall in
funding because of the impact this would have upon producers accepted
in the general signup (signup 18), the continuous signup, and the
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. The Department is working to
resolve the issue.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Kyl
karnal bunt
Question. As you know, the report accompanying last years
appropriations bill directed APHIS to work with the Arizona wheat
industry and Arizona regulatory agencies to develop a plan for de-
regulation of Karnal bunt in Arizona. The plan was to be submitted to
the Committee on Appropriations no later than November 15, 1998. I have
been informed, however, that the plan is still in draft form and is not
expected to be released until April of this year. This is unacceptable,
especially in light of the fact that the 1998-99 growing season for
wheat began at the end of November. Because of this delay, our growers
are essentially operating in the dark; without a set protocol, growers
risk planting wheat in a potentially regulated area. Arizona wheat
growers wish to operate with some certainty and comply with the rules
and regulations set forth by APHIS, but this is a most difficult task
when growers haven't even been informed as to what those rules will
entail. Arizona growers need to know what regulatory actions will be
taken by APHIS for Karnal bunt prior to the beginning of each growing
season. Is APHIS willing to publish the planting rules for the 1999-
2000 growing season by no later than December 1, 1999?
Answer. Yes, we are willing to publish the planting rules for the
1999-2000 growing season prior to December 1, 1999, and we will strive
to meet that deadline.
Question. Pursuant to the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill, did
you meet with the representatives of the Arizona wheat industry and
Arizona regulatory agencies to develop a plan for deregulation? Why or
why not?
Answer. Yes, we have met on several occasions with representatives
of the Arizona wheat industry and Arizona regulatory agencies to
develop a de-regulation plan. We will meet with them again this spring.
For the 1999 harvest season, we have published a proposal in the
Federal Register in which we would greatly reduce the size of the
existing regulated areas with 3 years of negative survey and allow the
planting of wheat in plowdown, traceback, and bunted kernel fields. We
intend for the final rules to be published in time to provide relief
for the crop that will be harvested in May, June, and July.
Question. When will this joint plan be submitted to the Committee?
Answer. We published a proposed rule on our plan on March 9, 1999.
It became effective upon signature on April 28, 1999, and was published
as a final rule on May 4, 1999.
Question. I have also learned that the compensation package for the
1997-98 growing season was finally published on December 17, 1998, long
after the wheat harvest had been completed last spring. I have also
been informed that this package compensates growers at 60 cents per
bushel and handlers at $1.80 per bushel. Why did it take USDA so long
to publish this package?
Answer. We realize that compensation rules have been delayed each
crop year, and we are trying to improve our timeliness. The delays have
been in part because we have been attempting to issue a longer term
compensation package. We were analyzing the benefits of developing a
longer-term proposal concurrent to our 1997-98 package that would
provide growers with the information they need well in advance of when
they must make planting and contracting decisions. In July, we decided
to table the longer-term proposal for future consideration and propose
the 1997-98 package by itself. The 1997-98 proposal was published on
December 17, 1998.
Question. Why are growers being compensated at only 60 cents per
bushel when the actual loss per bushel is estimated at $2.00 per
bushel?
Answer. Growers and handlers with wheat from the same regulated
areas are given equivalent compensation rates. The difference in
compensation rates reflects the fact that affected entities in areas
under the first regulated crop season would not have known that their
area was to become regulated for KB when they made planting and
contracting decisions. Therefore, they would not have considered the
risk of loss in value of their wheat due to KB. Conversely, growers and
handlers in previously regulated areas knew they were in a regulated
area when they made planting and contracting decisions for the 1997-98
crop season. With this knowledge, growers and handlers could have
chosen to alter planting or contract decisions to avoid experiencing
potential losses due to KB.
Question. The proposed compensation package states that growers and
handlers could have chosen to alter planting or contract decisions to
avoid experiencing potential losses due to Karnal bunt. In light of the
fact that USDA failed to publish the planting rules for the 1998 crop
in time for the growers to alter planting or contract decision, what is
the justification behind this statement?
Answer. Growers and handlers were aware of the regulatory
boundaries from the rules we published in fiscal year 1996 for the
1995-96 crop season. Therefore, they were aware of the risks they may
encounter. In addition, our compensation package for the 1997-98 crop
season did not increase the regulated area, so growers and handlers
were not faced with any additional risk. As you know, the report
accompanying last year's appropriations bill directed APHIS to ``work
with the Arizona wheat industry and Arizona regulatory agencies to
develop a plan for de-regulation of karnal bunt in Arizona.'' The plan
was to be submitted to the Committee on Appropriations no later than
November 15, 1998. I have been informed, however, that the plan is
still in draft form and is not expected to be released until April of
this year. This is unacceptable, especially in light of the fact that
the 1998-99 growing season for wheat began at the end of November.
Because of this delay, our growers are essentially operating in the
dark; without a set protocol, growers risk planting wheat in a
potentially regulated area. Arizona wheat growers wish to operate with
some certainty and comply with the rules and regulations set forth by
APHIS, but this is a most difficult task when growers haven't even been
informed as to what those rules will entail.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Cochran. This concludes today's hearing. I want to
thank you all for appearing before us and providing us with
answers to our questions and statements that will help us
understand the budget request and the implications for the
programs that are administered under these agencies.
Our next hearing will be on Tuesday, March 16, at 9:30 a.m.
in this same room, 138 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
At that time, we will hear from witnesses from the Departments
of Agriculture and Health and Human Services on the topic of
food safety.
Until then, this Subcommittee stands in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., Tuesday, March 2, the
Subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday,
March 16.]
AGRICULTURAL, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, at 9:35 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Thad Cochran (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Cochran, Kohl, Durbin, Harkin, and
Dorgan.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY P. KOPLAN, M.D., DIRECTOR
OPENING REMARKS
Senator Cochran. The subcommittee will please come to
order. This morning we continue to review the President's
budget request for programs and activities that come under the
jurisdiction of our subcommittee. This morning we are
considering the budget request as it relates to food safety
activities of the Department of Agriculture and the Department
of Health and Human Services.
The witnesses this morning represent the agencies
responsible for monitoring food preparation and processing to
make sure that the United States and its citizens continue to
have the safest food supply in the world.
One observation at the outset is that the so-called Food
Safety Initiative has received funding over the past 2 fiscal
years of $508 million. One issue that I hope we will consider
is whether or not those funds are being well used, how they are
being used and coordinated as a part of the Food Safety
Initiative.
I hope the witnesses will discuss with us their efforts to
reduce threats to the public health and to increase the safety
of our nation's food supply through the implementation of
inspection systems and the use of technologies and education to
help promote food safety procedures and safe food handling.
We welcome this morning Dr. Catherine Woteki, Under
Secretary for Food Safety at the Department of Agriculture; Dr.
Jane Henney, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration;
and Dr. Jeffrey Koplan, Director of the Department of Health
and Human Services' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Before proceeding to hear your comments, I will be happy to
yield to my distinguished friend from Wisconsin, the ranking
Democrat on our subcommittee, Senator Kohl.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR KOHL
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
Our hearing today looks at what is one of the most basic
responsibilities of government, namely ensuring that the food
we eat is safe. There is no single constituency for today's
hearing for everyone eats and everyone expects a healthy and a
safe food supply.
We will hear today from agencies, not all of which are
directly funded through this subcommittee. Secretary Woteki, it
is good to have you back, and I want to welcome Commissioner
Henney and wish for you the best in your new role with the Food
and Drug Administration. Dr. Koplan, I want to especially thank
you for appearing today. Although the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention is funded through the Labor, Health and
Human Services Subcommittee, your agency plays an important
role, along with USDA and FDA, in the Food Safety Initiative.
As is often the case when governmental missions cross
agency lines, there is the potential for overlap, duplication
and inefficiencies. One suggested solution is to consolidate
all food safety activities into a single agency. I find the
idea of a single agency intriguing, but thoughtful
consideration needs to be given to consolidating agency
missions in order to avoid harm.
The President has proposed a substantial increase for the
Food Safety Initiative in fiscal year 2000. Providing that full
increase will not be easy, especially if the money available to
this subcommittee continues to be reduced. That said, the fact
that we are dedicating an entire hearing to this topic is
evidence of our commitment to make certain that federal policy
priorities and funding for food safety receives proper
attention.
We hope today to gain a better understanding of the working
relationships of the several different agencies at USDA and HHS
tasked with protection of the food supply. Our end goal is to
fund a Food Safety Initiative that, in the most efficient and
effective manner possible, maintains the United States promise
of providing not only the most abundant food supply in the
world, but also the safest, for in fact we can afford no less.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator. We appreciate your
remarks. I also ask that a statement from Senator Burns be
inserted in the hearing record at this point.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Burns
Thank you Mr. Chairman: I look forward to working with this
committee and other members of Congress, as well as industry groups to
improve food safety and ultimately improve consumer perception of the
safety of agricultural products. American producers carry the
distinction of producing and distributing the world's safest food
supply. That they are not recognized as such by our own consumers is a
situation that must be changed.
Interagency cooperation will be vital to the development of this
goal. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has found that successful
integrated operation of a food safety system requires that officials at
all levels of government work together in support of common goals of a
science-based system. I believe this is mandatory, as well as complete
cooperation of industry groups and agricultural producers.
Additionally, a strong science base is vital to the Food Safety
Initiative proclaimed by the President. The well-being of consumers and
American farmers and ranchers alike depends on it. It is of paramount
importance that science is used as a basis for all reports of
outbreaks. Countless unfounded reports have leaked into the press and
hurt agricultural producers immensely.
E. coli, salmonella and listeria are buzz words for consumers.
Although numbers of incidences are down, public perception of meat and
meat products do not appear to have improved significantly. I urge the
FSIS to work closely with consumer groups, agricultural producers and
industry groups to reduce consumer distrust of meat products and
eventually eliminate the threat of food-borne illness.
This session I have introduced a bill, S251, along with Senators
Craig, Thomas and Enzi for country-of-origin labeling. Country-of-
origin labeling will assure consumers of the safety of American
agricultural products. Labeling will protect both the American producer
and the American consumer. Currently, foreign meat that comes into the
U.S. is rolled with the USDA grade stamp. This is grossly unfair to the
producer and consumer alike.
The USDA stamp on foreign product is a detriment to the producer
because foreign countries get the benefit of the grade stamp, without
having to pay for it. America's producers need the protection of
country of origin labeling to assure that the USDA label really means
just that---produced in the U.S. It is a detriment to the consumer
because they deserve to know that they are buying American. They
deserve to know that they are buying absolutely the safest food supply
in the world, which is grown by American farmers and ranchers.
Furthermore, other countries already require labeling of meat and
meat products. Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada and Mexico
currently require country of origin labeling. The European Union plans
to do the same by the year 2000. If we are to compete in an
international market, the U.S. must require the country-of-origin
label.
Again, American agriculture provides the American consumer with the
safest, most reliable source of food and fiber in the world. Consumers
have proven they want to know where their food comes from. With this in
mind we then should be informing the American consumer that they really
are purchasing American product.
I congratulate you on your timely address of the Y2K issue. I urge
you to continue to raise awareness of the Y2K problem and the threat it
may pose to our nation's food supply, as well as to plan to address any
problems that may occur within the food safety industry. Y2K holds
special interest to me and I am proud that the state of Montana is well
ahead of the game in preparing for the potential disaster.
I am gravely concerned about the issue of imposing user fees for
inspection of meat, egg and poultry programs. User fees, or a food
safety tax, such as the one proposed, could hurt the 500,000 workers
who depend on the economic well- being of the agriculture industry. It
would lead to a loss of jobs and damage businesses, large and small,
that depend on the economy of rural America. Agricultural producers are
struggling to make ends meet. They cannot afford the effects new user
fees will have on the already depressed market.
I am also concerned about the implementation of HACCP in the state
of Montana. HACCP inspections for very small plants are scheduled for
January 25, 2000. There are about 40 state inspected plants in Montana;
all of them considered very small by the HACCP inspection standards.
Most are already above federally inspected standards. Under the FSIS
(HACCP) program, state inspected plants must meet standards greater
than or equal to federal standards.
I am concerned that many of these plants may be put out of business
if they are subjected to unreasonable regulations that are there only
for the sake of regulations being in place. I am certainly not
advocating unsafe practices or creating a potential for contamination.
What I am advocating is the use of common sense and consideration of
the livestock folks in Montana, when reviewing HACCP proposals
submitted by producers subject to the HACCP program.
I would like to reiterate that we must all work together for an
effective food safety program. Administrative agencies must learn to
work more closely and effectively with industry groups, as well as
producers and consumers, in order to provide effective food safety
service.
I would also like to submit for the record questions from the Food
Marketing Institute and Olson, Frank and Weeda, representatives for
many food retail establishments
STATEMENT OF DR. KOPLAN
Senator Cochran. We have the witnesses' written statements,
which we appreciate receiving. We will make them all a part of
the record in full and urge you to make such summary comments
or other remarks that you think are appropriate.
We want to start this morning with Dr. Jeffrey Koplan, who
is the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
Dr. Koplan.
Dr. Koplan. Thank you, Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator
Kohl.
Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to speak
with you.
CDC monitors the occurrence of human foodborne illness in
the United States. We work with State and local health
departments to conduct surveillance of cases of foodborne
illness and to investigate disease outbreaks. We then use these
data to identify the factors responsible for illness, so that
immediate control measures can be taken and longer term
prevention strategies can be developed in concert with our
regulatory agencies.
There are different ways to measure whether these
strategies have been successful. Others measure success via
reductions in food contamination. CDC's role in measuring the
success of interventions is to see whether they translate into
reductions in the incidence of human cases of foodborne
illness.
Although the United States has one of the safest food
supplies in the world, we continue to face challenges to the
safety of our foods. New foodborne pathogens are emerging. The
eating habits of Americans have changed. An increasing
proportion of our food is imported. New products and processing
methods are being used, and mass production and distribution of
foods have the potential to produce diffuse outbreaks. In
addition, there are more people in groups at high risk for
foodborne illnesses.
New challenges require new ways to do our job. Foodborne
disease is a target area in CDC's recently released plan,
``Preventing Emerging Infectious Diseases: A strategy for the
21st century.'' CDC has also been an active partner in the
National Food Safety Initiative primarily to harness
information and laboratory technology to propel our nation's
foodborne disease surveillance system into the 21st century.
I will provide two examples of CDC's progress in this area.
First is the foodborne diseases active surveillance network
called FoodNet, which is a joint effort by CDC, FDA, USDA and
State health departments, to capture a more accurate picture of
trends in the occurrence of illness. FoodNet sites canvas
laboratories and other data sources for illnesses caused by
nine foodborne pathogens on an active, ongoing basis, using
standardized data collection methods.
FoodNet gives high quality data never before available and
allows determination that any differences across sites are real
and not due to differing surveillance intensity or
methodologies. Provisional 1998 data were released last week,
and the results are encouraging.
The overall incidence of Salmonella infections decreased 14
percent between 1996 and 1998. The incidence of the specific
Salmonella subtype associated with egg contamination declined
by 44 percent.
For Camplobacter, the most common bacterial foodborne
pathogen in the United States, there was an increase of
incidence between 1996 and 1997, but now we have documented a
15 percent decline from 1997 to 1998.
The incidence of infection with the parasite Cyclospora
decreased to virtually zero after the importation of
raspberries from Guatemala was suspended.
Although there may be other explanations for these
declines, the fact that they were seen across sites suggests
that we may be seeing a beneficial impact of our prevention
measures.
A second system to highlight is PulseNet, a network of
molecular fingerprinting laboratories at State health
departments, FDA, USDA and CDC, which enhances the ability of
laboratory-based surveillance to rapidly identify clusters of
related foodborne infections of certain pathogens. This system
uses a methodology known as pulsed-field gel electrophoresis
(PFGE), where each bacteria and its offspring have a unique
pattern.
In 1998, CDC created a national computer database of these
electrophoresis patterns. Participating labs submit their
patterns to CDC over the Internet. The computer automatically
scans previously submitted patterns searching for matches. If a
match is found, a signal is given to the submitter to initiate
an investigation to look for a common source. All of this
happens in real time, allowing the early warning system that we
all desire.
The impact of this system, PulseNet, has been enormous,
both in identifying outbreaks that otherwise would have gone
undetected and allowing us to better focus our investigations.
For example, in late 1998, an increased number of cases of
listeriosis was noticed.
Using PulseNet technology, CDC tested the strains from
several States and determined that many had the same
electrophoresis pattern.
Epidemiologic investigations found a strong association
with hot dog consumption in patients with the outbreak strain,
leading to the recalls which occurred just before Christmas.
Some strains which were tested were different from the outbreak
strain but similar to each other, indicating a separate
outbreak. Investigations found that they were linked to a
specific imported cheese.
Other small clusters of cases have been identified and are
under investigation. If not for the ability to do subtyping,
these outbreaks would never have been discovered and
investigated, and prevention measures would never have been
undertaken.
CDC plans to devote fiscal year 2000 food safety resources
to continue to build the national network of labs capable of
performing this PFGE technology and participating in the
PulseNet system and to expand the number of different pathogens
we can identify.
Other funds will go to expanding the FoodNet system and to
support our web-based system called DPDx, which harnesses
telemedicine technology to transmit images of parasites to CDC
for proper diagnosis from state laboratories. In concert, CDC
will continue to use emerging infections resources to build
State health department capacity to conduct appropriate
epidemiologic investigations.
In conclusion, these activities represent a small sample of
how CDC supports its State and local partners and other Federal
agencies in monitoring, controlling and preventing foodborne
illness. Foodborne diseases remain a challenge for public
health.
To address this challenge will require continued investment
in our public health infrastructure and strong partnership
among State and local health departments and Federal agencies.
I have been away from government and from CDC for the last
5 years and have just returned. One of the things that has been
most striking to me is the level of cooperation and the
increased capabilities that we have in this particular area.
The level of interchange that my colleagues at USDA and the
Food and Drug Administration and CDC have on a daily basis is
much greater than what it was 5 years ago. It is really
gratifying to see this level of cooperation and partnership.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Thank you for your attention, and I will be happy to answer
any questions when you have them.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Dr. Koplan.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey P. Koplan
I am Dr. Jeffrey Koplan, Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC). I am accompanied by Dr. Stephen Ostroff
of the National Center for Infectious Diseases, which is the
organizational component with lead responsibility for food safety
issues at CDC. I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity
to be here today with my colleagues from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to
describe our Nation's food safety activities.
Today I will discuss CDC's role in the area of foodborne diseases
and food safety, including how CDC has used resources obtained through
the National Food Safety Initiative to strengthen the Nation's ability
to detect and respond to emerging foodborne disease threats. I will
also use examples from surveillance reports and from recent outbreak
investigations to demonstrate how these resources are being applied to
today's public health practice.
At its most fundamental level, CDC is the agency that keeps its
finger on the pulse of the Nation's health. CDC is the cornerstone
Federal agency for identifying and monitoring foodborne and other
illness and for documenting the effectiveness of prevention and control
efforts, including both voluntary and regulatory measures. Using this
information, we then work to develop ways to improve disease control
and prevention actions. CDC collaborates with partners ranging from
State and local health departments, clinical medicine, academic
centers, industry, other countries, and international organizations. In
food safety, CDC works in very close coordination with the other
agencies represented in today's hearing.
Foodborne and waterborne diseases is a target area in CDC's
recently released plan, Preventing Emerging Infectious Diseases: A
Strategy for the 21st Century. Public health priorities in the plan are
organized under four broad, interdependent goals, each of which can be
applied specifically to the prevention of foodborne illness: improving
surveillance and response capacity, addressing applied research
priorities, repairing the Nation's public health infrastructure and
training programs, and strengthening prevention and control programs
required to control emerging, reemerging, and drug-resistant infectious
diseases. Copies of CDC's plan have been provided to the Subcommittee.
cdc's role in foodborne diseases and food safety
CDC plays a critical and unique role as a monitoring,
investigative, and advisory agency that is separate from regulatory
agencies, but that works closely with them. CDC monitors the occurrence
of human foodborne disease in the United States. This includes not only
traditional public health concerns, such as illness caused by pathogens
such as Salmonella, but also newer foodborne threats such as E. coli
O157:H7 and Cyclospora parasites. CDC works with State and local health
departments to conduct ongoing surveillance of cases of foodborne
illness and to investigate disease outbreaks, which often provide the
first clue of new or different threats to the food supply. CDC uses
both surveillance data and results of outbreak investigations to
identify the factors responsible for illness so that immediate control
measures can be taken and longer term prevention strategies can be
developed. While other agencies measure success of interventions via
reductions in food contamination, CDC's role in measuring the success
of interventions is to see whether they translate into reductions in
the incidence of human cases of foodborne illness. The ultimate test of
all prevention efforts is whether they prevent human illness.
Once an outbreak is detected, the first response is usually from
the State or local health department. Due to limited resources at State
and local levels, not all outbreaks can be adequately investigated and
reported. CDC will often be invited by the State health departments to
participate in the investigation if an outbreak is very large or
significant, is thought to involve an unusual pathogen or unexpected
food vehicle, affects multiple states or countries, or when preliminary
investigations do not reveal a source. When investigating an outbreak
of a foodborne illness, public health officials must combine laboratory
diagnostic techniques and epidemiologic investigative methods to
determine the causative agent of the illness, the food vehicle
responsible for transmission, and the environmental factors that
contributed to the outbreak. If a food is identified as the source of
illness, CDC collaborates with FDA or USDA on the investigation and
control of the outbreak, based upon which agency regulates the
suspected food.
In addition to our surveillance and response activities, CDC also
conducts applied foodborne illness research. Some examples include
developing laboratory diagnostic tests where none currently exist, such
as detection of hepatitis A virus in food and detection of Norwalk-like
viruses or Cyclospora in clinical specimens and foods; developing
methods to subtype, or ``fingerprint'', bacteria, viruses, and
parasites causing foodborne illness; conducting risk factor studies for
foodborne illness in special populations, such as the
immunocompromised; and performing cost-effectiveness studies of
potential prevention measures such as routine use of hepatitis A
vaccine in food workers.
The public health infrastructure is the underlying foundation that
supports the planning, delivery, and evaluation of public health
activities and practices. CDC's ongoing effort to rebuild the U.S.
public health infrastructure that addresses infectious diseases is
critical to improve the capacity of health departments, health care
delivery organizations, and clinical and public health laboratories to
detect and report cases of foodborne and other illness and to implement
prevention and control strategies. Part of this effort includes
enhancing capacity to respond to disease outbreaks and training public
health professionals to be able to respond to emerging threats now and
in the future.
CDC also engages in educational activities targeted to health care
professionals and the public. Some examples include producing videos on
laboratory methods to diagnose foodborne pathogens and materials on how
to avoid foodborne illness among immunocompromised, high-risk persons.
CDC actively participates with FDA, USDA, and other Federal agencies,
industry, and consumer organizations in the Partnership for Food Safety
Education, an ambitious public-private partnership created to reduce
the incidence of foodborne illness by educating Americans about safe
food-handling practices through many activities, including the national
Fight BAC!TM Campaign. The purpose of the Fight BAC!TM Campaign is to
help educate consumers about the problem of foodborne illness and
motivate them to take basic sanitation and food-handling steps that
will reduce the risk of foodborne illness.
the challenges of food safety
Although the United States has one of the safest food supplies in
the world, the public health burden of foodborne diseases is still
substantial, and we continue to face challenges to the safety of our
foods. New foodborne pathogens are emerging, old foodborne pathogens
are showing up in new foods, and antimicrobial resistance in foods is
increasing. The eating habits of Americans have changed. We now consume
more fresh produce and seafood and demand a constant supply throughout
the year. Changing food habits can result in a changing pattern of
foodborne illness. To meet the demand, an ever increasing proportion of
our food is imported, especially from developing parts of the world. As
a result, we are being exposed to pathogens not commonly found in the
United States, as demonstrated by the Cyclospora outbreaks associated
with raspberries imported from Guatemala. The array of new products and
processing methods, such as pre-packaged salad mixes, presents another
challenge, as does mass production and distribution of foods, which has
the potential to produce diffuse, nationwide illness outbreaks of
unprecedented scale.
New challenges require new, creative ways to do our job more
effectively and efficiently. The President's National Food Safety
Initiative, launched in 1997, recognizes this need and is moving our
food safety system forward. CDC has been an active partner in the
development and implementation of the Food Safety Initiative. Our
resources under this initiative have primarily been targeted to
harnessing the information and laboratory technology revolution to
propel our Nation's foodborne disease surveillance system into the 21st
century.
foodnet
I will provide two examples of CDC's progress in this area. First
is the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet). The
FoodNet system is a joint effort by CDC, FDA, USDA, and State health
departments to capture a more accurate and complete picture of trends
in the occurrence of illness caused by priority foodborne pathogens. It
is built on the foundation of CDC's emerging infectious disease
activities, which provides the basic infrastructure to conduct active
disease surveillance. Before 1996, the Nation's foodborne disease
surveillance system was based on passive reports of illness from
clinicians and laboratories which were submitted to local health
departments and then onward to the State health department and from the
State to CDC. Such information lacks timeliness, is often incomplete,
and is highly variable from one place to the next depending on the
resources invested at the state and local level.
FoodNet is part of CDC's Emerging Infections Programs (EIP's). CDC
funds EIP cooperative agreements with State and local health
departments to conduct population-based surveillance and research that
go beyond the routine functions of health departments. In these sites,
the program, which usually involves a partnership between the State
health department and an academic center, canvasses laboratories and
other data sources for illnesses caused by seven different pathogens on
an active, ongoing basis using standardized data collection methods,
standard definitions, and standard techniques. Each case is reviewed
and strains are collected and analyzed. Special case-control studies
are conducted across FoodNet sites in order to identify the major risk
factors for sporadic illness, and community surveys are conducted to
help determine the overall burden of foodborne illness, which include
mild illnesses which do not come to medical attention or patients who
do not have diagnostic testing performed. Data are electronically
submitted to CDC for collation with rapid turnaround. FoodNet gives
high quality data never before available and also allows determination
that any differences across sites are real and not due to differing
surveillance intensity or methodology.
As a demonstration of how rapidly these data can be analyzed and
disseminated, provisional 1998 data was released on March 11, 1999, in
CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. The results are very
encouraging. For the five original FoodNet sites which have been
collecting data since 1996, the incidence of Salmonella infections
declined 13 percent between 1996 and 1998. For Salmonella Enteritidis
(SE), the Salmonella subtype associated with egg contamination which
became a major problem in the 1980s, the decline was especially
pronounced. Between 1996 and 1998, the incidence of SE in FoodNet sites
declined by 44 percent. For Campylobacter, the most common bacterial
foodborne pathogen in the United States, there was an increase in
incidence between 1996 and 1997, but now we have documented a 15
percent decline from 1997 to 1998. The incidence of infection with the
parasite Cyclospora decreased to virtually zero after the importation
of raspberries from Guatemala was suspended. These provisional data use
1997 census estimates. When 1998 census estimates are available later
this year, these 1998 rates will be recalculated and are likely to be
slightly lower due to population increases. Although there may be other
explanations for these impressive declines, the fact that they were
seen across sites suggests they are not surveillance artifacts and may
be an indication that prevention measures being implemented by USDA and
FDA are working.
pulsenet
A second system to highlight is PulseNet, a system developed in
partnership with State health departments and the Association of Public
Health Laboratories. PulseNet is a network of molecular subtyping
(fingerprinting) laboratories at State health departments, FDA, USDA,
and CDC, which enhances the ability of laboratory-based surveillance to
rapidly identify clusters of related foodborne infections of certain
pathogens, sometimes scattered over large geographic areas. This system
uses a methodology known as Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE) to
digest bacterial DNA into fragments which can be run on gels to produce
unique patterns. Like human fingerprints, each bacteria and its
offspring have a unique PFGE pattern. If two bacteria are found with an
indistinguishable pattern, it is likely that they have a common source,
meaning they may be part of an outbreak of many similar cases. CDC has
standardized PFGE methodology for E. coli O157:H7 and for Salmonella.
Last fall CDC standardized PFGE methodology for Listeria, not long
before there was a multi-state outbreak of listeriosis associated with
contaminated hot dogs. Using funds from CDC's Epidemiology and
Laboratory Capacity (ELC) cooperative agreements and from the Food
Safety Initiative, state health laboratories have obtained PFGE
equipment, and CDC has provided training and standardized methodology
to them to test for foodborne pathogens. USDA and FDA laboratories also
participate in the network to allow comparison between animal, food,
and human isolates. By the end of 1999, 33 laboratories will be linked
into this network. Eventually, CDC hopes to include all state
laboratories.
To enhance the power of the PulseNet system, in 1998, CDC created a
national computer database of PFGE patterns that is housed at CDC. Now
states can submit PFGE patterns to the database over the Internet. The
computer then automatically scans previously submitted patterns
searching for matches. If a match is found, a signal is given to the
submitter that duplicate patterns are present and where they came from,
so that an investigation can begin to look for a common source. All of
this happens in real time, allowing the early warning system for
nascent outbreaks that we all desire.
The impact of PulseNet has been enormous, both in identifying
outbreaks that would otherwise have gone unnoticed, and in allowing us
to focus our investigations to determine the true source and extent of
an outbreak. For example in late 1998, an increased number of cases of
listeriosis were noticed. Using PulseNet technology, CDC tested the
strains from several states and determined that many had the same PFGE
pattern. Epidemiologic investigations found a strong association with
hot dog consumption in patients with the outbreak strain, leading to
recalls which occurred just before Christmas. Since then, CDC has
continued to work with states to test all available Listeria isolates
from patients since last summer, in order to determine how many cases
and deaths occurred as part of the outbreak and to confirm that the
outbreak is over. As of late February, a total of 97 outbreak-
associated cases have been identified in 22 states with 14 fatalities
and 6 still births.
Some of the strains which were tested were different from the
outbreak strain. Among these a second cluster of strains with a common
PFGE pattern was found. Investigation of these cases found they were
linked to consumption of a specific imported cheese. Other small
clusters of cases have been identified and are under investigation. If
not for the ability to do the subtyping, these outbreaks never would
have been discovered and investigated, and prevention measures would
not have been undertaken.
Another PulseNet example involves Shigella, a bacterial pathogen
that can be foodborne but most often is not. The Minnesota Department
of Health, a FoodNet site, routinely fingerprints its Shigella
isolates, and last summer they identified a cluster of strains with a
similar pattern. Epidemiologic investigations found that illness was
linked to eating chopped parsley in two different restaurants. By
informing other states and searching databases for places with an
increased number of cases, similar outbreaks were identified in five
other states and Canada. The Shigella from these outbreaks also had the
same PFGE fingerprint. All of the outbreaks were parsley associated.
Working with FDA, the implicated parsley was traced to production
fields in Mexico. Again, if not for routine utilization of PFGE, the
links between the outbreaks would have been missed, the source would
not have been identified, and the outbreak would have spread much
further.
PFGE is a powerful tool. It allows us to detect widely dispersed
outbreaks and small clusters that would have previously been missed.
This illustrates a central tenet of epidemiology: better surveillance
leads to better and more accurate disease detection, which in turn
leads to more investigations. This causes increased burdens, not only
on CDC and other Federal agencies, but also on state and local
partners.
Therefore, as surveillance improves, more outbreaks, not fewer,
will be detected. However, this should not be interpreted as a failure.
Rather, it represents success, because only by finding and
investigating the outbreaks can we define risks, develop and implement
interventions, and over the long term target and ultimately eliminate
the risk.
national food safety initiative at cdc in fiscal year 2000
CDC is committed to continuing to build a sensitive, timely, and
accurate public health infrastructure for the Nation. To this end, the
President's request for CDC for fiscal year 2000 National Food Safety
Initiative is $10,000,000 above the fiscal year 1999 appropriation of
$19,476,000. CDC plans to devote these resources to continue to build
the national network of labs capable of performing PFGE technology and
participating in the PulseNet system. We will increase the number of
pathogens monitored in the system in order to detect additional
outbreaks. Other funds will go to expanding the FoodNet system and
adding surveillance components for viral gastroenteritis. In the
future, we hope to expand and incorporate subtyping methods for viral
agents and to support the development of subtyping methods for
Cyclospora and Cryptosporidium, parasitic agents for which subtyping is
not sufficiently developed. And finally we will continue to support a
system known as DPDx, which harnesses telemedicine technology to
transmit images of parasites under the microscope to our experts at CDC
for appropriate diagnosis. In concert, CDC will continue to use
emerging infections resources to build State health department capacity
to conduct appropriate epidemiologic investigations.
conclusions
In conclusion, these activities represent a small sample of how CDC
supports its state and local partners and other Federal agencies in
monitoring, controlling, and preventing foodborne illness. Foodborne
diseases remain a challenge for public health. To address this
challenge will require continued investments in our public health
infrastructure and strong partnerships among State and local health
departments and Federal agencies.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the surveillance of
foodborne disease. We will be happy to answer questions you or other
members of the Subcommittee may have.
Food and Drug Administration
STATEMENT OF DR. JANE HENNEY, COMMISSIONER
Senator Cochran. Dr. Henney, we will now hear from you.
Dr. Henney. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. I appreciate the opportunity to address you today,
and thank you for your interest in this very important area of
food safety.
The Food and Drug Administration has been entrusted with
ensuring the safety of the majority of the food supply since
the passage of the first Food and Drug Act of 1906. Throughout
the 20th century, we have fulfilled our obligation to protect
the public from unsafe foods by relying on a strong scientific
basis for our regulatory approach.
As our scientific knowledge has developed, so, too, have
our regulations evolved to reflect the current state of
knowledge. As we move toward the 21st century, we must remain
dedicated to strengthening the science base throughout the
agency. It is my strong conviction that through the development
and application of sound scientific principles, we will solve
the numerous public health threats posed by an ever-changing
world.
This is particularly true in the area of food safety. While
our food supply is, in general, safe, our citizens are more at
risk from food today than they have been in many years.
First, the food we eat in this country has changed
drastically from a diet of meat, potatoes and locally grown
seasonal produce, to today when we are eating a much greater
variety of food, such as seafood, fresh fruits and vegetables.
And these foods are often transported over long distances, both
domestically and internationally. And they are available to us
throughout the year. The combination of the new sources and
wide distribution of food poses new safety challenges for the
public.
Second, we are eating more food prepared by others. We have
gone from the past, when most meals were prepared in the home,
to today, when 50 cents of every food dollar is spent on food
prepared outside the home. This food includes ready-to-eat
foods from restaurants and supermarkets.
There are also a large number of Americans who have their
meals prepared and served in hospitals, nursing homes, day care
and senior centers.
Third, there has been an increase in the number of people
considered to be at-risk for foodborne illness. Today nearly 25
percent of people in the United States fall in this category:
the elderly, children, pregnant women, the immuno-compromised.
Moreover, the size of the vulnerable population is growing,
particularly with our senior population being the fastest-
growing sector of our society.
Last and most important, more resistant old and more deadly
new pathogens have emerged in our food supply. With respect to
the latter, we are aware of five times the number of foodborne
pathogens in 1999 than we were just 50 years ago, the most
notorious of which is E. Coli O157:H7.
As a result of these changes, outbreaks of foodborne
illness are now all too prevalent. They seem to occur every
day, everywhere, in almost any food. And we are identifying
more and more outbreaks associated with FDA-regulated products:
apple juice, eggs, sprouts, raspberries, even toasted oat
cereal, a product not generally regarded as high risk.
While the number of deaths and illnesses associated with
food have been the source of great debate, virtually all
experts believe that many foodborne illnesses are preventable.
Therefore, we have a public health responsibility to do what we
can to minimize them.
The Administration's Food Safety Initiative was first
announced in January 1997 and further enhanced in October 1998
to provide special emphasis to help ensure the safety of
imported and domestic fruits and vegetables. The goal set forth
in this initiative could not be accomplished without additional
resources. And your support through prior years' appropriations
has been crucial to our success.
We have completed virtually all of the activities funded by
the $24 million you provided in the first year of the
initiative and are well along toward meeting our goals for this
year's funding.
We are now asking you for $30 million for fiscal year 2000
that can make a real difference in building the infrastructure
the Nation needs to effectively combat foodborne illness.
My written submission for the record contains details of
those accomplishments and plans, Mr. Chairman. But let me give
you just a few highlights today.
In the area of prevention, we have implemented state-of-
the-art HACCP controls for seafood that will ensure its safe
processing. We have developed agricultural and manufacturing
guidance for fresh fruits and vegetables that gives farmers and
processors the latest information on how to protect those foods
from contamination.
And we have established a national anti-microbial
resistance monitoring system that is intended to give us the
ability to detect emerging pathogens that threaten human
health.
Moreover, we are rapidly improving our ability to identify
foodborne illness when it does occur, track it to its source
and prevent further illness. For imported foods, we are
increasing our surveillance at the border and helping foreign
producers better understand how they can prevent contaminated
food from being sent to us.
With the additional funding that we are requesting for next
year, we will begin, for the first time in many, many years, to
inspect high-risk food processors at least once a year. We will
increase our collaborations with States who share with us the
responsibility to inspect these firms.
We will utilize the new DNA technology that promises to
revolutionize our ability to respond to foodborne illness. And
we will launch a serious effort to improve the safety of food
at the retail level.
In closing, let me just say that our food safety efforts to
date have taught us many lessons. One of the most important is
that FDA cannot solve this problem on its own. We must work
together with other Federal agencies, such as CDC, USDA, EPA,
as well as our important counterparts in the States to
accomplish our goal of a truly coordinated and effective food
safety net based in sound science.
In our efforts, we must remember our public health
responsibility. As we continue to work with States and other
Federal agencies, the standard for food safety in this country
must remain a high one. The public demands it. The science is
developing to allow it. And we must keep pace, or we will have
failed to meet our public duty.
Although we cannot anticipate every food safety problem
before it happens, we must make sure that we have a strong
science-based food safety system in place that can minimize the
harm to public health. Our budget request for fiscal year 2000
will give us the resources we need to meet the challenge we
will face into the next century.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I thank you for your time, and I will be pleased to answer
any questions you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jane Henney
Mr. Chairman, senators, ladies and gentlemen, I appeared before the
Senate last year to ask you to consider me for a position in public
service. Today I am honored to address you as the Commissioner of the
Food and Drug Administration. I thank you and your colleagues who saw
fit to entrust me with this office.
During that process, I promised the Senate that I would make food
safety a high priority if I was confirmed as FDA Commissioner. It is my
privilege today to begin to deliver on that promise by presenting the
highlights of the Agency's food safety accomplishments for fiscal 1998,
the plans for fiscal year 1999, and the expectations for food safety as
reflected in the Administration's proposed budget for fiscal year 2000.
food safety problem
The Food and Drug Administration began as a science-based consumer
protection agency nearly 100 years ago with a food safety issue. A
chemist in the Bureau of Chemistry at the Department of Agriculture,
Harvey Wiley, was concerned that chemical additives used as
preservatives in a time when refrigeration was in its infancy were a
danger to the public health. Called the ``crusading chemist,'' his
experiments on additives such as borax and formaldehyde found his
original concerns to be valid and culminated in passage of the Pure
Food and Drugs Act in 1906. Harvey Wiley, as you may know, was
ultimately designated the first Commissioner of the Food and Drug
Administration.
The food safety challenges that face FDA and other food safety
agencies today may be different that those that Harvey Wiley confronted
but they are no less challenging or compelling.
What people eat has changed. We are no longer a nation of meat and
potato eaters only, but a people who are eating a greater variety of
foods, particularly seafood and fresh fruit and vegetables. This is
great for our nutrition but offers greater food safety challenges. When
consumers are demanding these foods year round, safety issues
surrounding transportation and refrigeration become an increasing
problem. And as trade barriers break down, new challenges for ensuring
the safety of the imported food arise.
Where people eat has changed. People are eating more of their meals
away from home. In fact, fifty cents of every food dollar is spent on
food prepared outside the home. This food is purchased not only from
grocery stores and restaurants, but also is consumed in institutional
settings such as hospitals, nursing homes and day care centers. The
result is that as more food workers become involved in preparing our
meals, both the chances for disease-producing errors and the regulatory
responsibility of assuring food safety increases.
Who's eating is also changing. Nearly a quarter of the population
is at higher risk for foodborne illness. This includes pregnant women,
children, the elderly, and the immunocompromised. The size of the
vulnerable population is growing, with aging babyboomers and increased
longevity.
All are important--different foods, more foods prepared outside the
home, and increased vulnerable populations--but there's another
important element in our changing world, the emergence of many new
foodborne pathogens. We are aware of more than five times the number of
foodborne pathogens in 1999 than we were in 1942. Many of these
pathogens can be deadly, especially for people at highest risk.
As a result, outbreaks of foodborne illness are now all too
prevalent. They happen frequently, in all regions of the country, and
in every type of food. And we are identifying more and more outbreaks
associated with FDA regulated products. Therefore, as the world of food
changes, we must be sure that the food safety system changes along with
it, identifying new solutions to today's problems.
the president's food safety initiative
Recognizing the increasing risks to the food safety system, on
January 25, 1997, the President announced a Food Safety Initiative to
reduce the incidence of foodborne illness to the greatest extent
possible. Four months later, recommendations for the President were
delivered in a report entitled ``Food Safety: From Farm to Table.''
This report outlined the steps the federal government would take in the
short and long term to achieve that goal. The Food Safety Initiative
was enhanced by President Clinton on October 2, 1998 to provide special
emphasis on ensuring the safety of imported and domestic fruits and
vegetables. FDA has a central role in the Administration's efforts.
A Strong Science Base Is Critical
As critical as it was in Harvey Wiley's time, it is just as
critical today to the food safety system that it be grounded in a
strong scientific foundation. Equally important is that we have a
strong, scientifically skilled workforce to conduct the President's
Food Safety Initiative. We rely on and therefore must support the
scientific work of those entrusted with carrying out FSI
responsibilities at every step along the farm to table continuum. We
must invest in enhancing and maintaining scientific excellence to
ensure that we have the best possible data for decision-making at both
the policy and implementation level.
A recent outbreak of Salmonella Agona in breakfast cereal
illustrates the importance of a scientific basis to public health. In
the spring of 1998, 20 states reported an increase in Salmonella Agona
infections. There were 409 cases of illnesses reported. Over 102 people
were hospitalized and one person died. Through molecular fingerprinting
(DNA) technology we were able to link the bacteria from the food and
from the patients. The bacteria was subsequently traced to one
manufacturer who produced the cereal under a variety of labels.
Ultimately 2 million pounds of Toasted Oat cereal was recalled.
Already, FDA has made the following scientific contributions under
the FSI:
Prevention Programs
Developed a science-based hazard analysis critical control point
(HACCP) regulatory program for seafood to prevent foodborne illness.
This includes extensive training for our inspectors so they provide a
knowledgeable oversight role.
Developed technology to eliminate or inactivate microbial
contaminates by the use of high hydrostatic pressure techniques. This
technique has been shown to inactivate a number of different pathogens
in packages of fluid products while retaining the products' sensory
characteristics, and provides an alternative pastuerizing technology in
some situations for which thermal pasteurization and irradiation are
less desirable.
Initiated research to prevent contamination of unpasteurized juice
by assessing the effectiveness of different antimicrobial technologies
in an actual cider mill.
Initiated research on safe sprout production at sprout production
facilities constructed at the National Center for Food Safety and
Technology (Moffett Center) in Chicago, operated in partnership with
Illinois Institute of Technology. This research will evaluate the
effectiveness of intervention strategies such as sanitizing agents to
prevent contamination of sprouts with pathogens.
Surveillance and Outbreak Response
Developed a comprehensive, coordinated national foodborne illness
outbreak response system in collaboration with CDC and USDA among
federal, state and local agencies.
The National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) has
allowed us to increase our ability to detect emerging pathogens and
identify relationships between animal and human foodborne isolates.
NARMS isolates provide a pool of organisms to research for rapid tests
for identification of foodborne pathogens for salmonella type.
Detection Methods
Developed through a collaboration between federal, state, and local
agencies, an improved technique to detect directly and quantify harmful
Escherichia coli within 30 minutes, compared to 24 to 48 hours using
conventional techniques. This pathogen was responsible for outbreaks of
food-related illness in young children after they drank unpasteurized
apple juice.
Developed a rapid, sensitive and reliable method capable of
detecting low levels of Norwalk viruses in contaminated shellfish.
I would endeavor to have a strong science base throughout the Food
Safety Initiative.
Federal Partnerships
As you can see, many of these programs have joined FDA and its
Federal partners in successful collaboration to protect the public
health. Further examples include: development of an interagency Risk
Assessment Consortium to coordinate priorities of risk-assessment
research, such as the Listeria risk assessment currently underway that
involves both USDA and FDA regulated products; the signing of a
memorandum of understanding to create the Foodborne Outbreak Response
Coordinating Group (FORC-G) to enhance coordination of resources and
expertise during an outbreak and prepare for new and emerging threats
to the food supply; collaboration between FDA and USDA with CDC on
funding, protocol development, and priority setting for FoodNet;
multiagency collaborations on the National Advisory Committee on
Microbiological Criteria for Foods to achieve food safety advice of the
highest scientific standards for all federal agencies involved in food
safety; and the development of a Joint Institute for Food Safety
Research (JIFSR) which allows for the joint funding and coordination of
priority research projects.
Federal-State Partnerships
An integrated federal-state partnership makes sense as well from an
effective use of resources perspective and provides the greatest level
of public health protection. I strongly support such partnerships. For
this approach to work, we need: strong federal standards; training and
certification for all inspectors; shared databases; federal oversight
of state activities; and effective enforcement and surveillance. The
need for increased inspection coverage is sufficiently large that we
will need an increased federal inspection force, and also need more
qualified state and local counterparts.
Our work and cooperation with the States is central to our success
in these endeavors. Currently, FDA is leading an effort to integrate
federal, state and local food safety systems for FDA-regulated
products. This work began in September 1998 in Kansas City with an FDA-
hosted meeting of food safety and agriculture officials from all 50
states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, epidemiologists from
state and local health departments, and colleagues from CDC and USDA.
The focus of the meeting was to find a way for local, state, and
federal food safety and public health agencies to share resources and
work together to make the U.S. food supply safer than ever. Discussions
centered around joint planning opportunities for increased inspections,
linking data and communication systems, and improving government
response to outbreaks.
Tasks of integrating the nation's food safety systems has now been
divided into working groups of local, state and federal health
officials. The reports from these working groups will be made available
for public comment later this spring. We estimate that it will take 5-
10 years to build this national system and it will require resources to
enhance state and local capabilities.
fiscal year 1998 achievements
In fiscal year 1998, FDA received its first additional
appropriation of $24 million under the initiative. The Agency used
these funds to begin to set the foundation for creating a state-of-the-
art science-based food safety system.
This system focuses on combating foodborne illness on two major
strategic fronts. The first is the development of prevention
strategies, programs that will keep bacteria out of the food,
throughout the food chain, from farm to table. These prevention
programs are supported by education and verification--by educating
producers, processors, food preparers, and consumers in how to use
prevention techniques correctly, and by verifying, through inspections
at business establishments, that the prevention techniques are, indeed,
being applied properly. The second front is the early detection and
containment of foodborne hazards during an outbreak. In addition to
limiting the extent of the outbreak, we must seek the cause and provide
a ``feedback loop'' of information that helps strengthen our prevention
programs.
Virtually all the goals promised for the first year in the May 1997
Farm-to-Table Report were achieved. I would like to highlight some of
them for you.
Prevention, Education, and Verification
Prevention is the key to reducing foodborne illness. A major focus
of our prevention strategy for food safety was the implementation of a
HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points) program for seafood.
HACCP is a science-based system in which a food producer identifies the
hazards associated with its particular product, and then puts
appropriate controls in place to prevent, reduce, or eliminate the
hazard. Through a combination of FDA inspection and state contracts,
all domestic seafood processors and importers were inspected to verify
implementation of HACCP by the end of calendar year 1998.
We have expanded our prevention strategies by proposing HACCP
regulations for juice. We also are working with small juice and cider
producers to further our juice safety goals. And, together with USDA,
we have launched a multi-pronged initiative to prevent illness caused
by Salmonella contamination of raw eggs.
We have worked on prevention strategies involving produce as well.
FDA and USDA held a series of public meetings with the agricultural
community and conducted site visits to growing and packing areas to
elicit detailed information on common problems involved in the
production of safe produce. These meetings were held as background for
the development of a guidance document for growers, packers and
shippers of fresh fruits and vegetables, which provides information on
agricultural and management practices that may enhance the safety of
fresh produce. We were very pleased with the way the final guidance was
accepted by industry. In fact, the final guidance won the endorsement
of United Fresh Fruits and Vegetable Association, a large national
trade organization.
In recent months, we approved the use of chlorine dioxide as an
antimicrobial agent for use in produce processing, and published a
policy under which we will expedite the review of food additives that
would make predictable contributions to preventing or reducing pathogen
contamination of foods.
Food safety education campaigns, soundly based in science, can
reach large numbers of commercial and home food preparers with
information on safe food handling practices that can prevent food
contamination and reduce pathogen growth. Food safety education is
another part of FDA's strategy to protect consumers from foodborne
hazards. These activities, often sponsored in conjunction with other
federal agencies, states and professional associations, provide a cost-
effective means to preventing processing, preparation, handling and
storage practices that could cause food to become contaminated with
dangerous levels of microorganisms or other substances that could cause
illnesses.
Education activities in fiscal year 1998 included work in
conjunction with USDA and CDC with the Partnership for Food Safety
Education's ``FIGHT BAC!'' campaign. Extensive educational efforts were
undertaken through the media and through community-based education
programs for food handlers both in retail settings and in the home. FDA
field offices across the country also launched educational efforts to
help average citizens prevent food-related illnesses.
An education program was also started for health professionals. FDA
and CDC signed an agreement with the American Medical Association to
develop a program to educate physicians and their patients on foodborne
disease.
early detection and containment of hazards
Responding to emerging pathogens in the food supply quickly and
effectively is essential to preventing widespread illness. FDA
scientists in the Center for Veterinary Medicine and the National
Center for Toxicological Research are adapting for use in the United
States an assay for detecting bovine DNA in feed to protect us against
occurrence of imported ``Mad Cow'' disease in the United States.
We are convinced that this focus on detection and containment has
had a significant, beneficial public health impact. For example,
information gathered through field investigations supported by the
Administration's Food Safety Initiative linked Guatemalan raspberries
to cyclosporiasis; outbreaks in 1996 and 1997 caused about 2,500 cases
of cyclosporiasis in this country. This past year, no Guatemalan
raspberries were imported to the U.S., and no cases of cyclosporiasis
were linked to raspberries. In contrast, Canada imported Guatemalan
raspberries last summer and continued to suffer raspberry- associated
outbreaks of Cyclospora infections. We estimate that our preventive
actions avoided 1,200-1,500 Cyclospora infections for the American
public and saved $2.8 to $3.5 million in health- care costs. We are
continuing to work with Guatemala to permit future importation of
raspberries without importing foodborne hazards.
I would also like to raise with you a food safety issue that is
likely to have major public health implications: antibiotic resistance.
We know that antimicrobial resistance (the resistance of disease-
causing bacteria to drug treatment) can develop in some organisms when
food animals are treated with certain drugs. We also know that this
resistant pathogen can be transferred on food and infect humans. This
drug resistant infection may cause disease in people consuming the
animal derived food product and result in infections that are resistant
to treatment potentially increasing the costs and risks associated with
the infection. Increasing antibiotic resistance and loss of the
effectiveness of antimicrobials is an emerging public health threat
world-wide. We are taking several actions to combat this threat. FDA
and USDA have established a nationwide surveillance system to identify
and track developing antimicrobial drug resistance in food-producing
animals. FDA is also collaborating with CDC and USDA to study
resistance by tracking the emergence of resistant pathogens and
developing scientifically sound mitigation and intervention strategies
to prevent the development of resistance. FDA also plans to conduct
research into the mechanisms of resistance, their dissemination and the
risk factors associated with resistant human infections. We must
continue to develop our scientific understanding of antibiotic
resistance and take action to ensure that effective drugs remain
available to treat infections in humans and animals.
I have only touched on the many FDA accomplishments for fiscal year
1998. A more complete listing is available in a First Year Report,
FDA's Accomplishments on the President's Food Safety Initiative, which
I will submit for the record.
fiscal year 1999 plans
Added funds for fiscal year 1999 allow FDA to focus on imports as
well as on domestic and international education and outreach on the
good agricultural practices guidance. In fiscal year 1999 we will also
give further emphasis to seafood HACCP and antibiotic resistance
monitoring.
Imports
On the premise that the safety of imported foods can be better
enhanced where the foods are produced rather than at the U.S. border,
FDA has undertaken not only to strengthen our border surveillance
activities, but also to design new programs to prevent contamination in
countries that export to the U.S. We are assessing foreign controls
over food products exported to the U.S. and are providing technical
assistance to foreign countries. We also will conduct foreign
inspections of food establishments that produce food products at high
risk for microbial contamination and conventional surveillance of
imported food products at our borders will be increased. When foodborne
illness outbreaks associated with imported foods occur, we will conduct
follow up investigations in the exporting countries. I will submit for
the record a more detailed plan of our fiscal year 1999 food safety
import plan.
Last year, as you are aware, the Administration put forward a bill
that would have expanded FDA's authority over imported foods (S.1707/
H.R.3052). That bill raised many questions and concerns in Congress and
as you know, ultimately did not succeed. The President recently
reaffirmed his commitment to providing FDA with enhanced authority over
imported foods. I want to assure you that the Agency heard and
understands the questions and concerns, and I want to work with you to
find the right solution to provide FDA with the tools necessary to
improve the safety of imported foods.
Good Agricultural Practices Guidance
FDA will work with USDA to provide information and education on the
Good Agricultural Practices guidance developed in 1998. Fresh fruit and
vegetable growers may use this guidance to reduce the risk that their
products will become contaminated with pathogens. Technical assistance
and education programs are now under development for the domestic and
international produce industry to improve the safety of fresh produce
available to U.S. consumers.
Seafood HACCP
FDA continues to implement seafood HACCP during fiscal year 1999 by
conducting the second year of annual inspections of domestic seafood
processors. The first year's inspections focused on providing
processors with clear feedback on the status of their new HACCP
systems. They were designed to be educational as long as a critical
public health hazard was not found. In the last year, FDA found a range
of problems with HACCP implementation that needed to be addressed by
seafood facilities. Our goal is to see that HACCP is being more fully
implemented in a larger proportion of the industry by the end of
calendar year 1999. I will submit for the record our plan for
strengthening the safety of seafood in this, our second year, of
seafood HACCP implementation.
Antimicrobial Resistance
In order to assure detection of emerging resistance trends in
pathogenic bacteria, we are planning to expand our program to increase
the information in the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring
System. The collection and analysis of this data will improve our
ability to detect changes in antimicrobial resistance patterns and
identify trends at the local level. The identification of trends helps
us target our research. For example, we are now looking at how the use
of multiple drugs and multiple exposure to the drugs affect the
development of antimicrobial resistance. We are also looking at how
drugs are administered to determine if the route of administration
affects the development of antimicrobial resistance.
fiscal year 2000 budget request
As a result of funding provided in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year
1999, a solid, science-based infrastructure is being developed to
improve food safety and reduce the risk of foodborne illness, for both
domestic and imported foods.
The President's fiscal year 2000 budget request for FSI includes a
$30 million increase for FDA that further builds this science base and
expands capabilities in surveillance and containment of foodborne
outbreaks. The additional resources will be targeted to develop further
a nationally integrated food safety system, and provide greater
emphasis on the control of foodborne hazards in the post-harvest phase
of the farm-to-table continuum.
Expand Inspections
In fiscal year 2000 we will focus on increasing our domestic
inspection coverage. Inspection and compliance efforts will be expanded
during fiscal year 2000 with additional emphasis on the frequency of
inspection of domestic firms producing food that is at high risk of
microbiological contamination or high risk of causing severe disease.
There are a total of 6250 such firms. Inspection of these firms will
increase to a schedule of once per year by 2001. By ``high risk'' we
mean, in addition to seafood: infant formula, certain ready-to-eat
foods that are not processed or only minimally processed--e.g., by
heating, freezing, washing--before consumption; heat and serve
products; and low-acid canned foods and acidified foods. fiscal year
2000 resources would be applied both to increasing Federal FDA
inspections as well as increasing inspections by our state and local
partners according to federal standards. We also will more than double
the number of foreign inspections we conduct for these same types of
products.
Enhance Surveillance and Investigation to Improve Outbreak Response
Funding in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 expanded public
health surveillance efforts, resulting in improved outbreak detection.
Since it is anticipated that there will be an increase in the number of
outbreaks detected, FDA must continue expansion of foodborne outbreak
response and traceback activities. To that end, we need a rapid
response capability directed to foodborne outbreaks. We need to
increase the links between CDC surveillance and epidemiology and FDA
response team, as well as between FDA laboratories and CDC's PulseNet
pathogen subtyping system. This rapid response team will enable early
containment of hazards, and will provide a feedback tool on new causes
of outbreaks to promote development of new preventive controls.
Food Safety at the Retail Level
An additional focus for fiscal year 2000 will be on strengthening
Federal and State partnerships regarding retail food safety. I
mentioned at the beginning of my statement that American consumers are
increasingly eating food prepared outside their homes. That factor in
itself may not seem significant. CDC data, however, clearly demonstrate
the substantial occurrence of foodborne disease outbreaks in retail
settings. FDA will work with its state partners to lower that risk.
Reducing outbreaks associated with food service operations is a
significant challenge. To appreciate the magnitude of the problem, I
should point out that there are approximately 750,000 restaurants and
37,000 institutional food service operations in the U.S.
FDA will work with states and the food industry to develop and
implement food production and preventive control systems. In
particular, FDA will encourage the states to adopt the 1999 Food Code,
a model code developed by FDA in collaboration with state officials.
FDA will provide training to state and local officials as well as
education to the private sector regarding safe food handling practices.
Accelerate Food Safety Research
Research will be conducted to expand methods development and
prevention technology research during fiscal year 2000. FDA will
collaborate with other agencies and the private sector to translate
preventive technologies and techniques into appropriate versions for
use by small industry and consumers. FDA, along with CDC and USDA, will
expand mechanisms to transfer technologies to States, small and large
industry, foreign governments, consumers, and others.
The National Center for Food Safety and Technology (Moffett Center)
and the Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (JIFSAN)
are key components of FDA's efforts to achieve established food safety
objectives. These partnerships with academia and industry allow for
more efficient use of public and private research resources and enhance
the quality of food safety and public health policy. The additional
resources requested for fiscal year 2000 will permit FDA to expand risk
assessment efforts at JIFSAN and the Moffett Center to fill the
critical gaps in exposure assessment of foodborne hazards. This
expanded risk assessment research effort will enhance FDA's ability to
characterize more rapidly and accurately the nature and size of the
risk to human health associated with foodborne hazards, as well as the
effects of intervention. More rapid and accurate risk assessment
techniques are critical to providing consumers greater protection
against potential hazards posed by foodborne pathogens. This research
compliments efforts underway at CFSAN, CVM, and the National Center for
Toxicological Research (NCTR).
Antimicrobial Resistance
In fiscal year 2000, we will continue to improve and expand our
National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System including expanding
the geographical scope and supporting international efforts to develop
a global resistance database. We will conduct epidemiology studies to
evaluate management, production and drug use practices in food animals
to determine how such practices influence the development of
antimicrobial resistance. We will get additional information from
collaborative efforts with other government agencies, academic
institutions, and producer groups in order to develop education
material related to proper drug use. We will work with State and local
authorities to develop effective educational program.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, all of us testifying today--FDA, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--as
well as other federal agencies, state and local government officials,
and agriculture, industry and consumer representatives, have key roles
to play in the effort to reduce the incidence of foodborne illness.
This effort has been a highlight of the President's Food Safety
Initiative. All the partnering agencies' and organizations' programs
need a base in science and a focus on public health. We also need open
communication between federal, state, and local governments, the
industry, and consumers. Working together, we can ensure the safety of
the nation's food supply.
SUBMITTED QUESTIONS
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Dr. Henney.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Cochran
Question. What is the incidence of foodborne illness in the United
States? Has it increased over the last 10 years? Over the last five
years? Over the last year?
USDA answer. Estimates of the magnitude of foodborne illness in the
United States have been imprecise. To quantify, better understand, and
more precisely monitor foodborne illness, since 1996 the Foodborne
Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) has collected data to
monitor nine foodborne diseases in selected U.S. sites. The overall
incidence of the foodborne illnesses under surveillance from 1996 to
1998 declined, particularly for salmonelllosis and campylobacteriosis,
and the data continued to demonstrate regional and seasonal differences
in the reported incidence of diseases. Over this 3-year period, the
largest decrease in bacterial pathogen-specific rates occurred in cases
of infection caused by Salmonella (14.5 per 100,000 population in 1996
to 12.4 per 100,000 population in 1998, a 14 per cent decline).
Each year, millions of persons experience foodborne illness, though
only a fraction seeks medical care and an even smaller number submit
laboratory specimens. FoodNet provides a precise measure of the
laboratory-diagnosed cases of specific foodborne illnesses and performs
additional surveys and studies to interpret trends over time. The 1998
Food Net data indicate a decline in several of the major bacterial and
parasitic causes of foodborne illness. These declines might in part
reflect annual fluctuations in the incidence of foodborne illnesses and
temporal variations in diagnostic practices. The trends also may
reflect implementation of disease prevention efforts. The declines in
salmonellosis and campylobacteriosis may reflect changes in meat and
poultry processing plants in the United States mandated by the Pathogen
reduction and Hazard Analysis and Critical control Points (HACCP) final
rule. The decline from 1996 to 1998 in the incidence of salmonellosis
parallels the reported decline in the percentage of meat and poultry
products tested at large, federally inspected processing plants that
were positive for Salmonella.
FDA answer. Estimates of foodborne illness are wide-ranging, and
the true magnitude of foodborne illness remains illusive. In 1994, the
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) estimated the
incidence of symptomatic illness at 6.5 million cases annually, with
about 9,000 related deaths. CDC has undertaken a broad-based, multi-
disciplinary effort to update estimates of foodborne illness using the
best available information. CDC anticipates that the revised estimates
will be available for public review within the next few months.
Substantial future efforts will be required to further improve
estimates of the burden of illness caused by certain bacterial,
parasitic, and viral foodborne pathogens.
Question. What percent of foodborne illness is attributed to the
processing of foods versus consumer food handling?
FDA answer. CDC and FDA do not know of reliable data to determine
the percent of foodborne illness attributed to the processing of foods
versus consumer handling of food. However, the current data indicate
that we need to do more to prevent foodborne disease, both by making
food safer and by improving commercial and home food preparation
practices. To reduce the frequency of foodborne diseases, improvements
need to be made throughout the food supply--reduce the prevalence of
pathogens on farms, decrease the contamination of foods during
processing, and improve food handling practices in restaurants and
homes.Most food-borne illness have traditionally been attributed to
food prepared in the home, although, most outbreaks have been reported
from food prepared at the retail level. This apparent inconsistency is
the result of bias in traditional foodborne illness surveillance
program. The Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network, FoodNet,
established under the Food Safety Initiative, was developed in part to
provide a more accurate estimate of where, contamination and other food
preparation errors that lead to food-borne illnesses are occurring.
Question. With the use of HACCP, USDA officials have noted a sharp
decline in Salmonella contamination of meat and poultry. However, more
than a third of ground turkey is still tainted. Why?
USDA answer. The prevalence of Salmonella in the FSIS nationwide
raw ground turkey microbiological survey--conducted during January
through March 1995 and September through November 1995--was 49.9
percent. The Post-HACCP implementation, January 26, 1998--January 25,
1999, Salmonella prevalence for raw ground turkey produced in large
plants was 36.4 percent. Thus, there has been a decline in Salmonella
contamination on raw ground turkey since the implementation of HACCP.
Ground meat and poultry products tend to have a higher Salmonella
prevalence than carcasses, because they are prepared from numerous
carcasses.
Question. There have been increasing numbers of recalls in the
United States involving cooked, ready-to-eat products and Listeria.
What are the concerns about this and what is being done about this
problem?
USDA answer. FSIS has undertaken an aggressive strategy to decrease
the risks from Listeria on ready-to-eat products. This strategy
includes: developing guidance to industry on ``best practices'' that
can help to reduce the potential of product contamination; targeting
consumer education for high-risk groups; initiating a study to address
developing policy guidance on industry responsibility to address
Listeria under HACCP in ready-to-eat product at retail; and, conducting
a quantitative risk assessment for Listeria that will determine the
foods that pose the greatest risk to consumers and specific
subpopulations at increased risk of contracting listeriosis. We have
also improved the sensitivity of test methods to better detect
contaminated product.
FDA answer. The public health concern is that processed meats and
ready-to-eat products continue to contain Listeria, and as a result are
a persistent source of infection and death among susceptible persons.
CDC is developing new molecular subtyping systems for Listeria
monocytogenes, conducting foodborne disease surveillance, and studying
listeriosis in several states to help measure the impact of prevention
activities and recognize trends in disease occurrence. Early detection
and reporting of outbreaks of listeriosis to local and state health
departments can help identify sources of infection and prevent more
cases of the disease. Thus, CDC assists State health departments in
investigating outbreaks. CDC is working to educate consumers,
especially those in high risk groups, about listeriosis risk associated
with certain foods. In addition, CDC is working with regulatory
agencies on prevention strategies, such as post-packaging
pasteurization of high risk foods.
FDA has contributed to efforts to decrease response time to
outbreaks of listeriosis and other harmful pathogens. Specifically, FDA
has helped fund the CDC, surveillance for listeriosis for many years.
Since 1995, FDA, CDC, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, or USDA,
have been working with cooperating state and local health departments
on active surveillance for foodborne illness, including listeriosis,
through the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network, which is
commonly referred to as FoodNet. Additional funding through the Food
Safety Initiative has increased FoodNet effort, by including more
active sites and additional pathogens, and has allowed more case
control studies for outbreaks of listeriosis to be included. Such
studies are important in determining which are the most at-risk
individuals, actual incidence, foods implicated, and numbers of
Listeria monocytogenes organisms in implicated foods.
FDA and CDC cooperate with USDA and public health laboratories in
PulseNet, the National Molecular Subtyping Network for Foodborne
Disease Surveillance, to perform ``fingerprint'' comparisons on
bacteria that may be foodborne. Such analyses help identify molecular
subtypes of bacteria and identify common food source outbreaks.
PulseNet is now operational for E. coli O157: H7. Salmonella serotype
Typhimurium was added in 1998. PulseNet techniques are used for some
outbreaks and clusters of listeriosis. The next proposed organism for
50 state harmonization is Listeria monocytogenes.
In May 1997, the President announced the comprehensive Food Safety
Initiative to improve the safety of the nation's food Supply.
Prominently included in this initiative are measures to improve
surveillance and outbreak response. Following the announcement, The
Foodborne Outbreak Response Coordinating Group, also known as FORC-G,
was formed, bringing together FDA with other federal, state, and local
agencies to develop a comprehensive, coordinated, national foodborne
illness outbreak response system. Early detection and reporting of
outbreaks of listeriosis to local and state health departments can help
identify sources or infection and prevent more cases of the disease.
In the summer of 1998, FDA began developing a charge to a task
force to perform a risk assessment of the public health impact of
foodborne Listeria monocytogenes. The risk assessment formally began in
1999. The objectives of the risk assessment are to identify low vs.
high risk foods, the characteristics high risk food have in common, and
the role of shelf life; the numbers of Listeria monocytogenes organisms
consumed, both routinely and when illness results; and knowledge of
dose-response relationship, especially in the at-risk populations. The
goal is to provide as complete a description as possible of current
knowledge of the sources and quantity of Listeria monocytogenes
consumed and of the health consequences to the populations that consume
these microorganisms. Information from the risk assessment should help
to both decrease response time and help to educate consumers, industry,
and health professionals.
FDA has also contributed to the prevention of future outbreaks.
Listeriamonocytogenes education has been directed especially to the
most at-risk populations such as pregnant women and people with AIDS,
and distributed through brochures placed in physicians' offices and by
FDA Public Affairs Specialists and through educational videos on
foodborne illness prevention, including Listeria monocytogenes and
listeriosis. The target population also includes food service managers
and workers and nursing home medical directors and administrators. The
general public has been targeted through periodic news releases from
FDA's press office; articles published in the FDA Consumer in 1987,
1988, and 1991 and through the FDA web site, with additional links to
related web sites including the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service
and the CDC. ``Research on Listeria monocytogenes'' was published in
the FDA Drug Bulletin I 1987 and distributed to over one million health
professionals.
The Foodborne Pathogenic Microorganisms and Natural Toxins
Handbook, also known as the ``Bad Bug Book'', has been publicly
available since 1994 through the CFSAN web site. This handbook contains
information on Listeria monocytogenes and listeriosis that is
supplemented with up-to-date information through links to current
research articles and surveillance reports. The ``Bad Bug Book'' is one
of the most popular sites at the CFSAN web site, and is consulted by
consumers, industry, and other government agencies, both here and
abroad.
The most recently available data on cases of listeriosis reported
to CDC, included in the Healthy People Review, 1998-1999 National
Center for Health Statistics, show a reduction and leveling off in the
numbers of cases of listeriosis. This includes sporadic and outbreak
cases. Reduction achievements between 1989 and 1993 were attributed to
industry, regulatory and educational efforts.
I will be happy to provide a chart with this data for the record.
[The information follows:]
Cases of Listeriosis reported to CDC
Cases per 1 million
1Year U.S. Population
1987.............................................................. 7.0
1990.............................................................. 7.7
1991.............................................................. 6.1
1992.............................................................. 4.5
1993.............................................................. 4.4
1994.............................................................. 4.2
1996.............................................................\1\ 5.0
1997.............................................................\1\ 5.0
\1\ FoodNet data based on Active Surveillance at selected sites
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. In late February of this year, the press reported that
USDA and FDA agreed to share information about inspections, recalls,
and outbreaks of foodborne diseases. Was this report accurate, that the
agencies had not been sharing such information before this time? If
true, why?
USDA answer. The press reports on the recently agreed upon
memorandum of understanding (MOU) between FSIS and FDA may not have
been completely accurate. The MOU deals mainly with sharing information
about inspections and findings at dual jurisdiction establishments.
FSIS historically has shared, and continues to share, data about
recalls and outbreaks of foodborne illness with FDA. Neither FDA nor
FSIS will disclose to each other confidential or trade secret
information.
FDA answer. No, the press report was not accurate. The two agencies
have been sharing information for some time now. On August 8, 1979, FDA
and USDA entered into a Memorandum of Understand, or MOU, that
formalized the exchange of information on inspections. In June of 1981,
this MOU was amended in order to take into consideration the provisions
of the Infant Formula Act. In 1983, a revised MOU outlined several
expanded areas of cooperation and sharing of inspection information.
In February of this year, the agencies reevaluated the previous
MOU, updated that agreement, and entered into a newly signed agreement
on coordination of inspectional efforts. The new agreement will
facilitate the exchange of information at the field level about food
establishments and operations that are subject to the jurisdiction of
both agencies. Field offices will notify their counterparts of food
safety recalls, instances of product contamination and mislabeling, and
conditions at facilities that could result in unsafe or unwholesome
food.
In a May 1997 Report to the President entitled ``Food Safety From
Farm to Table-A National Food-Safety Initiative,'' the agencies
primarily responsible for food safety, made several recommendations to
improve public health protection from foodborne illness, including
increasing cooperation among agencies, and more specifically, of
ensuring that FDA and USDA/FSIS use the resources and experience of as
efficiently as possible to avoid duplication of efforts. The President
accepted the report and directed the Agencies to implement the report's
recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the food
safety system in this country.
Question. Do organic foods pose any greater risk than other foods?
USDA answer. We are not aware of any scientific evidence comparing
the relative health risks of organic foods versus non-organic foods
that would indicate that organic foods pose a greater health risk to
the consumer.
FDA answer. FDA has no data to suggest that foods identified as
organic pose a greater or lesser risk than foods that are
conventionally grown or manufactured. To a large degree, potential
microbial food safety hazards, and their control, apply to both organic
and non-organic food operations. In the production of fresh fruits and
vegetables, for example, all growers need to ensure agricultural water
quality is adequate and take appropriate steps such as run-off controls
to maintain water quality. Most factors, such as available water
source, are more likely to be dictated by regional or other factors
than by whether a grower is organic. Likewise, sanitary facilities need
to be clean and easily accessible. Workers in the field and
packinghouse need to be aware of and follow appropriate sanitary and
hygienic practices. Some practices, such as the use of manure as a
fertilizer, have been identified as practices that need to be closely
monitored to reduce the risk of microbial contamination. To the extent
that organic and non-organic producers employ such practices,
appropriate Good Agricultural or GAPs and Good Manufacturing Practices
or GMPs should be followed to limit the potential for contamination.
Question. Is the expansion of FoodNet complete?
USDA answer. No, several states plan to add counties to the
catchment area in fiscal year 2000. A ninth site may be considered in
the future to enhance geographic representation. In 1998, the FoodNet
catchment area included 20.5 million persons, based on 1997 estimates,
which represents 7.7 percent of the U.S. population. In 1999, the
catchment area will include approximately 30 million persons based on
1997 estimates, with Georgia initiating statewide surveillance and New
York adding counties to its catchment area.
FDA answer. CDC does not anticipate adding additional states as
FoodNet sites at this time. However, CDC does intend to enhance
surveillance and expand the number of pathogens actively tracked in
FoodNet sites, with the purpose of expanding knowledge of foodborne
illness through precise monitoring of the burden of foodborne illness
over time. The population currently participating in FoodNet is
sufficiently large to address many food safety questions and to provide
data that can be generalized to the nation as a whole.
Question. What is your goal for expansion of PulseNet?
FDA answer. PulseNet, CDC's national molecular subtyping network
for foodborne disease surveillance, has demonstrated the utility of
real-time routine fingerprinting of pathogenic bacteria by state health
departments. The broad goal of PulseNet is to be a national early
warning system to identify and track nationwide trends of foodborne
illness. In fiscal year 1999 and 2000, CDC will expand the national
network of laboratories performing molecular subtyping and increase the
number of pathogens monitored though standard, molecular subtyping
methods.
State (and city) public health laboratories participating in
PulseNet have been able to facilitate outbreak investigations by
helping to better interpret epidemiologic data on outbreaks, identify
clusters of disease that would not have been otherwise identified, and
link cases in distant locations with outbreaks occurring in a specific
region the country. This will allow earlier detection of outbreaks of
contaminated foods that are nationally distributed.
For PulseNet to be fully successful, the state public health
laboratories must have adequate resources and capability to perform
routine subtyping of foodborne pathogenic bacteria in a timely fashion,
complete analysis of the data without delay, provide the subtyping data
and interpretations to state epidemiologists, and send the DNA patterns
to CDC (or upload the patterns to the PulseNet server located at CDC)
so that the patterns could be compared with the national database and
shared with other PulseNet laboratories. Presently 33 states
participate in PulseNet; additional states will be added over time.
FDA working through the CDC will expand its access to PulseNet and
increase outbreak response and associated traceback activities. FDA
will begin initial development of electronic communication and data
sharing systems for use in Federal-State monitoring and traceback
activities. Working with CDC, FDA will also expand and increase the
overall capacity of the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring
System or NARMS and the number of states covered to assure a higher
probability of detecting emerging resistant pathogens capable of animal
to human transmission and to minimize the occurrence of foodborne
outbreaks including those from outside of the United States.
As of December 1998, FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition or CFSAN, USDA, 25 State Health Departments and two County
Health Departments were connected to a central server at the CDC. All
E. coli O157:H7 isolated at these sites are being reported to CDC for
comparisons; other pathogens analyzed on a case-by-case basis include
Listeriamonocytogenes and various Salmonella and Shigella species.
In fiscal year 1999, two FDA regional FDA field laboratories will
be equipped and trained to participate in PulseNet. FDA's Center for
Veterinary Medicine or CVM may also participate, initially using CFSAN
as a gateway, on pathogens of mutual interest such as Salmonella
Typhimurium DT104. This strain is multi-drug resistant and is rapidly
becoming one of the most prevalent Salmonella species encountered. A
parallel effort conducted through field labs will subject all
Salmonella isolated from food to antibiotic resistance screening. Those
exhibiting multi-resistance will be submitted for PulseNet analyses.
The other three FDA field labs identified as mega-centers will be
equipped and trained for PulseNet as resources become available. This
will minimize the time between the isolation of a pathogen from a food
sample and the reporting of its DNA fingerprint to the PulseNet system.
Once the system is refined, other foodborne pathogens of public
health significance will be included for 100 percent reporting. By
analyzing pathogens from outbreaks and apparently sporadic cases, the
system will detect those diffuse clusters that currently often get
erroneously classified as sporadic cases. Identifying the foods
involved in these many-mini diffuse outbreaks will help better focus
surveillance activities of the FDA field operations. In the future, the
network will be linked to a similar network in the European Union so as
to share outbreak data and spot emerging pathogens that may have
pandemic potential.
Question. The National Academy of Sciences indicated in its report
that ``Surveillance efforts currently in place (such as FoodNet) have
been designed to provide data representative of national trends with
regard to seven indicator foodborne pathogens yet are not designed to
identify trends within smaller geographic areas of communities.'' To
what extent is this true?
USDA answer. Yes, as indicated in the National Academy of Sciences'
report, surveillance efforts currently in place, such as FoodNet, have
been designed to provide data representative of national trends, yet
are not designed to identify trends within smaller geographic areas of
communities. However, it is important to note that FoodNet data are
used by each of the FoodNet sites to determine the most important
foodborne illness prevention programs that should be undertaken by that
site.
FDA answer. FoodNet--the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance
Network--consists of active surveillance for foodborne diseases and
related epidemiologic studies designed to help public health officials
better understand the epidemiology of foodborne diseases in the United
States. FoodNet is designed to provide accurate and precise national
estimates and interpretation of the burden of foodborne diseases over
time. FoodNet provides a network for responding to new and emerging
foodborne diseases of national importance, monitoring the burden of
foodborne disease, and identifying the source of specific foodborne
diseases. Specifically, the goals of FoodNet are to describe the
epidemiology of new and emerging bacterial, parasitic and viral
foodborne pathogens; to estimate the frequency and severity of
foodborne diseases that occur in the United States each year; and to
determine how much foodborne illness results from eating specific
foods, such as meat, poultry, and eggs.
Through other ``passive'' disease surveillance systems, the states
and localities are able to detect outbreaks in geographic areas of the
communities.
Question. Testimony was presented to the Committee that ``Food
Safety Initiative'' includes funding for any program or activity
mentioned in the May 1997 report to the President entitled ``Food
Safety from Farm to Table: A National Food Safety Initiative''. Provide
a list of the ``Food Safety Initiative'' expenditures. List each by
federal agency, appropriations account, and activity and show the
fiscal year 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 budget request levels.
USDA answer. For the record, the following table presents by
federal agency, appropriations account and activity funds budgeted for
the ``Food Safety Initiative'', which focuses on the reduction of
microbial pathogens in the Food Supply, in fiscal years 1997, 1998,
1999, and 2000.
[The information follows:]
PRESIDENT'S FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVES--FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 Increase
1997 1998 1999 Budget Over 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SURVEILLANCE
USDA:
Food Safety and Inspection Research Service.......... 1,000 1,500 1,500 1,500 .........
Economic Research Service............................ 32 32 282 285 3
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, USDA..................................... 1,032 1,532 1,782 1,785 3
======================================================
HHS:
Food and Drug Administration......................... 737 3,837 4,637 11,037 6,400
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention........... 4,500 14,500 19,000 29,000 10,000
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, HHS.................................... 5,237 18,337 23,637 40,037 16,400
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Surveillance........................... 6,269 19,869 25,419 41,822 16,403
======================================================
COORDINATION
USDA: Food Safety and Inspection Service................. ......... ......... ......... 500 500
HHS: Food and Drug Administration........................ 7,173 7,673 7,873 7,873 .........
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Coordination............................. 7,173 7,673 7,873 8,373 500
======================================================
INSPECTIONS
USDA: Food Safety and Inspection Service................. ......... 565 10,113 12,513 2,400
HHS: Food and Drug Administration........................ 73,244 82,244 103,344 120,244 16,900
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Inspections............................... 73,244 82,809 113,457 132,757 19,300
======================================================
RISK ASSESSMENT
USDA: Agricultural Research Service...................... 5,461 4,498 4,909 7,309 2,400
Cooperative State Research Education, and Extension 145 150 2,612 3,702 1,090
Service.................................................
Food Safety and Inspection Service....................... ......... ......... 3,260 3,260 .........
Economic Research Service................................ 33 36 236 686 450
National Agricultural Statistics Service................. ......... ......... ......... 2,500 2,500
Office of the Chief Economist............................ 62 60 158 158 .........
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, USDA..................................... 5,701 4,741 11.175 17,615 6,440
======================================================
HHS: Food and Drug Administration........................ 2,589 6,189 7,189 8,689 1,500
======================================================
Subtotal, Administration........................... 8,290 10,930 18,364 26,304 7,940
======================================================
EDUCATION
USDA:
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 2,365 2,365 7,365 8,287 922
Service.............................................
Food Safety and Inspection Service................... ......... ......... 3,659 3,659 .........
Food And Nutrition Service........................... ......... ......... 2,000 2,000 .........
Office of the Chief Economist........................ 27 38 38 38 .........
Economic Research Service............................ 420 420 420 420 .........
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, USDA..................................... 2,812 2,823 13,482 14,404 922
======================================================
HHS:
Food and Drug Administration......................... 4,800 6,600 7,100 8,600 1,500
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention........... ......... ......... 476 476 .........
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, HHS.................................... 4,800 6,600 7,576 9,076 1,500
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Education.............................. 7,612 9,423 21,058 23,480 2,422
======================================================
RESEARCH
USDA:
Agricultural Research Service........................ 44,186 50,351 64,959 74,279 9,329
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 3,724 6,250 14,788 23,799 9,011
Service.............................................
Agricultural Marketing Service....................... ......... ......... 112 6,297 6,185
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, USDA..................................... 47,910 56,601 79,859 104,375 24,516
======================================================
HHS: Food and Drug Administration........................ 20,793 26,793 28,193 31,893 3,700
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Research................................. 68,703 83,394 108,052 136,268 28,216
======================================================
Total, Initiative.................................. 171,291 214,098 294,223 369,004 74,781
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESIDENT'S FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE FISCAL YEAR 2000 PROPOSAL
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 Increase
1997 1998 1999 Budget Over 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA:
Agricultural Research Service........................ 49,647 54,849 69,868 81,588 11,720
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 6,234 8,765 24,765 35,788 11,023
Service.............................................
Agricultural Marketing Service....................... ......... ......... 112 6,297 6,185
Food Safety and Inspection Service................... 1,000 2,065 18,532 21,432 2,900
Economic Research Service............................ 485 485 938 1,391 453
Office of the Chief Economics........................ 89 98 196 196 .........
National Agricultural Statistics Service............. ......... ......... ......... 2,500 2,500
Food and Consumer Service............................ ......... ......... 2,000 2,000 .........
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, USDA..................................... 57,455 66,262 116,411 151,192 34,781
======================================================
HHS:
Food and Drug Administration......................... 109,336 133,336 158,336 188,336 30,000
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention........... 4,500 14,500 19,476 29,476 10,000
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, HHS.................................... 113,836 147,836 177,812 217,812 40,000
======================================================
Total, Initiative................................ 171,291 214,098 294,223 369,004 74,781
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDA answer. CDC is as follows:
PRESIDENT'S FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVES--FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-----------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surveillance.................................................... 4.500 14.290 19.000 29.000
Education....................................................... .......... .......... .476 .476
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 4.500 14.290 19.476 29.476
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A list of the ``Food Safety Initiative'' expenditures for fiscal
year 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 budget request is provided for the
record.
[The information follows:]
PRESIDENT'S FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVES--FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 Increase
1997 1998 1999 Budget Over 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SURVEILLANCE
USDA:
Food Safety and Inspection Research Service.......... 1,000 1,500 1,500 1,500 .........
Economic Research Service............................ 32 32 282 285 3
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, USDA..................................... 1,032 1,532 1,782 1,785 3
======================================================
HHS:
Food and Drug Administration......................... 737 3,837 4,637 11,037 6,400
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention........... 4,500 14,500 19,000 29,000 10,000
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, HHS.................................... 5,237 18,337 23,637 40,037 16,400
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Surveillance........................... 6,269 19,869 25,419 41,822 16,403
======================================================
COORDINATION
USDA: Food Safety and Inspection Service................. ......... ......... ......... 500 500
HHS: Food and Drug Administration........................ 7,173 7,673 7,873 7,873 .........
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Coordination............................. 7,173 7,673 7,873 8,373 500
======================================================
INSPECTIONS
USDA: Food Safety and Inspection Service................. ......... 565 10,113 12,513 2,400
HHS: Food and Drug Administration........................ 73,244 82,244 103,344 120,244 16,900
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Inspections............................... 73,244 82,809 113,457 132,757 19,300
======================================================
RISK ASSESSMENT
USDA: Agricultural Research Service...................... 5,461 4,498 4,909 7,309 2,400
Cooperative State Research Education, and Extension 145 150 2,612 3,702 1,090
Service.................................................
Food Safety and Inspection Service....................... ......... ......... 3,260 3,260 .........
Economic Research Service................................ 33 36 236 686 450
National Agricultural Statistics Service................. ......... ......... ......... 2,500 2,500
Office of the Chief Economist............................ 62 60 158 158 .........
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, USDA..................................... 5,701 4,741 11.175 17,615 6,440
======================================================
HHS: Food and Drug Administration........................ 2,589 6,189 7,189 8,689 1,500
======================================================
Subtotal, Administration........................... 8,290 10,930 18,364 26,304 7,940
======================================================
EDUCATION
USDA:
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 2,365 2,365 7,365 8,287 922
Service.............................................
Food Safety and Inspection Service................... ......... ......... 3,659 3,659 .........
Food And Nutrition Service........................... ......... ......... 2,000 2,000 .........
Office of the Chief Economist........................ 27 38 38 38 .........
Economic Research Service............................ 420 420 420 420 .........
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, USDA..................................... 2,812 2,823 13,482 14,404 922
======================================================
HHS:
Food and Drug Administration......................... 4,800 6,600 7,100 8,600 1,500
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention........... ......... ......... 476 476 .........
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, HHS.................................... 4,800 6,600 7,576 9,076 1,500
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Education.............................. 7,612 9,423 21,058 23,480 2,422
======================================================
RESEARCH
USDA:
Agricultural Research Service........................ 44,186 50,351 64,959 74,279 9,329
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 3,724 6,250 14,788 23,799 9,011
Service.............................................
Agricultural Marketing Service....................... ......... ......... 112 6,297 6,185
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, USDA..................................... 47,910 56,601 79,859 104,375 24,516
======================================================
HHS: Food and Drug Administration........................ 20,793 26,793 28,193 31,893 3,700
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Research................................. 68,703 83,394 108,052 136,268 28,216
======================================================
Total, Initiative.................................. 171,291 214,098 294,223 369,004 74,781
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESIDENT'S FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE FISCAL YEAR 2000 PROPOSAL
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 Increase
1997 1998 1999 Budget Over 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA:
Agricultural Research Service........................ 49,647 54,849 69,868 81,588 11,720
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 6,234 8,765 24,765 35,788 11,023
Service.............................................
Agricultural Marketing Service....................... ......... ......... 112 6,297 6,185
Food Safety and Inspection Service................... 1,000 2,065 18,532 21,432 2,900
Economic Research Service............................ 485 485 938 1,391 453
Office of the Chief Economics........................ 89 98 196 196 .........
National Agricultural Statistics Service............. ......... ......... ......... 2,500 2,500
Food and Consumer Service............................ ......... ......... 2,000 2,000 .........
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, USDA..................................... 57,455 66,262 116,411 151,192 34,781
======================================================
HHS:
Food and Drug Administration......................... 109,336 133,336 158,336 188,336 30,000
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention........... 4,500 14,500 19,476 29,476 10,000
------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, HHS.................................... 113,836 147,836 177,812 217,812 40,000
======================================================
Total, Initiative................................ 171,291 214,098 294,223 369,004 74,781
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Provide a list by federal agency, appropriations account,
and activity of the food safety related expenditures not counted as
part of the ``Food Safety Initiative'' for each of fiscal years 1997,
1998, 1999, and requested for fiscal year 2000.
USDA answer. For the record, the following table presents the
remaining balance of the Food Safety and Inspection Service's budgetary
resources from fiscal year 1997 to 2000 after subtracting resources
devoted to the President's Food Safety Initiative. All of the remaining
funding for the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is for food
safety related activity. The President's Council on Food Safety will be
developing a comprehensive strategic plan identifying all Food Safety
activities for 5 core Food Safety hazards: microbial hazards, chemical
contaminants, regulated/pre-market approved substances, physical
hazards, and water used in food production and processing.
[The information follows:]
FOOD SAFETY RELATED EXPENDITURES
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000
Activity 1997 1998 1999 Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS)
Food Inspection............. 478,012 492,836 503,543 533,744
Import/Export Inspection.... 11,300 11,612 11,857 12,315
Laboratory Services......... 33,918 33,763 34,376 35,740
Field Automation............ 8,525 8,023 8,023 8,023
Grants-to-States............ 41,528 40,552 40,655 41,701
Special Assistance to State 26 374 ......... .........
Programs Unobligated
Balance Lapsing............
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal FSIS 573,309 587,160 598,454 631,523
Available............
===========================================
Reimbursements /Trust Funds. 85,673 89,083 89,302 89,274
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal FSIS......... 658,982 676,243 687,756 720,797
===========================================
President's Food Safety 1,000 2,065 18,532 21,432
Initiative.................
===========================================
Total................. 659,982 678,308 706,288 742,229
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research, Education, and Economics
All ARS food safety related expenditures are included in the ``Food
Safety Initiative''. The funding provided for the Food Safety
Initiative was $49,647,300 in fiscal year 1997; $54,949,400 in fiscal
year 1998; $69,867,600 in fiscal year 1999; and $81,587,600 is
requested for fiscal year 2000. The Appropriations Accounts for fiscal
years 1997 to 1999 were 1271400, 1281400, and 1291400. The fiscal year
2000 Appropriations Account will be 1201400.
CSREES Hatch Act, Evans-Allen Program, Animal Health and Disease
Research, and Special Research Grant funds support the food safety
research activities in addition to funding for the ``Food Safety
Initiative''. The total estimated funding provided for Food Safety
research was $5,961,000 in fiscal year 1997; $5,962,000 in fiscal year
1998; $6,123,000 in fiscal year 1999; and $3,748,000 is requested in
fiscal year 2000. The CSREES Appropriation accounts for fiscal years
1997 through 1999 were 1271500, 1281500, 1291500 for these research
activities. The fiscal year 2000 Appropriations account will be
1201500.
A table showing the funding by activity for food safety related
expenditures not counted as part of the Food Safety Initiative follows.
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE
[Food safety]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal 2000
Program year 1997 1998 1999 Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hatch....................... 1,726 1,726 1,846 1,571
Evans-Allen................. 516 516 552 514
Animal Health............... 70 70 75 69
Special Research Grants..... 3,649 3,650 3,650 1,594
-------------------------------------------
Totals................ 5,961 5,962 6,123 3,748
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDA answer. We would be happy to provide that information for the
record.
[The information follows:]
FOOD SAFETY RELATED EXPENDITURES
[Dollars in millions]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1997 Fiscal year 1998 Fiscal year 1999 Fiscal year 2000
Program/Activity -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollars FTE Dollars FTE Dollars FTE Dollars FTE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOODS--Center for Food Safety & Applied 43.0 451 42.2 44.3 41.8 391 \1\ 60.3 448
Nutrition......................................
Chemical Safety of Foods.................... 28.1 295 30.2 325 29.9 279 48.4 336
Nutrient Quality & Food Labeling............ 14.9 156 12.0 118 11.9 112 11.9 112
FOODS--Field.................................... 41.5 514 40.3 508 38.6 444 38.6 484
Chemical Safety of Foods.................... 26.0 322 16.8 212 16.9 194 18.4 230
Nutrient Quality & Food Labeling............ 4.8 59 4.1 51 3.5 41 3.2 41
Microbiological Safety of Foods............. 10.7 133 19.4 245 18.2 209 17.0 213
ANIMAL DRUGS AND FEEDS--Center for Veterinary 19.5 197 19.6 187 20.2 194 22.9 211
Medicine.......................................
Approval Process............................ 11.5 117 9.7 100 9.9 102 11.2 120
Research.................................... 3.1 31 4.3 33 4.5 35 4.2 38
Monitoring/Compliance........................... 4.9 49 5.6 54 5.8 57 7.5 53
ANIMAL DRUGS AND FEEDS--Field................... 9.4 108 10.2 112 10.1 127 12.9 140
Approval Process............................ 1.3 15 1.7 19 1.7 22 2.3 26
Research.................................... 1.0 12 .8 8 0.7 9 .8 8
Monitoring/Compliance....................... 7.1 81 7.7 85 7.7 96 9.8 106
NATIONAL CENTERS FOR TOXICOLOGICAL RESEARCH..... 1.1 20 1.4 25 2.2 25 2.2 25
Microbiological & Analytical Methods to .1 5 .1 5 .6 6 .6 6
identify chemical contaminants and toxins..
Improve sensitivity of techniques to measure 1.0 15 1.3 20 1.6 19 1.6 19
harmful effects of toxicants in foods and
cosmetics..................................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL FDA, NON-FSI...................... 114.5 1,290 113.7 1,275 112.9 1,181 136.9 1,308
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes proposed additive user fees ($10 million).
Question. What is the status of USDA's plans to expand the number
of products that would be considered adulterants if they contain E.
coli O157:H7?
USDA answer. FSIS is evaluating the comments submitted on the
January 19, 1999, Federal Register Notice (64 FR 2803), as well as the
statements presented at the March 8, 1999, public meeting. In addition,
a risk assessment for Escherichia coli O157:H7 in beef and ground beef,
announced in an August 18, 1998, Federal Register Notice (63 FR 44232),
is expected to be completed by September 1999. Furthermore, an industry
coalition has stated that it will submit a protocol for a carcass
testing study in early April 1999. FSIS does not expect to begin to act
on the January 19 policy statement until it has had sufficient
opportunity to assess the comments received.
Question. FSIS has been testing beef for E. coli O157:H7 since
1996. Out of 26,088 samples, only 25 positives have been found, none of
which were connected to an outbreak or illness.
(A) What are the current expenditures for this testing program?
USDA answer. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) spends
approximately $10.4 million per year on testing meat and poultry
products for 9 pathogens, including E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella,
Campylobacter, and Listeria.
(B) If, in nearly three years of testing, none of the positive
results have been associated with an outbreak or illness, what is the
justification for continuing this program?
USDA answer. The testing program for E. coli O157:H7 began after
the tragic outbreak of foodborne illness associated with this pathogen
in the State of Washington. USDA estimates that over 10,000 illnesses
per year result from consuming foods contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.
As the Washington outbreak demonstrated, those most susceptible to
this pathogen include children, the elderly, and the immune
compromised. Testing programs like that for E. coli O157:H7 assist FSIS
in controlling deadly pathogens by identifying contaminated product in
time to remove it from the market before it can cause foodborne
illness. The justification for continuing this program is that the
agency believes this testing program is reducing the risk of illnesses/
outbreaks caused by E. coli O157:H7 in raw ground beef. The FSIS
program of random sampling at federal, State, and import establishments
and at the retail level, as well as the implications of a positive
finding, encourage the meat industry to use good manufacturing
practices, good sanitation procedures, antimicrobial interventions,
microbial testing, and other measures to eliminate this serious
pathogen from the nation's meat supply.
Question. Although this year the President's budget recognizes that
enabling legislation must be enacted into law, it again assumes savings
in appropriations from its proposal to implement user fees to pay the
cost of meat and poultry inspection. Why does the Administration
believe that meat inspection is a benefit to industry, rather than a
public health service which is provided for the benefit of the public?
USDA answer. Both the public and industry benefit from our
inspection services. However, industry is the direct beneficiary of
Federal inspection, which enables businesses to engage in commerce and
earn profits. Industry also directly benefits from the consumer's
confidence in inspected meat, poultry, and egg products. The consuming
public benefits from the public health protections that Federal
inspection provides.
Question. I understand that a relationship has been found between
bacteria in food supplies where close, crowded conditions for animals
exist. Is this true? What is being done about this ?
USDA answer. No relationship has been found between bacteria in
food supplies where close crowded conditions for animals exist. FSIS
has sponsored a pair of recent studies of dairy animals reared in close
quarters, most of which are ``cull cows''. Bacterial samples were
collected from cattle at the farms, through transport (under crowded
conditions), and from the carcasses. There was no correlation between
results from live cattle and finished carcasses. Similar work done with
poultry indicates the same is true for these intensively reared
animals.
Question. HACCP in large plants was implemented a year ago. What
improvements have been made with respect to the incidence of
Salmonella, E coli, and other food-borne pathogens?
USDA answer. Preliminary findings show that this science-based,
prevention-oriented system has contributed to reducing the prevalence
of Salmonella in some raw meat and poultry. As the following chart
illustrates, based on the one-year of data collection in the
approximately 200 large plants that implemented HACCP in January 1998
and produced product subject to the Salmonella testing requirement, the
prevalence of Salmonella has significantly fallen.
In ground beef, for example, 7.5 percent of the national baseline
samples tested positive for Salmonella prior to January 1998; only 4.8
percent tested positive after HACCP implementation; a decline of 36
percent. Of broiler carcasses, 20.0 percent tested positive for
Salmonella before HACCP implementation, compared to 10.9 percent after
implementation, a decline of over 45 percent. On swine carcasses, 8.7
percent of the samples tested positive prior to HACCP versus 6.5
percent after HACCP implementation, a decrease of more than 25 percent.
And, 49.9 percent of ground turkey tested positive prior to HACCP
versus 36.4 percent after HACCP implementation, a 27 percent decrease.
The data also indicates that 88 percent of HACCP plants for which
there are adequate data meet or exceed our Salmonella performance
standards. Plants that do not meet the standards are required to take
immediate corrective measures, and also undergo targeted testing.
[The information follows:]
TABLE 1.--PREVALENCE OF SALMONELLA IN MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS: POST-
HACCP IMPLEMENTATION RESULTS FROM LARGE PLANTS JANUARY 26, 1998, THROUGH
JANUARY 25, 1999 \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-HACCP
Class of Product Baseline Post-HACCP
Studies \2\ implementation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broilers....................... \3\ 20 \3\ 10.9 (n=5697)
Swine.......................... \3\ 8.7 \3\ 6.5 (n=1532)
Ground Beef.................... \3\ 7.5 \3\ 4.8 (n=1184)
Ground Turkey.................. \3\ 49.9 \3\ 36.4 (n=748)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects testing results from products with 10 or more completed
sample sets.
\2\ Corresponds to Salmonella performance standards, 9 CFR Sec.
310.25(b) and 381.94(b).
\3\ Percentage of Salmonella Prevalence (n=number of samples).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Number of (Number)
Number of Plants with Meeting
Class of Product Plants Complete Data almonell a
Sets Performance
Standard \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broilers........................................................ 124 76 91 (69)
Swine........................................................... 33 17 71 (12)
Ground Beef..................................................... 25 10 90 (9)
Ground Turkey................................................... 17 11 91 (10)
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 199 114 88 (100)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects testing results from products with 10 or more completed sample sets.
Question. What challenges has FSIS had to overcome in implementing
the HACCP program?
USDA answer. For the record, here are a few examples of challenges.
The establishment and delivery of a cost effective HACCP Technical
Training Program for field inspection and compliance personnel was a
major challenge. Inspection personnel are located in over 2,500
different, often geographically remote, locations across the United
States. The majority of our workforce is tied to the production
schedules of the meat and poultry industries. Plant operating schedules
had to be taken into account and replacement inspectors brought into
plants where assigned personnel were being training during plant
operating hours.
After decades of performing inspection from a command and control
perspective, gaining the acceptance of the field workforce of the new
regulatory approach--established by the Pathogen Reduction and HACCP
rule--proved to be a challenge.
Some members of the meat and poultry industry had the view that the
PR/HACCCP rule provided increased authority to in-plant inspection
personnel and were apprehensive that inspection personnel would use it
in an adverse way.
Question. When HACCP was implemented a year ago, there was concern
about layering the new HACCP system over the old, outdated organoleptic
system. Even USDA expressed concern and committed to conducting an
internal regulatory review to take these old rules off the books. Can
you give the committee the status of that review? How many of those old
rules have been removed from the books? And, what is your time line for
completing this regulatory review?
USDA answer. On December 29, 1995, FSIS published an advance notice
of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in the Federal Register describing the
FSIS regulatory review agenda (60 FR 67469). Several command-and-
control type regulations were identified as being appropriate for
conversion to performance standard-based regulations, while other
regulations were identified as being obsolete in the HACCP regulatory
environment. Of the regulations identified as candidates for revision
or removal prior to HACCP implementation, FSIS issued one final rule
prior to the January 1998 HACCP implementation for large
establishments; ``Eliminating of Prior Approval Requirements for
Establishment Drawings and Specifications, Equipment, and Certain
Partial Quality Control Programs,'' published on August 25, 1997 (62 FR
45016).
FSIS and FDA jointly published an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking on ``Transportation and Storage Requirements for Potentially
Hazardous Foods'' in the Federal Register on November 22, 1996 (61 FR
59372). The comments have been evaluated and a performance standard-
based proposed rule is being developed. The first in a series of
process performance standards for ready-to-eat products--``Performance
Standards for the Production of Certain Meat and Poultry Product''--was
published as a final rule in the Federal Register on January 6, 1999
(64 FR 732). Meanwhile, several proposed rules published in the Federal
Register and are now in the process of being finalized, including the
following: ``Sanitation Requirements for Official Meat and Poultry
Establishments,'' publishing on August 25, 1997 (62 FR 45045); ``Rules
of Practice,'' publishing on January 12, 1998 (63 FR 1797); and ``Meat
Produced by Advanced Meat/Bone Separation Machinery and Recovery
Systems,'' published on April 13, 1998 (63 FR 17959).
FSIS has a number of dockets under development for replacing other
prescriptive requirements with performance standards, including water
retention in poultry, chilling requirements for slaughtered poultry,
and processing/handling temperature requirements for livestock and
poultry. In addition, a proposed rule for the elimination of most of
the remaining partial quality control requirements is expected to be
published this spring. FSIS expects that final action on many current
regulatory reform efforts will be completed prior to the beginning of
2001.
Question. With respect to the Administration's commitment to food
safety research and your request for funding for fiscal year 2000, can
you tell the committee what, if any, efforts are planned to eliminate
E. coli O157:H7 in beef, and Listeriamonocytogenes in ready-to-eat meat
and poultry products other than enforcing a zero tolerance standard for
these pathogens and overseeing product recalls?
USDA answer. We are continuing to work with ARS concerning research
that could lead to procedures to control or eliminate E. coli O157:H7
in beef. ARS research is providing valuable information into the
etiology of this organism. It is too early to predict if it will be
possible to eliminate this organism as a potential contaminant of the
cattle slaughtering process.
The industry procedures used to process ready-to-eat products will
kill Listeria monocytogenes. However, product can become recontaminated
during packaging and distribution if cooked products are not
distributed in the containers in which they were cooked.
Since this is a hazard that is likely to occur, the industry is
studying procedures to control the hazard. For example, one producer
has started distributing hot dogs in the plastic casing in which they
where cooked. Another possibility is packaging in special clean rooms
where precautions such as airlocks, special air filters, and limited
access are used.
ARS carries out research programs to help eliminate E. coli O157:H7
from beef including pathogen identification, pre and postharvest
ecology, and pathogenesis. The preharvest ARS research programs to
control E. coli O157:H7 and related organisms in cattle seek to
understand the carrier state of E. coli O157:H7 in calves; to describe
the epidemiology and occurrence of this pathogen in the production
environment of food producing animals, and to discern the relationship
of preslaughter feeding and production factors, including
transportation to post slaughter contamination. Research on control of
E. coli and other pathogens in animal manure is being initiated which
will further help achieve pathogen control. ARS postharvest research
improves slaughter and dressing procedures to minimize contamination on
carcasses; develops predictive models for the growth of the pathogen on
meat products; and develops more rapid and user friendly detection
methods using biotechnology approaches. This research can provide the
means to greatly lower the incidence of toxigenic E. coli, but because
of environmental occurrence, including wild animals, insects and water
supplies, it is unlikely that all toxigenic E. coli can be eliminated
from food-producing animals.
ARS has research programs directed to the development of
intervention strategies for Listeria that may be incorporated into
HACCP programs to eliminate the pathogen. A rapid gene based assay has
been developed that can readily identify and differentiate Listeria
species in various ready-to-eat foods, allowing for molecular
fingerprinting and trace-back. A program has been initiated,
specifically aimed at developing technology to surface pasteurize food
products, including hot dogs, which economically reduces microbial
contamination without significant loss of product quality. A major
research program continues in an effort to determine the effect of
various food components, and parameters (pH, water activity, salt,
process and storage temperature) on the inactivation, survival and
growth of Listeria in ready to eat products. L. monocytogenes is a
highly unusual and difficult pathogen to eliminate in that it possesses
the ability to adapt and grow under conditions of high salt, high
osmolarity, and low temperature, all at the same time. Research is
specifically aimed at understanding, at cellular and molecular level,
how this adaptation and growth occurs. Research is also aimed at
identifying new generally recognized as safe (GRAS) compounds that can
be incorporated into foods as a antimicrobial agents to protect against
Listeria and other pathogens.
Question. Does FSIS have any data or other scientific evidence to
support the provision of additional oversight or inspection resources
to ``in-distribution'' facilities ?
USDA answer. Since the publication of the proposed Pathogen
Reduction/HACCP regulation on February 3, 1995, FSIS has indicated its
concern about the possibility that food safety hazards can be
introduced into meat and poultry products at virtually any point in the
farm-to-table continuum, but agency resources were heavily concentrated
in official slaughtering and processing establishments. Commenters
supported the more equitable distribution of agency resources. In the
preamble to the final rule, FSIS stated, ``A large number of commenters
requested that HACCP be required throughout all phases of food
production from the farm to the consumer.'' The final PR/HACCP
regulations did not include transport temperature requirements which
would have directed agency resources toward in-distribution locations,
but this was more a matter of technical feasibility, and not a
reflection on lack of public interest. The agency has retained its
interest in this area and has been continuing its work: jointly with
FDA, it published an ANPR and held a public meeting. The agency expects
that these efforts will culminate in regulatory proposals setting one
or more performance standards for the handling of meat and poultry
products during transport and storage.
FSIS knows that there are segments of the public which are very
concerned about the inequities which have arisen under the current
system of exemptions. FSIS also believes that consumers are concerned
that the protections provided by regulatory requirements that apply,
for instance, to grinding hamburger in official establishments, are not
provided by similar regulatory requirements applicable to the same
operations when they are conducted by retail stores.
FSIS is proposing the conversion of 638 inspection personnel to
Consumer Safety Office rs positions in fiscal year 2000.
Question. How many traditional inspection personnel will be
available after this conversion? Is this sufficient to meet slaughter
and processing facility needs?
USDA answer. For fiscal year 2000, FSIS plans to stabilize the
workforce at approximately 7,500 employees who will be involved in
direct inspection activities. This resource level is adequate to meet
the needs of the regulated industry. The workforce includes food
inspectors, veterinarians, consumer safety officers, and consumer
safety inspectors. The introduction of the Consumer Safety Officer
classification series will enhance the level of resources committed to
direct inspection activities at regulated establishments. This series
is part of the Agency's strategy to improve the skills and
qualifications of its workforce involved in direct inspection
activities in regulated establishments as well as to take full
advantage of these skills to meet its goal of reducing foodborne
illness and to provide appropriate regulatory oversight within its
statutory authorities along the farm-to-table continuum.
Question. How will the role of an inspector differ from the role of
a Consumer Safety Officer?
USDA answer. The roles of inspectors, veterinarians, and consumer
safety officers do not differ. Each functions as the FSIS regulatory
agent in an establishment under Federal inspection. Each occupation
brings a different set of qualifications and knowledge to bear on
making regulatory determinations. The individual assignments and work
methodologies carried out by various FSIS employees will differ based
on the need to draw upon different types of scientific knowledge to
make appropriate regulatory determinations about the compliance of
industry operations with USDA regulatory requirements.
Current work methods for food inspectors are ``cookbook'' in nature
and generally prescribed through central assignment scheduling systems.
Work methods for Consumer Safety Officers will require the exercise and
application of scientific knowledge in making regulatory determinations
about the adequacy of industry HACCP systems, other process control
systems, and pathogen testing systems. FSIS expects to introduce
Consumer Safety Officers into the inplant workforce in assignments
where there is the greatest opportunity to apply scientific,
professional knowledge in making regulatory determinations about
industry compliance. This will likely be in locations with a sizeable
number of plants having a wide diversity of HACCP process categories
and products, and sophisticated food production technologies and
pathogen testing systems.
Question. Will current inspectors require additional training to
perform their duties as Consumer Safety Officers?
USDA answer. Yes, additional training will be required. In order to
qualify for Consumer Safety Officer (CSO) positions, inspectors must
have obtained an educational background to meet the scientific and
technical requirements of the position. Although current inspectors who
are eligible for the CSO series have the appropriate educational
background, they will have to be trained to operate within a new work
methodology and with considerably more latitude for making scientific
judgments than they have in their current inspection positions. The CSO
position brings additional scientific expertise and decision-making to
the plant level to assess and verify if plant control systems are
adequately controlling for food safety hazards.
Question. If so, what funding is required for this additional
training? Does the budget request include this funding?
USDA answer. FSIS plans to use a great deal of the $3.5 million in
available funds to train 638 newly converted or hired CSO's and their
supervisors in new work methods. These funds, which are included in the
total FSIS budget request, will be available for CSO training because
only a few hundred inspection personnel will require training to
prepare for implementation of HACCP in the very small plants. The
Agency is currently in the process of assessing the projected cost of
CSO training for fiscal year 2000.
Question. What merits a pay raise for these personnel for
performing a job integral with the HACCP inspection system for which
they are already being compensated?
USDA answer. Consumer Safety Officers will be expected and required
to apply scientific and professional knowledge in making regulatory
determinations about industry compliance. The work methodologies and
job requirements for positions filled by Consumer Safety Officers will
require the exercise and application of scientific knowledge in an
evaluative capacity to verify the adequacy of HACCP systems. The salary
differential compensates individuals for the required application of
professional judgment in rendering regulatory determinations about
industry operations that is not currently expected or required of food
inspectors.
Question. What additional costs will be associated with these new
Consumer Safety Officers (ie. travel, vehicle costs)?
USDA answer. We anticipate that the travel and operating expenses
of Consumer Safety Officers will be similar to those expenses incurred
by processing food inspectors, which are higher than those for
slaughter inspectors.
Question. Why not put these inspectors where there is a need rather
than where you may be duplicating the efforts of the Food and Drug
Administration and local health inspectors?
USDA answer. The presence of Consumer Safety Officers (CSO's)
within the FSIS workforce and assigned to Federally inspected plants
does not duplicate the efforts of FDA or State and local authorities.
CSO's will be assigned to Federally inspected establishments where they
will be applying scientific, professional judgment in making
determinations about industry compliance with HACCP and other
regulatory requirements. FSIS has determined that there is a need for
inspection program personnel who possess a different set of skills and
knowledge, having both an academic background and experience in making
regulatory decisions. With a flexible, more highly educated work force,
FSIS will be able to assign personnel to any type of industry operation
within FSIS' jurisdiction. The future workforce will include a variety
of scientific disciplines, among which is the professional level
position of CSO now under development.
In the long-term, FSIS envisions using the CSO series to employ
much of the regulatory workforce of the future. Increasing the number
of inspection personnel in this series will better enable the Agency to
meet its goal of reducing foodborne illness and provide the appropriate
regulatory oversight within its statutory authorities along the food
safety continuum. In order to effect conversion to this series, there
will be a transition process in which two additional occupational
series will be used. Line slaughter work in plants that are not part of
the HACCP-based inspection models project \1\ will continue to be
classified in the Food Inspector, GS-1863 series. HACCP work now being
performed will be classified in the Consumer Safety Inspector (CSI),
GS-1862 series. This is a more appropriate classification series to
describe this work and it is a series that other Federal agencies have
used as a companion series to the CSO, GS-696 series, thereby
facilitating the transition for the long-term. CSI's will perform
technician level work that involves making judgments using a limited
range of principles and an extensive body of facts accumulated from
long-term or in-depth experience in a limited range of work. CSO's will
make judgments by selecting and using principles and facts from a body
of knowledge commonly inherent in one or more professional occupations.
CSO's will be employed in HACCP plants primarily in fiscal year 2000
due to the highly complex nature of the work in that environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under the slaughter models component of the HACCP-based
Inspection Models Project, FSIS is exploring alternative ways in which
slaughter inspection might be accomplished in establishments that have
already implemented HACCP systems and that exclusively slaughter
certain market classes of animals. These market classes are young
poultry, steers and heifers, and market hogs. In all cases, these are
young, healthy animals that do not exhibit the same disease and public
health concerns that may be present in older animals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The presence of food safety hazards after product leaves Federally
inspected establishments has prompted the Agency to pilot test the use
of a small number of FSIS resources in the in-distribution sector in
accordance with the farm-to-table strategy. Under this pilot test FSIS
will redeploy some inspectors currently assigned within plants to
verify the safety and wholesomeness of meat and poultry products as
they move to consumers. This project focuses on developing new
inspection models that will permit FSIS to deploy inspection resources
more effectively within plants and between in-plant and in-distribution
sites, consistent with farm-to-table food safety goals and FSIS current
statutory obligations in the in-plant and in-distribution sectors. The
CSI series will be used in the in-distribution pilot of the HACCP-based
Inspection Models Project. After gaining experience through the Models
Project, FSIS expects to employ the CSO series in in-distribution.
FSIS is aware that State and local authorities have primary
responsibility for food safety regulation and oversight at retail
levels and are active in other areas as well. Rather, through the
limited in-distribution pilot and the broader initiatives to create a
seamless food safety system, FSIS plans to work in partnership with
State and local food safety agencies. The pilot is expected--and in
fact designed--to raise questions about coordination with State and
local agencies, and these will be addressed as the pilot proceeds.
Question. Do you have any data to show that grocery stores need
more inspection than imported foods?
USDA answer. FSIS is not proposing more inspection for grocery
stores but better control on the integrity of meat and poultry product
as it moves through transportation, distribution and marketing channels
to consumers.
For example, in response to the proposed Pathogen Reduction/HACCP
regulation, FSIS received many comments supporting the more equitable
distribution of meat and poultry inspection resources throughout the
farm-to-table continuum. The proposed rule included temperature
controls for meat and poultry products during transportation and
storage; FSIS did not finalize this feature of the proposal, but
stated: ``FSIS has concluded that its food safety objectives may be
achieved more effectively by regulatory means other than those proposed
. . . . FSIS agrees with those commenters who stated that keeping raw
products cooled after they leave the establishment, during
transportation, storage, distribution, and sale to consumers is
essential if growth of pathogenic microorganisms on raw products is to
be prevented. This is consistent with FSIS's farm-to-table strategy.''
FSIS intends to develop performance standards for products being
shipped into commerce. These standards would be applicable to all
persons who handle such product before the product reaches the consumer
(61 FR 38856-57, July 25,1996). In addition to a handling performance
standard for the farm-to-table continuum, FSIS believes that there is
benefit to be gained by conducting certain retail sampling of meat and
poultry products just before they reach the consumer. Product leaving
inspected establishments goes through an often lengthy distribution
process that involves many transporters, storers and other handlers.
So, at some future time, FSIS may determine that a greater portion of
its sampling and subsequent analytic work may need to be directed at
meat and poultry products in the final stages of distribution. With
respect to imported products, FSIS believes that its current system for
control of imported meat and poultry products provides an appropriate
level of control and is an efficient use of current resources.
Question. What will the Consumer Safety Officer's role be in the
farm-to-table food safety initiative, especially in food retail and the
farm?
USDA answer. To carry out the farm to table food safety strategy
FSIS needs to have a flexible, more highly educated workforce that can
be assigned at any time, and to any industry operation, to perform
inspection and determine regulatory compliance. FSIS has assessed the
current deployment of the inspection workforce and determined that
changes are needed to optimize inspection coverage while maintaining
our continuous presence in plants. Through this assessment FSIS
identified the need to establish a new Consumer Safety Officer
position. The position of Consumer Safety Officer, currently under
development, will be at a professional level in terms of educational
requirements and responsibilities. FSIS has focused on introducing the
Consumer Safety Officer occupation to conduct a broad range of
regulatory activities, including:
--participating in special projects such as nationwide initiatives
requiring application of professional qualifications, e.g.,
implementation of a significant new procedure;
--serving as a member of a team with other professionals in
conducting assessments in plants with sensitive compliance
issues where previous industry and/or FSIS personnel have been
unsuccessful in identifying causes and developing effective
corrective actions;
--visiting Custom Exempt establishments, evaluating them for
compliance with applicable regulations;
--visiting warehouses in order to verify that they are keeping food
safe; and
--fact-finding visits to State-inspected plants to obtain information
for FSIS personnel responsible for assuring the ``equal to''
status of such plants.
To transition the workforce to the CSO position, FSIS plans to
establish the Consumer Safety Inspector (CSI) position. FSIS plans to
use CSI's for positions to be established in both the in-plant and in-
distribution pilot test that are part of the HACCP-based Inspection
Models Project. Consumer Safety Inspectors will be working at both in-
plant and in-distribution sites.
Under the farm to table strategy FSIS will be using Consumer Safety
Inspectors to carry out its regulatory responsibilities in verifying
the safety and wholesomeness of meat and poultry products as they move
from the plant to the consumer. Under the FSIS's pilot project for
Consumer Safety Inspectors, the inspector will carry out the following
in-distribution activities:
--Conduct scheduled as well as unscheduled reviews of a wide range of
diverse commercial operations.
--Observe meat and poultry products in commerce and control those
that are believed to be adulterated, misbranded, or otherwise
in violation of the laws and regulations.
--Conduct recall effectiveness checks.
--Conduct sampling to verify compliance with FSIS requirements.
--Conduct follow-up inquiries on consumer complaints.
The following are examples of verification activities that consumer
safety inspectors might perform at various commercial locations:
--At a warehouse, the consumer safety inspector would check inspected
meat and poultry products to ensure that labeling meets all
Federal requirements and that the products are not being held
under conditions that may cause them to become adulterated. For
example, the inspector would check to ensure that the products
are not being contaminated by a leaky ceiling.
--At a rendering operation, the consumer safety inspector would
ensure that product labeling meets Federal requirements for
transporting and handling condemned and inedible products.
--At a retail location, the consumer safety inspector would ensure
that any meat or poultry product that has been recalled is no
longer being offered for sale and would ensure that retail
operations are complying with retail exemptions from
inspection.
--Ultimately, FSIS intends that CSO's will cover the full range of
regulatory activities described for both the CSI and the CSO
positions. The transition from Food Inspector to CSI to CSO is
intended to accomplish the transformation of the inspection
workforce in the most effective manner.
Question. What is the role of the Joint Institute for Food Safety
Research? What authority does this body have to prioritize the research
efforts of member agencies? Does this institute have its own staff? If
so, how much and from what agency and what account does the Institute
receive its funding?
USDA answer. The role of the Joint Institute for Food Safety
Research, as defined in the Presidential directive of July 3, 1998, is
``to develop a strategic plan for conducting food safety research
activities consistent with the President's National Food Safety
Initiative and efficiently coordinate all Federal food safety research,
including with the private sector and academia''.
By agreement between the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and
the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the Institute would
serve as a coordinating body to ensure that research needs of the
regulatory agencies, the affected industries, and the general public
are met in a coordinated and most cost effective manner.
The Institute, as described in an October 1, 1998 report to the
President, and responded to in a public hearing on December 1, 1998,
would have an Executive Director and a small staff. The Executive
Director would report to an Executive Research Committee which in turn
reports to the President's Council on Food Safety. An advisory
committee consisting of 16 stakeholder members will report to the
Executive Director. At the present time, the amount of the funding for
support of the small Institute staff and operations has not been
determined. It is proposed that staff and funding will be provided from
the Food Safety Research Agencies of USDA and DHHS.
FDA answer. In 1998, the President instructed the Department of
Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture to
establish the Joint Institute for Food Safety Research or JIFSR to
serve as a mechanism for coordinating the federal research related to
food safety. The goals of the JIFSR are to optimize the current food
safety research investment and infrastructure through coordination of
planning, budget development, and prioritization, provide enhanced
scientific support to food safety regulatory agencies in their efforts
to protect public health, enhance communication among all Federal
agencies with food safety research responsibility, and encourage the
development of public and private partnerships with industry and
academia to efficiently develop and transfer new food safety
information and technologies.
JIFSR will be funded jointly through the two Departments. At this
time, the details of the funding arrangements and the amounts, as well
as the staffing, have not been worked out by the group tasked with
developing a plan to fund and staff JIFSR.
Multi-agency task forces will be the foundation upon which the
JIFSR will operate. Working through those entities, the Federal food
safety research agencies will work with food safety and public health
agencies to identify and prioritize research needs, minimize unplanned
research redundancies, foster opportunities for multi-disciplinary
research programs, facilitate the transfer of research accomplishments,
and promote strategic planning for future food safety research needs
and initiatives. The establishment of the JIFSR will institutionalize
and enhance the already considerable coordination among the Federal
agencies.
The JIFSR will be a virtual office, with a purposefully limited
full-time staff. The majority of the work of that staff will be to
support the multi-agency task forces formed for limited durations to
address specific assignments and needs. While the details of the
staffing requirements will not be finalized until May 1999, it is
anticipated that the full-time staff of the JIFSR will be limited to
five to six individuals drawn from the member agencies. The exception
is the Director of the JIFSR. This individual will be an
internationally recognized food safety researcher recruited for this
position. The specific mechanisms for funding the JIFSR are still being
finalized, but will be based on an equitable sharing among the agencies
conducting research.
Question. Please distinguish between the pesticide residue data
programs operated by the Food and Drug Administration and USDA. Please
also outline funding requirements as proposed in the President's budget
for each of these programs.
USDA answer. USDA's Pesticide Data Program (PDP) and the Food and
Drug Administration's (FDA) Regulatory Monitoring Program have
different missions. PDP is a statistically-reliable program that
provides pesticide residue data to evaluate population-based actual
exposures. The data are used by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to conduct realistic dietary risk assessments as required by the
Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. PDP is used to support the export
of U.S. commodities in the expanding global environment. FDA's
Regulatory Monitoring Program is oriented towards enforcement of
tolerances (maximum allowable pesticide residues in or on food crops)
and is not statistically representative of the overall residue
situation for a given crop, pesticide or region.
One program cannot accomplish both missions because of differences
in sampling rationales and testing requirements. Sampling for
enforcement programs over-represent suspected violators, and require
rapid turn around time for sample analysis. Risk assessment programs
take into account the general population and can take longer to analyze
samples to verify extremely low-level results.
The following is a comparative analysis of both programs:
Sampling:
FDA generally uses targeted, non-random sampling of products
oriented primarily towards the enforcement of tolerances. Under these
conditions, sampling bias may be incurred because sample weighting is
done to include factors such as commodity or place of origin with a
history of violations. In addition, the total number of samples of a
given commodity analyzed for a particular pesticide each year is often
not sufficient to draw conclusions about pesticide residues in the
whole volume of that commodity in commerce.
PDP uses statistically-reliable, unbiased random sampling
procedures to provide objective comprehensive residue data to produce
national estimates of pesticide residues. State population figures are
used to assign the number of samples collected per month. This number
is constant for each commodity if the commodity is available in the
marketplace. In general, at least 600 samples of a commodity are
obtained each year.
Sampling Locations:
FDA's monitoring program collects samples of domestic products
close to the point of production and imported products are collected at
the point of entry into U.S. commerce.
PDP collects samples as close to the consumer as possible at
locations such as terminal markets and chain store distribution
centers. Domestic and imported samples are collected based on
availability in the marketplace. Probability of site selection is based
on annual product volumes.
Commodities:
FDA's monitoring program covers a wide range of commodities and
collects approximately equal numbers of domestic and imported products.
Commodities tested by FDA include fruit and vegetables, grain and grain
products, milk and dairy products, fish and shellfish, various nuts and
spices, and miscellaneous processed products.
PDP focuses on high consumption items with emphasis on foods highly
consumed by infants and children. Products collected by PDP include
fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, selected grains, and milk.
Laboratory Methodology:
FDA primarily uses traditional, multi-residue methods with some
single, selective methods capable of detecting residues at or below
tolerance levels. No verification of residues is required unless a
tolerance violation is suspected.
PDP uses refined multi-residue methods capable of detecting residue
levels much lower than tolerances. These methods require additional
steps to allow for detection of residues at trace levels, and
verification of positive results is required. All data are supported by
rigorous quality assurance and quality control procedures. PDP also
conducts an extensive proficiency check sample program to determine
consistency of results among the participating State and federal
laboratories.
FDA answer. FDA's pesticide program entails regulatory monitoring
designed to enforce the pesticide tolerances established by EPA.
Domestic samples are collected as close as possible to the point of
production in the distribution system; import samples are collected at
the point of entry into U.S. commerce. FDA's pesticide program places
considerable emphasis on imported products, where experience has shown
more violations occur. In general, a very low violation rate has
occurred over the years in both domestic and imported commodities.
Although processed products are also included in sampling, the emphasis
is on raw, agricultural products. Raw products are analyzed in the
unwashed, whole, unpeeled, and raw state. This type of sampling
provides FDA with a broad view of the entire food supply. In addition
to monitoring pesticide levels in the food supply, work under the
pesticide program includes research to develop analytical methods,
enforcement activities, and cooperative efforts with foreign countries
to decrease violation rates.
FDA also conducts its annual market basket survey, the Total Diet
Study, or TDS, to estimate intakes in representative diets of 14
different age or sex groups. Because the study has been under way for
over 30 years, trends can be discerned, such as the decrease in dietary
levels of DDT and other banned pesticide residues. It also helps to
identify potential public health issues that warrant changes in
agricultural practices. FDA has also collected and analyzed a number of
baby foods in addition to those already covered in the TDS. This TDS
adjunct survey includes 23 different food items in each market basket
survey.
USDA's Pesticide Data Program, or PDP, collects data on pesticide
residues in foods. The data are used by EPA for its dietary risk
assessment process and pesticide registration process. It includes a
limited number of commodities each year and monitors fewer pesticide
residues at much lower levels than those included in the FDA's
regulatory program. The samples are collected as close to the point of
consumption as possible. Most samples tested are domestic. For example,
approximately 86 percent of samples tested in 1997 were domestic.
The FQPA legislation authorizes an appropriation of $12 million for
increased FDA monitoring of pesticide residues in foods for the period
fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 1999. However, no additional funds
have been appropriated. FDA currently utilizes about 117 FTE at a cost
of $8.6 million.
Question. This Administration and some of my colleagues have
advocated giving the Federal Government mandatory recall authority.
What powers does the Federal government now have to recall food
products?
USDA answer. FSIS does not have mandatory recall authority. The
recall system coordinated by FSIS is voluntary on the part of the
recalling firm. The voluntary nature of the recall gives the recalling
firm some discretion as to the exact timing of the recall which could
compromise the effectiveness of the recall action. FSIS may detain or
seize adulterated or misbranded product that is in commerce with the
cooperation of the U.S. attorney's office and the Federal Courts. If a
firm refuses to recall adulterated or misbranded product after asked to
do so by FSIS, the Agency may act unilaterally to protect the public
health by withdrawing inspection, which would shut down the firm's
operation.
FDA answer. The only food for which the Agency has explicit
statutory recall authority is infant formula. Under this authority, FDA
can request an infant formula recall only in situations that pose a
hazard to health.
FDA does not have explicit statutory authority to order the recall
of other food products. However, the Agency promulgated regulations for
voluntary recalls in June 1978. Among other things, these regulations
provide criteria for the health hazard evaluation, the recall
classification, the need for public warning, and the effectiveness of
the recall. At the present time, when a firm is not willing to
voluntarily recall a hazardous product, FDA's alternative is to issue a
press release and pursue a court injunction to require the firm to
recall and to stop the violative practice.
FDA has no statutory recall authority for veterinary or animal
drugs or feeds. However, we can and do request that firms conduct
recalls of products that are in violation of the FD&C Act. We also have
the authority to take enforcement action, or seizure, if no recall
action is taken.
It is my understanding that DNA testing has been increasingly used
to link outbreaks in foodborne pathogens.
Question. The Detroit Free Press reports that USDA chose not to
actively publicize its most serious recalls 39 percent of the time. How
does FSIS decide which food recalls are to be publicized?
USDA answer. FSIS does provide public notification of all recalls
by posting a recall notification report (RNR) on its website for all
recalls it coordinates. The report provides specific information
regarding the recalled products such as, recalling firm, reason for
recall, identifying product codes, company contacts, geographic
distribution, quantity recalled, and classification. The main purpose
of the RNR is to alert State and local public health officials and
other responsible parties working in the public health area about
product that may be hazardous to health.
FSIS does not issue press releases in all cases. The purpose of
Agency recall press releases is to quickly alert the public about
product that may present a serious health hazard that they may have in
their possession and can identify. Through this tool, the public is
alerted to the potential problem and advised to return the product to
the point of purchase.
In general, FSIS issues press releases for all Class I Recalls
dealing with products that may be in the hands of the consuming public.
A Class I Recall may involve only product that is packaged and marketed
for food service. In these cases, FSIS would not normally issue press
releases since the product is not in the public's possession, nor is it
readily identifiable by the public. In fact, issuing press releases in
many of these cases may be counter-productive by causing confusion
among consumers. FSIS does conduct recall effectiveness checks to
verify that the recalling firms, and any subsequent distributors,
contact any potential holders of the recalled product with instructions
to immediately stop serving it and to dispose of it appropriately. FSIS
is currently considering whether it should modify its policy on when it
will issue a press release.
Question. An increase of $1 million is requested for FSIS civil
rights training and programs. Please explain in more detail how this
funding would be spent.
USDA answer. Of the $1 million requested, $500 thousand is for
conducting civil rights training that is mandated by USDA for all
employees in the areas of disability awareness, sexual harassment, and
complaint processing procedures. Training the inspection workforce,
which is dispersed across the nation, necessarily involves travel costs
and overtime pay for other inspectors to cover trainees' inspection
assignments. These costs exceed the direct cost of training and require
additional resources to ensure that mandated training is delivered.
The remaining $500 thousand will be used by FSIS to improve its own
civil rights program delivery by addressing the unique environment and
needs of the FSIS workforce. FSIS, using this additional funding, plans
to fully implement the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Program,
which will provide a process for solving problems at an informal level
rather than letting them escalate to the stage where a costly
investigation is required. These funds will also be used for improving
the civil rights program through training for FSIS managers that is
geared to the inspection work setting and its inherent stresses.
Question. Statistics show that the percentage of Salmonella present
in broilers, swine, ground beef, and ground turkey is lower since the
implementation of HACCP. What does FSIS attribute to this success?
USDA answer. As FSIS has consistently maintained, these are limited
data, and care should be taken in interpreting these statistics. The
completed sample sets are from the large establishments, and although
they produce the significant majority of product, they are fewer in
number than either the small or very small category of establishments
and their experience may not be typical of the set of all
establishments. Furthermore, the data analyzed to date reflect
accomplishments during the first year of HACCP implementation and
therefore, may not be representative of long run performance.
Nevertheless, FSIS believes these data indicate that the regulatory
approach embodied in the PR/HACCP final rule is effective. FSIS
believes that HACCP provides incentives for establishments to take
frontline responsibility for the production of safe and wholesome meat
and poultry products. Establishments which take that responsibility
seriously and implement HACCP successfully appear to have the capacity
to significantly improve the microbial characteristics of the raw
products they produce.
Question. Twenty-six State inspection programs for meat and poultry
are overseen and supported by FSIS. These cooperative programs permit
States to inspect product for distribution within their own boundaries.
Should a State elect to not participate in this program, does FSIS
fully fund the inspection for that State? If yes, what is the cost to
FSIS for each State not in the program?
USDA answer. FSIS fully funds the cost of mandatory federal
inspection in States that do not operate cooperative programs. For the
record, the following table displays the estimated cost by State of the
federal inspection program for fiscal years 1998 through 2000 under the
FSIS appropriation, excluding federal matching funds to those States
operating cooperative inspection programs.
[The information follows:]
COST OF THE FEDERAL INSPECTION PROGRAM BY STATE
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
1998 1999 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA \1\..................................................... $21,661 $22,808 $24,167
ALASKA \1\...................................................... .............. .............. ..............
ARIZONA \1\..................................................... 1,232 1,290 1,386
ARKANSAS........................................................ 32,126 33,671 35,623
CALIFORNIA...................................................... 30,518 31,987 33,840
COLORADO........................................................ 9,072 9,508 10,059
CONNECTICUT..................................................... 1,439 1,508 1,596
DELAWARE \1\.................................................... 5,224 5,500 5,826
FLORIDA \1\..................................................... 6,558 7,360 7,787
GEORGIA \1\..................................................... 34,619 36,572 38,769
HAWAII.......................................................... 1,432 1 ,501 1,588
IDAHO........................................................... 2,769 2,902 3,071
ILLINOIS \1\.................................................... 10,941 11,568 12,376
INDIANA \1\..................................................... 6,532 6,901 7,353
IOWA \1\........................................................ 20,329 21,352 22,624
KANSAS \1\...................................................... 11,205 11,523 12,248
KENTUCKY........................................................ 7,170 7,515 7,951
LOUISIANA \1\................................................... 4,385 4,658 4,993
MAINE........................................................... 1,198 1,255 1,328
MARYLAND........................................................ 8,104 8,494 8,986
MASSACHUSETTS................................................... 3,662 3,838 4,061
MICHIGAN........................................................ 9,092 9,530 10,082
MINNESOTA \1\................................................... 17,091 17,649 18,680
MISSISSIPPI \1\................................................. 15,953 16,736 17,742
MISSOURI........................................................ 20,784 21,784 23,047
MONTANA......................................................... 1,325 1,408 1,503
NEBRASKA........................................................ 22,110 23,173 24,516
NEVADA.......................................................... 393 412 436
NEW HAMPSHIRE................................................... 514 539 570
NEW JERSEY...................................................... 6,395 6,703 7,092
NEW MEXICO \1\.................................................. 1,019 1,069 1,145
NEW YORK........................................................ 13,344 13,986 14,796
NORTH CAROLINA \1\.............................................. 20,003 21,200 22,534
NORTH DAKOTA.................................................... 1,293 1,355 1,434
OHIO \1\........................................................ 7,589 8,100 8,726
OKLAHOMA \1\.................................................... 5,918 6,283 6,702
OREGON.......................................................... 4,313 4,521 4,783
PENNSYLVANIA.................................................... 21,788 22,836 24,160
RHODE ISLAND.................................................... 545 571 604
SOUTH CAROLINA \1\.............................................. 6,940 7,318 7,787
SOUTH DAKOTA \1\................................................ 3,225 3,387 3,600
TENNESSEE....................................................... 7,502 7,863 8,319
TEXAS \1\....................................................... 33,960 35,932 38,168
UTAH \1\........................................................ 2,473 2,649 2,831
VERMONT......................................................... 629 573 619
VIRGINIA \1\.................................................... 11,647 12,303 13,057
WASHINGTON...................................................... 6,269 6,571 6,952
WEST VIRGINIA \1\............................................... 1,895 2,003 2,139
WISCONSIN \1\................................................... 8,490 8,998 9,616
WYOMING \1\..................................................... 3 9 18
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA............................................ 72,190 75,663 80,048
PUERTO RICO..................................................... 3,166 3,319 3,509
VIRGIN ISLANDS.................................................. 55 58 61
GUAM............................................................ 54 57 60
AMERICAN SAMOA.................................................. 54 57 60
N. MARIANA ISLANDS.............................................. .............. .............. ..............
MICRONESUA...................................................... .............. .............. ..............
OTHER COUNTRIES................................................. 198 208 218
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................................... 548,299 576,531 611,254
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Identifies those 26 States with a State Meat and Poultry Inspection Program.
Question. What motivates a State to participate in the cooperative
program?
USDA answer. States have the potential to provide the optimum
response to the unique needs of their local small or very small packers
while also responding responsibly to the public health needs of their
citizens. State programs may have the potential to provide the most
responsive ``user friendly'' technical guidance as well as regulatory
control to very small packers. These local small businesses often lack
the technical know-how of larger packers which have experts on staff to
address such issues. The cooperative program is a means to support
small business in addition to protecting consumers. States may also
have pride in maintaining their own programs. When these factors fit in
place, sufficient support may exist to fund such a program.
Question. The production of animals on the farm is a quality
control issue that is being addressed by the Animal Production Food
Safety Staff in FSIS. Please explain what this staff is doing to
encourage the implementation of this quality control program.
USDA answer. The Animal Production Food Safety Staff (APFSS) works
with farm and consumer groups, the agri-business industry, state
authorities and other USDA agencies to promote the voluntary adoption
of producer practices that will result in safer animals. APFSS helps
ensure that research is being conducted to identify practices which
reduce or prevent human pathogens and residues in or on animals and
eggs submitted for processing. The APPSS staff also conducts risk
management outreach activities by focusing on the practical application
of hazard prevention practices from farm to slaughter.
The Animal Production Food Safety Staff is FSIS's liaison with the
animal production community. At the state and local levels, the Animal
Production Food Safety Staff works with the 50 State Departments of
Agriculture and State Public Health Departments; academia; practicing
veterinarians; professional and industry associations and consumer
groups. The objective is to reach the one million food animal
producers, the thousands of livestock markets, and satellite industries
to educate them on the impact of in-plant HACCP systems on animal
production practices and the importance of quality assurance practices.
The quality assurance standards adopted by industry will provide HACCP
plants with information necessary to assess the risks presented by
animals submitted to slaughterhouses.
To encourage the adoption of HACCP-compatible quality assurance
practices, the Animal Production Food Safety Staff provides funds to
State animal and public health agencies to develop animal production
food safety local partnerships. Currently 11 states have food safety
partnership groups addressing how they can best educate producers on
quality assurance practices and HACCP concepts. These states are
Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Oregon, South
Dakota, Texas, Vermont, and Wisconsin. The Animal Production Food
Safety Staff also is overseeing demonstration projects evaluating
pathogen risk reduction practices for non-fed beef (culled dairy beef),
pork, lamb and broiler commodities and is working closely with Tuskegee
University (Alabama) to determine the educational needs of small and
disadvantaged producers.
Question. Are plants that are operating under HACCP advocating
changes in the marketing of animals? If yes, which livestock industries
are being targeted by these plants?
USDA answer. According to the Final Rule, meat and poultry plants
must consider hazards reasonably likely to occur before, during and
after entry into official establishments. With regard to plants that
are operating under HACCP, some are requiring producers to be educated
on certain quality assurance practices. Some producers of branded
products also inspect their suppliers for appropriate records for
animal drug use and other certified practices assuring the quality of
their animals. While FSIS does not have specific knowledge of plant
purchasing activities, we are aware that large pork processing
facilities are requiring that their suppliers be certified on the Pork
Quality Assurance Program, Level III, an educational program in the
production of safe /quality animals. At this stage in the development
of HACCP, however, this is an exception. In a related matter, we are
aware that some plants are having producers sign letters of guarantee
regarding the residue safety of the animals supplied.
Question. What role does FSIS play in the National Antimicrobial
Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS)? How much does the fiscal year
2000 budget request contain for this?
USDA answer. FSIS believes that slaughter origin Salmonella
isolates are critical to assessing the extent of human exposure to
antibiotic resistant bacteria in foods of animal origin. Under HACCP,
FSIS conducts Salmonella testing of raw products in order to monitor
plant compliance with pathogen reduction standards. These results are
reported as positive or negative for Salmonella. Other Agency
activities, such as participation in PulseNet make additional use of
Salmonella isolates. These additional uses require that the Salmonella
isolates be serotyped. FSIS pays for a percentage of its total
Salmonella isolates to be serotyped at the USDA, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service, National Veterinary Services Laboratory
(NVSL), in Ames, Iowa. For fiscal year 2000, the Agency estimates
$100,000 will be required for this and related testing at NVSL.
To support NARMS, FSIS forwards these serotyped Salmonella isolates
from each of our field laboratories to the USDA-ARS research laboratory
in Athens, Georgia, that conducts the antimicrobial resistance testing
for the veterinary portion of the NARMS program. Beginning in fiscal
year 1999, FSIS began a baseline sampling program for Campylobacter in
broilers. The FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine requested, and FSIS
agreed, to forward those isolates to the same USDA-ARS research
laboratory in Athens, Georgia. Agency databases contain the most
complete information about the establishment and product source of
these serotyped isolates. Accordingly, the Agency provides NARMS with
technical support in order to correctly interpret the slaughter origin
Salmonella and Campylobacter data.
Question. In January, the inspector's union met with Congressional
staff and argued that the old system needed to be maintained in its
entirety in conjunction with HACCP. This is at complete odds with the
commitments the Secretary of Agriculture, and FSIS have made to
Congress. How are you working with the union to resolve this dispute,
and do you anticipate the union's position will slow FSIS' timetable or
force a policy change?
USDA answer. In the early 1990's, FSIS' thinking about HACCP and
its relationship to the existing inspection system was quite different
than it is today. FSIS believed that HACCP could be implemented as a
supplement, not a replacement, to the existing inspection system. HACCP
was viewed as a mandatory industry process control system intended as
an enhancement to the current inspection system. In fact, the Agency
signed a memorandum of understanding with the union that confirmed the
thinking of that time.
[The information follows:]
memorandum of understanding
In an effort to improve relations and communications with respect
to the HACCP initiative, the National Joint Council (NJC) and Food
Safety and Insection Service management are committed to the following:
(1) HACCP is viewed as a mandator industry process control system,
not as a system of inspection.
(2) The implementation of HACCP is intended to be an enhancement to
the current inspection system and not a substitute for inspection.
(3) FSIS plans to make HACCP mandatory so that the industry can
improve food safety, not to reduce the number of inspectors.
(4) FSIS will support any unit employee when their action causes a
reduction in plant production due to HACCP non-compliance if the action
is in accordance with established regulations, directives and guidance.
(5) To the extent that disagreements arise between the parties
concerning any aspect of the HACCP initiative, the undersigned will
first use internal mechanisms to address their concerns. If those
mechanisms fail, then the parties are free to use alternative methods.
(6) The parties recognize that circumstances, both those that
currently exist and those unforeseen, may impact on the commitments
made above. The parties, therefore, recognize the importance of
maintaining continued communication concerning HACCP so that changes in
circumstances can be dealt with in the spirit of a good faith labor
management relationship.
Subsequent development of the HACCP regulatory framework and the
public process through which the Pathogen Reduction and HACCP (PR/
HACCP) final rule was developed led to a different conclusion. That is,
that the HACCP system must be implemented in a way that would focus
industry efforts on production of safe products and that would focus
FSIS regulatory efforts on verifying the effectiveness of the
industry's HACCP system. Through the public process, it became clear
that the implementation of HACCP needed to do more than supplement the
existing inspection system. It must also result in no layering of
additional regulatory requirements on top of existing regulations.
FSIS' regulatory reform efforts over the past few years since
promulgation of the PR/HACCP final rule have focused on eliminating
such layering.
The next steps in that process are to determine whether the
existing inspection system can be further modernized based on the
existence of industry HACCP systems. In particular, this means
determining whether traditional slaughter inspection procedures for
certain market classes of animals can be modernized by industry
assumption of principal responsibility for food safety concerns at
slaughter. The HACCP-based inspection models project is focused in part
on this question.
The Agency has engaged in an open, public process for the
development of alternative methods of conducting regulatory activities
in certain types of slaughter plants. Federal register notices have
been issued periodically to share Agency thinking and three public
meetings have been held to date. A new design for inspection work has
been developed and was the subject of extensive negotiations with the
union January 5-14 and February 23-25, 1999. The parties were assisted
by a mediator from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service at
the latter session. Following mediation the parties jointly submitted
the outstanding issues to the Federal Service Impasses Panel for
resolution.
The existence of litigation has not affected FSIS' resolve to seek
alternative inspection methods that work more effectively in the HACCP-
based production environments of regulated plants. While litigation is
pending, the Agency is continuing work on developing new inspection
systems. As progress is made, consultations and negotiations with the
union are conducted. It is anticipated that the continuing dialogue
between the Agency and the union throughout all appropriate venues will
facilitate resolution of differences and permit the introduction of new
food safety strategies in a timely manner.
Question. FSIS has initiated HACCP pilot programs in several meat
and poultry plants to see if new inspection strategies could help in
the fight against foodborne pathogens. We understand the inspector's
union is suing the agency over the pilots and that the pilot program
thus cannot move forward. Has FSIS' commitment to the pilots wavered,
and how does FSIS propose to resolve the problem so we can begin taking
advantage of these new food safety strategies?
USDA answer. No, the Agency's commitment to the pilots has not
wavered and it anticipates resolution of the outstanding issues with
the inspectors' union through the Federal Service Impasses Panel.
Dialogue between the FSIS and the union continues throughout all
appropriate channels, which will facilitate the resolution of
differences and permit the timely introduction of new food safety
strategies.
Question. Regardless of this impasse, many pilot plants still are
seeking to implement new technologies in fighting pathogens. We
understand FSIS is requiring testing protocols before these new
technologies can be implemented. This flies in the face of FSIS'
commitment last year to Congress to fast-track technological
innovations that reduce pathogens. Why does FSIS need to approve
protocols for the pilot plants when it already has conducted baseline
microbial testing and can determine by the results of subsequent
pathogen testing whether the new technology is yielding beneficial
results?
USDA answer. Before implementation of the Pathogen Reduction; HACCP
final rule (PR/HACCP), FSIS approval of protocols for in-plant trials
of new technologies was required. Under PR/HACCP, FSIS approval is no
longer required and a plant generally is free to innovate and
experiment without FSIS prior approval. If requested, FSIS will provide
technical advice and conduct a review of protocols for in-plant trials
of new technologies.
Under the PR/HACCP final rule, the Food Safety and Inspection
Service's strategy to improve food safety encourages the use of
innovative technologies to reduce or eliminate pathogens from food. In
fact, this strategy calls for FSIS to establish food safety standards
that provide incentives for the food manufacturing and allied
industries to develop and implement innovations that lead to improved
food safety. The design of an experiment to test an innovation in-plant
is the plant's decisions. If a plant decides to conduct an in-plant
trial, it must accept responsibility for its workers, its products, and
for providing the information necessary for FSIS to examine the impact
on inspection procedures and inspector safety. The plant also is
responsible for ensuring that it conducts the in-plant trial in
accordance with any applicable regulatory requirements (e.g., OSHA,
FDA, EPA, requirements). The Agency's role under PR/HACCP is to provide
regulatory oversight, not approval, of the in-plant trial or the
innovation. The main purpose of such oversight is to verify that the
trial or introduction of a new technology will not interfere with FSIS
inspection personnel's ability to verify that the food is safe or
compromise the safety of FSIS inspection personnel. This is
accomplished through the review and clearance of protocols for in-plant
trials when there is reasonable expectation that inspection procedures
will be affected or the safety of FSIS inspection personnel is in
question.
The only other circumstance in which FSIS has required testing of a
new technology is if implementation of the technology will require a
change in FSIS' regulations, for example, use of trisodium phosphate
for on-line reprocessing has required testing. This testing is
necessary to provide a basis for a change in FSIS' regulations, which
do not permit on-line reprocessing of poultry.
Question. You recently told the House Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee that some meat and poultry plants are resisting the effort
to remove unnecessary layers of the old inspection system. Could you
please provide the committee with more complete detail about the types
of plants that are resisting de-layering and a list of specific
regulations that plants have told the agency they want to retain?
USDA answer. A number of establishments have strongly opposed FSIS
regulatory reform efforts regarding certain regulations. The
elimination of prior approval for proprietary substances and nonfood
compounds included within the proposed rule on ``Sanitation
Requirements for Official Meat and Poultry Establishments'' (62 FR
45045); the conversion of the historically prescriptive thermal
processing (canning) requirements into performance standards (9 CFR
318.300 and 381.300); and the elimination of prior approval for
equipment included within the final rule on ``Eliminating of Prior
Approval Requirements for Establishment Drawings and Specifications,
Equipment, and Certain Partial Quality Control Programs'' (62 FR 45016)
are among those reforms opposed by certain segments of the industry.
Question. We have heard concerns about FSIS conducting inspections
in warehouses and at the retail level. Obviously, no one wants to see
duplication of state and local efforts, but you seem to feel FSIS has
an appropriate role to play in such inspections. Please describe for us
the role you envision for federal inspectors and the ways you think it
could enhance the safety of the food supply?
USDA answer. The In-Distribution portion of the HACCP-Based
Inspection Models Project is designed to redeploy some inspectors
currently assigned within plants to verify the safety and wholesomeness
of meat and poultry products as they move to consumers. FSIS envisions
one fully integrated program that will permit movement of personnel
between in-plant and in-distribution sites, consistent with farm-to-
table food safety goals. Thus, the in-plant and in-distribution models
are being developed concurrently and are both essential components of
the HACCP-Based Inspection Models Project.
FSIS' goal is to reduce the risk of foodborne illness associated
with the consumption of meat and poultry products to the extent
possible. To achieve this goal, FSIS is carrying out a farm-to-table
strategy that recognizes the need to take steps at each segment of the
farm-to-table chain to improve food safety. The need to adopt a farm-
to-table strategy was articulated in the Agency's February 3, 1995,
proposed rule on Pathogen Reduction and Hazard Analysis and Critical
Control Point (HACCP) Systems. In that document, FSIS stated that as a
major element of its food safety regulatory strategy:
``FSIS must approach its food safety mission broadly, and
address potential hazards that arise throughout the food
production and delivery system, including before animals enter
FSIS-inspected facilities and after meat and poultry products
leave those establishments.''
A significant problem with the current inspection system is that it
does not fully permit FSIS to allocate resources according to public
health risk. Thus, where gaps in public health protection are
identified, the Agency may not be able to respond. For example, there
are indications that risks to consumers associated with inspected
products often stem from hazards associated with the handling of
products during transportation, storage, or retail sale (commonly
referred to as ``in-distribution.''). It is important that FSIS have
the ability to focus its resources as appropriate to address the risks
identified. This flexibility will enhance the overall safety of the
food supply by addressing hazards that occur after product leaves the
plant on the way to consumers.
Question. It is my understanding that DNA testing has been
increasingly used to link outbreaks in foodborne pathogens.
(1) Can DNA fingerprinting alone definitively link a food product
to a human illness'?
USDA answer. FSIS uses pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) for
``genetic fingerprinting'' of E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella spp. and
Listeria monocytogenes. This technique is highly discriminative and
reliable compared to other molecular subtyping methods used for
foodborne pathogens. FSIS laboratories employ methodology that has been
approved and standardized by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC). The CDC standardized methodology is used not only by
FSIS laboratories, but CDC and participating State public health
department laboratories as well.
FSIS actively shares PFGE data with CDC and participates in
PulseNet, a network of federal and State health department laboratories
dedicated to the early detection of incipient outbreaks. This
collective effort has already proven invaluable for protecting the
public health. Laboratory intercommunication of PFGE data played a
vital role in implicating ground beef produced by Hudson Foods for a
cluster of foodborne illness cases in Colorado and other states in the
summer of 1997.
(2) Is the Department willing to share pathogenic isolets with the
food processing industry?
Answer. It is FSIS policy not to share evidentiary cultures.
Cultures that are potentially associated with samples pending
regulatory and/or legal action are considered evidentiary.
FDA answer. No. DNA ``fingerprinting'' has greatly facilitated
rapid recognition of foodborne disease outbreaks and identification of
the sources of outbreak by permitting comparison of bacteria isolated
from humans and from suspected food using standardized equipment and
methods. However, DNA ``fingerprinting'' results must be considered
along with epidemiologic investigation data in making links between a
food source and human illness. In the absence of epidemiologic data,
DNA ``fingerprinting'' alone cannot definitively link a food product to
human illness.
Bacteria are ``fingerprinted'' by their unique DNA composition
through a method known as pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). DNA
is extracted from the bacteria and treated with an enzyme that cuts the
DNA at specific places called restriction sites. The location of these
restriction sites is unique to each strain of bacteria. The resulting
pieces of DNA are then separated in an electrical field, resulting in a
``DNA fingerprint'' resembling a bar code.
FDA answer. Yes. Once an outbreak investigation is completed and a
final report has been issued, CDC shares outbreak-associated isolates
with the company whose product was involved or with an appropriate
industry trade association. CDC requires the company or the trade
association to submit an official written request for the isolate(s)
and certify that it has access to laboratory resources for appropriate
handling of pathogenic bacteria under recommended biosafety guidelines.
FDA shares resistant strains with whomever requests them.
Question. It is my understanding that there have been several
errors made by FSIS in relation to its testing program and recalls. For
example, there was a recall that may have actually been a mistake since
the laboratory in Florida could not ``find'' the E. coli O157:H7 after
the laboratory said it was in the meat; in another case, FSIS issued a
press release listing the wrong products, telling consumers to return
to their grocery stores products that were not even contaminated. What
are your plans for addressing these problems?
USDA answer. In the Florida case mentioned, FSIS requested the firm
voluntarily recall about 359,000 pounds of its ground beef based on the
following factors: 1) official notice from the Florida State Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services that an intact sample of ground
beef produced at an FSIS inspected plant confirmed positive for
Escherichia coli O157:H7; 2) the Agency's review of the laboratory
methods used by the State; and 3) the fact that E. coli O157:H7 is a
dangerous pathogen.
The Florida food laboratory made subcultures from the original
culture and sent them to the Florida health laboratory and the FSIS
Special Projects and Outbreaks Laboratory. In the course of examining
the isolates, the FSIS lab did not detect E. coli O157:H7 in the
subcultures, which are samples of the samples. However, failure by
other labs to reconfirm original results does not invalidate the
original confirmed results. Based upon our review of the Florida
Laboratories method, there is no reason to doubt the accuracy and
reliability of the original testing procedures that confirmed the
pathogen in a product sample.
Although not common, it is possible to ``lose'' E. coli O157:H7
during the transfer from original culture to subculture. One possible
explanation is that the original culture contained other organisms that
outgrew (out-competed) E. coli O157:H7. Because the original culture is
not available to retest, it is impossible to determine that this
occurred. However, even if faulty transfer had occurred, this finding
would not invalidate the original confirmation.
To address the concerns raised by your question, FSIS has
instituted a policy of not formally requesting recalls by firms based
solely on laboratory results from other than FSIS laboratories.
In cases when third party laboratories report positive pathogen
findings to us, FSIS makes a diligent effort to collect samples of the
same ``lots'' of product tested by the reporting laboratory and acts on
the results of its official samples. In the question you raise about a
press release that may have listed products incorrectly, the Agency is
not aware of the specific case referred to. FSIS relies on product and
coding information provided by the recalling establishments. As you are
aware, FSIS is also engaged in a public process of reviewing its
general recall policies and practices. The Agency is currently
evaluating comments on its proposals from all stakeholders. When the
analysis is completed, policy decisions will be considered by the
Department.
Question. As you are well aware, the General Accounting Office, the
National Academy of Sciences, and others have concluded that the
nation's food safety system is ``bureaucratically fragmented'', being
implemented by over 12 agencies and overseen by 28 different
congressional committees, and should be reorganized under a single food
safety authority. Do you agree?
USDA answer. Recently, the President's Council on Food Safety
reviewed and responded to the National Academy of Sciences Report
(NAS). Although the NAS report indicates that many of the NAS committee
members believe that a single, unified agency headed by a single
administrator is the most viable structure for implementing the
``single'' voice concept, the Council response recognizes that there
may be many other models that would be workable.
The Council agreed with the goal of the NAS recommendation--that
there should be a fully integrated food safety system in the U.S. The
food safety agencies are committed to this goal, and the President's
Council is confident that its comprehensive strategic plan will be a
major step toward creating a seamless food safety system. To ensure
that the strategic plan achieves this goal, the Council will conduct an
assessment of structural models and other mechanisms that could
strengthen the federal food safety system through better coordination,
planning and resource allocation.
While the Council recognized that certain models of reorganization
may improve coordination and allow for better allocation of resources,
any reorganization of food safety activities must consider the non-
food-safety-related responsibilities of each agency and how these
relate to the food safety responsibilities. Reorganization must not be
done at the expense of these other responsibilities and activities. The
Council is concerned that if not done carefully, separating food safety
from non-food safety activities in each agency could act to weaken
consumer and environmental protection overall.
FDA answer. We are aware of the numerous reports over the years
that have recommended a single food agency or recommended that all food
safety activities are located together or in one or another existing
agency. The NAS report recommended a new statute that would establish a
unified framework for food safety programs with a single official with
control over all federal food safety resources. The report went on to
acknowledge that there may be several organizational approaches to
achieving the goal of a single voice for federal food safety
activities, with a single agency being only one possibility. The
President's Council on Food Safety, of which DHHS is a co-chair,
responded to the NAS report, by voicing the commitment of the food
safety agencies to achieving a fully integrated food safety system in
the U.S. In formulating a strategic plan to achieve this goal, the
Council will evaluate various models of reorganization that may improve
coordination of food safety activities to be more effective and
efficient. The Council, echoing concerns expressed in the NAS report,
pointed out that reorganizations must avoid interfering with the public
health framework established to identify and respond to infectious and
non-infectious public health threats whether they are foodborne or not,
since many of the major foodborne pathogens also produce non-foodborne
disease. FDA is committed to working within the structure of the
Council on Food Safety to develop a more coordinated, effective and
efficient U.S. food safety system.
Question. Dr. Woteki, you indicate in your prepared statement that
the Administration has been actively engaged in organizational and
program changes to improve coordination and eliminate conflicts,
enhance coordination of responses to public health issues and
emergencies, and coordinate research planning and prioritization.
What conflicts and areas for improved coordination have been
identified? What organizational and program changes have been made by
the Administration to address these?
USDA answer. Much has been said about the need for organizational
and structural change in the intergovernmental system as well as the
need for more coordination within an improved food safety system. The
Administration has been actively engaged in organizational and program
changes to eliminate conflicts, enhance coordination of responses to
public health issues and emergencies, and coordinate research planning
and prioritization.
In 1994, the Congress and Administration cooperated in enacting a
major reorganization of food safety within USDA, creating the new
mission area and Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, which
oversees the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the U.S.
Manager of Codex Alimentarius. Under that legislation, a mission area
dedicated to public health was created within USDA, and the legislation
mandated that this office be occupied by an individual with a proven
background in public health and safety.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the USDA regulatory
agency under the Under Secretary for Food Safety that is responsible
for the safety of meat, poultry, and egg products, also underwent a
major reorganization. Among its most significant features were the
establishment of a more efficient field organizational structure and
the establishment of a new Office of Public Health and Science to
provide scientific focus, leadership, and expertise to address the most
important public health risks related to meat, poultry, and egg
products.
Research is also a key component of the President's Food Safety
Initiative. There have been a number of actions taken by the
Administration and the Department in the past few years that have
provided an expanded role for coordinating research in the U.S. food
safety system.
The 1994 reorganization of USDA centralized research activities in
the newly created mission area and the Office of the Under Secretary
for Research, Education and Economics (REE). Food safety research is
largely funded through two USDA agencies--the Agricultural Research
Service (ARS) and the Cooperative State Research, Education and
Extension Service (CSREES). Together in fiscal year 1998 these agencies
conducted and funded in excess of $56 million in food safety research.
The centralized research focus enables the Department to better
leverage existing funds.
The REE research activities, both intramural and extramural, are
intended to meet the need of the regulatory agencies to achieve
improved food safety via HACCP implementation and other initiatives. To
that end, ARS, the intramural research arm of USDA, and FSIS have
yearly food safety and research budget and planning sessions. These
sessions provide one mechanism to ensure that proposed research
initiatives address the specific priorities of FSIS. In addition, FSIS
consults closely with other USDA agencies to ensure that its critical
research and information needs are being met.
CSREES supports food safety research via several funding mechanisms
that include formula funds, National Research Initiative competitive
grants, special research grants awarded by a competitive process and
special site-specific grants that are appropriated by Congress. The
priorities for competitive grants are based on stakeholder input,
including government agencies in support of their public health
mission.
The Administration has also been actively engaged in other
coordinated research planning and prioritization. In 1998, an
Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Food Safety Research was created.
The IWG, co-chaired by USDA and the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS), is charged with developing a government-wide
coordinated strategy for food safety research, including the
identification of information gaps and priorities for future research.
The IWG provides a forum for coordination, collaboration, and
communication in setting and reviewing the Federal research agenda.
In July 1998, the President directed the Secretary of Agriculture
and Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a Joint Institute
on Food Safety Research (JIFSR). The JIFSR concept provides a mechanism
for coordinated planning of food safety research among the various
parts of government and the private sector, as well as fostering
effective translation of research results into practice. The JIFSR,
operationally located in REE at USDA, expects to optimize food safety
research investments, channel Federal resources to research that is
needed to minimize the impact of current and emerging food safety
problems, and avoid research redundancies. The JIFSR is currently being
developed jointly by USDA, HHS, and Office of Science and Technology
Policy. The program is expected to be fully developed by late 1999.
FSIS and FDA are in the process of implementing a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) to facilitate appropriate sharing of information
among senior agency field personnel regarding safe food production in
these plants. FSIS has a trained inspection force in every Federally
inspected meat and poultry slaughter and processing plant in the United
States. In some cases, products are being processed in the same plants
that fall under the jurisdiction of FDA because they are food products
that do not contain meat or poultry.
USDA is also working more closely with its counterparts at the
Federal, State, and local level to encourage national uniformity in
food safety standards through support and endorsement of the Food Code.
Because world trade in agricultural commodities continues to grow, USDA
is working through the Codex Alimentarius Commission to encourage
international uniformity in food safety standards. Responsibility for
oversight of the U.S. manager of Codex is in the Office of Food Safety.
There are several other areas that are contributing to enhanced
coordination of public health issues and emergencies that are worthy of
note including voluntary quality control programs, surveillance,
outbreak response, and education.
Voluntary Quality Control Programs.
The Animal Production Food Safety Staff in FSIS is an excellent
example of developing partnership with states to encourage the
voluntary implementation of quality control programs at the animal
production level. The education of small producers is of particular
concern as we move forward with HACCP implementation in small plants.
Surveillance
In July 1995, USDA began a collaborative project with HHS, through
its Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), to collect more precise information on the
incidence of foodborne disease in the United States. The FoodNet
Surveillance Network has been expanded under the President's Food
Safety Initiative, and it is providing valuable information on trends
in foodborne illness and on the association between cases of illness
and the types of foods consumed.
USDA also conducts farm-level surveillance through the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). APHIS has a field force of
veterinarians who work cooperatively at the state and local level to
ensure the health of poultry and livestock populations. APHIS' National
Animal Health Monitoring System has conducted nine science-based
studies addressing information gaps in the areas of animal health,
welfare, and production; product wholesomeness; and the environment in
the cattle, swine, and layer industries.
The National Antibiotic Resistance Monitoring System was
established in 1996 as an interagency cooperative activity to monitor
emerging resistance in foodborne pathogens, beginning with Salmonella.
The effort is coordinated and directed through HHS by the Food and Drug
Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) and includes CDC
and three USDA agencies, ARS, APHIS, and FSIS. Both APHIS and FSIS play
an integral role in system design and the acquisition of isolates.
Outbreak Response
In 1998, the Foodborne Outbreak Response Coordinating Group (FORC
G), a partnership of Federal and State agencies, was established to
better respond to foodborne illness outbreaks. The role of this
interagency group, co-chaired by the Under Secretary for Food Safety
and the Assistant Secretary for Health, is to coordinate and develop
procedures for managing outbreaks, share information on potential
sources of outbreaks and pathogens, and coordinate interdepartmental
action on those issues when necessary.
Within USDA, the Secretary asked the Under Secretary for Food
Safety to form and chair an internal Food Emergency Rapid Response and
Evaluation Team (FERRET), designed to enable USDA to be prepared to
respond to such emergencies as outbreaks involving foods purchased by
USDA feeding programs, and formulate plans across mission areas to
diminish those possibilities in the future.
PulseNet, the national database of molecular fingerprints of
pathogens, developed through partnerships involving CDC, FSIS, FDA, and
State governments, allows a comparison of strains of bacteria to
determine whether or not there is a single source for outbreaks or
sporadic cases.
Education
Improving research, inspection, and surveillance alone will not
ensure safe food. Education and training for all those involved in
producing, processing, and distributing food are essential to the goal
of providing the public with safe food products.
The President's Food Safety Initiative has spurred new consumer
education programs within USDA as well as expanded cooperative ventures
with public and private partners, including other Federal agencies. One
example is the ``Fight BAC!'' campaign sponsored by the Partnership for
Food Safety Education, a public-private partnership, with participation
of both USDA and HHS. In addition, USDA is working through
organizations such as the Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO)
to provide education to those who handle food at the retail level and
is carrying out extensive HACCP education for its own and State
employees involved in inspection.
USDA is also working with industry to develop science-based food
safety assurance programs for fresh-cut fruit and vegetable processing
facilities. USDA is basing its safe food handling education on science.
Epidemiology information from FoodNet and other sources is helping to
identify types of foods associated with illness, behaviors that can
contribute to disease, and populations who are more vulnerable. In
addition, USDA is increasingly using risk assessments and research data
to develop accurate and high-priority consumer messages. An example is
an ARS/FSIS study on the premature browning of ground beef, which led
to a nationwide education campaign to promote the use of food
thermometers when cooking hamburger.
CSREES administers a food safety education program, called the
National Food Safety and Quality Initiative, in partnership with land-
grant institutions across the United States. This program supports food
safety education initiatives at all land-grant institutions as well as
specific education initiatives that reach animal and food handlers
along the entire farm-to-table chain. In addition, science-based
programs in HACCP training for the meat and poultry industry are funded
by CSREES through Fund for Rural America grants and special research
grants. The scope and focus of these educational programs are developed
in consultation with stakeholders, including other Federal agencies
involved in food safety education.
Question. When will the Administration's report on the proposal to
consolidate the rules and agencies dealing with food safety be
complete?
USDA answer. The President's Council on Food Safety has completed
its review of the National Academy of Sciences report ``Ensuring Safe
Food from Production to Consumption.'' The Council submitted a response
to the President in March and the report is provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
president's council on food safety assessment of the nas report:
ensuring safe food from production to consumption
Executive Summary
At the request of Congress, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
conducted a study of the current food safety system to: (1) determine
the scientific basis of an effective food safety system; (2) assess the
effectiveness of the current system; (3) identify scientific and
organizational needs and gaps at the federal level; and (4) provide
recommendations on scientific and organizational changes needed to
ensure an effective food safety system. To conduct this study, the NAS
established a committee and obtained input from federal agencies and
other stakeholders of the federal food safety system. The NAS issued
its report on August 20, 1998.
On August 25, 1998, through Executive Order 13100, the President
established the Council on Food Safety and charged it to develop a
comprehensive strategic plan for federal food safety activities and to
make recommendations to the President on how to implement the plan.
Also on August 25, 1998, the President directed the Council to provide
him with an assessment of the NAS report in 180 days. Specifically, the
President directed:
``. . . the Council to review and respond to this report as one
of its first orders of business. After providing opportunity
for public comment, including public meetings, the Council
shall report back to me within 180 days with its views on the
NAS's recommendations. In developing its report, the Council
should take into account the comprehensive strategic federal
food safety plan that it will be developing.''
In response to the President's directive, the Council established a
task force consisting of representatives from the following departments
and agencies: Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Health and Human
Services (HHS), and Commerce (DOC), Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). The task force benefited from valuable
input obtained at four public meetings (Arlington, VA; Sacramento, CA;
Chicago, IL; and Dallas, TX) and from public comment dockets maintained
by EPA, USDA/Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), and the HHS/
Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
In general, the Council finds the NAS report a constructive
contribution to efforts to improve the effectiveness of the federal
food safety system through strengthening science and risk assessment,
strategic planning, and better federal integration with state and local
governments. In particular, the NAS places appropriate weight
throughout its report on applying science to the management of
government food safety efforts. Science must be advanced within the
context of these competing interests. The NAS report recommends that
priorities of the nation's food safety system should be based on risk.
The Council agrees with the report's thesis that a food safety system
that includes regulation, research and development, education,
inspection and enforcement, and surveillance should be based on science
and should use various risk analyses including quantitative and
qualitative risk assessments and risk management principles to achieve
such a system.
The Council recognizes that a food safety system comprised of
multiple agencies with differing missions and statutory authority may
increase the potential for uneven adoption and inconsistent application
of science-based regulatory philosophies. While different applications
may provide useful information to policy makers relative to the
effectiveness of various approaches, the Council's strategic plan
(including its assessment of existing statutes and structures) will
result in more consistent regulatory measures and philosophies. The
Council is committed to identifying further improvements that would
result in a seamless, science-based food safety system.
recommendation i--base the food safety system on science
The NAS report recognizes that the United States has enjoyed
notable successes in improving food safety and that with increasing
knowledge, many rational, science-based regulatory philosophies have
been adopted. The report suggests, however, that adoption of these
regulatory philosophies has been uneven given the fragmentation of food
safety activities, and the differing missions of the various agencies
responsible for specific components of food safety. The greatest
strides in ensuring future food safety from production to consumption,
the NAS argued, can be made through a scientific, risk-based system
that ensures surveillance, regulatory, research, and educational
resources are allocated to maximize effectiveness.
Council Assessment
The Council strongly endorses this recommendation. Many federal
food safety programs are already, or are being modified to be, science-
based. The Council recognizes that scientifically robust programs will
result in better identification of public health needs, and
determination of the most effective means of reducing public health
risk, including the most cost-effective opportunities for improvement,
and improved priority setting.
The scientific information generated through surveillance,
research, and risk assessment efforts will result in improved food
safety only if there is a commensurate strong effort to translate that
scientific information into practical, usable information at the
working level, e.g., through guidance or education. This means there
must be education for all those involved in producing, manufacturing,
transporting, and preparing food as well as for those persons involved
in government food safety regulatory activities.
The Council's goal is to ensure that science-and risk-based
decision making are central to the Administration's on-going efforts
and its strategic plan. Considerable improvements have been made over
the past several years. The strong scientific underpinnings of the
President's Food Safety Initiative, enactment of the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA), restructuring of food safety agencies within
USDA, and many individual agency activities such as implementation of
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) programs for meat,
poultry, and seafood, have strengthened the overall science base of the
food safety system.
The Council believes that the necessary elements of a science-based
program--surveillance, outbreak response, risk assessment, research,
regulation, inspection, and education--are largely in place, and that
improvements planned for the next 5-10 years will enhance food safety
significantly. The Council will consider in its strategic plan the
following elements of a science-based food safety system:
Surveillance.--Food safety agencies will continue to develop more
effective ways to achieve surveillance goals and to monitor the safety
of the food supply. Although FoodNet (foodborne disease surveillance
system), PulseNet (foodborne pathogen DNA fingerprinting system), and
the National Antibiotic Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) provide
information never before available in the United States on foodborne
illnesses and the occurrence of antibiotic resistant pathogens,
enhanced quantitative data on the entire range of infectious and non-
infectious foodborne hazards will require additional efforts.
Risk Assessment.--Risk assessment is a valuable tool for setting
priorities, allocating resources, and making regulatory decisions and
must be continually improved. For example, EPA will continue to refine
its risk assessment methods to determine acceptable levels of
pesticides residues. Under FQPA, this approach has been strengthened to
further protect all consumers, especially children, from the risks of
pesticides in their diet. As currently is done for chemical hazards,
the federal government needs to create and use a national microbial
risk assessment capability as a means of identifying hazards and
quantifying risk and assist in creating similar capacities
internationally.
Research.--Through the Joint Institute for Food Safety Research, a
research infrastructure has been established to improve and coordinate
food safety research activities across the federal government. The
Institute will continue a critical review of the federally supported
food safety research that was begun through the National
Science and Technology Council.--Future goals in the area of
research include: coordination of research planning; budget development
and prioritization; scientific support of food safety guidance, policy,
and regulation; enhanced communication and links among federal
agencies; and enhanced communication and links with industry and
academic partners through use of public-private partnerships and
technology transfer mechanisms.
Education.--Food safety agencies will expand science-based
education and training programs for producers, processors,
distributors, food service and public health workers, health care
providers, food scientists, and consumers as well as those involved in
regulatory activities. It is essential to include in these programs new
scientific information on foodborne hazards and their control and
effective food safety management strategies.
Inspection/Preventive Controls.--FSIS and FDA will further improve
and evaluate the effectiveness of inspections of domestically and
internationally produced food and will continue to develop and
implement science-based preventive controls such as HACCP systems and
the Good Agricultural Practices. Where necessary, regulatory
requirements will be established, such as additional performance
standards for pathogen reduction that can be developed as more
monitoring and surveillance data become available.
Consistency of Science-Based Standards.--FSIS, FDA, and EPA will
work toward clear food safety standards nationally and internationally.
The Conference for Food Protection brings together all 50 states for
purposes of regulating retail establishments, and the model Food Code
is gaining wider adoption among the states. Internationally, the Codex
Alimentarius Commission (CAC) is the primary mechanism through which
these activities will take place. U.S. food safety agencies should also
become more active in providing technical assistance to developing
countries.
Private Sector Incentives.--The federal and state regulatory
agencies will work with the private sector to develop new technologies
to further food safety and to encourage commercial scale-up applicable
in large and small companies, and industry adoption. Research efforts
with industry, consumer, academic, and government participation could
develop and validate new technologies.
Evaluation.--Evaluating the effectiveness of science based
regulatory programs continues to be critical. For example, Salmonella
data from the first year of HACCP implementation in poultry facilities
show a trend toward fewer contaminated products. Also, by providing
important information on trends in the incidence of infections with
foodborne pathogens, FoodNet assists in the evaluation of the effect of
preventive controls. The effect of preventive controls implemented by
the processed food industry on the reduction of the number of cases of
listeriosis was readily apparent in the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (HHS/CDC)-conducted surveillance effort that was a
forerunner of FoodNet.
A general challenge for the food safety agencies is that while they
must be guided primarily by science, the agencies must also consider
other factors such as technical limitations, statutory mandates, policy
considerations, budget constraints, practicality, and consumer and
societal preferences.
Scientific Challenges
The Council faces a number of challenges in improving the
scientific base of the food safety system. The following are a few
examples of challenges that must be met to strengthen the scientific
underpinnings of federal food safety efforts:
--New data are required to address the occurrence of emerging
pathogens, changes in domestic food habits, a global food
supply, and changes in demographics. Specific data needs are
difficult to predict and obtain in a timely way. An example is
the impact of E. coli O157:H7, which was unknown as a foodborne
pathogen 20 years ago, but has been responsible for major
outbreaks of foodborne illness in recent years.
--Gaps exist in our knowledge of microbial pathogens and in our
ability to measure their impact on human health. For example,
there are gaps in knowledge about the pathogens associated with
fresh fruits and vegetables and the routes of contamination.
--Assessment of the total impact on health of multiple chemicals from
multiple sources presents a major scientific challenge.
Implementation of the new FQPA standards for pesticide residues
requires EPA to assess aggregate risk from food, water, and
residential exposure to a single pesticide as well as
cumulative risk from multiple pesticides.
--Gaps exist in our knowledge of effective interventions, prevention,
and alternatives that minimize contamination of food. For
example, the existing limited body of knowledge about microbial
contamination limits the ability to develop on-farm preventive
controls and systems of testing. Similarly, with the advent of
FQPA, more research is also needed to develop safer pesticide
alternatives or crop production techniques in order to promote
transition from older pest control techniques that may pose
risks to newer, safer ones.
--Insufficient data exist on the entire range of infectious and non-
infectious foodborne hazards. Even with the improvements made
through FoodNet and PulseNet, enhancement of quantitative data
on the entire range of infectious and non-infectious foodborne
hazards will strengthen monitoring and surveillance programs
for prevention, early identification, and prediction of
emerging food safety problems.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Recent changes that Strengthen the Federal Food Safety System
Scientific Base
USDA 1994 reorganization (separated public health from marketing
functions)
HACCP implementation (12/97 seafood and 1/98 meat and poultry)
FQPA enactment and implementation
FoodNet/PulseNet established
FDA Fresh Produce Guidelines released
Joint Institute for Food Safety Research created
Research funding increased
Food Safety Research Database initiated
Annual Food Safety Research Conference held
Interagency Risk Assessment Consortium established
RECOMMENDATION IIA----------------------------------------------
Congress should change federal statutes so that inspection,
enforcement, and research efforts can be based on scientifically
supportable assessments of risks to public health.
The NAS report identifies a need for a ``national food law that is
clear, rational, and comprehensive, as well as scientifically based on
risk'' as a major component of a model food safety system. The report
concludes it is necessary to revise the current statutes on food safety
to create a comprehensive national food law under which:
--Inspection, enforcement, and research efforts can be based on a
scientifically supportable assessment of risks to public
health. This means eliminating the continuous inspection system
for meat and poultry and replacing it with a science-based
approach that is capable of detecting hazards of concern.
--There is a single set of flexible science-based regulations for all
foods that allows resources to be assigned based on risk, that
permits coordination of federal and state resources, and that
makes it possible to address all risks from farm to table.
--All imported foods come only from countries with food safety
standards equivalent to U.S. standards.
The NAS report states that the laws, particularly what the report
characterizes as the requirement that there be continuous inspection of
meat and poultry production through sight, smell, and touch
(Aorganoleptic@) inspection, create inefficiencies, do not allow
resource use to reflect the risks involved, and inhibit the use of
scientific decision-making in activities related to food safety,
including the monitoring of imported food.
Council Assessment
The report's recommendation that federal statutes provide agencies
with authority to make decisions based on scientific assessments of
risks to the public health is sound. Decisions based on public health
risk assessments allow agencies to make effective use of science to set
food safety priorities, allocate resources to higher risk areas, and
instill consumer confidence that high-risk hazards are being addressed.
Since the federal food safety regulatory agencies operate under
very different legislative authorities, the Council will conduct a full
assessment of these statutes and evaluate the degree of regulatory
flexibility that already exists. The Council has decided that this
legislative review will be undertaken as part of the strategic planning
process. The purpose of the review will be to: 1) examine the
similarities and differences in federal food safety statutes; 2)
identify the ``best'' statutory approaches for reducing foodborne
illness; and 3) assess both gaps and statutory barriers to
implementation of the plan. The need for statutory changes could then
be determined, and, if necessary, legislative principles developed
which would form the basis for discussions with stakeholders and
Congress. For example, given the recent overhaul of pesticide
legislation, the Council believes that further statutory changes may
not be needed for pesticides at this time.
In some cases, the NAS report misinterprets existing statutory
requirements. For example, the report concludes that the statutes
require the current method of organoleptic inspection of all carcasses.
Even though the current law requires continuous inspection, it does not
specify how this inspection mandate is to be carried out. The statutes
do require appropriate inspection of animals prior to slaughter and
inspection post-slaughter at all official slaughter and processing
facilities. Among other significant food safety purposes, this
continuous inspection requirement ensures use of the best sanitary
dressing processes, prevention of fecal contamination, and prevention
of meat from diseased animals from entering the food supply. Under the
statutory flexibility that already exists, USDA has begun to develop
and test a more risk-based inspection system, including adopting
regulations requiring that HACCP be implemented in all slaughter and
processing plants. In addition, USDA is studying how best to effect
further improvements in the inspection of meat and poultry.
The food safety agencies have achieved and can continue to
accomplish significant science-based improvements in their food safety
programs under current authorities. However, new authorities that would
improve the federal food safety system have been proposed by the
President and are waiting action by Congress. Further analysis of the
statutes may result in additional proposed statutory modifications.
Current Legislative Challenges
As part of its review of food safety statutes, the Council will
focus on areas where regulatory jurisdiction is split between agencies
and where resources could be more effectively shared between agencies.
The Administration will work with Congress to pass:
--the Food Safety Enforcement Enhancement Act, forwarded by the
Clinton Administration and introduced during the last Congress
to increase the enforcement capabilities of FSIS; and
--legislation that gives FDA increased authority to effectively
assure the safety of food imports.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Advances in Applying Scientific Assessments of Public Health
Risks to Food Safety
HACCP implemented for meat, poultry, and seafood
FQPA tolerance reassessment based on aggregate exposure, cumulative
risk, and vulnerable subpopulations.
Single, risk-based pesticide standard for raw and processed food
established
Tolerance reassessment focusing on the riskiest pesticides first
Priority registration given to ``safer'' pesticides
Risk Assessment Consortium established
FoodNet/PulseNet established Good Agricultural Practices guidance
for fresh produce established Unpasteurized juice warning labels
required
RECOMMENDATION IIB----------------------------------------------
Congress and the Administration should require development of a
comprehensive national food safety plan. Funds appropriated for food
safety programs (including research and education programs) should be
allocated in accordance with science-based assessments of risk and
potential benefit.
This recommendation contains two parts. The first part recommends
that Congress and the Administration require preparation of a
comprehensive, national food safety plan. The NAS report lists several
essential features of such a plan, including a unified food safety
mission; integrated federal, state and local activities; adequate
support for research and surveillance; and increased efforts to ensure
the safety of imported foods. The second part of the recommendation
stresses that resources should be allocated on the basis of science-
based assessments of risk and potential benefits.
Council Assessment
The Council agrees that a comprehensive national food safety
strategic plan should be developed and the development of such a plan
is underway. In fact, the President's Food Safety Initiative was an
initial step toward a national food safety plan. The 1997 Farm to Table
report was a means of leveraging federal food safety resources through
coordinated planning and cooperative work to meet common needs such as
development of surveillance data, response to outbreaks, research into
preventive interventions, development of risk assessment techniques
particularly for microbial risk assessments, and consumer education.
This initial plan also took some steps toward extending food safety
planning to the state and local level.
Strategic Planning
Picking up where the Farm to Table report left off, the Council
will continue and expand the strategic planning process. One of the
Council's primary purposes is to develop a comprehensive strategic plan
for federal food safety activities that contains specific
recommendations on needed changes, including goals with measurable
outcomes. The plan's principal goal is to enhance the safety of the
nation's food supply and protect public health through a seamless
science-and risk-based food safety system. The plan will set
priorities, improve coordination and efficiency, identify gaps in the
current system and mechanisms to fill those gaps, continue to enhance
and strengthen prevention strategies, and develop performance measures
to show progress.
Preparation of the food safety strategic plan will be a public
process, and will consider both short-and long-term issues including
new and emerging threats and the special needs of vulnerable
populations such as children and the elderly. Once the plan is
sufficiently complete, the Council will advise agencies of priorities
for investing in food safety and ensure that federal agencies annually
submit coordinated food safety budgets to OMB to sustain and strengthen
existing capacities. In short, the President's Council on Food Safety
will develop a national food safety plan and make budget
recommendations to agencies and OMB to accomplish what the NAS report
recommends.
The Council has defined the scope of future federal level food
safety strategic planning and a process for interagency planning and
public participation. An interagency task force anticipates having a
draft plan ready for public review and discussion in January 2000. Even
while developing this plan, the task force intends to continue its
consultations with stakeholders. The following is the draft vision
statement for the Council's strategic plan:
--Consumers can be confident that food is safe, healthy, and
affordable. We work within a seamless food safety system that
uses farm-to-table preventive strategies and integrated
research, surveillance, inspection, and enforcement. We are
vigilant to new and emergent threats and consider the needs of
vulnerable subpopulations. We use science-and risk-based
approaches along with public/private partnerships. Food is safe
because everyone understands and accepts their
responsibilities.
The President's Council on Food Safety held four public meetings in
the Fall of 1998 in Arlington, VA; Sacramento, CA; Chicago, IL; and
Dallas, TX to solicit comments on this draft vision for food safety and
to identify a strategic planning process, goals and critical steps as
well as potential barriers to achieving that vision.
The Council's strategic planning task force is analyzing the
transcripts of the 1998 public meetings and the input received through
the notice and comment process to determine the major themes, issues,
and subject areas. The task force will also consider the conclusions
and recommendations of the NAS report, input from the federal, state,
and local government integrated National Food Safety System Project,
and input from the agencies involved.
The planning process will build upon common ground and provide the
forum to tackle some of the difficult public health, resource, and
management questions facing the federal food safety agencies and our
state, tribal and local government partners. The plan will identify
areas for enhanced coordination and efficiencies, determine whether
legislative changes would be beneficial, and clarify federal, state,
tribal, and local government roles and responsibilities in the national
food safety system (see discussion under recommendation IIIb).
The strategic planning process will consider thoroughly the results
of the legislative review outlined under the Council's assessment of
NAS recommendation IIa. Examples of possible legislative proposals from
such a review include:
--developing legislative proposals to eliminate current duplication
of efforts by FDA and FSIS by reevaluating each agency's role
in areas such as the regulation of eggs and egg products, game
meats, food additives, animal drugs and biologics, and food
products produced in plants under the jurisdiction of both
agencies;
--modifying statutes to facilitate greater leveraging of agency
resources;
--developing a legislative proposal giving FSIS explicit authority to
enter into cooperative agreements for food safety risk
assessment; and
--developing legislation that provides Performance Based Organization
(PBO) authority for voluntary seafood inspection.
Allocation of Resources
The NAS report recommendation goes a step further than a national
plan by urging that resources be allocated according to science-based
assessments of risk and potential benefits. As stipulated in Executive
Order 13100, the Council will ensure that agencies develop a
coordinated food safety budget submission consistent with the strategic
plan. The Council will develop guidance for food safety agencies to
consider during the preparation of their individual budgets. The
Council has created a budget task force that will:
--work with the strategic planning task force and review the draft
and final strategic plans and Council budget guidance on
priority areas for investment to identify budget data and other
information that will be necessary to plan and coordinate
agency budget submissions to OMB;
--design a uniform format for presenting food safety initiative
budget components in the OMB budget process for use in both
individual agencies and the unified budget submissions;
--develop necessary guidance to facilitate submission of a unified
food safety initiative budget and any other food safety issues
deemed appropriate by the Council;
--establish a timetable for developing coordinated food safety budget
requests and for submitting information to the Council that
accommodates the various agencies' budget planning processes;
and
--consider the issue of whether to amend OMB Circular No. A-11 (OMB
guidance to agencies on budget structure and reporting
elements) to include food safety as a budget cross-cut.
Comparative Risk Assessment
An important part to both risk-based planning and resource
allocation will be the development of a comprehensive comparative risk
assessment of the food supply. The Council has requested the
Interagency Food Safety Risk Assessment Consortium, which consists of
HHS and USDA agencies and EPA, to consider how to develop a comparative
risk analysis for food safety strategic planning. The Council will
direct the Consortium to seek and consider public input in its
analysis.
The Council believes that various steps may need to be taken to
evaluate risks including: a ranking of foodborne pathogen risks based
on surveillance and economic data; consideration of a broader range of
food safety hazards including not only microbial risks, but also
pesticides and chemicals; and finally, selection of highly ranked
hazards, an evaluation of control measures, and an evaluation of net
benefits. The Council must avoid applying risk assessment in a manner
that is too strict, rigorous, or inflexible. Instead, the comparative
risk assessment must be used to prioritize the known greatest risks at
the current time, with the understanding that scientific risk estimates
can, and will likely, change frequently over time.
Challenges in Planning
The Council faces the following challenges in developing a
comprehensive food safety strategic plan and allocating resources based
on risk:
--Developing and successfully implementing a national plan will
require strong cooperation, coordination, and communication,
since each federal, state, and local agency has unique
mandates, authorities, history, culture, and operating
procedures.
--The diversity of stakeholders in food safety is enormous. It will
be difficult, but imperative, that all stakeholders are
represented in the Council's planning process.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Progress in Strategic Planning
President's 1997 Farm to Table Food Safety Initiative
President's Fresh Produce and Imported Food Safety Initiative
Establishment of the Joint Institute for Food Safety Research
Establishment of the President's Council
Input from the National Academy of Sciences, Council of
Agricultural Science and Technology, and other organizations
National Integrated Food Safety System project meetings
Development of a draft vision statement
Input from multiple public meetings and public comments
RECOMMENDATION IIIA---------------------------------------------
To implement a science-based system, Congress should establish by
statute a unified and central framework for managing federal food
safety programs, one that is headed by a single official and which has
the responsibility and control of resources for all federal food safety
activities, including outbreak management, standard-setting,
inspection, monitoring, surveillance, risk assessment, enforcement,
research, and education.
The NAS report finds that the existing regulatory structure for
food safety in the United States is not well equipped to meet current
challenges. Specifically, it points out that the system is facing
tremendous pressures with regard to:
--emerging pathogens and ability to detect them;
--maintaining adequate inspection and monitoring of the increasing
volume of imported foods, especially fruits and vegetables;
--maintaining adequate inspection of commercial food services and the
increasing number of larger food processing plants; and
--the growing number of people at high risk for foodborne illnesses.
The report cites the strengths of the current food safety system,
including the advent of FoodNet and PulseNet, HACCP implementation, and
the Partnership for Food Safety Education. It also identifies
deficiencies, which it attributes partly to ``the fragmented nature of
the system.'' The report attributes the fragmentation largely to a lack
of adequate integration among the various federal agencies involved in
the implementation of the primary statutes that regulate food safety,
and observes that this lack of adequate integration occurs also with
state and local activities. The report notes that several federal
agencies are involved in key food safety functions and references more
than 50 memoranda of agreement between various agencies related to food
safety.
The NAS report attributes the lack of adequate integration among
federal, state and local food safety authorities in part to the absence
of ``focused leadership'' that has the responsibility, the authority
and the resources to address key food safety problems. The report
presents several examples of possible organizational structures to
create a single federal voice for food safety. These include:
--a Food Safety Council with representatives from the agencies with a
central chair appointed by the President, reporting to Congress
and having control of resources;
--designating one current agency as the lead agency and having the
head of that agency be the responsible individual;
--a single agency reporting to one current cabinet-level secretary;
and
--an independent single agency at cabinet level.
Although the report indicates that many of the NAS committee's
members believe that a single, unified agency headed by a single
administrator is the most viable structure for implementing the
``single voice'' concept, the report recognizes that there may be many
other models that would be workable.
Council Assessment
The Council agrees with the goal of the NAS recommendation--that
there should be a fully integrated food safety system in the U.S. The
food safety agencies are committed to this goal, and the Council is
confident that its comprehensive strategic plan will be a major step
toward creating a seamless food safety system. To ensure that the
strategic plan achieves this goal, the Council will conduct an
assessment of structural models and other mechanisms that could
strengthen the federal food safety system through better coordination,
planning, and resource allocation.
The Council's strategic plan will bring agreement on the vision,
goals, and actions needed to enhance the safety of the nation's food
supply and protect public health by reducing the annual incidence of
acute and chronic foodborne illness. It will also clarify the roles and
responsibilities of each food safety agency as well as their
interactions with state, tribal, and local government partners.
While the Council recognizes that certain models of reorganization
may improve coordination and allow for a better allocation of
resources, any reorganization of food safety activities must consider
the non-food-safety-related responsibilities of each agency and how
these relate to the food safety responsibilities. Reorganization must
not be done at the expense of these other responsibilities and
activities. The Council is concerned that, if not done carefully,
separating food safety from non-food safety activities in each agency
could act to weaken consumer and environmental protection overall.
The Council also recognizes that expertise and knowledge,
particularly expertise in state-of-the-art science and technology,
provides a resource to food safety activities. For example, analytical
methods for detection and quantification of adulterants in foods may be
adapted to detection of chemical contaminants that threaten public
health. Expertise in non-food safety regulatory science and legal
procedures are critical when warnings are required on food labels to
assure safety. In addition, reorganizations must avoid interfering with
the public health framework established to identify and respond to
infectious and non-infectious public health threats whether they are
foodborne or not, since many of the major foodborne pathogens also
produce non-foodborne disease. Thus, in its strategic planning the
Council will be cognizant of the interplay between the food safety and
non-food safety activities of each agency and how they affect each
other.
The Council believes that there are programs that can benefit from
immediate reorganization. For example, during the last two years, FDA
and NOAA have been developing a proposal to transfer the NOAA Seafood
Inspection Program to FDA as a Performance Based Organization (PBO) in
order to operate the voluntary Seafood Inspection Program on a more
business-like basis. The PBO would be formed under the umbrella of FDA
and would include all seafood inspection activities now carried out by
NOAA. The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes to transfer the existing
Seafood Inspection Program from NOAA to FDA. This action will fully
consolidate federal seafood inspection activities within one agency
thereby increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of seafood
oversight. It will also enhance the overall safety and wholesomeness of
seafood products. Funds are provided in the President's fiscal year
2000 budget to cover the costs of transition, including training and
education activities.
Factors to Consider in Organizational Restructuring
The Council assessment of structural and organizational options
must take into consideration factors such as:
--There are numerous instances in the existing food safety system
where the division of regulatory responsibility is not optimal.
For example, within the same plant, FSIS and
--FDA inspectors are often responsible for different foods. FDA and
FSIS also share regulatory responsibility of eggs and egg
products. Examples such as these create stakeholder confusion
and inefficient allocation of resources. Any reorganization
must consider areas where there is significant jurisdictional
overlap.
Many food safety issues would be difficult to resolve by a
reorganization. For example, some issues like bovine spongiform
encephalopathy are both animal health issues and human health issues.
Foodborne disease problems may also be waterborne disease problems.
Other programs, particularly research and education programs for food
safety often do not operate as separate activities within the agencies,
but rather draw significant strength from one another. While some
projects are entirely focused on food safety, the food safety research
portfolio includes many other projects in such areas as animal health
and animal genetics. Reorganization must also accommodate successful
partnerships such as the Partnership for Food Safety Education.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Steps Taken to Create a Unified Federal Food Safety System
1997 President's Food Safety Initiative implemented
Interagency Risk Assessment Consortium created
President's Fresh Produce plan implemented
Federal/State Outbreak Response task force established
Joint Institute for Food Safety Research created
President's Council on Food Safety established
Restructuring of seafood inspection proposed
Partnership for Food Safety Education created
RECOMMENDATION IIIB---------------------------------------------
Congress should provide the agency responsible for food safety at
the federal level with the tools necessary to integrate and unify the
efforts of authorities at the state and local levels to enhance food
safety.
The NAS report recommends that federal, state, and local
governments function as an integrated enterprise, along with their
partners in the private sector. The report identified five statutory
tools required to integrate federal, state, and local food safety
activities into an effective national system:
--authority to mandate adherence to minimal federal standards for
products or processes;
--continued authority to deputize state and local officials to serve
as enforcers of federal law;
--funding to support, in whole or in part, activities of state and
local officials that are judged necessary or appropriate to
enhance the safety of food;
--authority given to the Federal official responsible for food safety
to direct action by other agencies with assessment and
monitoring capabilities; and
--authority to convene working groups, create partnerships, and
direct other forms and means of collaboration to achieve
integrated protection of the food supply.
This recommendation acknowledges the ``equally critical roles'' of
state, tribal, and local government entities with those of the federal
government in ensuring food safety, and suggests that changes in
federal authorizing and appropriating legislation may be necessary to
achieve better integration of federal, state, tribal, and local
activities. The report points out that the work of the states and
localities in support of the federal food safety mission deserves
``improved formal recognition and appropriate financial support.''
Council Assessment
The Council agrees that the roles of state, tribal, and local
governments in the food safety system are critical and that their
efforts deserve the formal recognition that partnership in a national
food safety system conveys. Thus, the Council supports steps taken
toward the development of a more fully integrated national food safety
system. While more needs to be done to optimize and develop new
partnerships, the federal food safety agencies have already established
extensive interactions with state and local regulatory agencies. In
fact, a critical factor for the Council to consider is the manner in
which existing federal/state or local activities are integrated and
coordinated. The Council believes that its strategic planning process
provides a fresh opportunity for their non-federal partners to
participate as primary and equal partners in the development of the
future food safety system.
Some overlap occurs among federal, state, and local food safety
efforts. Neither federal food safety agencies nor state and local
agencies have sufficient resources to carry out a comprehensive food
safety program, but all these agencies have expertise and resources
that, when combined in an integrated program, would significantly
enhance the impact of food safety programs.
The Council also agrees that the five statutory tools identified by
the NAS are critical for ensuring good coordination between the federal
government and state, tribal, and local agencies. Fortunately, the
federal food safety regulatory agencies (FDA, FSIS, and EPA) already
have most of the statutory tools recommended by NAS.
The Council recognizes and agrees with the report's conclusion that
the lack of integration among federal, state, and local authorities
often complicates the administration of regulatory programs. We need to
utilize available mechanisms to leverage resources and expertise from
government, industry, academia, and consumers to expand the nation's
food safety capabilities beyond what any one group can accomplish.
Increased awareness and knowledge of food safety in each segment of the
food safety community should reduce the need for regulation of industry
and decrease the incidence of contamination at every point in the food
safety system in order to protect public health.
Integrated National Food Safety System (NFSS) Project
HHS, USDA, and EPA are working with state and local officials on an
integrated National Food Safety System (NFSS) Project to identify
appropriate roles and to develop mutually supporting common goals for
all levels of government in the U.S. food safety system. This work is
considered integral to the Council's strategic plan and coordinated
budget recommendations and will be the basis for improved integration
with state, tribal and local governments.
Under the leadership of the FDA, the Project is proceeding under
existing federal, state, and local laws although all levels of
government recognize that changes in some of the federal and state laws
will be necessary to achieve an integrated system. The Project began
with a meeting of state and local officials from public health and
agriculture agencies and state laboratories representing all 50 states,
Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, FDA, CDC, and FSIS in Kansas
City in September 1998. In December 1998, six work groups and an 18
member Coordinating Committee composed of federal, state and local
officials met in Baltimore, Maryland to begin to develop plans for
implementing recommendations and overcoming the obstacles identified at
the Kansas City meeting. Subsequent meetings will be held throughout
1999 to continue the planning process. The group estimates that a fully
integrated federal/state/local food safety system will take up to 10
years to build. The Association of Food and Drug Officials, which is an
organization of state and local public health officials and regulators,
strongly endorses the concept of a NFSS.
The NFSS Project builds on existing systems of federal/state
cooperation such as the FSIS long-term ``equal to'' meat and poultry
system currently operating in 26 states with shared state and federal
funding and EPA's delegation to states of various regulatory programs.
Challenges to Developing a National Food Safety System
The Council recognizes that the existing systems for federal,
state, and local government regulation of food and pesticides have
different histories and important distinguishing characteristics. The
Council believes it is important to respect the nature and strengths of
the existing systems and that integration must proceed in a coordinated
fashion. There are numerous challenges to building an integrated food
safety system:
--Establishment of a clear framework for integration.--Such a
framework would include the following: strong federal food
safety standards, consistent training and competency of
inspectors and other state/local officials, data sharing/
exchange, federal oversight of state activities, and
appropriate and effective enforcement. There needs to be public
assurance that state and local activities are integrated with,
and an extension of, the federal responsibility in order to
assure consistency, accountability, and above all, enhanced
consumer protection.
--Responsiveness to stakeholder concerns.--Development of an
integrated system needs to be responsive to stakeholder
concerns to have credibility and obtain public support. For
example, consumers are concerned that the economic interests of
industry within states may be a source of conflict if those
states have an expanded food safety role that includes
activities thought to be primarily a federal responsibility.
Moreover, industry is concerned that food safety regulation
will be inconsistent among the states if systems are integrated
without adequate preparation of the state agencies to step into
an expanded food safety role.
--Infrastructure and support.--There is a potential need for
legislative change at the federal or state/local level to
achieve uniformity and consistency in enforcement authorities
and to permit the sharing of inspection and other resources.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of Federal/State/Local Cooperation
Milk Sanitation Program--Pasteurized Milk Ordinance
Retail Food Safety Program--Food Code
Integrated National Food Safety System Project
Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Program
States conduct 5,000 inspections of FDA-regulated plants
FSIS oversee and supports 26 state ``equal to'' meat and poultry
inspection programs
FDA maintains more than 100 state partnerships
Conference for Food Protection
FoodNet/Emerging Infections Program
PulseNet
Epidemiology and Laboratory Cooperative Agreements
Appropriate delegation of pesticide responsibility to states
Partial funding of states for implementation of some pesticide
programs and for most pesticide compliance programs
State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group
State and local government involvement in Foodborne Outbreak
Response Coordination Group (FORC-G)
States conduct inspections in 250 FSIS regulated plants
FSIS supports animal production food safety outreach projects
involving 11 states
FSIS supports animal production food safety workshops
HACCP based enhancement of state labs, computer capabilities, and
state training
Partnership for Food Safety Education ``Fight BAC!'' campaign
FOOD IRRADIATION------------------------------------------------
FDA answer. The Council on Food Safety has developed a process for
developing a 5-year strategic plan that includes steps necessary to
achieve a fully integrated U.S. food safety system. As part of this
process, the Council will assess structural models and other mechanisms
that could strengthen the federal food safety system through better
coordination, planning, and resource allocation. The timeline
associated with this process calls for the strategic plan to be
presented to the public for comment in January 2000 and the final plan
to be presented to the Council for approval in July 2000.
Question. While irradiation isn't a ``magic-bullet'', it is one
extra step we can take to assure the safety of food products. What is
being done to dispel consumer misconceptions about irradiation? Is this
being done as part of the food safety education effort? If not, why?
USDA answer. Where food irradiation is concerned, dispelling
misconceptions is a key component of consumer education. FSIS has been
doing this for quite some time through the usual communications
channels: Consumer publications (for example, Ten Most Commonly Asked
Questions About Food Irradiation, September 1992) The Meat and Poultry
Hotline (1-800-535-4555) FSIS Web site (http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OA/
topics/irrmenu.htm) Backgrounders (for example, Poultry Irradiation and
Preventing Foodborne Illness, May 1992/Slightly Revised September 1992,
or USDA Issues Meat and Poultry Irradiation Proposal, February 1999)
When the proposed rule on red meat irradiation was published in the
Federal Register on February 24, 1999 (64 FR 9089) both the proposal
and a ``Review of Risk Analysis Issues'' document were made available
to the public through the FSIS Constituent Update. The FSIS Constituent
Update is a mechanism for faxing FSIS information to more than 300
consumer, industry, and allied organizations. Informational documents
were also made widely available to the public through the FSIS Web
site. These included a review of risk analysis issues that addressed
particular consumer concerns: food safety, environmental impact, worker
safety, and transportation safety.
Answer. The FDA has been particularly active in its efforts to
educate the public about the irradiation process. For example, last
spring Dr. Michael Friedman, as lead Deputy Commissioner, was featured
in the major television spots on the recent approval of meat
irradiation. Dr. Friedman stressed the strong scientific basis for
FDA's conclusion that irradiation of meat is safe. In addition, FDA
staff handled a variety of print and broadcast interviews where they
explained that irradiation has been shown to be safe and to
significantly reduce bacterial contamination. They also made numerous
presentations on this technology to scientific organizations and
consumer groups. We value the importance of informing consumers.
Nevertheless, we believe it is critical that consumer education efforts
remain balanced and objective so irradiation and other antimicrobial
interventions are placed in the proper context in the overall effort to
ensure food safety.
Over the years, FDA experts on food irradiation have been made
available to many requests for interviews from the press and broadcast
media. These experts have also spoken at several professional meetings
of food safety scientists and educators. FDA's Office of Public Affairs
prepared a series of consumer oriented articles for its FDA Consumer
magazine and is in the process of preparing a consumer education
brochure on this issue. These efforts date back prior to the current
food safety education effort and continue.
Question. To what extent is irradiation used now, both here and
abroad?
USDA answer. FSIS estimated in the proposed rule on red meat
irradiation that a low volume (i.e., one percent) of the U. S. poultry
is irradiated (64 FR 9099). FSIS attributed this low volume of
irradiated poultry, in part, to command-and-control pre-HACCP
regulations governing the irradiation process. The FSIS red meat
irradiation proposal included several substantive proposed changes to
the poultry irradiation regulations that would make the poultry
irradiation regulations more consistent with those proposed for red
meat irradiation, as well as with HACCP regulations.
Regarding the extent to which irradiation is used abroad, more than
35 countries allow food, including meat and poultry, to be irradiated.
As of 1994, the year in which the Joint FAO/IAEA report by the
International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation was issued, seven
countries had specific clearances for meat, 15 countries had clearances
for poultry, and six countries had clearances for both meat and
poultry. No data are available regarding the volume of meat and/or
poultry irradiated.
FDA answer. The use of irradiation to process food has been
relatively minor, both in the U.S. and abroad. At present, irradiation
facilities can handle only a small proportion of food and most of the
irradiation capacity has been used to sterilize medical supplies. We
are aware of the use of irradiation to sanitize some spices although a
larger fraction has been treated with fumigants such as ethylene oxide.
We are also aware of one facility that has irradiated poultry and
fruits and another that has irradiated fruits from Hawaii to prevent
introduction of insect pests on the mainland.
Question. To what extent does irradiation kill pathogens? What
about viruses?
USDA answer. Irradiation, at the absorbed dose level approved by
FDA and proposed by FSIS, is highly effective in reducing the level of
most pathogens associated with meat and poultry. As an example, if the
minimum absorbed dose for fresh (not frozen) meat was 2.0 kGy
throughout all parts of the meat or poultry, the decimal log reduction
(each log reduction is equivalent to a 90 percent reduction in the
total population) would be as follows: Campylobacter jejuni = 10 log10
per gram of product; Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Trichinella spiralis
= 6.7 log10 per gram of product; Listeria monocytogenes and Toxoplasma
gondii = 5 log10 per gram of product; and Salmonella spp.--4 log10 per
gram of product. All of the reductions in the previous example would
represent the potential for significant reductions in the number of
foodborne outbreaks associated with meat and poultry. Irradiation, at
the absorbed dose level approved by FDA and proposed by FSIS, would not
be effective in reducing the level of viruses.
FDA answer. Pathogens are not all equally sensitive to irradiation
and the amount of radiation needed to kill a significant fraction can
depend on whether the food contains free liquids such as water. For
example, pathogens such of the vibrio species are very sensitive while
spore forming bacteria such as Clostridum botulinum can be very
resistant. Other pathogens, such as Salmonella, Campylobacter,
Listeria, or certain pathogenic strains of E. coli, have intermediate
resistances. Larger doses are needed when the food is dry or frozen.
Irradiation is very effective at killing all of these pathogens other
than Clostridum botulinum under the conditions of approval for meats
and poultry. As a general rule, viruses in food are not very sensitive
to radiation and are controlled better by heat processing.
FDA answer. Irradiation of a food, as with other processing
methods, can have an effect on texture, taste, or quality. The
magnitude of the effect can be controlled, to some degree, by
controlling the conditions of irradiation. For example, an effect will
become larger as the radiation dose is increased. Irradiation of a
solid versus dry or deep-frozen product has less of an effect than one
that contains liquids. Oxygen in the atmosphere can promote rancidity
in a fatty food. Effects in meats with strong flavors may be less
detectable than in more bland products. Optimizing irradiation
conditions would require balancing costs and the degree of bacterial
control against unintended effects to obtain a product that consumers
would want.
We would expect food processors to control the conditions of
irradiation so that any irradiated meat sold would be acceptable to the
average consumer. This does not necessarily mean that there would be no
effect on texture, taste, or flavor. However, we would not expect food
manufacturers to market a product unless consumers found it to be of
good quality and taste.
Question. I understand that irradiation will not alter the texture,
taste, or quality of meat if used properly. Is this true?
Answer. Irradiation, at the absorbed dose level approved by FDA and
proposed by FSIS, will not noticeably alter the texture, taste, odor,
appearance, or keeping quality of fresh or frozen meat or poultry.
Question. Will the use of irradiation affect the cost of food
products to the consumer?
Answer. FSIS estimated in the proposed rule on red meat irradiation
that the low end cost of irradiating ground beef would be 2.0 cents per
pound and the high end cost would be 6.0 cents per pound, depending
upon the volume of product irradiated (64 FR 9100).
Question. I understand that irradiation will not affect the
nutritional value of meat products any more than cooking does. Is this
true?
USDA answer. Irradiation, at the absorbed dose level approved by
FDA and proposed by FSIS, will not reduce the level of sensitive
nutrients (e.g., thiamin) below the level expected to be reduced by
cooking. This point has been made in all educational materials produced
by FSIS on irradiation. It is also discussed in FSIS' proposed
regulation, which says in part:
``Central to the FSIS food safety strategy are efforts to reduce
the level of microbiological pathogens in raw meat and poultry
products. Irradiation has been shown to be a highly effective method
for reducing the levels of microbiological pathogens in raw meat food
products. Further, FDA has concluded that irradiation of meat food
products, under the conditions requested by Isomedix, Inc. and granted
by FDA, would not present toxicological or microbiological hazards and
would not adversely affect the nutritional adequacy of these products.
FSIS, therefore, sees compelling reasons to propose regulations
providing for the irradiation of meat food products and has rejected
the option of disallowing irradiation.'' (Federal Register, Vol. 64,
No. 36, p. 9097)
FDA nswer. Both irradiation and cooking can decrease the levels of
some nutrients and irradiation followed by cooking can have a greater
effect, just as heat processing canned or cooked hams followed by
cooking will increase nutrient loss. The important thing is that people
get their nutrients from a variety of sources in sufficient amounts to
allow for some losses. FDA has concluded that consuming irradiated meat
will not have a significant effect on the nutritional status of
consumers.
Question. Will the use of irradiation affect the cost of food
products to the consumer?
FDA answer. Because the use of irradiation has been relatively
minor, limited information is available on how the marketplace will
address the issue.
Question. There has been a controversy over the labeling of
irradiated products. Could you give us a status report on where we are
on the labeling of irradiated food products?
USDA answer. For packages of irradiated product (i.e., all the meat
or poultry contained in the package is irradiated), FSIS has proposed
the same labeling requirements as those specified by FDA. Regarding
secondary products (i.e., products in which irradiated meat or poultry
comprise one or more ingredients in the formulation), FSIS has proposed
that the ingredient statement should list the irradiated ingredient in
the order of its level of predominance in the formulation. Presently,
FDA does not have a similar requirement for the secondary product
labeling of irradiated ingredients. FDA did issue an advance notice of
proposed rulemaking on February 17, 1999 (64 FR 7834) concerning
possible revisions to the labeling requirements for irradiated foods.
Meanwhile, FSIS and FDA expect to meet and discuss the secondary
product labeling issue. Both FSIS and FDA recognize the benefits of a
consistent labeling policy for irradiated food.
FDA answer. When FDA issued its rule on irradiated foods in 1986,
it concluded that there was no safety reason for requiring special
labeling but that consumers should be informed when a food has been
irradiated. Because a food that has been irradiated will not appear to
have been processed, FDA required that the label indicate processing,
except where an irradiated ingredient was added to a food which
obviously had been processed. FDA required placement of a symbol, the
radura, along with the words ``Treated by irradiation'' or ``Treated
with radiation'' to educate people on what the radura symbolized. FDA
encouraged manufacturers to add truthful phrases to the statement so
consumers would understand why the food was irradiated.
In 1997, FDAMA mandated that the disclosure statement could not be
required to be more prominent than the ingredient statement. On August
17, 1998, FDA amended its requirement for the labeling of irradiated
food to clarify the interpretation of prominence consistent with FDAMA.
On February 17, 1999, FDA issued a notice requesting comment on the
labeling of irradiated food. FDA cited the directive to solicit comment
on this issue from the FDAMA Conferees Report, provided background
information on labeling requirements, and posed a series of directed
questions intended to address how consumers interpret the label and
what information should be provided. At this time, FDA is receiving
comments. The comment period is open until May 18, 1999.
codex alimentarius activities
Question. What is the current (fiscal year 1999) budget for our
Codex activities? What is the fiscal year 2000 request? Is this funding
sufficient to protect our trade policy needs, and how is it
administered in the budget?
USDA answer. USDA considers the Codex Alimentarius function to be
very important for maintaining a science-based approach to standard
setting for foods which are in international commerce. Recently the
positioning of the U.S. Codex Office within USDA and FSIS has been
elevated to the Office of the Administrator, and he and the Under
Secretary are working with the U.S. Codex Manager to insure the staff
works efficiently across USDA and the U.S. Government. An expanded
Codex Steering Committee chaired by the Under Secretary for Food Safety
includes membership from across the U.S. Government, including State,
U.S. Trade Representative, Commerce, as well as AMS and FAS within USDA
and all the food standard setting agencies--FSIS, FDA and EPA.
FSIS plans to spend about $782,000 in fiscal year 1999 on Codex
Alimentarius activities. This amount is expected to increase in fiscal
year 2000 by the amount needed to cover mandatory pay raises.
Additional Codex costs are decentralized throughout USDA and other
government agencies to support Codex delegate participation and provide
for meetings, and for policy setting discussions.
FDA answer. FDA does not have a defined budget for Codex
activities. The U.S. Codex Office, which has oversight over U.S. Codex
activities, resides in USDA within the Office of the Administrator of
the Food Safety and Inspection Service. Most of the activities of
Codex, however, are decentralized throughout several government
agencies, including FDA, USDA agencies, EPA, National Marine Fisheries
Service in the Department of Commerce, and trade agencies. FDA has,
since the beginnings of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in 1962,
devoted considerable resources to ensuring that Codex international
food standards reflect the level of safety and quality expected by the
U.S. consumer. Currently FDA provides the U.S. Delegate or the
Alternate Delegate to 14 of 16 Codex Committees and has established a
Codex Management Group within FDA to better assist the U.S. Codex
Office in coordinating the broad array of FDA-related Codex activities.
Codex activities are part of the Animal Drugs and Feed's Program's
overall International travel budget. There is no separate line item in
the budget for Codex activities. In fiscal year 1999 the Animal Drugs
and Feeds Program spent approximately $3,000 on Codex activities. For
fiscal year 2000 the anticipated expense is $5,000. The international
travel budget is spread throughout the Program's budget.
Question. Dr. Woteki, you are aware that the Food Industry Codex
Coalition strongly believes that adequate and dedicated line-item
funding to support the activities of the U.S. Codex Office in the
amount of $3.15 million is required for fiscal year 2000 to expand
export opportunities for U.S. products and advance international food
policy based on sound science. In fact, as Chair of the U.S. Codex
Steering Committee, I understand that you have indicated to the
Coalition that the Committee agrees with this need and is committed to
working on securing this funding in the fiscal year 2001 budget cycle.
USDA answer. The Steering Committee is in agreement that the level
of resource commitment described in the Coalition's proposal is
desirable. However, it has not concluded that a line item for the U.S.
Codex Office is the appropriate mechanism for assuring an appropriate
level of activity in support of U.S. positions in Codex.
Question. Why do you not share the Coalition's concern that U.S.
trade and food safety interests require these additional resources now
and this additional funding should not be postponed until fiscal year
2001?
USDA answer. As you may know, the Administration was approached
with the Coalition's proposal very late in the fiscal year 2000 budget
development cycle. While the Codex Policy Steering Committee is in
agreement that the proposed funding level is desirable, the Codex
Policy Steering Committee decided to delay consideration of a line item
for the U.S. Codex Office until fiscal year 2001. This would permit the
Departments and Agencies to assess what their current spending is on
Codex activities, how that might be offset by this new line item, and
what would actually constitute an increased effort, if any.
Question. What is the relationship between the Codex Alimentarius
and the agreements of the World Trade Organization, specifically to the
science base of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards?
USDA answer. The rules that govern international trade are those
that were agreed during the Uruguay Round of Trade Negotiations and
apply to the members of the World Trade Organization (WTO). With
respect to food safety matters, those rules are set out in the
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures--
The SPS Agreement. The overall objective of the SPS Agreement is to
permit countries to take legitimate measures to protect the life and
health of their consumers, but keeping them from using those measures
in a way that unjustifiably restricts trade. The primary goal of the
SPS Agreement is to limit the use of any measures that may restrict
trade to those that are justified to provide the necessary level of
health protection. It recognizes the right of Member States to protect
their consumers at a level they consider necessary, subject to certain
principles, such as consistency and transparency. Codex decisions are
given new standing under SPS, as they are regarded as setting food
safety standards as a baseline under SPS.
The standards, guidelines, and other recommendations of the Codex
Alimentarius Commission are considered by the WTO to reflect
international consensus regarding the requirements for protecting human
health from foodborne risks. A Member State's food safety measures are
considered justified and in accordance with the provisions of the SPS
Agreement if they are based on Codex standards and related texts. While
the adoption and application of Codex standards are not mandatory,
failure to apply the Codex standards creates the potential for dispute
if a Member State applies standards that are more restrictive of trade
than necessary to achieve required levels of protection. Additionally,
by the terms of the SPS Agreement, WTO members are committed to
considering Codex standards as a basis for their national laws and
regulations, and to participate in the development of those
international standards.
FDA answer. The WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures, the SPS Agreement, makes specific reference to
the Codex Alimentarius Commission as an international standard setting
organization whose standards WTO Members should use as a basis for
national SPS measures. The SPS Agreement also obligates Members to
participate actively in Codex, within the limits of their resources.
With regard to the science basis for standards, the SPS Agreement
requires that Members base their national measures both on scientific
evidence and on international standards, specifying that Members can
maintain more stringent SPS measures, if there is scientific
justification, under the terms of the Agreement. Under the Agreement,
national SPS measures that conform with Codex standards are presumed to
be in accord with the SPS Agreement.
Question. Is the current budget sufficient to permit US trade
agency representation at critical Codex meetings (Departments of State
and Commerce and the United States Trade Representative) in order to
proactively influence decisions key to US trade interests?
USDA answer. Currently, trade agency representation at Codex
meetings is encouraged. In fiscal year 1998, the U.S. sent delegations
to 13 foreign hosted meetings of Codex subsidiary committees. There was
a total of 14 trade agency representatives on the United States'
delegations to 10 of those meetings. Trade agencies' representatives
were not members of delegations to the Cocoa and Cocoa Products,
Mineral Water, and Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Use
Committees.
FDA answer. FDA cannot respond on behalf of the U.S. trade
agencies, but the Agency can address its roles, responsibilities, and
related resource commitments with respect to Codex. While FDA does not
have a specific line item in its appropriation, a significant amount of
the Agency's resources is devoted to Codex activities. FDA expends
funds to support a portion of the time of 39 individuals directly
involved in 14 of the 16 Codex Committees. As the quantity of food
products flowing in and out of this country is increasing at an ever
rapid pace, the Agency must use a greater percentage of base resources
each year to provide technical support for these U.S. trade agencies,
and also represent U.S. interests at critical Codex meetings. FDA is
involved in these activities in order to ensure the safety of imported
products and accomplish our mission as stated in the Food and Drug
Administration Modernization Act of 1997 Plan for Statutory Compliance,
to ``. . . participate through appropriate processes with
representatives of other countries to reduce the burden of regulation,
harmonize regulatory requirements, and achieve appropriate reciprocal
arrangements.''
Question. Would increased funding for Codex enhance our trade
policy and US exports? What additional activities could be undertaken
with increased funding?
USDA answer. Putting additional funds into a line item for Codex
may not result in any additional activity. Agencies and departments
already make decisions to fund activities that support our positions in
Codex from their program funds. Spending from a line item account would
likely offset that spending. While it would create an ease of
administration with respect to some activities, such as paying for U.S.
hosted meetings of Codex Committees, it would limit the flexibility
agencies and departments now have to address changing priorities.
FDA answer. Yes, increased funding for Codex activities would
enhance our trade policy and U.S. exports. With the World Trade
Organization or WTO and the Sanitary and Phytosanitary System or SPS
Agreement, the U.S. trade agencies will be more dependent on the
agencies responsible for setting standards for both human and animal
food. Increased funding would greatly enhance the U.S. efforts to
ensure both public health and fair trade. In the future, it will be
much more difficult to determine whether new standards are protective
of public health or are just disguised trade barriers.
As one example, Codex, with the assistance of the Joint Expert
Committee on Food Additives or JECFA, developed and adopted maximum
residue levels for several hormones used to enhance growth in beef.
Since Codex serves as the reference international organization for food
safety standards under the World Trade Organization SPS Agreement,
these Codex standards were accepted by a WTO panel in the dispute
between the EU and the U.S. over the use of hormones in beef
production. This case involved more than $200 million in beef exports
to the EU and was subsequently won by the U.S. FDA personnel
participated in both the Codex and JECFA deliberations. This example
illustrates the value of Codex in enhancing our trade policy and U.S.
food exports.
Presently, the Codex mandate is to protect the health of consumers
while ensuring fair trade practices. FDA continues to focus on
protecting public health, but as the demand for FDA's involvement in
ensuring fair trade practices grows, comparable resources are needed.
If FDA receives additional funds, the Agency can expand upon those
existing activities that simultaneously ensure the safety of human and
animal food, and enhance our exports and U.S. trade policy. FDA is
involved in three major areas related to Codex and or U.S. trade. These
are ensuring that Codex standards meet a high standard of public health
and safety consistent with our level of protection, technical
assistance to U.S. trade agencies and bilateral negotiations in matters
of equivalency or assessment. FDA needs resources, both budget and FTE,
that will support coordinated efforts with U.S. trade agencies to
determine the impact of Codex activities on trade long before disputes
are taken to the WTO. FDA is involved in these activities in order to
ensure the safety of imported products and accomplish a key component
our mission as stated in the Food and Drug Administration Modernization
Act of 1997 Plan for Statutory Compliance.
Question. We are currently making a substantial investment in food
safety research. For fiscal year 1999, the Administration indicates
that a total of $108 million will be invested in food safety initiative
research, including $70 million by the Agricultural Research Service,
$28 million by the Food and Drug Administration, and $15 million by the
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service. How is the
food safety research funded by different agencies and through these
various programs being coordinated to address research priorities and
needs, to prevent duplication of effort?
USDA answer. These three agencies have had a collective history of
consulting about research priorities, the specific needs that should be
reflected in Requests for Proposals for extramural programs, and the
research focus for internal programs. This interaction has been
accelerated by the work of the Interagency Working Group, chaired by
USDA Deputy Undersecretary Eileen Kennedy and DHHS Science Advisor
William Raub. This group has been involved in compiling an extensive
inventory of existing research in food safety using data from fiscal
years 1997 and 1998. From this base, the agency scientists have
analyzed the current portfolio and compared it to the expressed
research needs stated by regulatory agencies, industry spokespersons,
consumer representatives and other interested parties in a series of
stakeholder listening sessions. This analysis has provided greater
assurance that our research portfolios do reflect the stated needs of
our stakeholders. These kinds of inputs have also created an impetus
for shifting research funds from a focus almost entirely on meat,
poultry, eggs, and dairy, to the inclusion of a larger segment of
research on fresh fruits and vegetables as it was evident that this was
an emerging problem area. By virtue of these analyses, we have been
able to confirm that duplication of research efforts was not a serious
issue.
FDA answer. The food safety agencies have worked to coordinate
activities in every area of the initiative since the implementation of
the Food Safety Initiative in May, 1997. In fiscal year 1998 and fiscal
year 1999, FDA worked directly with USDA in establishing areas of
responsibility for Food Safety Initiative research. In fiscal year
1999, FDA sent a letter to the USDA research agencies concerning the
expenditure of $5 million by USDA in consultation with FDA and listing
FDA's regulatory research needs that would potentially be more
optimally performed by USDA. Most of the FDA research needs focus
primarily on pre-harvest research areas that the intramural and
extramural programs of the USDA research agencies have unique expertise
and facilities, or for which FDA knows that there is USDA research
already underway.
President Clinton signed an Executive Order in fiscal year 1998
that established the Joint Institute for Food Safety Research and
formalized the interagency research planning process. Likewise,
Executive Order 13100 was signed on August 24, 1998, establishing the
Food Safety Council and formalizing an interagency food safety budget
planning and overall strategic planning. The President's Council on
Food Safety has the responsibility for the development a comprehensive
strategic plan for federal food safety activities to the Council. The
Council will develop a comprehensive plan to improve the safety of the
nation's food supply by establishing a seamless, science-based food
safety system. The plan will address the steps necessary to achieve
this improved system, focusing on key public health, resource, and
management issues and including measurable outcome goals.
The Animal Drugs and Feeds Program initiated a detailed planning
session designed to focus on food safety issues related to our
regulatory mission, specifically, the impact of animal feed and
antibiotics used in food producing animals on human health through the
transmission of food-borne pathogens and/or the development and
dissemination of antibiotic resistance. As an integral part of the
planning efforts, scientists from FDA and other federal agencies such
as USDA/ARS, and USDA/FSIS were actively involved with the development
of our research plans, in large measure to avoid duplication of effort.
In addition, the Animal Drugs and Feeds Program scientists participated
in the planning activities of these same agencies. This process has
continued to keep the other agencies apprised of our ongoing activities
as well as their activities, explore areas for collaborative research
efforts, and be able to respond to changing research needs and
priorities.
Question. How are research results being shared and utilized by the
various agencies involved in food safety? (USDA's REE)
USDA answer. Research results are being shared and utilized among
the various agencies involved in food safety research. The staff
members of the REE agencies are in frequent contact with one another
regarding research agendas in their respective program areas. They
participate with each other in workshop and committee meetings, and
they serve together on many governmental and professional committees
and in joint budget initiatives. The Under Secretary of REE has worked
with members of the various agency staffs to prepare an Inventory of
Food Safety Research which will serve as the basis for interagency
program planning. The ARS has established formal liaison with both the
FSIS and the FDA who have the responsibility to coordinate the research
needs of these agencies with the available ARS research capabilities.
Yearly workshops are held to review results and plan and coordinate
research to meet new needs of these regulatory agencies. In addition
there is oversight of all food safety activities by the newly formed
Food Safety Council. Reporting to the Council will be the new Joint
Institute for Food Safety Research which will be a coordinating body
among the food safety research agencies in both USDA and DHHS.
CSREES has a strong interaction with all other agencies involved in
the food safety agenda of the Federal government as well as strong
linkages with the land-grant and other universities. Examples of the
latter are the fact that we regularly receive input on adequacy of
Requests for Proposals from merit review panels following their review
and critique of a set of submitted proposals. These faculty come from
the potential recipient universities and usually have close contact
with many other stake holders. To ensure formal involvement, most of
the invited speakers at the First Annual Food Safety Conference held on
November 12-13, 1998, and sponsored by CSREES and ARS, were from the
research community in the land-grant system. This conference was
focused on establishing research needs and included substantive
dialogue between industry, consumer, and other stakeholders on the one
hand, and interested research scientists on the other.
The substance of the Requests for Proposals for both the National
Research Initiative and the Special Research Grants program was
discussed with all other Federal agencies, including FDA, prior to the
final version being submitted for administrative review and
publication. CSREES has taken up the responsibility of providing a
major portion of the educational effort needed to ensure a smooth
transition to the FDA Guidance Document, ``Minimizing Microbial
Contamination of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables''.
CSREES provided funding for the domestic conference which was
focused on development of the educational program and framework for the
domestic grower of fresh fruits and vegetables. CSREES scientists have
participated with scientists from other Federal agencies in the
Interagency Working Group which has just completed an analysis of the
current (1998) food safety research portfolio. This analysis will
provide a beginning point for the new Joint Institute for Food Safety
Research as it begins to coordinate and oversee the Federal research
effort on food safety.
Other interagency efforts currently in place include a mycotoxin
committee linking FDA and USDA scientists in an effort to establish
some mutual goals and objectives. CSREES scientists are also
participating in a USDA task force on antibiotic resistance and CSREES
program scientists are having discussions with FDA-Center for
Veterinary Medicine on specific responses to the increasing concern
about antibiotic resistance and the research needs which this issue has
surfaced.
FDA answer. The results of food safety research efforts are shared
among Federal food safety agencies, industry, and the public through
multiple means. Within the scientific community, communication among
researchers has always been the cornerstone upon which scientific
advances have been built. Scientists have developed numerous formal and
informal venues for the exchange of knowledge such as scientific
publications, meeting of professional societies and internet bulletin
boards. In addition, food safety researchers and the agencies to which
they belong make a concerted effort to research segments of the
country's population that can benefit from the scientific advances. For
example, during the past year the FDA hosted two technical workshops
for the manufacturers of orange juice to allow scientists to share the
latest advances in methods for preventing unpasteurized orange juice
from being contaminated with foodborne pathogenic bacteria. Similar
workshops have been held with the sprouted seed industry and are
planned for apple cider industry. There is also a concerted effort on
the part of the food safety research community to inform the public of
scientific advances. For example, FDA scientists working on research in
support of the National Food Safety Initiative have been posting plain
language reports of their research projects on the FDA's Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition internet web site. One of the goals
of the newly established Joint Institute for Food Safety Research is to
further enhance the communicate of food safety research advances to all
interested parties.
The Animal Drugs and Feeds Program initiated a detailed planning
session designed to focus on food safety issues related to our
regulatory mission, specifically, the impact of animal feed and
antibiotics used in food producing animals on human health through the
transmission of foodborne pathogens and/or the development and
dissemination of antibiotic resistance. As an integral part of the
planning efforts, scientists from FDA and other federal agencies such
as USDA/ARS, and USDA/FSIS were actively involved with the development
of our research plans, in large measure to avoid duplication of effort.
In addition, the Animal Drugs and Feeds Program scientists participated
in the planning activities of these same agencies. This process has
continued to keep the other agencies apprised of our ongoing activities
as well as their activities, explore areas for collaborative research
efforts, and be able to responsive to changing research needs and
priorities.
CDC surveillance information is communicated to FDA and USDA on a
regular basis. Also, through laboratory networks such as PulseNet,
diagnostic information is shared very quickly electronically. For
example, laboratories participating in PulseNet have a direct link with
a central computer and electronic database of DNA ``fingerprints''
maintained at CDC. Laboratories are able to submit patterns to the
national database online and obtain epidemiologic information
associated with patterns in the database, If patterns submitted by
laboratories in different locations during a defined time period are
found to match, the CDC computer alerts PulseNet participants of a
possible multistage outbreak so that a timely investigation can be
done. If a bacterial strain is isolated from a suspected food, the
strains from humans and suspected food can be compared quickly. Thus,
matching patterns can indicate possible nationwide outbreaks and lead
to public health actions such as epidemiologic investigations, product
recalls, and ultimately to regulatory and other changes to prevent
widespread outbreaks.
Such efforts have stimulated additional interagency collaboration
to develop new, and evaluate existing, systems for sharing important
information.
Question. Please distinguish the role of the various agencies in
food safety research.
USDA answer. The Agricultural Research Service (ARS), as the
intramural research agency of the U. S. Department of Agriculture, is
considered to be the first response agency for the primary USDA
regulatory agency, the Food Safety and Inspection Service. The ARS
provides much of the expertise for development of detection systems
required for regulatory oversight plus information about intervention
methods, especially in meat and poultry. This agency is also well
suited to undertake long term investigations that require a long period
of sustained funding to accomplish the stated goal, a process not well
suited to smaller, investigator initiated projects from the public
sector.
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
provides funding to extramural research organizations, universities,
and institutes in both public and private settings. It benefits from
investigator initiated proposals which bring forward new concepts and
ideas for control of food safety hazards. Because these extramural
programs can draw on a vast array of expertise in the university
system, proposals may cover a very wide spectrum. In the National
Research Initiative, the focus is on basic or fundamental research
which can then provide information of use in more applied research
efforts within our Food Safety Special Grants program or as a basis for
extension educational programs.
The Economic Research Service (ERS) determines estimates of the
costs of food borne illnesses and evaluates economic consequences for
consumers of policies and programs which reduce food borne disease
incidence and their associated medical costs and productivity losses.
With respect to risk assessments, ERS evaluates the costs and benefits
of alternative pathogen control strategies.
To summarize, it does appear that each agency has a specific
mission or role to fulfill and the research programs of the various
agencies are complementary and not duplicative. In addition, ARS
scientists are often located in close proximity to the Department's
partners in the academic community, providing further opportunity for
collaboration and communication between researchers.
FDA answer. Considering the highly complex nature of food safety
concerns and the wide array of factors that can impact the safety of
the U.S. food supply, it is not surprising that there are a number of
agencies that contribute to the Federal food safety research effort.
The primary agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services
that directly conduct food safety research are the FDA and the CDC. In
addition, the NIH supports fundamental research that provides
scientific advances that contribute to the general advancement of
public health research. Within the USDA the primary research agencies
are the ARS which is the intramural research agency for USDA, and the
Cooperative State Research Education, and Extension Service or CSREES
which is the extramural research agency. In addition to these agencies
these are a number of other agencies, such as DOD, EPA, and NMFS, that
have smaller, focused food safety research programs.
The specific areas and aspects of food safety research undertaken
by the individual agencies largely reflect the mission of the agency.
For example, the FDA CFSAN research program is in direct support of the
Agency's need to have scientifically based inspection systems and food
safety policies. Thus, the research program has focused on the
development of effective detection methods, the evaluation of post-
harvest intervention and prevention technologies, and the advancement
of risk assessment techniques. Conversely, a substantial portion of the
ARS food safety research has focused on the development of pre-harvest
methods for preventing the introduction of human pathogens at the
agricultural production level. Such a diverse research portfolio has
the potential for unplanned redundancy of efforts. To avoid this, there
has always been a high degree of coordination among food safety
research agencies and their scientists. This is being enhanced further
by the establishment of the Joint Institute for Food Safety Research
which will provide a formal mechanism for coordination of food safety
research planning.
CDC plays a critical and unique role as a monitoring,
investigative, and advisory agency, and works closely with Federal food
safety regulatory agencies. CDC is the cornerstone Federal agency for
identifying and monitoring foodborne and other human illness; for
detecting, investigating, and responding to outbreaks of foodborne
illness; and for documenting the effectiveness of prevention and
control efforts.
In addition to surveillance and response, CDC conducts applied
research. Examples include developing laboratory diagnostic techniques;
developing methods to subtype, or ``fingerprint'' pathogens causing
foodborne illness; conducting risk factor studies for foodborne illness
in special populations, such as the immunocompromised; and performing
cost-effectiveness studies of potential prevention measures.
FDA's role in food safety research is based on the need to maintain
safety and efficacy of food animal drugs, food additives, packaging
materials, and diagnostic kits. The research is used to define science-
based policies and regulatory frameworks. The FDA Animal Drugs and
Feeds Program has focused on those FSI activities, as specified in the
document ``Food Safety from Farm to Table,'' which relate to the Animal
Drugs and Feeds regulatory mandate. The research developed from FSI
research areas will aid the Animal Drugs and Feeds Program and Agency
in formulating policy and regulations related to antibiotic use in
food-producing animals and the potential impact on human health.
Question. What research is currently being carried out by each
agency for fiscal year 1999? What is planned for fiscal year 2000?
Please provide a description of each research project, the level of
funds for the project, and indicate who is carrying out the research.
USDA answer. Food Safety activities are carried out by CSREES,
NASS, ERS, and ARS. The Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service (CSREES) has not yet made any awards under its
competitive grants program in the National Research Initiative or in
the Food Safety Special Research Grants program for fiscal year 1999.
The Requests for Proposals have been issued and the focus of these
Requests are as follows. In the regular National Research Initiative
Food Safety program ($4.5 million), proposals have been requested that
focus on control and prevention strategies, sources of microbial
contamination, improved sampling and detection systems for bacteria, an
understanding of the mechanisms of antibiotic resistance, risk
assessment and hazard evaluation, studies on consumer behavior and
adoption of safe food habits by consumers, and mechanisms of microbial
pathogenesis in humans. The National Research Initiative Supplemental
grant program ($5 million) will focus on epidemiologic investigations
of food borne pathogens within all segments of the farm to table
continuum and in all types of food products, including meat, poultry,
dairy, and fresh fruits and vegetables. The goal of this supplemental
program is to have a major focus on the production segment of the food
chain and provide information needed to develop best management
practices or conduct meaningful risk assessment studies on specific
pathogens.
The Special Grants Program in Food Safety ($5 million) will
continue to have some focus on fresh fruits and vegetables with more of
an emphasis on applied studies on the production segment of the
industry. Other specific issues include development of risk assessment
models for specific segments of the food chain with a special emphasis
on ready-to-eat foods, and establishing the scientific basis and models
for establishing and validating critical control points in the food
chain. This Request for Proposals is expected to be released on about
April 1, 1999.
For the fiscal year 2000, CSREES has requested $10.1 million
increase in food safety research to strengthen efforts in risk
assessment research, and in the epidemiology of food borne pathogens
and development of improved control and prevention methods including
implementation of Good Production Practices by producers and growers.
The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) has requested
for fiscal year 2000 $2.5 million to conduct a survey of fruit and
vegetable growers, as well as packing houses, to establish a baseline
for good agricultural practices as they relate to microbial food safety
issues. The survey would consist of core questions covering water and
manure management, facility sanitation, worker sanitation and hygiene,
and transportation practices. In fiscal year 1999, NASS will conduct a
pilot study in California and New York to provide information for the
final design of materials and plans for the requested nationwide
baseline survey effort in fiscal year 2000. These two pilot States were
chosen based on distinct differences in crops grown, growing
conditions, and agricultural practices.
Total Economic Research Service (ERS) funding for food safety
research in fiscal year 1999 is $938,000. ERS is continuing research on
the costs associated with illnesses associated with microbial pathogens
in food. Starting with the estimated number of illnesses, and examining
the nature and severity of the illness, ERS analysts have calculated
the medical costs, based on the typical treatment for each type of
illness. This year we have completed a project to re-estimate the
medical costs of disease caused by one specific pathogen, Salmonella.
We conducted a joint research project with staff of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, using data from the FoodNet
Surveillance System, to re-evaluate the number of cases of
Salmonellosis, and to re-estimate the medical costs and productivity
losses using new data sources. Preliminary findings are that the total
costs of illnesses associated with Salmonella in food are lower than
previously thought. Final results will be released when the FoodNet
estimates on the number of Salmonellosis cases are cleared by CDC. ERS
has also completed a study evaluating the alternative economic methods
for placing premature death from foodborne illness in an economic
perspective. These methods allow us to estimate the costs to society
from premature death. ERS is planning a major conference for fiscal
year 2000 to provide guidance to decision makers on the best
methodologies for placing an economic value on premature death.
For fiscal year 2000, ERS has requested $1,391,000, which includes
an increase to support economic analysis in risk assessment. In fiscal
year 1999, ERS has worked with the Risk Assessment Consortium
(established under the President's Food Safety Initiative), to begin
ranking foodborne health risks on the basis of their economic cost to
society. We intend that these funds will be awarded under a competitive
grants process, where one or more research programs will be funded over
three years to apply state-of-the-art economic analysis to estimate the
benefits of making the U.S. food supply safer, and to expand our risk
assessment activities to include analysis of the economic burden placed
on society by additional sources of foodborne health risk.
In fiscal year 1999, Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is
providing $69,867,600 for food safety research specifically in the
areas of detection and prevention/control of food borne hazards;
antimicrobial/antibiotic resistance; risk assessment; and food
handling, distribution and storage. In fiscal year 2000, ARS is
requesting an increase of $11.7 million to support additional food
safety research, for a total of $81,589,600.
In fiscal year 1999, ARS undertook 40 projects ($14.2 million) in
detection of food borne pathogens; 70 projects ($37.9 million) in
prevention and control of pathogens; 7 projects ($2.2 million) in
antimicrobial/antibiotic resistance; 9 projects ($4.9 million) in risk
assessment; and 18 projects ($10.6 million) in food handling,
distribution and storage.
In fiscal year 2000, ARS plans to undertake additional research in
the following areas: detection of food borne pathogens ($700,000);
prevention and control of pathogens ($4,750,000); antimicrobial/
antibiotic resistance ($3,420,000); risk assessment ($2,400,000); and
food handling, distribution and storage ($450,000).
A listing of the fiscal year 1999 ARS projects is provided for the
record.
[The information follows:]
ARS PROJECTS
[Fiscal year 1999]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research title Funds Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DETECTION OF FOOD BORNE
PATHOGENS
Food Safety Pathogen 110,000 Headquarters
Reduction.
Agricultural vs Natural 42,100 Beltsville, MD
Habitats as Sources of
Cryptosporidium Parvum......
Epidemiology and Control of 353,400 Beltsville, MD
Toxoplasma, Trichinella and
Related Parasites...........
Prevention and Therapy for 245,700 Beltsville, MD
Protozoan Parasites.
New Technologies to Improve 344,700 Beltsville, MD
and Assess Meat Quality and
Safety......................
Develop Detection Methods for 296,400 Beltsville, MD
Cryptosporidium.
Methods of Analysis for 310,300 Beltsville, MD
Residues in Meat and Agric.
Products.
New Handling Systems and 59,300 Beltsville, MD
Pathogen Decontamination
Technology for Fruits.......
New Handling Systems and 59,300 Beltsville, MD
Pathogen Decontamination
Technology for Fruits.......
Detection of Pathogenic 1,141,000 Wyndmoor, PA
Bacteria by Biosensors.
Advanced Technologies for the 1,093,600 Wyndmoor, PA
Analysis of Contaminants in
Foods.......................
Rapid Pathogen Diagnostic and 541,900 Wyndmoor, PA/ Purdue
Detection Methods. University
Stress Adaptation and 328,300 Wyndmoor, PA
Virulence Expression of
Pathogens in Food...........
Food Safety Engineering Univ. 988,000 Wyndmoor, PA
Of Purdue: Biosensor Technol-
ogy.......................
ARS Microbial Germplasm 378,800 Peoria, IL
Collection for Agricultural
and Industrial Uses.........
Supercritical Fluid 434,100 Peoria, IL
Techniques for Food Safety
and Nutrient Analysis.......
Detection, Identification, 826,100 Peoria, IL
and Surveillance of
Mycotoxins in Cereals.......
Prevention of Loss from 284,300 Ames, IA
Colibacillosis/E. coli
O157:H7 in Cattle and Swine.
Prevention in Livestock of 487,000 Ames, IA
Potential Human Foodborne
Pathogens...................
Treatment/Handling of Animal 148,200 Riverside, CA
Manure to Prevent Pathogen
Transmission................
Control of Pathogens on 478,100 Albany, CA
Surfaces of Poultry and of
Fruits and Vegetables.......
Adhesion of Human Pathogens 538,500 Albany, CA
to Surfaces of Poultry,
Fruits and Vegetables.......
Removal of Aflatoxin 215,000 Albany, CA
Contamination from Human
Foods in Real-Time by
Imaging Techniques..........
Treatment of Animal Manure to 148,200 Albany, CA
Prevent Pathogen
Transmission................
Pinus and Gutierrezia 53,700 Logan, UT
Species: Toxicoses and
Abortion in Livestock.......
Astragalus and Oxytropis 63,600 Logan, UT
Poisoning in Livestock.
Livestock Poisoning by 43,800 Logan, UT
Pyrrolizidine Alkaloids and
Other Hepatotoxic and
Teratogenic Plants..........
Poisoning of Livestock by 53,700 Logan, UT
Larkspur (Delphinium)
Species.
On-Line Verification and 436,500 Clay Center, NE
Intervention Procedures for
HACCP in Slaughter/
Processing Systems..........
Control of Salmonella and E. 783,400 Clay Center, NE
coli O157:H7 in Livestock/
Preharvest..................
Prevent the Occurrence of 296,400 Fargo, ND
Toxins in Water/Protect Food
and Environment.............
Methodology Development for 797,000 College Station, TX
Rapid Analysis of Drug and
Pesticide Residues in Food
Animal Products.............
Mississippi Center for Food 358,700 Mississippi ST,
Safety and Postharvest
Technol- ogy...............
MS Determine Isoflavonoid 206,200 New Orleans, LA
Induction in Legumes and
Their Phytoestrogenic
Effects in Animal Systems...
Post-Mortem Muscle/Meat 414,100 Athens, GA
Changes That Affect Product
Safety and Quality..........
Reduction of Fusarium 166,500 Athens, GA
Mycotoxins in Agricultural
Commodities.................
Rapid Pathogen Diagnostic and 245,500 Athens, GA
Detection Methods.
Reduction of Biofilms Related 297,600 Athens, GA
to Bacterial Contamination
and Pathogen Load During
Poultry Processing.
Prevent Pathogen Transmission 74,100 Athens, GA
in Animal Manure.
Treatment of Poultry Manure 74,100 Athens, GA
to Prevent Pathogen Transmis-
sion......................
-----------------
TOTAL.................. 14,217,200 .........................
=================
PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF
PATHOGENS
Preharvest Control of 861,200 Headquarters
Aflatoxin.
Food Safety Pathogen 105,700 Headquarters
Reduction.
Assessment of Agricultural vs 168,500 Beltsville, MD
Natural Habitats as Sources
of C. Parvum................
Epidemiology and Control of 342,700 Beltsville, MD
Toxoplasma, Trichinella and
Related Parasites...........
Strategies to Control Swine 766,600 Beltsville, MD
Parasites Affecting Food
Safety.
Prevention and Therapy for 245,600 Beltsville, MD
Protozoan Parasites.
Animal Waste Handling Systems 592,800 Beltsville, MD
to Prevent Pathogen
Transmission................
Fate and Environmental Impact 350,800 Beltsville, MD
of Agricultural Nutrients in
Sustainable Production
Systems.....................
The Effect of Plant Genetics 218,200 Beltsville, MD
and Zinc on Cadmium
Concentration and
Bioavailability in Crops....
Composting, Stabilization, 790,800 Beltsville, MD
and Safe Use of Manure and
Mineral By-Products from
Rural/Urban Areas...........
Integrated Soil-Nutrient-Crop- 240,600 Beltsville, MD
Microbial-Pest-Waste
Management Strategies for
Sustainable Agriculture.....
Development of Techniques for 1,001,800 Beltsville, MD
Inspection of Poultry Carcas-
ses.......................
New Handling Systems and 177,800 Beltsville, MD
Pathogen Decontamination
Technology for Fruits.......
New Handling Systems and 177,800 Beltsville, MD
Pathogen Decontamination
Technology for Fruits.......
Quality Maintenance and Food 545,200 Beltsville, MD
Safety of Fresh and Fresh
Fruits/Vegetables...........
Agricultural Approaches to 166,500 Ithaca, NY
Human Health Through
Understanding Soil-Plant-
Human/Animal Food Systems...
Improving the Nutritional 149,700 Ithaca, NY
Quality and Stress Tolerance
of Food Crop Species........
Interventions to Improve the 776,000 Wyndmoor, PA
Microbiological Safety and
Quality of Fruits and
Vegetables..................
Pathogen Contamination in 296,400 West Lafayette, IN
Food Producing Swine.
Molecular Approach to 852,800 Peoria, IL
Understand/Control Fusarium
Infection and Mycotoxin
Contamination of Crops......
Strategies for Developing 222,700 Peoria, IL
Maize Kernels Resistant to
Invasion by Fusarium........
Control of Fusarium 984,000 Peoria, IL
Mycotoxins and Diseases in
Corn and Small Grains.......
Integrated Control of 1,201,100 Peoria, IL
Aspergillus Flavus and
Aflatoxin in the Midwest
Corn Belt...................
Control and Prevention of 415,700 Ames, IA
Cryptosporidium Parvum
Infection.
Rumen Microbes and Their 475,800 Ames, IA
Interactions with Secondary
Plant Metabolites...........
Prevention of Losses from 710,800 Ames, IA
Colibacillosis and E. coli
O157:H7 in Cattle/Swine.....
Epidemiology and Control of 657,200 Ames, IA
Salmonella.
Prevent Zoonotic Pathogen 592,800 Ames, IA
Transmission in Swine.
Prevent Pathogen 296,400 Ames, IA
Contamination in Food
Producing Animals, Swine....
Treatment/Handling of Animal 444,600 Riverside, CA
Manure to Prevent Pathogen
Transmission................
Practical Application of 327,700 Albany, CA
Molecular Genetics for
Improved Potato Cultivars...
Reduction of Aflatoxin in 946,900 Albany, CA
Tree Nuts and Figs Through
Control of Major Insect
Vectors.....................
Control and Prevention of 750,100 Albany, CA
Aflatoxin Formation in Tree
Nuts.
Control of Pathogens on 697,200 Albany, CA
Surfaces of Poultry and of
Fruits/Vegetables...........
Adhesion of Human Pathogens 517,000 Albany, CA
to Surfaces of Poultry
Fruits/Vegetables...........
Treatment of Animal Manure to 444,600 Albany, CA
Prevent Pathogen Transmis-
sion........................
Pinus and Gutierrezia 483,100 Logan, UT
Species: Toxicoses and
Abortion in Livestock.......
Astragalus and Oxytropis 572,100 Logan, UT
Poisoning in Livestock.
Livestock Poisoning by 394,200 Logan, UT
Pyrrolizidine Alkaloids and
Other Hepatotoxic and
Teratogenic Plants..........
Poisoning of Livestock by 483,100 Logan, UT
Larkspur (Delphinium)
Species.
Control of Salmonella and E. 1,081,900 Clay Center, NE
coli O157:H7 in Livestock
During Preharvest...........
Determine the Correlation 296,400 Clay Center, NE
Between Production and
Transportation Practices in
Cattle......................
Cytokine-Mediated Modulation 539,500 College Station, TX
of the Innate Immune
Response to Prevent
Salmonellosis in Poultry....
Development of Microbial CEC 1,249,900 College Station, TX
Methods to Reduce Pathogens
in Swine....................
Prevention and Control of 1,189,400 College Station, TX
Salmonella and Other
Enteropathogens in Poultry
During Growout..............
Prevent Pathogen 281,600 Lubbock, TX
Contamination in Food
Producing Animals, Cattle...
Disease Related Problems of 293,800 Fayetteville, AR
Poultry Production and
Processing..................
Enhancing Biotic Pest 669,100 Mississippi ST, MS
Resistance in Corn Germplasm.
Aflatoxin Control Through 1,019,900 New Orleans, LA
Targeting Gene Cluster
Governing Aflatoxin
Synthesis in Corn and
Cottonseed..................
Modification of Fungal 488,600 New Orleans,
Community Structure to
Improve Food Safety.........
LA Aflatoxin Control Through 1,324,200 New Orleans, LA
Addition of Enhancement of
Antifungal Genes in Corn and
Cotton......................
Development of Improved 267,700 Tifton, GA
Peanut Germplasm with
Resistance to Disease and
Nematode Pests..............
Genetic Improvement of Corn 151,700 Tifton, GA
and Sorghum for Resistance
to Insects and Aflatoxin....
Plant Resistance and 145,000 Tifton, GA
Germplasm Enhancement for
Managing Insect Pests of
Southern Crops..............
Biochemical, Physical, 745,600 Dawson, GA
Microbiological Management
for Prevention of Mycotoxin
in Peanuts..................
Pathogenesis, Detection, and 1,025,400 Athens, GA
Control of S. Enteritidis
and Other Salmonellae in
Chickens....................
Stimulation of Mucosal 371,200 Athens, GA
Immunity in Chickens to
Protect Against Enteric and
Respiratory Pathogens.......
Engineering Innovations and 537,500 Athens, GA
Micro Developments to Reduce
Contamination of Poultry and
Equipment...................
Control of Campylobacter 1,117,400 Athens, GA
Jejuni in Poultry.
Control of Salmonella During 844,400 Athens, GA
Poultry Production.
Reduction of Fusarium 666,000 Athens, GA
Mycotoxins as Concerns in
Agricultural Commodities....
Control and Prevention of 1,032,300 Athens, GA
Mycotoxin Formation by the
Corn Endophyte Fusarium
Moniliforme.................
Epidemiology and Ecology of 327,400 Athens, GA
S. Enteritidis in Commercial
Poultry Flocks..............
Food Safety-Pathogen 237,000 Athens, GA
Reduction in Poultry.
Prevent Pathogen Transmission 222,300 Athens, GA
in Animal Manure.
Treatment of Poultry Manure 222,300 Athens, GA
to Prevent Pathogen Transmis-
sion......................
On-Line Detection Technology: 439,100 Athens, GA/Inst. Of Tech.
PPQRU RRRC/Institute Dev.
Technology Development......
Food Safety, Waste 491,800 Raleigh, NC
Minimization, and Value
Enhancement of Fermented and
Lightly Processed Vegetables
National Agricultural 219,600 Beltsville, MD
Library: Food Safety Data
Base........................
-----------------
TOTAL.................. 37,942,600 .........................
=================
ANTIMICROBIAL/ANTIBIOTIC
RESISTANCE
Assurance of Microbiological 159,900 Wyndmoor, PA
Safety of Thermally
Processed Foods.............
Stress Adaptation and 506,100 Wyndmoor, PA
Virulence Expression of
Bacterial Pathogens in Food
Environments................
Improve Safety and Shelf-Life 156,700 Wyndmoor, PA
of Meat and Poultry with
Ionizing Radiation..........
Epidemiology and Control of 295,300 Ames, IA
Salmonella.
Development of Microbial CEC 588,200 College Station, TX
Methods to Reduce Pathogens
in Swine....................
Pathogen Reduction in Poultry 218,800 Athens, GA
Antibiotic Resistance 296,400 Athens, GA
Research.
-----------------
Total.................. 2,221,400 .........................
=================
RISK ASSESSMENT
Epemiology and Control of 374,800 Beltsville, MD
Toxoplasma, Trichinella in
Domestic Animals............
New Technologies to Improve 344,700 Beltsville, MD
and Assess Meat Quality and
Safety......................
Minimally Degradative 302,900 Wyndmoor, PA
Pasteurization Processes for
Liquid or Solid Foods.......
Assurance of Microbiological 399,900 Wyndmoor, PA
Safety of Thermally
Processed Foods.............
Risk Modeling to Improve the 120,700 Wyndmoor, PA
Microbiological Safety of
Poultry Products............
Microbial Modeling Components 1,209,600 Wyndmoor, PA
for Use in Risk Assessments.
Improve Safety and Shelf-Life 156,700 Wyndmoor, PA
of Meat and Poultry by
Irradia- tion..............
Disposition of Beta-Agonists 915,300 Fargo, ND
in Farm Animals.
Dioxins and Other 1,084,400 Fargo, ND
Environmental Contaminants
in Foods.
-----------------
Total.................. 4,909,000 .........................
=================
FOOD HANDLING, DISTRIBUTION
AND STORAGE
Develop New Handling Systems 59,300 Beltsville, MD
and Pathogen Decontamination
Technology for Fruits.......
Develop New Handling Systems 59,300 Beltsville, MD
and Pathogen Decontamination
Technology for Fruits.......
Interventions to Improve the 987,600 Wyndmoor, PA
Microbiological Safety and
Quality of Fruits and
Vegetables..................
Development of Minimally 959,200 Wyndmoor, PA
Degradative Pasteurization
Processes for Liquid or
Solid Foods.................
Detection of Pathogenic 303,300 Wyndmoor, PA
Bacteria by Biosensors.
Assurance of Microbiological 239,900 Wyndmoor, PA
Safety of Thermally
Processed Foods.............
Risk Modeling to Improve the 120,700 Wyndmoor, PA
Microbiological Safety of
Poultry Products............
Stress Adaptation and 533,400 Wyndmoor, PA
Virulence Expression of
Pathogens in Food...........
Improve Safety and Shelf-Life 1,253,800 Wyndmoor, PA
of Meat/Poultry with
Ionizing Radiation..........
Quantitative Determination of 966,700 Wyndmoor, PA
Pathogen Reduction During
Animal Slaughter and Food
Processing..................
Control of Pathogens on 816,700 Albany, CA
Surfaces of Poultry and
Fruits and Vegetables.......
Adhesion of Human Pathogens 1,098,600 Albany, CA
to Surfaces of Poultry and
Fruits/Vegetables...........
Adv. Technologies for 541,300 Albany, CA
Reduction of Microorganisms
and Particulate Matter in
Food Processing.............
Removal of Aflatoxin 215,000 Albany, CA
Contamination from Human
Foods in Real Time by
Imaging Techniques..........
Control of Pathogenic and 844,400 Clay Center, NE
Spoilage Bacteria on Red
Meat.
Develop On-Line Verification 436,500 Clay Center, NE
and Intervention Procedures
for HACCP in Slaughter/
Processing Systems..........
Engineering Innovations and 537,500 Athens, GA
Micro Developments to Reduce
Contamination of Poultry and
Equipment...................
Reduction of Biofilms Related 604,200 Athens, GA
to Bacterial Contamination
and Pathogen Load During
Poultry Processing.
-----------------
Total.................. 10,577,400 .........................
-----------------
Total Food Safety...... 69,867,600 .........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDA answer. The applied research CDC conducts is directed toward
developing and enhancing surveillance of foodborne illness, and is
supported under the surveillance line of the Food Safety Initiative
budget. For example, CDC's FSI resources are directed toward increasing
CDC's capacity to identify new foodborne hazards and characterize the
risk posed by those hazards, increasing the speed with which the
presence of hazards in foods can be determined and controlled, and
increasing the accuracy and timeliness of public health data that
justify food safety control programs and evaluate their effectiveness.
FDA would be happy to provide this information for the record.
[The information follows:]
food and drug administration
food safety research
The 1999 Food Safety Initiative builds on science-based gains in
research during 1998. The initiative places increased emphasis on
ensuring the safety of domestic and imported fresh produce and imported
foods, and develops scientific information and tools to control a
greater range of food safety hazards. The 2000 President's Food Safety
Initiative builds on the foundation established in 1998 and 1999 for
research and risk assessment activities. The following information
provides greater detail on research projects for fiscal year 1999 and
2000:
Planned Activities Funded by Fiscal Year 1999 Funds
FDA's FSI base resources and $25 million appropriation in fiscal
year 1999 will support the following activities and accomplishments in
the area of research and risk assessment:
--research toward pathogen growth and control in areas critical to
reduce microbial risk in produce;
--improved detection methods (rapid tests) to identify a broader
range of pathogens on food products (fresh fruits and
vegetables), throughout food production, manufacturing and
distribution systems;
--develop prevention/intervention strategies, with research on the
development of alternative food production, processing, and
handling systems that eliminate or pathogen contamination; and
risk assessments of Listeria, Vibrio Parahaemolyticus, and
methyl mercury.
Planned Activities Funded by Proposed Fiscal Year 2000 Funds
FDA's fiscal year 1999 FSI base resources and the proposed $3
million increase requested in fiscal year 2000 for research are
expected to support the following activities:
--extramural contracts to further expand methods development and
prevention technology research. These contracts will be
supported with other Federal agencies; upgrade scientific
equipment;
--expand data collection on contaminated foods associated with
foodborne outbreaks and characteristics of people who did not
become ill after exposure to the same foods;
--expand development of appropriate animal models for determining
whether threshold or non-threshold models for infectivity are
more appropriate for describing low dose infectivity rates for
infectious and toxicoinfectious microorganisms;
--expand development of modeling techniques for assessing human
exposure to a variety of foodborne contaminants especially
emerging pathogens.
The following table provides a list of research projects planned by
FDA in fiscal year 2000
Estimated Project
Research Projects/Project Title Cost \1\
Sampling for Pathogens on Produce.............................$1,500,000
Molecular Characterization of Maverick Strains of
Enterohemorrhagic E. coli................................. 400,000
Effects of Environmental Conditions, Phytochemicals, Modified
Atmosphere Packaging and other Parameters for the Growth
and Survival of Foodborne Pathogens on Produce,
Particularly Sprouted Seeds............................... 1,200,000
Molecular Mechanisms for Pathogen Emergence................... 1,250,000
Identification and Characterization of Virulence Determinants
for Salmonella enteritidis and Vibrio vulnificus.......... 400,000
Cyclospora Detection and Viability Assessment................. 450,000
Characterization of Pathogenic Aquatic Eucaryotes and their
Toxins.................................................... 1,500,000
Control of Viral and Bacterial Human Pathogens in Seafood..... 650,000
Assessment of Technologies for Pathogen Reduction or
Elimination............................................... 1,750,000
Study of Mycotoxins........................................... 1,650,000
Virulence Assessment and Molecular Pathogenesis of Salmonella
Typhimurium DT 104 and Shigella........................... 450,000
Minimizing Biogenic Amine Formation in Seafood and Other
Commodities............................................... 540,000
\1\ The following estimated costs for each project are based on base
resources (fiscal years 1997, 1998 and 1999) plus requested increases in
fiscal year 2000.
ANIMAL DRUGS AND FEEDS PROGRAM/RESEARCH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization
Research Project Carrying Out Fiscal Year
Research 1999 Funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detection procedures for pathogens University of $400,000
in meat, eggs, animal feed and Tennessee Center
the environment. for Veterinary
Medicine.
Pathogen reduction in animal feeds Washington State 300,000
University Center
for Veterinary
Medicine.
Pathogen reduction research on University of 800,000
food producing animals and the Wisconsin,
environment. University of
Georgia, ARS/USDA,
Center for
Veterinary Medicine.
Determine impact of antibiotic use Center for 300,000
in feed on bacterial resistance Veterinary Medicine.
development and pathogen
transmission in food producing
animals and the environment.
Evaluate effects of various drug New England Medical 700,000
doses and routes of Center William
administration on bacterial Beaumont Hospital
antibiotic resistance development Center for
and dissemination. Veterinary Medicine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDA food safety research being conducted in fiscal year 1999 with
NCTE for the Animal Drug and feeds Program ($85,000 from the
Surveillance FSI program to NCTE) includes assessing microbial products
intended for food animals that are designed to reduce colonization by
Salmonella, evaluation of antimicrobial drug resistance in these
products, development of rapid screening tests for antimicrobial drug
resistance determinants and food borne pathogens, and identification of
bovine mitochondrial DNA contaminants in animal feed.
ANIMAL DRUGS AND FEEDS PROGRAM/RESEARCH
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization
Research Project Carrying Out Fiscal Year
Research \1\ 1999 Funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detection procedures for pathogens University of $800,000
in meat, eggs, animal feed and Tennessee Center
the environment. for Veterinary
Medicine.
Pathogen reduction in animal feeds Washington State 300,000
University Center
for Veterinary
Medicine.
Pathogen reduction research on Center for 800,000
food producing animals and the Veterinary Medicine.
environment.
Determine impact of antibiotic use Center for 300,000
in feed on bacterial resistance Veterinary Medicine.
development and pathogen
transmission in food producing
animals and the environment.
Evaluate effects of various drug New England Medical 1,000,000
doses and routes of Center, William
administration on bacterial Beaumont Hospital,
antibiotic resistance development Center for
and dissemination. Veterinary Medicine.
Characterization of bacterial Center for 500,000
multiple antimicrobial resistance Veterinary Medicine.
mechanisms in animals and the
environment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In fiscal year 2000 a request for proposals will be advertised and
additional cooperative agreements will be funded in addition to the
ones mentioned.
Question. The Administration indicates that $20 million will be
invested in fiscal year 1999 through the Food Safety Initiative on
education. Would you please describe the various education activities
planned or being undertaken by each of the five USDA agencies, the Food
and Drug Administration, and the CDC?
USDA answer. A food safety video for use in senior citizens'
centers will be produced and distributed in cooperation with FDA. Other
activities planned for 1999 and 2000 include work with the Partnership
for Food Safety Education's ``Fight BAC! '' campaign; observance of
National Food Safety Education Month; curriculum development, aimed at
bringing the farm-to-table Initiative into classrooms nationwide; and
publications distribution. Participating agencies have also formed the
National Food Safety Information Network to bring together the
government's primary mechanisms for providing food safety information
to the public. The National Food Safety Information Network consists of
the following media: FDA's Food Information Line, USDA's Meat and
Poultry Hotline, USDA/FDA Foodborne Illness Education Information
Center at the National Agricultural Library; www.FoodSafety.gov, the
Gateway to Government Food Safety Information on the World Wide Web;
FoodSafe, an electronic dissemination system; and EdNet, an electronic
newsletter for food safety educators.
In the area of pre-harvest food safety education, FSIS is working
to establish animal production food safety partnerships with State
agriculture agencies. FSIS is also working with the Department of
Education to develop internet-based educational programs for
agricultural extension agents and vocational agriculture teachers.
Using data collected from a national producer educational survey--
conducted in 1998-1999 by Tuskegee University, Texas A&M and the
Research Triangle Institute--FSIS plans to issue grants to ``1890
Institutions'' to conduct educational outreach targeting small and
limited producers in the southeastern United States.
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service is
providing education and outreach to growers and producers of domestic
and imported fresh fruits and vegetables. This effort supports the
President's Food Safety Initiative and the Initiative to Ensure the
Safety of the Imported and Domestic Fresh Fruits and Vegetables.
Increased funding in fiscal year 1999 has provided needed resources to
support collaborative efforts with the Food and Drug Administration,
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Foreign
Agricultural Service to provide education and outreach to both national
and international growers and producers. An example is the ``Fight
BAC!'' campaign developed by the Partnership for Food Safety Education
in conjunction with the President's Food Safety Initiative to simplify
and provide useful public education and information about safe handling
of all foods. The Partnership consists of numerous associations,
councils, and institutes, with liaison from four Federal agencies,
including USDA, and an international affiliation with Canada. These
efforts are focused on building a strong, viable, integrated food
safety program across the federal government.
In fiscal year 1999, the Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service has $7,365,000 for competitive projects in food
safety education. We anticipate funding 70-80 food safety extension
education projects which may range from $50,000 to $500,000. Proposals
have been solicited which focus on training for food handlers, consumer
food safety education, use of good agricultural practices to increase
food safety, and development of a national food safety database.
FDA answer. CDC is happy to provide the information for the record.
CDC conducts educational activities primarily for health care
professionals and the public. Examples include materials on how high-
risk populations can avoid foodborne illness and training videos on
laboratory methods to diagnose foodborne pathogens. In addition, CDC
actively participates with FDA, USDA, industry, and consumer
organizations in the Partnership for Food Safety Education, a public-
private partnership created to reduce the incidence of foodborne
illness by educating Americans about safe food-handling practices
through many activities, including the national Fight
BAC Campaign. The purpose of the Fight
BAC Campaign is to help educate the public about
foodborne illness and motivate the consumers to take basic sanitation
and food-handling steps to reduce the risk of foodborne illness. With
National Food Safety Initiative resources in fiscal year 1999, CDC also
is working with FDA and USDA to reach school-age children through
school-based efforts.
FDA would be happy to provide the information for the record.
[The information follows:]
food and drug administration education activities
FDA will invest a total of $2.47 million in fiscal year 1999 on
education, and consumer research that will serve as the basis for
consumer education material. This amount represents a $400,000 increase
over fiscal year 1998.
Education
The Agency will use the funding to continue to support and broaden
partnerships and alliances with other food safety organizations that
allow the Agency to leverage resources while spreading food safety
messages to a greater number of people. The focus this year is to
expand consumer education to change unsafe food handling practices of
individuals at high risk for foodborne disease and the non-English
speaking populations.
Another FDA priority in fiscal year 1999 is the development of
school-based food safety programs to establish lifelong safe food
handling practices in young people. To achieve this goal, an agreement
has been signed with the National Science Teachers Association to
develop a supplemental food safety curriculum for use in secondary
schools. This program will also provide food safety training to over
half of these students who will at some time during their teenage years
work in a food service establishment.
A recent FDA-USDA consumer survey showed that only 1 percent of
consumers viewed eggs as a risky food, a decrease of 10 percent since
1993. A public education campaign through the media as well as through
community health associations and food service operations will be
launched later this year concerning the safe handling of eggs.
Funding during fiscal year 1999 will support the Food Information
Center at FDA that provides food safety information to consumers
through its hot line, fast fax, web page and E-mail dissemination
system. The Food Information Center is part of jointly supported FDA-
USDA system of information distribution.
Research
In order to target consumer education materials where it is most
needed, research in kitchens is currently underway to identify unsafe
food handling behaviors that consumers are actually practicing (as
opposed to reported as being practiced).
FDA will also conduct consumer research on special groups, such as
Spanish speaking populations, to determine the best way to communicate
key food safety principles in order to achieve behavioral changes.
Data available to FDA indicates that retail food service operations
(including fast food restaurants, vending operations, institutional
feeding operations such as schools, hospitals, and nursing homes) are
the source of a substantial number of food-borne illnesses. Market
research will also be conducted to identify barriers to safe food
preparation practices by the retail food service industry. This type of
research activity will produce a knowledge base for educators and will
guide the design of more effective training programs and materials
targeted for development next fiscal year. This program will address
the impact of the high turnover in food service workers and target
small businesses, and new entrepreneurs.
Question. I know that the Food Safety and Inspection Service has
food safety hotline. Is this the only government hotline, or does each
agency have its own?
FDA answer. The Food Safety and Inspection Service hotline deals
with meat and poultry. FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition has a toll free Food Information Line, 1-800-332-4010, to
cover other foods and dietary supplement questions. The FDA and USDA
information lines will soon be integrated so that calls will routinely
be handled by the most appropriate agency and the agencies can more
easily handle hot issues and crises.
Additionally, other Federal Government toll-free food-related
information lines include Department of Commerce's National Marine
Fisheries Service at 1-800-422-2750, Environmental Protection Agency's
Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-827-2794, and EPA's National
Pesticide Telecommunications Network at 1-800-858-7378. The
administration has established a government food safety web site
(http://www.foodsafety.gov/) designed to help the public find
government food safety information more readily on the web. The site
provides links to food safety-related web sites from federal, state and
local government agencies, including CDC.
Question. What audiences are you currently targeting through your
food safety education efforts?
USDA answer. FSIS is working to reach those at greatest risk for
foodborne illness, in addition to the general public. Specific target
audiences include: Home food handlers; Cooks and food handlers in
retail settings and congregate feeding sites; School foodservice
providers; Children; Expectant mothers; Child care providers; The
elderly and Immune-compromised individuals. In the area of pre-harvest
food safety education, FSIS is targeting its outreach efforts towards
the one million food animal producers and the thousands of livestock
markets and satellite industries.
In fiscal year 1999, the Food Safety and Quality National Education
Initiative of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service has significantly expanded the Department of Agriculture's
education and outreach efforts to consumers, educators, health
professionals, farmers, veterinarians, producers, processors, food
service workers, sanitarians, food inspectors, retailers, distributors,
transporters, and other food handlers. Growers and producers of
domestic and imported fresh fruits and vegetables are also targeted.
The Food and Nutrition Service has provided food safety information
to school food service professionals and child care providers to assist
them in preparing and serving meals to children, and to work with
children to teach them safe food handling.
FDA answer. The Food Safety Initiative's educational efforts will
target individuals at high risk, such as children, women, elderly,
individuals with comprised immune system, for foodborne disease, non-
English speaking populations, and consumers of eggs. Another FDA effort
in fiscal year 1999 is the development of school-based food safety
programs targeted at young people, so that these messages may establish
lifelong safe food handling practices.
Current target audiences are school children, general public and
public health professionals, including physicians, nurses,
nutritionists, food protection specialists, laboratorians and
epidemiologists. CDC is working with FDA and USDA to reach children
through school-based efforts.
Question. Dr. Henney, you indicate that through a combination of
FDA inspection and state contracts, all domestic seafood processors and
importers were inspected to verify implementation of HACCP by the end
of calendar year 1998. Were these seafood processors and importers in
compliance with HACCP implementation requirements?
FDA answer. Processors were inspected to determine whether they
have HACCP systems in place, while importers were inspected to
determine whether they were taking steps to verify that their foreign
suppliers were processing in accordance with United States, such as
HACCP requirements.
Initially, approximately 30 percent of processors and 20 percent of
importers were in compliance, that is, they had HACCP systems that were
essentially complete and needed little or no additional work. FDA
defined compliance in terms of the presence or absence of significant
technical HACCP problems, not whether a processor was producing food
that was dangerous to eat, or in imminent danger of doing so. Minor
technical HACCP problems were not regarded as out of compliance.
FDA has learned from HACCP pilots and the experience of other
nations in implementing their own HACCP systems, that the early stages
of HACCP implementation involves considerable trial and error, both for
the industry and the regulator. Consequently, FDA's primary objective
during the first round of inspections was to provide consistent,
accurate feedback to firms on the status of their HACCP systems. The
percentage of firms that achieved essentially error free HACCP programs
by their first inspections was a secondary consideration. No regulatory
action was contemplated for technical HACCP problems in the absence of
an imminent public health problem.
Question. Dr. Henney, you indicate that FDA found a range of
problems with HACCP implementation that needed to be addressed by
seafood facilities. What problems did you identify and how are working
with the seafood industry to address these problems?
FDA answer. The results of the first round of inspections reflect a
range of issues, most of which were anticipated. Collectively, the most
prevalent deficiencies involved lack of adequate sanitation monitoring
and failure to have a HACCP plan. While many firms practice good
sanitation, this is an area that has been a longstanding problem with
the seafood industry generally. With regard to HACCP plans, some firms
were simply being recalcitrant, while others held a good faith belief
that, in their case, a plan was not needed. Plans are needed only when
there are food safety hazards that are reasonably likely to occur with
the product.
Where processors had HACCP plans, the problems were, in many cases,
those that could reasonably be attributed to trial and error. Although
not minor, those kinds of problems are often readily correctable. In
other cases, a processor might disagree with FDA over the adequacy of
its HACCP plan. In most cases FDA would categorize the processor as
noncompliant, but would also provide the processor with the opportunity
to demonstrate the adequacy of its HACCP system. Where adequacy can be
demonstrated, the compliance status of the firm will be changed.
We are doing a number of things in the second year to continue to
move the industry down the road toward full compliance. First, we are
working with a consortium of Federal agencies, the Association of Food
and Drug Officials, academia, and industry trade associations,
collectively known as the Seafood HACCP Alliance, to develop a low cost
training course for processors to help them overcome specific types of
implementation problems. During part of the course, trained instructors
will walk students through problem solving exercises that are tailored
to their specific needs. The Alliance has already developed a basic
training course in seafood HACCP that has been taken by over 10,000
individuals. FDA is now contributing $30,000 from FSI funds toward the
development of this follow-on effort, and we expect it to be ready by
mid-April. Second, in addition to the course, our district offices are
planning implementation workshops tailored to their local industries.
Our Los Angeles district office recently conducted a highly successful
workshop, and we wish to replicate that effort around the country.
Third, we are upgrading our guidance materials, including our
principal guidance document to industry, the Fish and Fishery Products
Hazards and Controls Guide. This document essentially describes
everything we know about seafood hazards and controls. It is a one-of-
a-kind document that has earned some international recognition. It has
been translated into other languages and some countries have
incorporated it, at least informally, into their own regulatory
programs.
To help achieve international compliance with HACCP from those who
export fish and fishery products to the United States, we are beginning
a program of foreign inspections, primarily targeted toward developing
countries with large volumes of seafood exports to the U.S.
We are also continuing to pursue equivalence agreements with more
advanced seafood trading partners. Over 30 countries have requested
that we determine whether their regulatory systems for seafood safety
are equivalent to ours.
We are also upgrading the education we provide to our own
inspectors. We will give them the same follow-on training course that
is being prepared for industry. In addition, we are developing a
certification program for seafood inspectors, consisting of courses,
exams, and on-the-job audits. This program will help ensure uniform,
national proficiency and will reward inspectors who increase their
knowledge and inspectional skills.
Question. What is FDA doing in fiscal year 1999 to ensure full
compliance with its seafood HACCP rules and regulations?
FDA answer. It is worth noting that FDA's compliance target for
fiscal year 1999 is 50 percent, with full compliance not being
anticipated for several years. A longstanding, key strategy for this
program has been gradual and steady progress. In the Agency's view, a
gradual approach provides the best long term chance for success, and is
affordable given that there is no public health emergency with seafood
that requires urgent action.
Seafood includes over 300 edible species from a variety of
habitats. Most are still wild caught. While no potential hazard causes
a large number of illnesses in the U.S., there are a wide variety of
hazards, including some unique to seafood, that can cause illness.
Seafood safety is a matter of some complexity.
Thus, it is essential that seafood processors know the potential
hazards that could affect their products and take science-based
preventive measures to ensure that these hazards are controlled. Before
seafood HACCP, there was no requirement that seafood processors
understand hazards and controls as a condition of selling food to the
U.S. public. The FDA seafood HACCP program establishes such a condition
for the first time. In this respect, the education of the industry in
science-based hazards and controls is a key to success. Ultimately,
each processor should be able to evaluate its own circumstances and
develop and tailor a HACCP system to those circumstances.
Question. I understand FDA funding for Seafood HACCP was $8 million
for each fiscal years 1998 and 1999. Is that correct? Last year, FDA
indicated that a $3.4 million increase was requested for Seafood HACCP.
Why is funding for Seafood HACCP being continued at the fiscal year
1998 level of $8 million for fiscal year 1999? What level of funding is
requested for Seafood HACCP for fiscal year 2000? Please compare that
level to the funding and staffing levels for Seafood HACCP in each of
fiscal years 1998 and 1999?
FDA answer. Yes, FDA's funding for the field implementation of
Seafood HACCP is $8 million for both fiscal years 1998 and 1999. The
Agency plans to expend an estimated $3.4 million for activities that
compliment and support Seafood HACCP in fiscal year 1999, but will not
be directly expended on Seafood HACCP inspections by FDA's field
office.
We are happy to provide for the record a table which outlines FDA's
use of resources for Seafood HACCP.
[The information follows:]
FDA'S SEAFOOD HACCP RESOURCES--FISCAL YEARS 1998 THROUGH 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1998 Fiscal year 1999 Fiscal year 1999 Fiscal year
---------------------- Increase Total 2000 Requestion
Activity -------------------------------------------- Increase
Dollars FTE ----------------
Dollars FTE Dollars FTE Dollars FTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HACCP Training, ....... ........... 2.1 20 2.1 20 .5 1.0
Implementation & Expansion..
Seafood HACCP Training....... 1.3 1.3 ....... ........... 1.3 1.3 ....... ......
Seafood HACCP Field Inspec- 8.0 8.0 ....... ........... 8.0 8.0 ....... ......
tions.......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. The President's budget for fiscal year 2000 proposes that
the Seafood Inspection Program be transferred from the Department of
Commerce to the Food and Drug Administration. How will the transfer of
this program to FDA improve the safety of seafood?
FDA answer. Transfer of the Seafood Inspection Program from the
Department of Commerce to FDA will improve the safety of seafood in
several ways. Establishing a Performance Based Organization or PBO at
FDA will establish FDA as the sole seafood agency with one federal
HACCP standard, thereby promoting efficiency, effectiveness, and
consistency of seafood regulation. This centralization will help both
domestically and internationally. In addition, the PBO will provide
additional trained inspectors to implement its HACCP regulations,
resulting in increased frequency of inspection. Consumers will benefit
by improved food safety from an increased federal regulatory presence
and a single HACCP standard established by FDA.
Question. Why are you requesting that this transfer be made through
the appropriations bill rather than submitting a legislative proposal
to the appropriate authorizing committees of jurisdiction?
FDA answer. While the Administration has requested appropriations
to transfer the program as is, without establishing it as a Performance
Based Organization or PBO, the longer term solution is authorizing
legislation that would establish the Seafood Inspection Program as a
PBO with the Department of Health and Human Services. FDA and the
Department of Health and Human Services is currently working with the
Department of Commerce and other parts of the Administration to
finalize a draft proposal that would accomplish such a PBO. We are
eager to work with Congress to achieve this goal.
Question. The budget indicates that a legislative proposal will be
transmitted to make the Seafood Inspection Program a Performance-Based
Organization. Would you please explain that proposal.
FDA answer. FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services are
currently working with the Department of Commerce and other parts of
the Administration to finalize a draft proposal that would transfer the
Seafood Inspection Program of the National Marine Fisheries Service in
the Department of Commerce to FDA in the form of a Performance Based
Organization or PBO. A PBO is a quasi-public organization that is
located in a federal agency but operated like a business in that it is
to be financially self-sustaining. Although the federal agency oversees
the PBO, the PBO is given a great deal of autonomy to run day-to-day
operations, particularly in the areas of personnel and procurement, in
order to response to customer's needs and marketing conditions.
In this case, the seafood inspection PBO would continue to perform
the voluntary, fee-for-service inspection, grading, certification, and
training services for the seafood industry and other customers
currently performed by the Seafood Inspection Program in the Department
of Commerce. In addition, FDA would be able to utilize these trained
inspectors to perform regulatory HACCP inspections under one Federal
HACCP standard.
Question. Dr. Henney you indicate that FDA has undertaken not only
to strengthen border surveillance activities but to design new programs
to prevent contamination in countries that export to the United States,
including an assessment of foreign control over exports to the United
States and providing technical assistance to foreign countries. Would
you please be more specific as to the new programs implemented by FDA
to increase the safety of imported food?
FDA answer. The FDA is employing a number of strategies to better
utilize existing import resources and target efforts. One strategy is
to increase activity in developing Mutual Recognition Agreements or
MRAs, as well as informal agreements with other countries. These
agreements recognize regulatory expertise in the exporting country and
allow foreign governments to provide a degree of assistance in
controlling export of food products to the United States.
A second strategy is to conduct audits of Foreign Food Systems to
assess the prospect of developing future equivalency agreements. As a
part of these audits, country's infrastructure, laws, regulations,
inspectional force, and regulatory follow up are evaluated. Assessments
were completed for Honduras, Trinidad and Tobago in fiscal year 1998.
We have tentative plans to conduct assessments for Costa Rica and
Nicaragua in March 1999, and we have tentatively scheduled reviews of
the infrastructure, laws and regulations related to food safety for
both Canada and Mexico in fiscal year 1999.
As a third strategy, FDA is conducting several types of inspections
in Country of Origin. Primary countries in which Seafood Inspections in
Country of Origin are being conducted include Ecuador, Taiwan,
Phillippines, Viet Nam, and Indonesia. Low Acid Canned Food Inspections
in Country of Origin are being conducted in the following primary
countries; Ecuador, Brazil, Canada, Malaysia, Philippines, Indonesia,
and India. The Agency is also conducting compliance inspections for
land foods in Country of Origin in Canada, Mexico, Italy, Portugal and
France. Primary commodities inspected include cheese, ready-to-eat,
heat and serve snack foods, and candy including chocolate candy.
Yet another strategy involves supporting proposed authority to more
effectively prevent entry of products that come from countries whose
food regulatory agencies are unable to effectively regulate their own
industry, as well as prevent export of products that are violative
under U.S. law. FDA also supports proposed new authority to cause
mandatory destruction of refused merchandise. Finally, FDA seeks
greater interactions with other Federal Agencies, including U.S.
Customs, to screen, collect and analyze samples, and report these
results to the FDA for appropriate follow-up.
The Agency is developing an assessment program of the regulatory
structure and capabilities of foreign food regulatory agencies for
possible future equivalency determinations, and has developed industry
guidance Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh
Fruits and Vegetables.
The Agency has worked with foreign governments and industry of
countries identified as being the source of large U. S. outbreaks over
the last several years, trying to identify and eradicate problems. This
included inspections of suspect processors and growers.
Question. Please describe FDA's current surveillance of imported
food products at our borders. How is this surveillance capability being
enhanced in fiscal year 1999? What funding and staffing is being
devoted to this effort, as compared to fiscal year 1998? What level of
funding is requested for fiscal year 2000?
FDA answer. FDA has allocated additional resources to increase its
inspectional staff, with a significant number of new employees being
devoted to the Agency's import activities. These import activities
include increased examinations of imported seafood, fresh produce, and
other public health hazards related to foods. The main emphasis of the
1999 increase in import surveillance is in our sampling programs, which
include risk-based assignments and directives from FDA's Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition or CFSAN. These programs,
assignments, and directives are being implemented through the
enhancements to the FDA Operational and Administrative System for
Import Support, or OASIS, which will allow more selective screening of
products offered for entry. Through the OASIS system, FDA's districts
will be able to target consignees, importers, ports and other data
fields for coverage where as before, the system was unable to
distinguish many of the data elements for selectivity screening. This
will also enable FDA to test for specialized information such as
seafood HACCP compliance status of importing firms.
One such program assignment is the Agency's Imported Produce
Sampling Assignment for the examination of various fresh fruits and
vegetables for microbiological contamination, such as E. coli O157H7,
Shigella, Cyclospora, etc. This broad-based surveillance and
enforcement approach is the Agency's response to potential
microbiological hazards that may be associated with the U.S. fresh
produce supplies.
Under the FDA Imported Seafood Program, importer HACCP inspections
are being conducted to determine compliance with the requirements of
Title 21 CFR 123.12, which requires seafood importers to assure their
foreign seafood suppliers are operating in compliance with Seafood
HACCP regulations.
FDA also developed and provided specialized import training for
field employees to assure more uniform and consistent approaches
throughout FDA's field offices. This training covers many of the basic
import requirements, including the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
and FDA regulations, Center programs, proper sampling and examination
techniques, documentation of violations of the laws enforced by FDA,
and so forth.
In fiscal year 1999 FDA worked to make sure that all feed and feed
ingredients were identified as components to be examined at import
entry into the U.S. to ensure compliance with the regulation
prohibiting the use of certain mammalian protein from use in ruminant
feed. This regulation is to prevent the development and amplification
of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy or BSE in the U.S. In addition, in
fiscal year 1999 the Animal Drugs and Feeds Program will train the FDA
import personnel to educate importers on the applicability of the BSE
regulation to certain imported products.
Question. How has FDA placed special emphasis on ensuring the
safety of imported and domestic fruits and vegetables?
FDA answer. FDA developed, in consultation with USDA and industry,
guidance on good agriculture practices. In October 1998, FDA produced
the ``Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits
and Vegetables'' and referred to as GAP's. This guide is intended to
provide guidance in addressing microbial food safety hazards and good
agricultural and management practices common to the growing,
harvesting, washing, sorting, packing and transporting of most fruits
and vegetable sold to consumers in an unprocessed or minimally raw
form.
In fiscal year 1997 and 1998, FDA conducted multiple surveys of
domestically produced fresh fruits and vegetables including sprouts,
fresh unpasteurized apple juice and cider, and prepared cut vegetable
salads. On February 23, 1999, FDA initiated a sample collection and
analysis assignment for 1,000 samples of imported fresh produce. The
Agency will test for pathogens and collect data on the extent of
microbial contamination in fresh produce.
The Agency has developed and published industry and Investigational
guidance ``Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh
Fruits and Vegetables'' and ``Guide to Traceback of Fresh Fruits and
Vegetables Implicated in Epidemiological Investigations'',
respectively. The Traceback Guide assists the field investigator in
identifying specific shipments of fruits and vegetables that could be
involved in epidemiological outbreaks. Training has been provided to
FDA's field offices. In April 1999, FDA and USDA are sponsoring a
national training conference for domestic and imported producers on the
implementation of the ``Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards
for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables.''
Question. How many foreign inspections of food establishments were
conducted in fiscal year 1998? In which countries?
USDA answer. FSIS oversees imports of meat and poultry products
from 37 countries to the United States. For the record, the following
table presents the number of foreign meat and poultry slaughter/
processing establishments audited by country in fiscal year 1998.
[The information follows]
Number of Foreign Establishments Audited by FSIS in Fiscal Year 1998
COUNTRY AUDITS
Australia......................................................... 18
Austria........................................................... 9
Belgium........................................................... 18
Brazil............................................................ 16
Costa Rica........................................................ 5
Czech Republic.................................................... 2
Denmark........................................................... 26
Finland........................................................... 7
France............................................................ 13
Germany........................................................... 12
Great Britain..................................................... 6
Guatemala......................................................... 1
Honduras.......................................................... 5
Hong Kong......................................................... 1
Hungary........................................................... 9
Iceland........................................................... 2
Ireland........................................................... 9
Israel............................................................ 15
Italy............................................................. 25
Japan............................................................. 3
Mexico............................................................ 22
Netherlands....................................................... 19
Nicaragua......................................................... 3
Northern Ireland.................................................. 1
Poland............................................................ 37
Romania........................................................... 7
Spain............................................................. 12
Sweden............................................................ 16
Switzerland....................................................... 12
Uruguay........................................................... 17
______
Total Countries Visited:...................................... 30
Question. Were the foreign inspections being targeted only on those
food establishments that produce food products at high risk for
microbial contamination? Which foods are these?
USDA answer. FSIS did not target audits at establishments that
produce meat and poultry products at high risk for microbial
contamination. Audits are based on random selections of establishments
that are certified by the foreign inspection systems to export to the
U.S. When products are found to have microbial violations at U.S. ports
of entry, the establishments of origin are targeted to be included in
the list of establishments to be visited during the audits.
Question. What increases in foreign inspections of food
establishments are planned for fiscal year 1999 and requested for
fiscal year 2000?
USDA answer. FSIS's goal is to visit each country annually to
conduct on-site audits of selected plants. As part of the audit of a
country's food safety system, a random selection of establishments
within each country is selected for review by FSIS personnel.
Question. Please indicate funding and staffing levels for foreign
inspections for each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and requested for
fiscal year 2000.
USDA answer. The FSIS budget for foreign inspections, including
personnel, travel and operating costs, is approximately $800,000 and 8
staff years in fiscal year 1998. Both the funding and staffing are
expected to remain at that level in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year
2000.
Question. How many foreign inspections of food establishments were
conducted in fiscal year 1998? In which countries? Were the foreign
inspections being targeted only on those food establishments that
produce food products at high risk for microbial contamination? Which
foods are these? What increases in foreign inspections of food
establishments are planned for fiscal year 1999 and requested for
fiscal year 2000? Please indicate funding and staffing levels for
foreign inspections for each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and
requested for fiscal year 2000?
FDA answer. Twenty six foreign inspections of food establishments
were conducted in fiscal year 1998. We inspected firms in China, Italy
and Thailand. The inspections covered low acid canned foods. In
addition, we also conducted assessments of Guatemala's raspberry
growing industry. We anticipate completing 100 inspections in fiscal
year 1999.
Only foreign food establishments producing products at high risk
for microbial contamination are targeted for inspection, such as
seafood, fresh fruits and vegetables, and Low Acid Canned Foods.
Question. The National Academy of Sciences' report indicates that
``Although FDA recommended minimum food-handling standards in a Food
Code issued in 1993, the Code has not been adopted in its entirety by
most state and local authorities.'' What is being done to encourage
states to adopt the Food Code?
USDA answer. USDA is working closely with HHS to promote adoption
of the Food Code. Last year, Secretaries Glickman and Shalala sent
letters to all the Governors, to constituents, and to employees of USDA
and HHS encouraging the adoption and use of the food code. Virtually
every USDA meeting with or speech directed at state audiences includes
a reference to the Code and its value as a standard for regulation of
food safety at retail. Promotion of the adoption of the Food Code was
one of the themes at the recent, USDA-hosted Federal-State Food Safety
Conference attended by state Health and Agriculture Commissioners,
Secretaries Glickman and Shalala, and other officials. USDA personnel
have also discussed the code with the agriculture committee of the
National Council of State Legislators (NCSL).
We are continuing to work with the food industry as well as
representatives of state and local government, through the Conference
for Food Protection and in other forums, to encourage industry leaders
and trade groups to endorse the Food Code and promote its adoption in
all jurisdictions. Major trade associations like the Food Marketing
Institute and the National Restaurant Association, government groups
like the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture,
professional groups like the Association of Food and Drug Officials and
the National Environmental Health Association, and many others have had
input into and have endorsed the Food Code.
This broad base of support has been instrumental in encouraging
grass-root support for universal adoption of the Food Code.
FDA monitors the progress of initiatives in the various
jurisdictions, and HHS and USDA have tendered a standing offer to
provide technical advice and expert testimony upon request to support
State administrative and legislative initiatives to adopt the Food
Code. FDA's most recent report shows 15 state level agencies and 17
other jurisdictions (federal agencies, tribal and local government
agencies) have now adopted the Code, and that another 23 states, Puerto
Rico, the District of Columbia, and several additional local government
agencies are in the process of adopting it.
[The information follows:]
FDA recently published the 1999 Food Code on February 22, 1999.
There are at least six distinct efforts under our Public Health Service
Act mandate to advise and assist states.
On June 4, 1998, Secretaries Shalala and Glickman wrote to the
governors encouraging state adoption and implementation of the Food
Code.
At the Conference for Food Protection meetings in 1994, 1996 and
1998, recommendations for modifying the Food Code have been debated,
passed and sent to FDA. Many of these changes have made newer Food Code
editions more acceptable to all parties. Strong opposition by the
regulated industry is now rare.
We continue to emphasize promotion of the adoption of uniform
standards by the states in our yearly Compliance Programs. Each fiscal
year, about 8 person years are allocated to our Field Food Specialists
to perform this activity.
When a state requests assistance during its adoption process, we
have provided technical and administrative help from Headquarters. For
example, FDA has attended public hearings in both Florida and Minnesota
to answer questions and support state regulators.
FDA lists Food Code adoptions on its website to encourage
participation.
FDA has drafted a set of proposed standards for food regulatory
agencies. The first standard in this document is Regulatory
Foundation--satisfied by adoption of the Food Code as the uniform set
of rules for regulating retail establishments.
Question. Would you please tell us more about the importance of the
Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring Network to food safety and what
your plans are to expand the network in fiscal year 1999 and 2000?
USDA answer. The National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring
System (NARMS) has recently been renamed to NARMS--Enteric Bacteria
(NARMS-EB) to more accurately reflect its scope. A public health
surveillance system, NARMS-EB is a systematic, data collection and
reporting activity. To most efficiently use federal resources, the
veterinary and human components of NARMS-EB are structured to collect
comparable data. NARMS-EB provides information on the temporal and
geographic trends in antibiotic resistant foodborne pathogens. Critical
analysis and timely reporting of the NARMS-EB data will enable
researchers, public health practitioners, and clinicians to assess the
extent of antibiotic resistance in the monitored foodborne pathogens so
that reasoned action can be taken to prolong the useful life of
antibiotics, maximize the therapeutic effect of antibiotics in animals
and man, and minimize human exposure to these potentially harmful
agents. The NARMS-EB data and isolates facilitate critical research on
antibiotic resistance and virulence mechanisms.
As the lead agencies in the NARMS-EB, FDA and CDC have primary
responsibility for decisions on expanding NARMS-EB. Beginning in fiscal
year 1999, FSIS began a baseline sampling program for Campylobacter in
broilers. FDA-CVM requested, and FSIS agreed, to forward those isolates
to the USDA-ARS research laboratory in Athens, Georgia, that conducts
the antimicrobial resistance testing for the veterinary portion of the
NARMS-EB program. Because FSIS generates the majority of the domestic
Salmonella isolates from meat, poultry, and egg products, FSIS is
working towards designing its program to ensure that those serotyped
Salmonella isolates of FSIS origin that are sent to NARMS-EB are most
representative of the overall domestic meat, poultry, and egg products
supply.
FDA answer. The National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System
or NARMS monitors the emergence and spread of resistance in enteric
bacteria and helps to ensure the continued safety and effectiveness of
veterinary antimicrobials. Under NARMS thousands of bacterial isolates
are tested for resistance to antimicrobials. NARMS will provide an
early warning to identifying resistance trends among bacteria. All data
from NARMS are made public for review by scientists or the public.
NARMS monitors changes in susceptibilities to 17 antimicrobial drugs of
zoonotic enteric pathogens from human and animal clinical specimens,
from healthy farm animals, and from carcasses of food-producing animals
at slaughter.
NARMS objectives are to prolong the lifespan of approved drugs,
identify areas for more detailed investigation, guide research in the
area of antimicrobial resistance, provide timely information to
practitioners, and provide descriptive data on the extent and temporal
trends of antimicrobial susceptibility in enteric organisms from human
and animal populations.
Benefits gained from NARMS are multiple. NARMS contributed to food
safety when CDC provided information to public health departments on
the presence, in specific areas of the country, of Salmonella
typhimurium DT104, a multi-drug resistant pathogen identified by NARMS.
Food animal producers use the NARMS report to identify problems
associated with drug resistance in some food animal populations.
Researchers use NARMS as a source of well characterized isolates from
food animals to develop rapid assays to identify human pathogens in
food. One example is, the Salmonella typhimurium DT104 rapid assay
announced by Secretary Dan Glickman.
In fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 we will expand the
geographical scope of the NARMS database by supporting the inclusion of
international resistance information through the World Health
Organization.
Future benefits from isolates tested in NARMS are an increased
ability to detect outbreaks of foodborne disease earlier and recall
adulterated products preventing exposure of larger proportions of the
population, improved ability to identify the source of resistant human
foodborne pathogens, improved characterization of the magnitude and
type of resistance in food animal populations and improved capability
to determine the magnitude of resistance transfer in foodborne
pathogens.
Question. What are the concerns about the effect of antibiotics on
resistance of microbes that infect people?
USDA answer. In general, when humans become infected with a
bacterial strain that is resistant to one or more antibiotics,
therapeutic options are diminished, implementation of appropriate
treatment may be delayed, illness severity may increase, and overall
treatment cost may increase. FSIS, under the Pathogen Reduction and
HACCP rule, has implemented a prevention based food production system
that, in part, sets product specific limits on the prevalence of
Salmonella in raw meat and poultry products. Recently reported test
results from the first full year of HACCP indicate that Salmonella
prevalence on broilers, ground beef, hogs, and ground turkey were lower
after HACCP implementation. Continued monitoring of both the Salmonella
prevalence in raw products and, through NARMS-EB, the antimicrobial
resistance profiles of Salmonella and Campylobacter isolates will
better enable us to characterize the public health impact of
antimicrobial resistant foodborne pathogens.
FDA answer. Development of resistance in foodborne pathogens is a
medical and public health concern. Drugs may lose all or some of their
effectiveness in treating patients with bacterial infections. If
resistant foodborne pathogens develop because of antimicrobial drug use
in food animals, food products may be contaminated at slaughter and the
resistant bacteria transmitted to humans. Even if the bacteria are not
pathogenic to the animal they can be pathogenic to humans. For example,
Salmonella, Campylobacter, and E. coli O157 can exist in the intestinal
flora of various food-producing animals without causing illness.
However, all three bacteria can cause severe foodborne illness in
humans. If the bacteria that cause illness in humans is resistant to a
drug used for treatment, medical therapy may be effected.
There are several concerns. When the microbes that affect people
become resistant to the antibiotics used to treat the infections,
treatment becomes more difficult, less likely to be successful, and
more expensive. That means longer illnesses, higher medical costs, and
ultimately, more deaths. Also, when the microbes become resistant, they
can spread more easily and cause more illness in humans or animals that
are already taking antibiotics for other reasons. This means that
someone taking an antibiotic to treat one infection, may become ill
with a second infection caused by a resistant organism. Finally, the
genes that make the bacteria resistant are often mobile, so that
different kinds of bacteria can swap the genes back and forth, and
collect them in clusters of genes. This means that resistance that
appears in one bacteria can subsequently spread to other bacteria, and
can become linked to other resistance genes. Then the use of one
antibiotic can select for all of the resistances that are linked
together. For these reasons, the use of antibiotics in humans and in
animals needs to be prudent and justified, because each use is also
selecting for more resistance in the future.
Question. I understand FDA has begun a major revision of its
guidelines for approving use of new antibiotics for animals and for
monitoring the effects of old ones. What revisions will you propose and
will these have a significant impact on the availability and uses of
antimicrobials?
FDA answer. FDA has determined that the current regulatory
structure for the approval of antimicrobial new animal drugs is
inadequate for evaluating the antimicrobial resistance impact on human
health. FDA is therefore undertaking an extensive process to evaluate
issues related to the use of all antimicrobial drugs in food-producing
animals and develop policies that protect the public health, including
products already on the market. Our goal in this process is to protect
public health by ensuring that significant human antimicrobial
therapies are not compromised due to the use of antimicrobials in food
animals, yet provide for future approvals and safe use of
antimicrobials in animals.
FDA's proposed regulatory framework is based on scientific
evaluation of the hazards to public health from the use of
antimicrobials in food animals. The proposed framework takes into
consideration two factors that would be used in evaluating human health
concerns associated with food-animal use of antimicrobials. These
factors are the importance of the drug or class of drugs for human
medicine, and the potential exposure of humans to resistant pathogens
or resistant elements originating from animals treated with
antimicrobials, and the impact this exposure would have on the
availability and effectiveness of drugs to treat human disease. FDA
would then place the drug or related drug in one of three major tiers
according to the drug's importance. Each tier would have different
requirements for approval. The requirements for approval may include
both pre-approval screening and post-approval monitoring conducted on
farms.
FDA now believes it is necessary to evaluate the human impact of
microbial effects associated with uses of all classes of antimcirobial
new animal drugs intended for use in food-producing animals. FDA will
evaluate the safety of antimicrobial products according to two factors.
One is resistance, that is the quantity of resistant bacteria formed in
an animal's intestinal tract (enteric) following exposure to the drug.
The second is the pathogen load which is the changes in the number of
animal enteric bacteria that cause human illness.
To address concerns, the framework document proposes that sponsors
of antimicrobial products need to evaluate microbial safety, including
assessment of pathogen load and antimicrobial resistance; assess pre-
approval data showing that the level of resistance transfer from
proposed uses of drugs, if any, will be safe for consumers of food
products derived from treated animals; and establish acceptable
thresholds prior to approval to ensure that approved uses do not result
in resistance development in animals or transfer to humans above
established levels.
Question. I understand that some consumer, health, and
environmental groups are seeking a federal ban on feeding of
antibiotics to livestock given developing evidence of immunity in
strains of bacteria that infect humans. Do you advocate an outright
ban? What is FDA's authority to remove drugs that may be found to cause
human pathogens to build resistance to the antimicrobials?
FDA answer. FDA is engaged in discussions to resolve questions
about appropriate uses of antibiotics, and the Agency is very concerned
about the ever-expanding antibiotic resistance in organisms that cause
illness in humans. Our draft framework document entitled A Proposed
Framework for Evaluating and Assuring the Human Safety of the Microbial
Effects of Antimicrobial New Animal Drugs Intended for Use in Food-
Producing Animals sets out a conceptual risk-based process for
evaluating the microbial safety of antimicrobial drugs intended for use
in food-producing animals. This document has been released to the
public and has been the subject of a great deal of appropriate public
debate.
FDA has the authority under Section 512 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act to withdraw approval of applications of new animal
drug products, including antimicrobials, when certain conditions are
met such as the drug is shown to be unsafe under its approved
conditions of use. Sponsors of applications for such products must be
given an opportunity for a hearing on the proposed withdrawal. Section
512 also gives FDA the authority to suspend an approval if the
Secretary finds the drug poses an imminent hazard to the health of man
or animals. In such cases, sponsors must be given an opportunity for an
expedited hearing on the suspension. That section also gives FDA the
authority to revoke an approval through a notice-and-comment process.
If FDA suspends or withdraws an approval, any product covered by
the suspension or withdrawal that is subsequently offered for sale is
considered adulterated and subject to seizure or other remedies.
food safety research by the agricultural research service
Question. The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is requesting an
increase of $7.3 million for on-farm food safety research. What percent
of ARS research is on-farm and post-harvest? What are the current
funding levels for each?
USDA answer. In fiscal year 1999, the Agricultural Research Service
devotes 59 percent of its food safety funding to on-farm research and
41 percent to post-harvest research. The current funding levels are
$41,078,200 for on-farm research and $28,789,400 for post-harvest
research.
Question. Antibiotic use in animals is suggested as a contributing
cause to pathogens in food producing animals and human infection.
Please explain this problem; the research that has been done in this
area and your proposals to confront this issue. (ARS)
USDA answer. The emergence of resistance to antibiotics has
compromised control of some bacterial pathogens both in humans and in
food producing animals. The problem starts with the inherent variation
in all bacterial populations; when bacterial pathogens are exposed to
antibiotics, or other control technologies, such as, heat, cold, low
pH, high salt, or disinfectants, a few individual bacterial cells
survive. But since these bacteria now have less competition, the
resistant bacteria are able to grow and reproduce faster. Thus after a
period of time if the selection pressure continues, the resistant
bacteria outnumber the original susceptible population. A confounding
factor is that the genes coding for this resistance may be transferred
between different bacteria, and thus a bacteria population could become
resistant even though they have not previously encountered the drug.
Additionally pathogens can acquire resistance to multiple antibiotics.
It is possible that pathogens that have become resistant through
antibiotic use in animals may be transmitted to humans; and if humans
subsequently need to be treated with an antibiotic for this or other
pathogens, a different antibiotic would be necessary. The frequency of
the occurrence of this transmission is not known.
Research has helped to delineate the occurrence of antibiotic
resistance in both human and animal isolates, and to elucidate the
genetic basis of many of the types of antibiotic resistance. The latter
information will help to associate specific types of resistance in
humans and in animals. Research has not helped to answer the question
of whether low level growth promoting uses of antibiotics in animals
contribute to the incidence of antibiotic resistance in human
pathogens; nor do we have data on the true incidence of resistance in
humans, animals, and environmental reservoirs.
To help solve these problems and prolong the useful life of
antibiotics, ARS is initiating research programs to develop rapid tests
for the presence of antibiotic resistance, to determine how both
pathogens and nonpathogens acquire and transfer antibiotic resistance
and at what levels of antibiotic exposure, define any alterations in
virulence which may be linked to the presence of resistance, and to
determine sources and interaction of antibiotic resistant pathogens in
the environment, that is, their population genetics. This information
will help form the basis for risk assessments of the use of specific
antibiotic in both humans and animals.
FDA answer. Just as there are many human infections where the human
use of antibiotics can lead to resistance, so are there also infections
in animals were the growing tide of resistance is making veterinary
therapeutic drug choices more limited and difficult. Foodborne
infections represent a crossover point, where the problems of
resistance in the animal sector affect humans. In addition, resistance
can develop in non-pathogenic bacteria in animals from exposure to
antimicrobial drugs. Public health risks also occur from the transfer
of resistance genes from animal commensals to human pathogens in the
animal, on food or in the human gut.
Antibiotic use in animals leads to resistance in the bacteria that
inhabit the animals, including foodborne bacteria such as Salmonella
and Campylobacter. When those bacteria contaminate the foods we eat, we
can become ill. When the bacteria is resistant to antibiotics that are
used to treat human infection, serious infections become harder to
treat. It takes the laboratory some time to determine the resistance
pattern, so the first treatment is based on past experience of what
will work. For example, the drug of choice for the treatment of severe
salmonellosis is a fluoroquinolone. If the Salmonella is already
resistant to fluoroquinolones, then treatment may fail, and there is a
delay in finding a treatment that will work.
Through surveillance, CDC is documenting rising resistance in
Salmonella and Campylobacter, which is making the choice of antibiotics
more problematic. CDC investigates illnesses to determine the sources,
and for some resistant Salmonella, CDC has traced the sources back to
farms where antibiotics were being used imprudently, or where there
were ill animals. CDC and FDA use this information to guide the
development of specific prevention strategies.
The principle strategies for controlling the rising tide of
resistance are: To make sure that antibiotic use is prudent and
rational; to use different antibiotics in humans and animals as much as
possible; and to promote better prevention so that infections do not
happen in the first place. Non-essential uses of antibiotics need to be
limited or stopped, so that their effectiveness can be preserved to
treat sick humans and animals. CDC has been working closely with the
FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine, and with EPA (which regulates the
use of antibiotics on fruit trees and in boat paint) to promote the
concepts of prudent use. The FDA has proposed a new framework for
regulating the uses of antibiotics in animal production that
incorporates public health concerns about resistance. CDC believes that
the combination of prudent use and prevention will actually lead to
better animal and human health, as the usefulness of available
antibiotics will be extended.
If resistant foodborne pathogens develop in response to
antimicrobial drug use in food animals, food products may be
contaminated at slaughter and the resistant bacteria transmitted to
humans. In addition, when antimicrobial drugs are administered to food-
producing animals they promote the emergence of resistance in bacteria
that may not be pathogenic to the animal but can be pathogenic to
humans.
FDA has determined that the current regulatory structure for the
approval of antimicrobial new animal drugs is inadequate for evaluating
the human health impact of antimicrobial resistance. FDA is therefore
undertaking an extensive process to evaluate issues related to the use
of all antimicrobial drugs in food-producing animals and develop
policies that protect the public health, including products already on
the market.
We would be happy to provide for the record the paper entitled The
Issue of Antimicrobial Use in Food Animals. This paper describes the
research that has been done in this area.
[The information follows:]
the issue of antimicrobial use in food animals
The issue of antimicrobial use in food animals has been
controversial for more than three decades. The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) first called for several restrictions on
antimicrobial use in feed in 1977. That proposal has generated several
studies and reports. Definitive answers about the safety of
antimicrobial use in animals remain scientifically challenging, but we
are continuing to uncover more truths and, more important, have begun
updating FDA's process for determining whether antimicrobial products
can be used in food animals.
In the United States, FDA is the primary Federal agency responsible
for ensuring the safety of the food supply. While the Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition regulates the vast majority of human food,
FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) ensures that animal drug
products are effective and safe for animals and consumers of edible
products from treated animals.
CVM, which is part of FDA, is responsible for establishing the
safety assessments for the use of antimicrobial drugs in food from
animals, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is primarily
responsible for testing the meat supply for microbiological
contamination and animal drug residues in the food from animals.
Although the use of antimicrobial products in food-producing
animals raises various efficacy and safety concerns, in recent years
these concerns have focused on human food safety because foods of
animal origin are often identified as the vehicles of foodborne disease
in humans. As a result of treatment of the animal with antibiotics,
these microbes may also be resistant to antibiotics used to treat
humans.
The source for some of the pathogens found on food may be the colon
of the slaughtered animal. Feces that contain harmful bacteria can
contaminate the meat at slaughter. An estimated 1 percent of beef
carcasses and possibly 20 percent of poultry carcasses are contaminated
with Salmonella.
Treatment of food-producing animals with antimicrobials may alter
pathogen load and/or the resistance pattern of bacteria associated with
the animal. Thus, to ensure the human food safety of edible animal
products from animals treated with antibiotics, CVM considers these
criteria for non-therapeutic uses:
--The safety of the chemical residues, including the drug and its
metabolites.
--The microbiological safety, including changes in bacterial pathogen
load and resistance pattern that occur as a result of drug use.
The use of antibiotics to treat disease in food-producing animals
started in the mid-1940s.
The scientific debate over the possible public health risks posed
by such use started more than 30 years ago, when researchers first
reported that the addition of streptomycin to chicken feed increased
the rate of growth of the chickens. The introduction of affordable
antibiotics in feed for cattle, pigs, and chickens started in the early
1950s. It launched a new era in livestock management and meat
production.
research and actions
Soon after livestock producers began using antimicrobials in food-
producing animals, scientists began studying the possible effects of
long-term use of antibiotics. Here's a review of the studies and
reports to date.
1960 Netherthrope Committee
It was formed in the UK to consider possible human health
implications from the use of subtherapeutic antibiotics in livestock
and concluded that there was no evidence of a human health hazard
associated with the use.
1969 Swann Committee
Also formed in the U.K., the committee reported no Howard to humans
or animals from the use of antibiotics in poultry or swine. However, it
linked an outbreak of salmonellosis in humans to the therapeutic use of
antibiotics in sick calves. The committee recommended:
--Antibiotics used in animals should be divided into ``feed'' or
``therapeutic'' classes.
--The ``feed'' antibiotics class should not include drugs used
therapeutically in humans or animals.
--``Therapeutic'' antibiotics should be available only by
prescription.
1970 FDA Task Force
The task force report, ``The Use of Antibiotics in Animal Feeds,''
concluded:
--The use of subtherapeutic amounts of antimicrobials favored the
selection and development of resistant bacteria.
--Animals receiving antimicrobial treatment may serve as a reservoir
of antibiotic resistant pathogens that can produce human
disease.
--The prevalence of multi-resistant bacteria in animals has increased
due to the use of antimicrobials.
--Resistant bacteria are present in meat and meat products.
--There has been an increase in the prevalence of antimicrobial
resistant bacteria in man.
Based on the report's recommendations, CVM began requiring
microbiological safety studies for non-therapeutic uses. The focus of
these studies was to preserve efficacy and safety of antibiotics for
animal uses, and the safety evaluation included an evaluation of human
health concerns.
1977 CVM Proposal
In 1977, CVM proposed to withdraw the subtherapeutic uses of
penicillin and the tetracyclines from animal feeds when used alone or
in combination. These two drugs were chosen because of their importance
in human medicine.
The proposals were criticized at the time because of a lack of
epidemiological evidence to show that the drug-resistant bacteria of
animal origin are commonly transmitted to humans and cause serious
illness. Critics argued that, while antibiotics used in animals select
for resistant bacteria, the transfer of these bacteria from animals to
humans is rare. Also, the critics said, no evidence showed that ``any
transferred organisms actually survive or cause disease in humans. The
critics argued instead that the increased antibiotic resistance of
bacteria found in humans was a result of the use of antibiotics in
human medicine.
1980 NAS Study
As a result of the 1977 proposal, several studies were started. In
1978, FDA began to work with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to
study the issue. In 1979, the
Congress required FDA to spend $1.5 million of its appropriations
for a study of the antibiotics issue, to be conducted by NAS. The NAS
study was finished in 1980. It concluded that existing data had neither
proved nor disproved the potential hazards to human health from
subtherapeutic antimicrobials use in animal feeds.
1984 NRDC Petition
In 1984, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., (NRDC)
petitioned the Department.
Health and Human Services (HHS) to suspend immediately approval of
the subtherapeutic use of penicillin and tetracyclines in food animals
by invoking the imminent hazard provision of the Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 360b(E)(1). That provision authorizes the
Secretary of HHS to suspend approval of an application for the use of a
new animal drug if an imminent hazard exists to the health of man or to
the animals for which the drug is intended. NRDC based its case on
several studies, two by Holmberg, et al., at the CDC in Atlanta, GA and
one published by Thomas O'Brien, et al., in the New England Journal of
Medicine. However, in November 1985, HHS denied the petition on the
basis that an ``imminent hazard'' had not been demonstrated. This
decision was based on an analysis of the NRDC's evidence as well as
scientific evidence, information, and opinions coming out of the
January 1985 public hearing and other relevant data collected and
analyzed by FDA.
1984 King County Study
In 1981, the House Appropriations Committee provided money in FDA's
budget for a definitive epidemiological study of the antibiotics in
animal feeds issue. The Committee stated that FDA should hold in
abeyance any implementation of the proposed withdrawal pending
completion of the studies and reevaluation of FDA's concerns. FDA
contracted with the Communicable Disease Control Section of the
Seattle-King County Department of Public Health to review the
possibility of the movement of bacteria from chickens to humans. The
study focused on poultry workers, slaughterhouse workers, and
consumers. The report, ``Surveillance of the Flow of Salmonella and
Campylobacter in a Community,'' found that Campylobacter jejuni was
more common than Salmonella on poultry. Also, it found that C. jejuni
``does appear to flow from chickens to man via consumption of poultry
products.'' The report stated that the ``isolates from human cases and
those from retail poultry had similar antibiotic susceptibility
patterns, including prevalence of 29.7 percent and 32.8 percent,
respectively, for tetracycline resistance, which was found to be
plasmid-mediated.''
1987 FDA Report
In its report, ``Antibiotics in Animal Feeds: An Assessment of
Scientific Data Concerning Their Safety,'' FDA concluded that the
therapeutic use of antibiotics would not significantly contribute to
the frequency of resistant organisms because of the pattern of use of
these products. Therapeutic use is typically for a select number of
animals and for a short duration, situations that are not likely to
lead to antibiotic resistance, the report said.
1988 IOM Review
In 1988, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) again reviewed all the
information about the antibiotic resistance issue available. An expert
Committee was convened to determine the human health risks associated
with the practice of feeding subtherapeutic levels of penicillin and
tetracyclines to animals for growth promotion, feed efficiency, and
disease prevention. In the report, ``Human Health Risks with the
Subtherapeutic Use of Penicillin or Tetracyclines in Animal Feed,'' the
Committee developed a risk-analysis model, using data only on
Salmonella infections that resulted in human death. The Committee found
a considerable amount of indirect evidence implicating both
subtherapeutic and therapeutic use of antimicrobials as a potential
human health hazard, but did not find data demonstrating that use of
subtherapeutic penicillin or tetracycline directly caused a human to
die from salmonellosis. The Committee strongly recommended further
study of the issue.
1995 AMS Report
The American Society of Microbiology (ASM), which includes members
who specialize in medical and animal microbiology, issued a report in
1995 that cited grave concerns about both human and animal antibiotic
use and the rise in antimicrobial resistance. The report advocated a
significant increase in resistance monitoring in the U.S., more
education about the use and risks of antimicrobials, and more basic
research designed to develop new antimicrobials and vaccines and
disease prevention measures. The report criticized overuse of
antibacterials in human medicine, but also pointed out the large use in
food production, which was partly attributed to the consolidation of
farms to facilities with large numbers of confined animals. The report
made it clear that the antibiotic resistance problem is global. The ASM
report was a precursor to involvement by the United Nation's World
Health Organization (WHO).
1997 WHO Meeting
In October 1997, WHO convened a meeting of experts in Berlin,
Germany, to review the question of whether the use of antimicrobials in
animals leads to antimicrobial resistance in humans. The experts sought
to define potential medical problems that could arise from
antimicrobial use in livestock and to recommend actions that the WHO
should take. The group of experts recommended against using
antimicrobials for growth promotion if those antimicrobials are also
used in human medicine or can induce cross-resistance to antimicrobials
used for human medical therapy. The group also recommended that
research be conducted on non-antimicrobial growth-promoters and urged
that the risk to human health from use of antimicrobials in food
animals be accurately assessed. The group called for enhanced
monitoring of resistance among isolates of enteric bacteria from food
animals and food of animal origin. In addition, the group recommended
managing risk at the producer level through the prudent use of
antimicrobials.
1998 WHO Meeting
In June 1998, the WHO held another meeting, this time in Geneva,
Switzerland, to specifically address the use of quinolones in food-
producing animals. The participants agreed that the use of
antimicrobials will cause resistance to develop and that there is a
potential human health hazard from resistant Salmonella, E. colt, and
Campylobacter organisms transferred to humans through the food supply.
However, the experts also agreed that antimicrobial drugs, including
quinolones in certain instances, are needed to treat sick animals, and
urged more research on the possible human health effects from the use
of these drugs in animals.
1998 CSPI Report
In May 1998, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI),
in a coalition that included 15 other health and consumer groups,
produced a comprehensive report on the antibiotic resistance problem.
The focus of the report was on human antimicrobial use; however CSPI
made several recommendations regarding the use of antimicrobials in
veterinary medicine. The report recommended that FDA ban all
subtherapeutic uses of antimicrobial agents that are used in human
medicine or might select for cross resistance to antimicrobials used in
human medicine. The organization also expressed concerns about new
human antimicrobials that may be at risk due to use of the same class
of drugs in agriculture, at either subtherapeutic or therapeutic
levels. Development of resistance to certain classes of drugs that are
considered vital in human medical therapy, such as the
fluoroquinolones, would cause particular concerto For this reason, CSPI
recommended that FDA repeal approval of fluoroquinolones in poultry and
allow additional approvals of fluoroquinolones only if the drug sponsor
can show that those uses would not reduce the drug's effectiveness for
human medical therapy.
1998 NRC Report
In July 1998, the National Research Council (NRC) produced a report
reviewing antimicrobial resistance issues in broad terms. The NRC
recommended establishing a national databases to support scientific
process and policy development for approval and use of antibiotics in
food animals. The NRC also recommended that FDA use interdisciplinary
panels of experts so that ``. . . further development and use of
antibiotics in both human and animal medicine have oversight by an
interdisciplinary panel of experts composed of representatives of the
veterinary and animal health industry, the human medicine community,
consumer advocacy groups, the animal production industry, and the
regulatory agencies.''
1998 EU Action
The European Union (KU) recently took action to minimize the
agricultural use of antimicrobial drugs. In December 1998, health
ministers for the EU voted to ban four antibiotics that are widely used
at subtherapeutic levels to promote animal growth. The ban on using
bacitracin zinc, spiramycin, tylosin, and virginiamycin in animal feed
becomes effective for the fifteen member states of the EU on July 1,
1999.
current issues
For several years, CVM has approved new antimicrobials for use in
animals for therapeutic purposes as prescription-only products. This
prescription-only policy is based on CVM's desire to assure the proper
use of antimicrobials though precise diagnosis and correct treatment of
disease to minimize animal suffering and to avoid drug residues in
food. Antimicrobial products for use in animals have to meet FDA's
standards for safety, efficacy, and quality to be approved in the
United States.
When antimicrobial products are intended for use in food-producing
animals, safety considerations include the evaluation of data to ensure
that residues in food derived from treated animals are safe for human
consumption. In the past, microbiological safety studies were required
only for antimicrobials to be used in feed for more than 14 days. These
studies examined resistance patterns and pathogen load.
In the 1990s, several scientists raised concerns about the
therapeutic use of fluoroquinolone antibiotics in food-producing
animals. The scientists said the use could lead to enteric disease in
humans associated with fluoroquinolone-resistant zoonotic pathogens. At
least part of this concern was prompted by the fact that the search for
new antimicrobial drugs and other novel agents to combat bacterial
pathogens had decreased in recent years, leaving fluoroquinolones as
the last family of therapeutic agents available to treat some multiply
resistant organisms. Adding to that concern were reports of a temporal
association between the approval of fluoroquinolone for therapeutic use
in poultry and the emergence of a fluoroquinolone-resistant
Campylobacter spp. from humans.
To further investigate the public health concerns regarding the
potential impact of fluoroquinolone use in food-producing animals and
to determine whether the 1987 FDA report (which concluded that
therapeutic antimicrobials used for short duration were safe) was still
valid, FDA held a Joint Advisory Committee meeting in 1994 that
included the CVM Advisory Committee and the Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research's Anti-infective Drugs Advisory Committee. The joint
committee recommended that fluoroquinolones be approved, but that the
use of the drugs should be limited to prescription only, that no extra-
label use should be allowed, and that resistance should be monitored
after the product was approved.
CVM created a Fluoroquinolone Working Group to address the points
raised by the joint committee. The Working Group offered seven
recommendations, all of which were accepted by CVM, and subsequently
the use of fluoroquinolones was approved for poultry. As suggested in
the recommendations, the sponsors agreed to provide baseline
susceptibility information and to conduct continuing monitoring of
target animal pathogens through the post-approval monitoring program.
More recently, scientists have detected a new multi-resistant
pathogen, Salmonella typhimurium DT104. The organism carries
chromosomally integrated resistance to
Ampicillin, Chloramphenicol, Streptomycin, Sulphonamides, and
Tetracycline. This chromosomally integrated resistance is unique and
raises concerns about the establishment of a reservoir of multi-drug
resistant organisms that are zoonotic enteric pathogens that may become
endemic in food-animal microbial populations. In addition to the
chromosomally borne pen/a-resistance, the organism seems to be losing
its susceptibility to quinolone and trimethoprim antibiotics and has
been recently shown to carry additional florfenicol and spectinomycin
resistance.
A report from the UK suggests that infections caused by DT104 may
be associated with greater morbidity and mortality than other
infections by Salmonella. An association has been noted between loss of
susceptibility to fluoroquinolones among DT104 isolates and the
approval and use of a fluoroquinolone for veterinary therapeutic use in
the UK. This organism has also been identified in livestock and poultry
in the U.S. Human disease caused by DT104 in the U.S. has been
associated with unpasteurized dairy products and direct contact with
livestock.
DT104 is currently epidemic in human and animal populations in
Great Britain and has been isolated from most countries in Europe. The
organism more recently has been found in the U.S. and appears to be
increasingly prevalent in both domestic and wild animals. The most
notable outbreak of DT104 was on a dairy farm in Vermont.
The DT104 findings caused FDA to aggressively move ahead with plans
to change the regulatory framework for approving antimicrobial
products. The discovery of DT104 was a turning point for FDA, and led
to the development of a proposed regulatory course for the Agency.
Reports from the scientific and public health communities, both
domestically and internationally, have identified concerns about the
relationship between the approval of fluoroquinolones for therapeutic
use in food-producing animals and the development of fluoroquinolone
resistance in Campylobacter. The approval of these drugs in food-
producing animals in the Netherlands, the UK, and Spain temporally
preceded increases in resistance in Campylobacter isolates from humans.
Despite several restrictions placed on the use of the two approved
poultry fluoroquinolone products in the U.S., ciprofloxacin-resistant
Campylobacter were recently isolated from 20 percent of domestic retail
chicken products sampled. Molecular subtyping revealed an association
between resistant C. jejuni strains from chicken products and C. jejuni
strains from domestically acquired human cases of campylobacteriosis.
Framework Document
FDA's concept of the best regulatory approach for antimicrobial
approvals is explained in what is called the ``Framework Document,''
(``A Proposed Framework for Evaluating and Assuring the Human Safety of
the Microbial Effects of Antimicrobial New Animal Drugs Intended for
Use in Food-Producing Animals''), which is available on the CVM Home
Page at http://www.fda Pov/cvm/fda/infores/vmac/antiml8 him or http://
www.fda.Pov/cvm/fda/infores/vmac/antim18.pdf.
The document was released to the public December 9, 1998, and the
comment period was scheduled to last until April 6, 1999.
The proposed framework takes into consideration two factors that
would be used in evaluating human health concerns associated with food-
animal use of antimicrobials:
--The importance of the drug or class of drugs for human medicine,
and
--The potential exposure that humans would face to resistant
pathogens or resistant elements originating from animals
treated with an antimicrobial, and the impact this exposure
would have on the availability and effectiveness for human
medicine of drugs to which the resistance has developed.
Depending on the importance of the drug (or a related drug) to
human health, FDA would place it in one of three major Tiers. Each Tier
would have different requirements for approval. The requirements for
approval may include both pre-approval screening and post-approval
monitoring conducted on farms.
FDA's implementation of the framework will require the development
of guidance documents and perhaps new or amended rules. All such
guidance or rules would be developed with public input, and FDA will
consider any needed change as a high priority.
Under the framework document, antimicrobial drugs would be placed
in Class I, the level with the greatest approval requirements, if:
--They are needed to treat a serious or life-threatening disease for
which there is no satisfactory alternative therapy, and
--They are important for the treatment of foodborne diseases.
Drugs that can select for cross-resistance to Class I human agents
would also be listed in Class I, unless the sponsor could demonstrate
that animal use did not result in the induction of resistant pathogens
or the transfer of resistant elements to human pathogens.
Drugs would be placed in Class II if:
--They are of high importance or are the drugs of choice to treat a
serious or life-threatening disease, but a satisfactory
alternative therapy exists.
--They are members of a class of drugs that have a unique mechanism
of action or nature of resistance-induction, that rarely
produce resistance in human pathogens, and that hold potential
for long-term therapy in human medicine.
FDA would put products into Class III if they do not meet any of
the requirements of the other two classes.
NARMS
CVM now believes that the safety assessment of antimicrobials must
include evaluation of resistance concerns with the conduct of pre-
approval studies and post-approval monitoring programs, which are aided
by the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS).
The program was proposed by CVM as a post-marketing activity to
monitor the emergence and spread of resistance in enteric bacteria and
to help ensure the continued safety and effectiveness of veterinary
antimicrobials. In 1996, the FDA, CDC, and the USDA created NARMS to
prospectively monitor changes in antimicrobial susceptibilities of
zoonotic enteric pathogens from human and animal clinical specimens,
from healthy farm animals, and from carcasses of food-producing animals
at slaughter. Non-typhoia Salmonella was selected as the sentinel
organism; the NARMS has been expanded each year since its inception. At
the present time, NARMS is monitoring susceptibilities of Salmonella
and E cold isolates to 17 antimicrobics and Campylobacter isolates to 8
antimicrobics (azithromycin, chloramphenicol, ciprofloxacin,
clindamycin, erythromycin, gentamycin, nalidixic acid, and
tetracycline).
Veterinary testing is conducted at USDA's Agricultural Research
Service Russell Research Center. Human isolate testing is conducted at
CDC's National Center for Infectious Diseases Foodborne Disease
Laboratory. Seventeen State and local health departments (CA, CO, CT,
FL, GA, KS, Los Angeles County, MA, MD, MN, NJ, New York City, NY, OR,
TN, WA, and WV) submit human clinical isolates of non-typhoid
Salmonella and E. coli. Eight health departments are submitting human
clinical Campylobacter isolates, and in addition MN, GA, MD, and OR are
submitting Campylobacter isolates from poultry retail samples. A pilot
study involving MN, GA, MD, and OR to monitor the resistance of human
and poultry Enterococcus isolates to 27 antimicrobials was begun in
1998.
The goals and objectives of the monitoring program are to provide
descriptive data on the extent and temporal trends of antimicrobial
susceptibility in Salmonella and other enteric organisms from the human
and animal populations; provide timely information to veterinarians
physicians; prolong the life span of approved drugs by promoting the
prudent use of antimicrobics; identify areas for more detailed
investigation; and guide research on antibiotic resistance. Annual
reports summarizing the data are available on the Internet (http://
www.fda.gov/cvm/fda/mappos/narms/html and www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/
narms).
The NARMS was substantially expanded during 1998. Veterinary
diagnostic lab sentinel sites were enrolled as well as additional sites
to gather human isolates, and the number of Salmonella isolates
collected from slaughter plants was increased. Beginning January 1,
1999, the State and local health departments began to submit human S.
typhi and Shigella isolates.
Also in 1998, follow-on epidemiology research and investigations
augmented the program. On-farm poultry studies were begun in five
states, which are designed to elaborate management, production, and
drug use practices that influence the development of resistant zoonotic
pathogens. Collaborative molecular genetic studies have begun at FDA's
National Center for Toxicological Research in Arkansas to identify
regions of fluoroquinolone resistance in zoonotic enteric organisms.
This information will be applied to enteric and environmental bacteria
to provide improved monitoring for resistance emergence and transfer.
Case-control follow-up investigations of human cases of salmonellosis
and campylobacteriosis with losses in susceptibility to quinolones were
begun in 1998. Also in 1998, two projects on prudent drug use
activities were initiated in California and Michigan.
PRUDENT USE
CVM believes it is critical that prudent use of antimicrobials be
emphasized in order to minimize the development of antimicrobial
resistance and to ensure the continued efficacy and availability of
antimicrobial products for use in food-producing animals. To promote
this concept, CVM and CDC facilitated a meeting on ``Prudent Use'' held
in May 1998 in Rockville, Maryland.
The objective of the meeting was to develop a plan to promote the
Prudent Use of therapeutic antimicrobials in veterinary medicine. At
the meeting, several groups agreed to develop programs about Prudent
Use, and the effort was led by the American Veterinary Medical
Association (AVMA), which has developed its Prudent Use program of
``Judicious Use.''
The Executive Board of AVMA has agreed to principles concerning
Judicious Use developed by a special AVMA Steering Committee. CVM and
CDC provided experts to advise the Steering Committee. CVM strongly
supports the effort to develop Judicious Use principles for veterinary
practitioners, and will financially support efforts to publicize the
guidelines.
Key elements of Prudent Use that CVM believes should be addressed:
--Development of Prudent Use principles.
--Therapeutically based antimicrobial-use guidelines.
--Recommendations on appropriate measures to reduce disease
transmission.
--Educational programs for prescribers and users of these drugs.
CVM defines Prudent Use of therapeutic antimicrobial agents as. . .
``. . . use that maximizes therapeutic effect while minimizing the
development of resistance.''
At the May 1998 meeting and in other contacts, CVM has and will
continue to solicit advice from the human medical community in the
development of Prudent Use principles because their expertise about
what has worked and not worked in human medicine will be useful. The
development of the Prudent Use principles won't be static. Instead, the
process will likely demand continued attention. In fact, CVM will
probably engage food animal producers on this issue at some time in the
future.
Question. The ARS budget request includes an increase of $2.4
million to develop risk assessment predictive models. What modeling has
been done to date in this area and how has it been implemented? (ARS)
USDA answer. Risk assessments for pathogens have primarily been
carried out in the postharvest arena to predict the frequency and the
numbers of pathogens that might be present in specific food products
such as eggs or ground beef. These numbers are then related to the
frequency that sufficient pathogens might be present in a food to
result in human illness. ARS has worked closely with the FSIS in the
development of such a model for Salmonella enteritidis in eggs which
was the basis of rulemaking by this USDA regulatory agency. It is now
time to initiate the development of predictive microbiological models
in preharvest animal production, and to help evaluate the effects of
various production practices, interventions, and transportation systems
on the risk of contamination of food producing animals as they are
presented for slaughter.
Question. What is the time frame for developing the models you
propose in the fiscal year 2000 budget? When would they be implemented?
Who would utilize the technology?
You are requesting an additional $4,420,000 for post-harvest
(slaughter and processing) research. This area has been ARS' major
focus of pathogen contamination. Please summarize the progress made to
date as a result of pathogen control strategies for Campylobacter, E.
coliO157:H7, Listeria, and Salmonella.
USDA answer. Acquisition of the research information needed to
develop truly useful predictive models is a significant research
activity that will take several years. Quantitative microbiological
data must be developed, rather than just the incidence or quantitative
data of the past; quantitative data is expensive and time consuming to
obtain.
The underlying research will require several years to develop the
first data for the models. The first models will be available as soon
as this phase is completed.
These models would be utilized/implemented by producers to help
them make informed decisions on which interventions will yield the best
food safety results within their available resources and production
situations.
The progress made to date on postharvest research for the
pathogens, Campylobacter, E. coli O157:H7, Listeria and Salmonella are
as follows:
Progress in the area of detection methods:
--Monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) that bind specifically to
Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli have been
developed, and patented. These antibodies will be used in an
immunologically based method (ELISA) to improve the current
specific detection methods for Campylobacter.
--A laser assisted method (MALDI) has been developed for the rapid
detection of Campylobacter. The methods advantage is that only
a single bacterial colony is needed for analysis. The MALDI
technique also has the potential to be widely used for
confirmatory analysis of other pathogenic bacteria.
--A nucleic acid based (PCR) method was developed which
simultaneously detects enterotoxigenic and Shiga toxin-
producing E. coli (O157:H7) strains from calves. The method is
being used by diagnostic laboratories to rapidly identify,
differentiate and characterize pathogenic E. coli. This change
will be useful to producers and veterinarians for the rapid
diagnosis of all the diseases caused by E. coli in calves.
--An ELISA based test (immuno-precipitation pregnancy test design)
called Meridian was developed. The test uses monoclonal
antibodies to specifically detect all E. Coli O157 strains, not
just O157:H7. Meridian has found widespread use by food
companies since it has a much lower incidence of false
negatives than other comparable tests.
--In cooperation with IGEN of Gaithersburg, MD, ARS has developed an
immunomagnetic electro-chemiluminescent (IM-EC) method for the
detection of E. coli O157:H7. The test is rapid, sensitive to
low numbers of bacteria, inexpensive, and user-friendly. The
technology is currently under evaluation by the FSIS.
--Optimized methods to identify, differentiate, and characterize
pathogenic E. coli isolates from bovine sources were developed.
Anti-O157 Mabs in an ELISA format accurately detected serum
antibodies to E. coli 0111, in cattle and other livestock.
Serum detection of antibodies to E. coli O157:H7 will allow
accurate detection of all animals exposed to this pathogen at
any time during animal growth.
--Research by ARS determined that automated nucleic acid based
ribotyping of Salmonella was a better discriminator between
isolates than serotyping. Ribotyping however, is not a
replacement for serotyping. It was recommended that for
epidemiological investigations, both techniques should be used
simultaneously.
Progress in the area of pathogen reduction:
--In order to determine the effectiveness of a pathogen reduction
method bacteria need to be modified to allow their
identification and discrimination from background microflora.
ARS has developed a genetic technique that allows the
construction of (model) pathogens that bioluminesce under UV
light due to production of a green fluorescent protein (GFP).
Various model strains of E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella were
constructed having the same growth and attachment
characteristics as the wild type strain. This research
technology will aid in understanding the basis of microbial
attachment and detachment to animal carcasses in real-time. The
technology also offers a more rapid means to evaluate
antimicrobial carcass treatments that do not rely on sampling,
culturing and back-extrapolation of the resulting plate counts
to large surface areas.
--ARS concluded research on washing and sanitizing hog hauling
trailers and holding pens. The results have led to procedures
to significantly reduce Salmonella, Campylobacter and E. coli
contamination on animals entering slaughter plants.
--A surface pasteurization technique was developed to reduce
microbial contamination (almonella, Campylobacter and Listeria)
on the surface of solid foods without loss of quality. A
prototype design to briefly steam fresh whole broiler
carcasses, so that surface organisms are killed but with no
appreciable cooking of the meat, was built, tested and
patented.
--Feed withdrawal in broilers prior to slaughter is used to induce
molt and to stimulate egg laying in aged flocks, however,
withdrawal increased infection rates in their crops by
Salmonella and Campylobacter. Research showed that methods such
as adding lactose to drinking water had the ability to restore
resistance, and reduce infection rates.
--Various conventional and experimental wash formulations were
evaluated to determine their efficacy in decontaminating apples
of human pathogens (almonella, E. coli O157:H7, Listeria).
Solutions containing 5 percent hydrogen peroxide, alone or in
combination with acidic detergents achieved a 3-4 log pathogen
reduction. These studies demonstrated that current conventional
methods of washing apples are largely ineffective. Development
of efficacious cleaning methods for fruit are crucial for the
production of unpasteurized juices.
--Low dose gamma irradiation was found to be efficacious for
destroying the human bacterial pathogens E. coli O157:H7,
Listeria and Salmonella on seed used for the growth of sprouts.
Irradiation is a useful technology that significantly reduces
pathogens in certain food commodities, while increasing shelf
life and maintaining freshness, all major consumer demands.
Progress in the area of pathogen control through intervention
strategies:
--The discovery that electropolishing surfaces significantly reduces
attachment of pathogens such as Campylobacter and subsequent
biofilm formation. This finding will aid equipment
manufacturers in developing methods and selecting materials to
be used in processing foods.
--It was discovered that some naturally occurring food additives
blocked the attachment of E. coli to bovine fascia and
connective tissues. Inhibition of E. coli O157:H attachment to
intact meat tissues by use of these substances will offer
processors an additional means to help to prevent E. coli
O157:H7 contamination of meats.
--Controlled atmospheric storage of fresh produce does not appear to
offer a viable method for controlling Listeria monocytogenes.
Therefore, the fresh cut industry should consider alternate
methods for controlling this pathogen.
--ARS in collaboration with FSIS conducted a nationwide evaluation of
color of cooked beef patties relative to potential food safety
risk for E. coli O157:H7. The study provided solid evidence
that cooked beef patty color is not a good indicator of
internal patty temperature. The results were a major factor in
the development of the new FSIS consumer message that
``consumers should not eat ground beef patties that are pink or
red in the middle unless a food thermometer has been used to
verify cooked temperature.''
Progress in the area of antimicrobial resistance:
--The acid tolerance of E. coli O157:H7 contributes to its ability to
cause disease by increasing both its ability to persist in
food, and its infectivity. ARS developed a technique to induce
maximum acid tolerance in these microorganisms, and identified
that the sensitivity to acid inactivation is dependent on
acidulant identity, prior exposure to an acid environment, and
strain identity.
Progress in the area of risk assessment:
--Bioluminescent strains of Salmonella were used as a tool for
modeling behavior of Salmonella in raw and cooked poultry
products. The data were incorporated into version 2.0 of the
Salmonella--Risk Assessment Modeling Program for Poultry (-
RAMPP). A new simulation model, the Food Animal Risk Model for
Poultry Pathogens (FARM-PP) was also developed which predicts
the severity of outcomes from consumption of poultry products
contaminated with Salmonella and/or Campylobacter.
Question. Please identify and discuss food safety research that is
specifically carried out to meet FSIS concerns. What other Federal
agencies benefit directly from ARS food safety research? How are these
needs expressed?
USDA answer. ARS carries out both preharvest and postharvest food
safety research to meet the needs of the FSIS, particularly for the
implementation of HACCP. In many cases this research also meets the
needs of other ARS stakeholders such as animal producers and slaughter
and packing houses, and food processors. Both the regulatory agencies
and producers use the results of the latest research to help assure the
production and delivery of safe food. Preharvest food safety research
develops information and technologies to control E. coli 1057:H7 in
cattle, Salmonella sp. in poultry, swine and cattle, Campylobacter sp.
in poultry and swine, and Cryptosporidia infections in cattle. In
particular this research develops methodology to detect pathogens, and
it develops interventions such as vaccines and competitive exclusion
bacterial cultures for use by producers to prevent zoonotic pathogens.
Other preharvest research is directed at determining the major factors
in the genesis and dissemination of antibacterial resistance, and at
developing strategies to help prolong the useful life of antibiotics.
In the postharvest arena ARS develops improved methodologies to
detect pathogens, including E. coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter and
Listeria with needed accuracy and reliability using reproducible
sampling methods that meet agency cost constraints. Other projects
develop imaging systems that will detect lesions and help assure that
only wholesome birds are passed for human food. Interventions or hurdle
technologies are developed for slaughter and processing establishments,
including the very small plants; these technologies include acid
rinses, the use of steam and hot water, and chlorine replacements.
Biofilms are studied as they are formed on processing equipment, and
methods to disrupt this natural biological protection of pathogens are
developed. Steam pasteurization and irradiation are developed as final
effective hurdles to prevent the occurrence of most pathogens on food
products of animal origin. Information on both survival and kill times
for the important pathogens in various food systems under different
environmental conditions are obtained to aid in FSIS decision making,
in the development of HACCP programs and most importantly for risk
assessment.
Particular attention is being paid to Listeria, the pathogen
recently recognized as responsible for a large number of food poisoning
and deaths, and for which both FSIS and the food industry need answers.
A rapid gene-based assay has been developed that can readily identify
and differentiate Listeria species in various ready-to-eat foods,
allowing for molecular fingerprinting and trace-back. A program has
been initiated to develop technology to surface pasteurize food
products, including hot dogs, which economically reduces microbial
contamination without significant loss of product quality; and ARS is
also defining the parameters required for irradiation of meats and meat
products. ARS is determining the effect of various food components, and
parameters (pH, water activity, salt, process and storage temperature)
on the inactivation, survival and growth of Listeria in ready to eat
products, and identifying new generally recognized as safe (GRAS)
compounds that can be incorporated into foods as a antimicrobial agents
to protect against Listeria and other pathogens. The FDA and CDC also
directly benefit from ARS food safety research.
The FDA's needs are expressed to ARS through continual dialogue
between the agencies via meetings between the Chief Scientist at CFSAN/
FDA and his staff, and ARS Food Safety National Program Leaders. In
order to ensure there is no duplication of efforts, there is a routine
comparison of research agendas from each of the agencies and
delineation of activities, and interaction between agencies on projects
or issues of national importance when required.
Question. Please identify and briefly describe the food safety
research ARS performs at its various laboratories.
USDA answer. ARS conducts research at the following laboratories:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Food Safety
Location 1999 Initiative Rsch
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fayetteville, AR................. $293,800 Prevention
Albany, CA....................... 7,734,800 Detection,
Prevention, Handling
& Distribution
Riverside, CA.................... 592,800 Detection, Prevention
Athens, GA....................... 9,971,100 Detection,
Prevention,
Antibiotic
Resistance, Handling
& Distribution
Dawson, GA....................... 745,600 Detection
Tifton, GA....................... 564,500 Prevention
Ames, IA......................... 4,215,400 Detection,
Prevention,
Antibiotic
Resistance
Peoria, IL....................... 4,899,600 Detection, Prevention
West Lafayette, IN............... 296,400 Prevention
New Orleans, LA.................. 3,039,000 Detection, Prevention
Beltsville, MD................... 8,168,400 Detection,
Prevention, Risk
Assessment, Handling
& Distribution
Beltsville, MD (NAL)............. 219,600 Prevention
Mississippi State, MS............ 669,100 Prevention
Raleigh, NC...................... 491,800 Prevention
Fargo, ND........................ 2,296,100 Detection, Risk
Assessment
Clay Center, NE.................. 3,879,100 Detection,
Prevention, Handling
& Distribution
Ithaca, NY....................... 316,200 Prevention
Wyndmoor, PA..................... 13,245,900 Detection,
Prevention,
Antimicrobial
Resistance, Risk
Assessment, Handling/
Distribution
College Station, TX.............. 4,722,600 Detection,
Prevention,
Antibiotic
Resistance
Lubbock, TX...................... 281,600 Prevention
Logan, UT........................ 2,147,300 Detection, Prevention
Headquarters..................... 1,076,900 Detection, Prevention
-----------------
Total...................... 69,867,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please identify the food safety research funding in REE
agencies by each account. Provide for the record the funding
appropriated from fiscal years 1990 to 1999. Also include the increase
requested in the President's 2000 budget.
USDA answer. The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
did not have any expenditures related to food safety research in fiscal
years 1990 to 1999 and has not provided funding to institutions for
food safety related research projects. For the fiscal year 2000
President's budget, NASS has one initiative for $2.5 million to conduct
a fruits and vegetables food safety survey. Under this initiative, NASS
would conduct a statistical survey of fruit and vegetable growers, as
well as packing houses, to establish a baseline for good agricultural
practices as they relate to microbial food safety issues.
The food safety research funding for Economic Research Service
(ERS) for fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 1999 and the request for
fiscal year 2000 are as follows:
Fiscal Year
1990.......................................................... $325,000
1991.......................................................... 550,000
1992.......................................................... 550,000
1993.......................................................... 550,000
1994.......................................................... 500,000
1995.......................................................... 485,000
1996.......................................................... 485,000
1997.......................................................... 485,000
1998.......................................................... 485,000
1999.......................................................... 938,000
2000.......................................................... 1,391,000
In fiscal year 1997 and fiscal year 1998, ERS Food Safety funds
were dedicated to ERS staff costs and the research was done internally.
In fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000, we plan to spend the
initiative increases on extramural research programs to measure the
benefits of food safety and to support economic analysis in risk
assessment and surveillance. The recipient institutions have not been
determined at this time. The food safety research funding for ARS for
fiscal year 1990 through 1999 and the request for fiscal year 2000 are
as follows:
Fiscal Year
1990.................................................... $27,517,000
1991.................................................... 33,087,900
1992.................................................... 35,989,000
1993.................................................... 35,989,000
1994.................................................... 37,587,400
1995.................................................... 43,840,300
1996.................................................... 44,313,100
1997.................................................... 49,647,300
1998.................................................... 54,949,400
1999.................................................... 69,867,600
2000.................................................... 81,588,000
Based on Food Safety Initiative Codes, in fiscal year 1999, ARS
undertook 40 projects ($14.2 million) in detection of food borne
pathogens; 70 projects ($37.9 million) in prevention and control; 7
projects ($2.2 million) in antimicrobal/antibiotic resistance; 9
projects ($4.9 million) in risk assessment; and 18 projects ($10.6
million) in food handling distribution and storage. The increase
requested for ARS in the President's fiscal year 2000 budget is
$11,720,000 to be directed towards: Preharvest: manure handling and
distribution-pathogen reduction ($2,500,000); risk assessment
($2,400,000); antibiotic resistance ($1,800,000); fungal toxins
($300,000); zoonotic disease risk ($300,000) and Postharvest: pathogen
control during slaughter and processing ($700,000); pathogen control in
fruits and vegetables ($2,100,000); antimicrobial resistance
($1,620,000). The food safety research funding for CSREES, including
formula funds, all special research grants, and the NRI, for fiscal
year 1990 through fiscal year 1999 and the request for fiscal year 2000
are as follows:
Fiscal Year
1990..............................................................$5,790
1991.............................................................. 9,827
1992..............................................................12,002
1993..............................................................11,610
1994..............................................................14,117
1995..............................................................12,450
1996..............................................................11,644
1997..............................................................12,195
1998..............................................................14,727
1999..............................................................30,888
2000..............................................................39,536
Food Safety programs previously in the research and extension
activities are now reflected in the integrated activities for fiscal
year 2000.
Question. Please list the institutions receiving food safety
funding from REE agencies' appropriations in each of fiscal years 1997
to 1999, a description of each food safety research project funded in
each fiscal year, and the progress which has been made to date through
the research funded.
USDA answer. Most ARS expenditures for food safety research are for
in-house programs. The extramural institutions who have received
funding (pass through dollars) from ARS during fiscal years 1997-1999
are as follows: Mississippi Center for Food Safety and Postharvest
Technology, Mississippi State University (MCFSPT); Agricultural and
Home Economics Experiment Station, New Mexico State University (AHEES),
Food Safety Engineering Center, Purdue University (FSEC); Institute for
Technology Development, Stennis Space Center, Mississippi (ITD); and
grants to various Land Grant, State Universities and research groups,
including Iowa State University, University of Arizona, Texas A & M,
Purdue University, University of S.W. Louisiana, North Carolina State
University, Mississippi State University, University of California,
University of California-Davis, University of Illinois, Georgia Coastal
Plain Experiment Station, and the Arizona Cotton and Protection
Council. These programs are managed via the National Program Staff
(NPS).
The extramural funding allocations for years 1997--1999 are as
follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Center 1997 1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCFSPT (Est.)................................................... $314,335 $312,712 $312,712
AHEES........................................................... 118,000 114,000 114,000
FSEC............................................................ .............. .............. 878,049
ITD............................................................. .............. .............. 219,000
Via NPS......................................................... 560,087 553,341 784,468
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of these extramural food safety research projects are
as follows:
Mississippi Center for Food Safety and Postharvest Technology.--
Project title/objectives: Detection and Treatment of Listeria and Other
Bacteria in Channel Catfish. The major thrust of the project is to
assess and help ensure the safety of channel catfish for sale
throughout the United States. The research achievements of this project
were: the development of an immunologically (ELISA)--medicated nucleic
acid based method for the rapid detection of Listeria monocytogenes in
foods; understanding the types of biofilms formed and the presence of
various pathogens at the different processing stations; development of
methods to detect the presence of antibiotics in channel catfish; and
the identification of various pathogenicity vectors in Listeria.
Processing and packaging technologies/treatments are being developed to
reduce/eliminate microbial contamination to ensure product safety with
extension of shelf life. Information from this research has been
transferred to producers and processors, where it has been put into
operation. Guidelines have been incorporated into HACCP program adopted
for use by this industry.
Agricultural and Home Economics Experiment Station.--Project title/
objective: Locoweed Ecology and Toxicology. The research in this
project was aimed at determination of the cytokinetics (absorption,
distribution, and excretion and clearance) of plants toxins from the
tissue or products of animals that consume poisonous plants. The
studies delineated the withdrawal time to ensure that animal products
would be free from plant toxins. This information can be used for
management strategies in many states. The research also improved animal
productivity, and enhanced the utilization of pastures and rangelands
where poisonous plants are found.
Food Safety Engineering Center.--Project title: Rapid Pathogen
Diagnostic and Detection Methods: This is a new project initiated in
fiscal year 1999. The goal is the development and use of biosensor
technology in food safety.
Institute for Technology Development.--Project title: Online
Detection Technology. This project initiated in fiscal year 1999 will
develop real time on-line detection technology for rapid identification
of surface contamination in poultry.
National Program Staff.--Project title: Aflatoxin Research: Funds
are distributed to numerous Land Grant and State Universities and the
objectives of this project are varied. Some funding for projects is
specifically made available on a competitive basis (intent of
Congress). The aim of the program is the reduction of aflatoxins which
are metabolities of the fungi Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus for
agricultural products, for example, cottonseed, corn, peanuts and tree
nuts. Aflatoxins is considered one of the most serious food safety
problems, and chronic problems with aflatoxin contamination occur in
the southern United States. Two areas of research and development have
resulted from these studies: the development of novel genetic
engineering and or marker-based breeding methods to enhance general
antifungal resistance in crops; and the isolation and formulation of
special fungi for use in biocontrol. The biocontrol fungi are strains
of A. flavus-group fungi that do not produce aflatoxin, but have the
capacity to occupy the same ecological niche in the field and out
compete harmful toxin-producing fungi. The research has led to the well
grounded optimism that solutions to this serious problem will be
available by the beginning of the next century.
The following list represents the projects in food safety funded by
CSREES in the named program area within 1997 and 1998. The CSREES has
not yet made any awards under the Food Safety Special Research Grants
program and the National Research Initiative program in fiscal year
1999.
national research initiative awards fiscal year 1997
The Role of Acid Resistance in Escherichia coli O157:H7
Colonization and Disease, University of South Alabama, $227,000.
Enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC) cause a variety of dangerous
gastrointestinal infections. EHEC Stereotype O157:H7 has recently
emerged as an important foodborne pathogen that threatens many aspects
of the food industry. A crucial feature of O157:H7 pathogenesis is its
ability to withstand stomach acidity. Our laboratory has identified
three systems of acid resistance present in all E. coli and a fourth
system dedicated to O157:H7. Each system will protect cells to pH < 2.5
for several hours. The University of South Alabama hypothesize that
these acid resistance systems are induced during growth within
livestock intestines and will persist over long periods of cold
storage. One or more of these systems must contribute to the low
infectious dose of O157:H7 by protecting E. coli from gastric acidity
and intestinal weak acids. The University of Alabama's long terms goals
are to develop new strategies that will diminish the infectious
character of this pathogens through an understanding of the molecular
basis of acid resistance in E. coli with emphasis on the superior acid
resistance of O157:H7.
Quantitative Viability Assays for Cryptosporidium parvum and
Giardia lamblia, University of California-Davis, $44,000.
Cryptosporidium parvum and Giardia lamblia are common waterborne agents
whose potential for transmission via foods is increasingly being
recognized. The objectives of this study are to develop quantitative
viability assays for C. parvum and G. lamblia based on cell culture or
in vitro culture and ELISA, and to evaluate the methods in trials of
killing the protozoan oocysts or cysts by various means pertinent to
food safety. Oocysts or cysts, respectively, will be inoculated into
foods at risk of protozoan contamination (e.g., apple juice, shellfish,
etc.); foods will be suspended in diluent as necessary, and the oocysts
or cysts will be recovered by immunomagnetic capture. The oocysts or
cysts will be treated to induce excystation, diluted serially, and
inoculated into ELISA plate wells. Amplification of viable infectious
agents will take place in the plate wells, during approximately 24 h at
37. C. 0ocysts of C. parvum will be amplified in plate wells that
contain monolayers of BSC-1 cells; whereas G. Iamblia cysts will
probably be amplified in artificial medium in the wells. Homologous
antibody will be added and labeled indirectly with horseradish
peroxidase. The wells will be washed, a color reaction carried out, and
results determined in a standard ELISA plate reader. Control inocula
will include oocysts or cysts that have been inactivated by
ultraviolet, formaldehyde, freezing, or heat. The tests will then be
applied in inactivation trials with viable oocysts or cysts in foods of
interest or in water that might be used in food processing.
Molecular Stress Physiology of Listeria monocytogene, Illinois
State University, $113,000. The bacterium Listeria monocytogenes is the
causative agent of the foodborne disease listeriosis. The fatality rate
of listeriosis is high and it is believed to be the leading cause of
death from foodborne infections in the United States. Although Listeria
can grow at the body temperature of an infected person, it has the
unusual ability to also grow at refrigeration temperatures.
Refrigeration can then in effect increase the Listeria content of a
food. Illinois State University is interested in the underlying
mechanisms involved that permit the bacterium to grow at low
temperatures. Illinois State University will attempt to identify novel
genes and proteins involved in growth at low temperatures. A fatty acid
known as anteiso branched chain fatty acid appears to play a critical
role in growth at low temperatures. Illinois State University will
investigate the role of this fatty acid in maintaining membrane lipid
fluidity at refrigeration temperatures. During food processing,
bacteria can become injured and undetectable by conventional culturing
methods, but not be dead. Illinois State University suspect that
injured bacteria contain denatured proteins that must be degraded
before the bacteria can grow, and will investigate this hypothesis. It
is hoped that these studies will provide the scientific basis that will
lead to novel methods of control of Listeria and improved methods of
detection of the organism.
Detoxification of Fumonisin by a Simple Fructose Reaction in Corn
for Food, $110,000. The toxin, fumonisin B1, is found in corn
everywhere. A suspected cancer-causing agent in humans, fumonisin B1
requires its amine group, a simple nitrogen-containing portion of the
molecule for its toxic action. Reacting this amine with simple sugars,
such as fructose, is likely to block fumionisin toxicity, as the Iowa
State University has previously demonstrated in a one-month model of
liver cancer development in rats. Iowa State University's objectives
are 1) to determine the toxicity of fructose-FB1 products in: a) a
study of short-term toxic effects in pigs and b) a field-test feeding
rats a fumonisin contaminated corn food that we have attempted to
detoxify; and 2) to determine the processing conditions for the
reactions of fructose and glucose with fumonisin to occur in corn-based
foods. Objective 1) will be accomplished by feeding studies in pigs
(for 2 weeks) and rats (for 4 months), comparing toxicity of pure
fumonisin B1 with a fumonisin B1-fructose product and with corn
contaminated with fumonisin and corn reacted to detoxify the fumonisin.
Toxicity will be assessed by blood chemical changes and microscopic
examination of tissues from the test animals. Objective 2) will
determine the feasibility of performing this detoxification reaction in
human foods, characterizing FB-reducing sugar reactions and the nature
of the detoxification product(s), using a variety of chemical
analytical techniques. These studies may provide a practical approach
to the problem of natural toxins, increasing the safety of the food
supply by detoxifying a natural toxin that occurs in corn everywhere.
Salmonella enteritidis Heterophil Resistance, Iowa State
University, $164,000. Egg-transmitted human salmonellosis is the most
widespread food safety problem in the developed world. Over the past
two decades, the number of Salmonella infections has increased
dramatically in the United States, mostly due to Salmonella enteritidis
var.enteritidis (SE) infections of eggs and egg products. The
difficulty in controlling SE is primarily due to the low, but
significant incidence of infected eggs. Iowa State University has
isolated two less virulent SE mutants which are only briefly shed by
infected birds, are effective in protecting birds against virulent
challenge, and prevent egg transmission of virulent SE. Iowa State
University propose to utilize these mutants to study the molecular
basis of SE virulence and to identify genes involved in immune cell
resistance so that safer vaccines can be developed. The following
specific aims will be addressed: 1) Iowa State University will complete
the assessment of the SE mutants in chickens in order to assess their
pattern of colonization of infected tissues and affinity for egg laying
tissues; 2) The genes involved in immune cell resistance will be
identified by screening complemented strains in cell cultures; 3)
Mutations will be constructed in these genes in the wild type strain in
order to confirm their role in immune cell resistance; and 4) The
mutants will be assessed for virulence and egg transmissibility in
chickens. For unknown reasons, immune cell resistance is directly
linked to lowered virulence in SE. These studies will shed light on the
possible mechanisms involved and add to our understanding of Salmonella
pathogenesis.
Extracellular Sporulation Signals of Clostridium perfringens,
University of Massachusetts, $148,000. Clostridium perfringens has
established itself as a leading cause of human foodborne illness in the
U.S. This organism produces heat resistant spores. An enterotoxin is
produced by some strains during sporulation and therefore the sequence
of events leading to spore formation are especially important. Yet
virtually nothing is know about the early events of this process. The
University of Massachusetts has identified a sporulation factor (C.
perfringens sporulation fact [CPSF]) produced by both enterotoxin-
positive and enterotoxin-negative strains which stimulate the onset of
sporulation and enterotoxin formation by this organism. The product(s)
may be part of a signal transduction system. The signal transduction
system in bacteria monitors the bacteria's environment and reacts to
changes by chemical signals to the interior of cell. The University of
Massachusetts will develop conditions to optimize the levels of this
product then attempt to isolate and characterize it.
Raw protein foods are commonly contaminated with both enterotoxin-
positive and enterotoxin-negative strains and the ability of
enterotoxin-negative strains to stimulate sporulation and enterotoxin
formation of co-cultured enterotoxin-positive strains will be
determined in laboratory media and in a model food system. Such an
ability by enterotoxin-negative strains could contribute to
periodically-reported C. perfringens outbreaks having short incubation
periods and may also identify a role for enterotoxin-negative strains
in promoting sporulation and enterotoxin formation in the human
intestine following ingestion of temperature-abused foods containing
high levels of vegetative cells of both toxin types.
Enhanced Green Fluorescent Protein Expression in Escherichia coli
to Study Adherence to Meat, University of Massachusetts, $92,000. The
United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety Inspection Service
(USDA/FSIS) recently enacted a regulation that requires that all meat
and poultry processing plants develop a hazard analysis critical
control points (HACCP) program. The aim of this regulation is to reduce
the presence of infectious bacteria on the surface of meats, ground
beef, and poultry products. There has been much research focusing upon
methods for meat disinfection, even though there is little known about
how bacterial stick to meat surfaces. This proposal will develop a
microscopic experimental system that will investigate bacterial
adhesion to meat surfaces. Knowledge of the interaction between
bacteria and meat surfaces will lead to improved methods of detection
and meat decontamination. This project will create E. coli strains that
express enhanced fluorescent green protein (EGFP) and use these
constructs to study bacterial adhesion and growth on meat surfaces by
laser scanning confocal microscopy (LSCM). Both non-pathogenic E.
coliand pathogenic strains will be constructed. This model system will
allow experiments to be designed to determine the specificity of the
adhesion and for analysis of the distribution of bacteria to meat
structures. The scientific significance of this study is the novel
system for investigation into the specific nature and parameters
involved in bacterial adhesion to meat at a cellular level. The
practical applications of this study will be the generation of basic
knowledge that can be applied to evaluation of differential binding of
pathogens (and indicator organisms) and the application of this
knowledge to the wash steps during meat processing.
Detection and Analysis of taphylococcus aureus Enterotoxin A in
Food 7 Johns Hopkins University, $133,000. The goal of this project is
to increase food safety by developing the next generation of detection
and analysis methodology for bacterial toxins in food, using
taphylococcus aureus enterotoxin A (SEA) as a model. The proposal aims
to develop two technologies: a cell culture based assay of SEA activity
and biosensor methodology for immediate automated detection of SEA in
food. The two different approaches will complement each other since
they address two sides of the same problem. Biosensor detection allows
rapid detection of the toxin in food, while the cell culture
methodology supplies the information on biological activity of the
toxin. These two methods are expected to overcome the limitations of
current immunological and animal-based tests for toxins in food. The
cell culture based activity assay will be developed by exploiting the
toxin's ability to stimulate division of lymphocytes. Biosensor
technology represents a new approach to food safety analysis--real-time
analysis. Biosensors can translate biological measurements into
electronic signals enabling immediate analysis and automation. A novel
methodology applying biosensor technology to food testing is proposed
here. The aim of this project is to develop new testing methodologies
which will aid food production and food regulation, and may increase
food safety and quality.
Intimin: Candidate for an Escherichia coli O157:H7 Anti-
Transmission Vaccine, Uniformed Services University of the Health
Sciences, $232,456. Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC) O157:H7
is the most common infectious cause of bloody diarrhea in the U.S., and
an occasional consequence of this infection, the hemolytic uremic
syndrome, is the primary cause of acute kidney failure in U.S.
children. Most U.S. cases of EHEC O157:H7 disease have occurred after
ingestion of under cooked, contaminated hamburger. Cattle are reported
to be asymptomatically and sporadically infected with this organism.
EHEC have been shown to adhere to the intestinal epithelium of neonatal
calves via a bacterial surface protein called intimin. The long-term
goal of our project is to develop an inexpensive vaccine to prevent
cattle from becoming infected with EHEC and, thus, prevent transmission
from cattle to humans. To achieve this objective, the Uniformed
Services University of the Health Sciences will i) evaluate whether
intimin is required for EHEC O157:H7 colonization of older calves; ii)
assess whether oral administration of anti-intimin antibodies
interferes with intestinal colonization and lesion formation caused by
EHEC O157:H7 in piglets, a surrogate for calves; iii) test whether
pregnant pigs administered intimin by a non-oral route elicit anti-
intimin antibody responses in serum, colostrum, and milk and whether
suckling piglets born of these immunized sows are protected from
infection with E. coli O157:H7; iv) compare the antibody responses of
mice to intimin and a set of intimin fragments administered by
different routes and identify the smallest fragment that elicits
antibodies capable of blocking EHEC adherence to epithelial cells; and
v) develop a plant that expresses intimin or a fragment thereof as a
potential edible vaccine for cattle.
Survival and Virulence of Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC)
as Affected by pH and Water Activity, University of Maryland, $87,000.
Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC) have caused a series of
foodborne outbreaks of bloody diarrhea as well as serious
complications, including hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). While
research efforts have been focused on E. coli O157:H7, it is becoming
more evident that other serotypes of EHEC can also be associated with
human diseases. An increasing number of non-O157 EHEC have been
isolated from humans suffering from HUS and diarrhea. A variety of
foods have been implicated in E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks, particularly
foods of bovine origin. Certain foods such as apple cider and dry-cured
salami that were considered safe and ready to eat, and are generally
not heated before consumption have been identified as transmitting
vehicle in E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks. Unlike O157:H7, most of non-O157
EHEC serotypes have been isolated from sporadic cases, hence, the
significance of food as vehicle for transmitting non-O157 EHEC is not
clear. It has been shown that bacterial regulatory responses to
environmental conditions are tied to virulence gene expression and that
stressful signal in a hostile environment (e.g. acidic and/or dry
conditions) can be utilized to induce/enhance virulence gene expression
by pathogenic microorganisms. Foodborne pathogens having been exposed
to such conditions may become more virulent. We propose to study: 1)
Survival of EHEC strains (mainly non-O157:H7) as affected by pH and
water activity; and 2) Virulence of EHEC strains as affected by pH and
water activity.
Symposia on Microbial Food Borne Hazards--Basic Research/Industry/
Regulatory Concerns, DHHS Food and Drug Administration; $6,000. The
Food Microbiology Research Conference (FMRC) focuses on the
presentation of basic/applied research by scientists within academia,
government, and industry. The activities of the FMRC are governed by a
set of bylaws, which were adapted as part of the process of gaining tax
exempt status (private/nonprofit), thereby providing formal structure
to the conference's financial management. FMRC meets every two years in
the Chicago area, participation is by invitation, and the program
format (panel discussion; individual seminars; symposia) is designed by
an Executive Committee. The goal of the Conference is to advance
knowledge and understanding in the area of food microbiology. FMRC
meeting represent one of the few regularly held gatherings exclusively
devoted to food microbiology. Industry/regulatory concerns are
incorporated into the program for timely and relevant research topics.
The XVI FMRC was held on 9-12 November 1997 at the Ramada Inn, O'Hare,
Chicago. Confirmed symposia include: Molecular Approaches for Food
Safety Assurance; Resistance-Control-Host Response to Bacterial
Pathogens; Developments in Bacterial Inactivation and Reduced Consumer
Risk; Roundtable panel on Zero Tolerance/Risk; and General Topics.
Invited speakers and chosen symposia topics are designed to promote
research/industry/regulatory interaction, thereby furthering the
overall goal of enhancing food safety.
Recombinant Antibodies to Natural Toxicants, Michigan State
University, $116,000. There has been increased use by government
agencies and the food industry of rapid antibody-based immunoassay in a
first-tier screen for harmful toxins and microbial pathogens in foods.
The antibodies used in these assays have been developed in animals such
as rabbits or in tissue culture systems. Using recombinant DNA
technology, it is now possible to engineer specific antibody reagents
for improved food safety screening. The immediate advantages of
recombinant antibodies are threefold. First, these antibodies can be
genetically manipulated to improve sensitivity and greatly reduce assay
time. Antibodies can also be designed that have specificity for groups
or broad classes of toxicants or harmful microbes. Second, this
approach will diminish the use of animals and animal products (e.g.
fetal calf serum) for antibody production. Third, since recombinant
antibodies will be produced in bacteria, the cost of the basic reagent
will be as much as 10-fold less than that for animal or tissue culture
systems. Thus, recombinant antibodies could be immediately useful in
enhancing existing and new assays for toxins and microbes in foods.
This proposal seeks to genetically engineer novel antibodies to an
important group of natural toxins known as the Fusarium mycotoxins
which commonly contaminate wheat, corn, rice and barley. Specifically,
antibodies to fumonisin, vomitoxin and zearalenone will be prepared in
bacteria and then these antibodies will be applied to testing for these
harmful toxicants in food. From the perspective of food safety, the
general approaches developed in this research will be amenable to
improved detection of natural toxicants, chemical contaminants as well
as bacterial pathogens and their toxins. Over the long term, cloned
antibody sequences may find novel uses such as (1) immunization of food
producing animals prevent toxic residues or pathogens in meats and
poultry, (2) development of low cost procedures for removing toxicants
from milk and dairy foods, and (3) expression in plants to neutralize
toxicity.
Adhesins for Colonization of Chickens and Their Use in Preventive
of Salmonellosis, Washington State University, $156,000. The incidence
of infection resulting from food borne pathogens continue to increase
worldwide despite extensive research and changes at the production and
processing levels. A 1996 CDC study indicated that Salmonella accounted
for the majority of the bacterial foodborne disease outbreaks from 1988
to 1992. Washington State University's long-term objective is to reduce
or eliminate Salmonella colonization of poultry, which would in turn
result in a reduction in the shedding of Salmonella in feces, its
transmission to eggs, and the cross-contamination which occurs during
processing. An understanding of the mechanism of Salmonella adherence
to chicken cells could be particularly valuable when developing
strategies to eliminate Salmonella contamination of poultry. Washington
State University's preliminary data support the hypothesis that the
Salmonella bacterium expresses gene(s) encoding an ``adhesin'' protein
in response to high iron concentrations, and this adhesin is involved
in binding the bacterial pathogen to a host cell. The goals of this
proposal are (1) to identify the gene(s) encoding the iron-induced
adhesin from Salmonella typhimurium, (2) to evaluate the role of the
iron-induced adhesin in the adherence of the Salmonella to avian cells
and (3) to determine if the iron-induced adhesin is made by other
Salmonella species which colonize chickens. Washington State University
will identify mutants unable to synthesize this adhesin and these will
be evaluated using tissue culture and animal models. Ultimately, this
information will be used to design methods to eliminate Salmonella in
poultry either by contributing to the development of a live oral
vaccine, or by identifying possible changes in the slaughtering
procedure to reduce Salmonella cross-contamination.
Incidence and Fate of Moniliformin in Corn and Heat Processed Corn
Products, University of Nebraska, $97,000. Moniliformin is a highly
toxic substance produced by Fusarium proliferatum and Fusarium
sublutinans, molds commonly found on corn. Moniliformin has also been
found in corn from different parts of the world, though the incidence
and levels in corn and corn-based food products in the U.S. are not
well documented. Considering the toxicity of moniliformin and the
potential risk of chronic long-term consumption of it in corn-based
foods, it is very important to know the extent of contamination and
heat stability of moniliformin in corn and corn-based foods. The
overall objective is to determine the incidence and levels of
moniliformin in U.S. corn and corn-based foods, and the effects of
heat, as applied in basic thermal processing of corn, on the stability
of moniliformin. Specific objectives are to determine 1) the incidence
and amounts of moniliformin in U.S. corn and corn-based foods; 2) the
effect of heat on the stability of pure moniliformin in water at
different temperatures, pH levels and heating times; and 3) the effect
of selected thermal processes, including extrusion, alkaline processing
(tortilla process) and baking on the stability of moniliformin in corn.
To accomplish the objectives, corn and corn-based foods will be
obtained from commercial food channels throughout the U.S. and analyzed
for the presence and amounts of moniliformin. Heat stability of
moniliformin in both water and corn substrates will also be studied.
After heating in water or by the selected process, the presence and
amount of moniliformin remaining will be determined by high performance
liquid chromatography (HPLC).
Modeling the Interactions of Pathogenic and Biocontrol Bacteria for
Applications in Foods, USDA Agricultural Research Service, $86,000. The
objective of this research is to develop a safe method for preventing
the growth of pathogenic bacteria in minimally processed, refrigerated
foods. A biocontrol strategy will be used which involves bacterial
competition to accomplish this task. Lactic acid bacteria which are
commonly used in various food fermentations (dairy, meat, vegetables)
will be added as biocontrol agents to prevent the growth of pathogenic
bacteria in minimally processed foods. If a food protected by this type
of biocontrol strategy should spoil due to improper refrigeration or
other reasons, the lactic acid bacterium should grow and competitively
prevent the growth of potentially harmful bacteria. Although the food
may not taste good because of the acid produced, the product would not
be unsafe. The Agricultural Research Service has developed a
mathematical model that predicts the outcome of the competitive growth
of bacteria. The model may be useful in determining which lactic acid
bacteria should be chosen as biocontrol agents, and how the growth of
selected lactic acid bacteria will affect the growth of pathogenic or
disease-causing bacteria. The Agricultural Research Service's research
will involve growing both biocontrol and pathogenic bacteria, singly
and in mixed culture, in vegetable broth and minimally processed
vegetable products. Using the model to help interpret the data from
these experiments, the Agricultural Research Service hope to gain
insights into which factors such as growth rates, production of
inhibitory compounds, or sensitivity of the cells to these inhibitors
are most important to the predominance of one bacterial culture over
another. While the Agricultural Research Service will primarily
investigate biocontrol applications for refrigerated vegetable
products, it is hoped that the principles learned in these studies can
be applied to biocontrol applications for a variety of foods.
Salmonella in Modern Swine Production Systems. Risk Factors for
Fecal Shedding by Finished Pigs, North Carolina State University,
$241,000. Control of foodborne disease is best achieved through
appropriate actions in all sectors of the farm to table continuum.
Salmonellosis is a major foodborne disease worldwide and Salmonella is
the foodborne pathogen of greatest importance in modem swine
production. Systems for producing swine have changed radically in
recent years, in association with increases in average herd size.
Knowledge of the epidemiology of Salmonella infections in modem swine
production systems is minimal, but is necessary to identify appropriate
measures to reduce the risk of foodborne disease to people and ensure
access to international markets. Specific objectives of this project
are to determine 1) risk factors for Salmonella prevalence in finishing
pigs raised on slotted concrete floors in barns managed all-in/all-out,
within multiple-site production systems; and 2) the relative importance
of Salmonella infection in nurseries or the finishing environment as
determinants of Salmonella infection in finishing hogs. Prevalence and
serotypes of Salmonella will be determined by fecal cultures in
finishing pigs, raised at specialist finishing sites. The sites chosen
will be typical of modem systems that are predominantly and
increasingly used for pork production in the USA. Feed and
environmental samples will also be cultured. Data on management and
environmental factors will be collected and examined for associations
with Salmonella prevalence. The information obtained will be relevant
to a large and increasing segment of the national swine industry, and
will aid in defining the most efficient options for reducing Salmonella
in the pork supply.
Experimental Campylobacter Vaccine, University of Pennsylvania,
$138,000. Campylobacter jejuni is a major cause of gastrointestinal
infection in man and is the most common cause of sporadic diarrheal
illness in the U.S. Campylobacter infection is primarily a foodborne
disease with poultry being the single most important vehicle for
transmitting the disease. A number of immunological approaches to
reducing or eliminating Campylobacter from poultry are currently being
investigated including the use of vaccines. The mechanism by which
Campylobacter colonizes the chick GI tract is not completely understood
but flagella are important colonization factors. The University of
Pennsylvania expressed the full length Campylobacter flagellin gene,
flaA, in an avirulent Salmonella typhimurium vaccine vector and tested
several vaccine constructs in 4 day old chicks for immunogenicity and
protection. During the past funding period, the University of
Pennsylvania showed that these vaccines were highly immunogenic and
induced anti-flagellin antibodies using a two-dose regimen. When
animals were challenged 3 weeks after vaccination with the homologous
strain of C. jejuni, vaccines conferred >95 percent homologous
protection against cecal colonication. In the next funding period, the
University of Pennsylvania will extend these studies to 1) assess the
ability of these vaccines to confer cross-protection with different
flaA types of C. jejuni, 2) determine the minimal amount of time needed
post-immunization to confer protective immunity, 3) determine the
minimal C. jejuni challenge dose in which complete protection occurs,
4) determine whether the bivalent vaccine confers protection against
Salmonella infection and 5) determine the smallest flagellin fragment
that can elicit protective immunity. An immunogenic, broadly cross-
reactive vaccine, should be useful in improving the safety of poultry
for human consumption.
Food Pathogen Biosensors for Rapid Safety Measurements of Meat,
University of Rhode Island; Food Optic and Biosensor Research Group,
Kingston, RI, $96,205. Classical procedures for the detection of
microbial pathogens in meats are slow and labor intensive. Rapid
methods currently available are either complex, require potentially
hazardous and expensive materials, or utilize a pre-enrichment step of
18-24 hours to grow up enough cells for detection. This project will
establish that biosensors; employing immobilized antibodies specific
for meat pathogens can be successfully utilized for biomonitoring of
contamination in food products. One approach will utilize fiber optics
to analyze the optical excitation and emission properties of
immobilized antibodies and attached pathogens on the surfaces of gold
coated silicon. The second biosensor will continue to explore the
potential of the Quartz Crystal Microbalance with reusable
piezoelectric quartz crystals containing attached antibodies. The
maximum response of these biosensors for determination of microbial
cell concentrations of pathogens in meat products will be established.
Consumer demand for fresh and less processed food, such as meat, makes
the need to ensure microbial safety of products very clear. This
project provides the opportunity for a multidisciplinary effort to
create specific biosensors for rapid and early detection of pathogen
contamination in meat. These devices have the potential for
specifically selecting food pathogens from among the total microbial
load within minutes and measuring the concentration as real-time
analysis on site. The capability for miniaturization and portability
emphasizes the possibilities that this new technology will provide the
tools for effective monitoring programs. The ability for rapid early
detection of pathogens will enhance the safety and quality of U.S. meat
products.
Salmonella typhimurium Genes Required for Systemic Infection of
Cattle, Texas A&M University, $90,000. Salmonellosis is the most
frequent food-borne illness in the U.S. and is usually contracted by
consumption of meat and dairy products from infected livestock. Little
is known about genes allowing Salmonella typhimurium to cause systemic
infection in cattle, an important meat source in the U.S. Since
systemic infection can lead to a chronic carrier state, information
about the mechanisms used by S.typhimurium to establish systemic
infection is relevant to development of strategies to eliminate this
pathogen from cattle. The goals of this project are the identification
and characterization of bacterial genes which enable S. typhimurium to
cause systemic infection in cattle. The role that these genes play
during infection will be examined by determining the ability of
attenuated bacterial mutants to spread to different organs in cattle.
Finally, by determining whether the same set of virulence genes
identified in cattle is also required for infection of the mouse, the
university will determine whether any of the genes identified in this
study are host-specific adaptations to causing disease in cattle. The
results of this research will help to develop strategies for reducing
the number of carrier animals from cattle herds as well as for the
detection of Salmonella in meat and dairy products, thereby increasing
food safety.
Fumonisins: Immunology, Genetics and Enzymology, University of
Wisconsin, $129,897. Fumonisins (Fms) are a group of mycotoxins
produced primarily by the fungus Fusarium moniliforme, FmB1, the major
mycotoxin in this group is a weak carcinogen and induces apoptosis both
in animals and plants. It also is responsible for leukoencephalomalacia
in horses and for swine edema syndrome/swine mystery disease. Because
of the widespread occurrence of this group of mycotoxins in corn and
related foods and their carcinogenicity and potent cancer promoting
activity, this group of mycotoxins is potentially hazardous to human
and animal health. Using mutant cultures and a combination of
immunochemical and chemical methods, the University plan to identify
the major steps, intermediates and enzymes involved in the biosynthesis
of Fm. The methodology developed in the proposed work could be used for
further studies of the conditions conducive to the formation of Fms in
the field and during storage. Different tools and mutants developed
from the present study will be shared with other scientists for related
studies. This study is a critical step in the development of methods to
control Fm formation.
national research initiative awards fiscal year 1998
Rapid Detection of Brevetoxin and Ciguatoxin Using Recombinant Na+
Channels, University of South Alabama College of Medicine, $90,000.
Contamination of shellfish by a marine toxin known as brevetoxin
periodically threatens the health and safety of seafood consumers.
Brevetoxin poisoning typically causes neurological and gastrointestinal
disturbances that last 3 to 4 days but fatalities have been reported in
severe cases. There are not any known antedotes for poisoning and,
consequently, toxin levels must be rigorously monitored to prevent
ingestion of tainted seafoods. This proposal will develop rapid and
sensitive methods to test for brevetoxin and ensure seafood product
safety.
Role of Putative Pathogenicity Island in Campylobacter jejuni
Virulence, University of Arizona, $190,000. Incidence of
campylobacteriosis in man has risen dramatically in the past 10 years
and passed salmonellosis as the number one disease acquired by
consuming contaminated food products. It is estimated that
Campylobacter jejuni causes 3 million cases per year with a cost due to
treatment and loss of productivity greater than one billion dollars.
Clearly, understanding mechanisms by which this major pathogen causes
disease is invaluable. Nevertheless, few factors associated with C.
jejuni virulence have been identified. Progress in this important
research area has been hampered by the lack of genetic tools to examine
or identify virulence factors. To date, roughly ninety C. jejuni genes
have been characterized, and only six of which are related to
virulence. Recently, the University has isolated an iron uptake system
encoded within a putative pathogenicity island from virulent C. jejuni.
Genes within this island may be influential in defining the
pathogenicity of the agent that will lead to control measures for
decreasing the incidence of campylobacteriosis. The long range goal of
the proposed research is to evaluate genes contained within a putative
pathogenicity island in C. jejuni for their role in virulence. Sequence
analysis reveals an area that encodes two disparate physiologic
functions, an iron uptake system, and a cell wall biosynthetic pathway
suggesting that maintenance of this unique island may not be due to
environmental iron limitations alone. The island may encode other
functions and comprise not only an iron uptake island, but a
pathogenicity island. Consistent with these observations we hypothesize
that this locus comprises a pathogenicity island which contributes to
C. jejuni virulence.
Strategies to Eliminate and Prevent Microbial Contamination of Food
Products, University of Arkansas for Medical Science; College of
Pharmacy; Food Safety Group, Little Rock, AR, $70,000. While the
American food supply is considered among the safest in the world,
recent estimates suggest that as many as 9,000 deaths and 6.5 to 33
million illnesses in the United States each year are food-related, and
with medical costs and productivity losses ranging between $1.8 billion
and $4.8 billion annually. The need to develop strategies to eliminate
and prevent microbial contamination of food products is highlighted by
factors such as emerging foodborne pathogens and pathogenic strains,
new and more frequent outbreaks of foodborne disease, and the increased
susceptibility to foodborne infections of population groups with
lowered immunity. Previous research in our laboratory indicated that
cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), a chemical safely used for over 30
years in oral hygiene products, was able to reduce Salmonella and other
bacterial contamination from poultry tissues. CPC was also effective in
preventing bacterial attachment, and has potential to reduce the risk
of cross-contamination. The ultimate goal of the research in this
proposal is to develop effective methods to control, eliminate and
prevent microbial contamination of food products. The specific aims of
this project are: 1) to determine the effectiveness of CPC for
decontamination of fresh fruits and vegetables; and 2) to assess the
organ.
Bacteria for Competitive Exclusion of Salmonella enteric Species in
Chickens, University of Delaware, $185,000. The community of bacteria
inhabiting the intestinal tract can prevent or impede the establishment
of undesirable bacteria such as Salmonella enterica subspecies. Newly
hatched chicks lack an intestinal bacterial community. Exposure to
intestinal bacteria from adult chickens potentially heightens the
resistance of young birds to infection with Salmonella. Such bacterial
preparations can therefore contribute to increased microbial food
safety of poultry products by reducing the number of chickens in a
flock that carry Salmonella into the processing plant. The optimal
composition of an effective bacterial preparation is currently not
known. The goal of the proposed research is to identify and isolate
bacteria from the intestinal tract of chickens and to eventually test
their effectiveness in reducing colonization of young chicks with
Salmonella. The research will focus on the bacteria that are associated
with the inner surface of one of the chickens intestinal organs, the
cecum. Since a considerable fraction of intestinal bacteria has been
refractory to isolation in pure culture, the bacteria will initially be
identified without culturing using genetic means. Identification will
be achieved by sequencing of 16S rRNA genes amplified from total DNA
extracted from the cecal bacterial community. Denaturing gradient gel
electrophoresis of amplified DNA and in-situ hybridization with
specific probes will provide information on the diversity, location and
prevalence of bacteria within the ceca. Once the identity of the cecal
bacteria is known, culture conditions for their isolation can be
designed and their value in prevention of Salmonella carriage in
chickens can be assessed.
Fluorescence-Based Chemical Sensor for Saxitoxin, University of
Miami, $95,000. Saxitoxin is the primary constituent of the so-called
paralytic shellfish poisons (PSPs). Currently, contamination of
shellfish beds by PSPs is monitored by mouse bioassay. Recently, the
University of Miami has discovered a molecular receptor that
``signals'' the presence of saxitoxin in solution by emitting light
(technically known as enhanced fluorescence emission). This type of
phenomenon is of considerable interest to the chemical community in
general, but regarding saxitoxin, it could be the key to developing a
photochemical sensor that would complement mouse bioassay. The first
stage of this development, funded by this project, is to study the
details of the ``recognition'' and emission phenomenon between
saxitoxin and its receptor, both in solution and at a surface (the air-
water interface). The University of Miami will begin by examining the
fluorescence emissions quantitatively, then modifying the receptor to
optimize its binding and signaling properties. The University will
modify the receptor to make it amenable to incorporation into a
monolayer that, when spread over the surface of water, can be studied
in a similar fashion. Studying the phenomenon in a monolayer is a
prerequisite to development of a sensor using fiber optics.
Defining Genomic Sequences Specific to Virulent Vibrio vulnificus
Strains to Assess Risk, University of Florida, $90,000. Vibrio
vulnificus is the leading cause of reported human death in the U.S.
caused by the consumption of seafoods. Since its discovery, V.
vulnificus has had a significant impact on public health policy, food
regulations, and industry practices. Currently, there is no practical
test to determine if seafood products contain hazardous strains of V.
vulnificus. The University propose to solve this problem by defining
DNA sequences specific to virulent strains, and then developing simple
DNA probe test(s) that can be used by industry and public health
organizations to assess risk. The University will use two techniques to
identify segments of DNA that are unique to virulent strains, 1) by
``subtracting'' DNA of non-virulent strains from virulent strains,
thereby identifying virulent specific DNA sequences, and 2) by allowing
the mouse model to directly select for strains that have acquired DNA
sequences from virulent V. vulnificus strains that are randomly cloned
into non-virulent strains. These approaches will produce virulence-
specific gene probe(s) that can be widely used to assess V. vulnificus
hazards in seafood products. The University anticipate that this
information will be integrated in ongoing CDC-FDA-State efforts to
determine the epidemiology of V. vulnificus infections and to develop
effective interventions to reduce risk of V. vulnificus disease.
Regulation of Lipopolysaccharide Micro Heterogeneity, USDA
Agricultural Research Service; Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory,
Athens, GA, $125,000. Bacteria that contaminate food are genetically
capable of altering their growth properties and cell surface properties
in order to infect susceptible people or animals. One foodborne
bacterium that is especially capable of contaminating the contents of
eggs is Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis (SE). It has been shown
that certain strains of SE enter an accelerated phase of growth when
environmental conditions provide appropriate signals to the bacterial
cell. During enhanced growth, many of the cell surface features of SE
alter drastically which contribute collectively to an enhanced ability
of the bacteria to grow to high numbers in organs, as measured by
increased recovery from the organs of chicks, mice, and eggs. The most
prominent molecule composing the outer membrane of SE is
lipopolysaccharide (LPS). Previous research indicated that changes in
LPS structure can be used to detect strains that are more capable of
attaining full virulence. Current research to be conducted under this
grant is directed towards understanding the genetic changes that result
in strain variation, as measured by the ability of strains to generate
particular LPS structures while maintaining accelerated growth. This
work is important because it will lead to a better understanding of
environmental conditions that favor outgrowth of new strains of SE.
Since certain LPS structures alter the production of proteins on the
cell surface, this research should also contribute to a more complete
understanding of the immunological properties of virulent SE and to the
development of improved vaccines.
Mechanism for Inactivation of Microorganisms by High Oxidation
Potential Water, University of Georgia, $120,000. Reported cases of
outbreak of food-related illnesses as well as severity of infection and
cost of treatment are on the increase. An estimated 6.5 to 33 million
people are infested annually in the U.S., out of which 9,000 die. The
high oxidation potential (HOP) water has been reported by scientists in
Japan to have strong bactericidal effect on most pathogenic bacteria. A
major advantage of HOP water is that no chemical except water (with
very dilute NaC1) is used. Therefore it has less adverse impact on the
environment. Also, the treated food is not exposed to heat treatment
and will experience minimal change in quality. The overall objective of
this project is to study the fundamental principles involved in the
inactivation of food microorganisms with HOP water. HOP water with
different properties will be used to treat five strains each of three
pathogenic bacteria (Bacillus cereus, Listeria monocytogenes and
Escherichia coli O157:H7). The HOP water with the most effective
combination of properties will then be used to evaluate the effect of
different organic materials in food systems on its antimicrobial
effect. Bacteria inactivation on food surfaces with HOP water will be
evaluated using inoculated food samples. The application of this
technology will ensure food safety at reduced cost, high food quality
and reduced danger from foodborne illness.
Screening Corn for Resistance to Aspergillus flavus and Aflatoxin
Accumulation, Southern Illinois University, $100,000. Two traits in
corn genotypes will be used to identify potential resistance sources:
1) sporulation by Aspergillus flavus on intact or endosperm-wounded
kernels, and 2) accumulation of norsolorinic acid (NOR) in kernels
inoculated with A. parasiticus isolate SKI. NOR is an orange-pigmented
intermediate in the aflatoxin biosynthesis pathway. Genotypes that
exhibit minimal sporulation and accumulation of orange pigment will be
tested for aflatoxin resistance in controlled laboratory inoculations.
Genotypes from this pool that prove to be resistant will be evaluated
for resistance in field trials. Those that show resistance will be
examined for mechanism of resistance. Surface wax will be removed from
intact kernels of these resistant genotypes, as well as standard
susceptibles, and weighed. Resistant genotypes with large amounts of
wax will demonstrate that wax acts as a physical barrier to infection
by A. flavus. Wax removed from kernels will be bioassayed for
antifungal activity against A. flavus. Resistant genotypes with
antifungal properties will demonstrate that wax acts as a physiological
barrier to infection by A. flavus. Protein profiles determine whether
proteins unique to, or in greater concentration in, resistant genotypes
are involved in resistance to A. flavus.
Listeria monocytogenes: Ozone Inactivation, University of Illinois,
$95,000. The objectives of this study are to examine the effects of
ozone (03) on the pathogen Listeria monocytogenes. Ozone is one of the
most powerful oxidizing agents (52 percent stronger than chlorine) and
is effective against a broad spectrum of microorganisms, including
viruses, bacteria, yeast and molds. Ozone has recently been recommended
for approval as Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) in food production.
Little or no research has been performed on the influence that ozone
has on the destruction of L. monocytogenes. This proposal will
determine important parameters of ozone-induced injury and death of L.
monocytogenes. The optimal conditions of ozone exposure for listerial
death will be determined. Initial variables will include time,
temperature and ozone concentration. Injury and death will be
determined using a dual plating procedure, and by the release of
subcellular components. The thermodynamics of ozone inactivation will
be determined. Any differences in the phase of growth on the
susceptibility of L. monocytogenes to ozone will be examined. Recovery
of ozone-injured listerial cells will be studied, as will be the
site(s) of ozone damage. The influence of ozone in reducing listerial
counts in a food product (cabbage) will also be determined. The
influence of ozone on the enzymes catalase and superoxide dismutase in
L. monocytogenes will be examined immediately following exposure and
during recovery.
Persistence of Salmonella typhimutium in Swine, University of
Illinois, $240,000. . typhimurium is one of the major causes of
salmonellosis in humans. Pigs persistently infected with S, typhimurium
are one of the major reservoir of this pathogen. Generally, pigs
persistently infected with . typhimurium are asymptomatic. One means to
reduce the risk of foodborne infections caused by . typhimurium is to
prevent pigs from becoming persistently infected. This project is
designed to understand the mechanisms promoting persistent infections.
The initiation of infection requires the attachment of S. typhimurium
to the lining of the small intestine. There are two types of cells in
the small intestine that are targets for attachment: 1) epithelial
cells call enterocytes and 2) epithelial cells call M-cells. The
University's current hypothesis, which is based on our previous
experiments using mutant . typhimurium that do not attach to
enterocytes, is a attachment to enterocytes which is important for the
development of persistent infections while attachment to M-cells
results in disease. The goals of this study are to confirm that our
non-adhesive mutants indeed do not attach to enterocytes in pigs but
retain the ability to attach to M-cells. Furthermore, the University
have found that a novel mechanism allows . typhimurium to sense its
location in the intestine and turn on a set of genes that promote its
ability to colonize enterocytes and this results in persistent
infections. The University plans to create additional mutants that no
longer can control these genes and determine whether the mutants have
lost the ability to cause persistent infections.
Analysis of the Osmotic Regulation of Thermotolerance in Salmonella
and E. coli O157:H7, Purdue University, $185,000. The addition of
moderate or high concentrations of salts or sugars can enhance the high
temperature tolerance of food pathogenic bacteria such as Salmonella
and E. coli O157:H7. This enhanced thermotolerance is manifested both
as increased growth rate at non-lethal high temperatures and increased
survival at otherwise lethal high temperatures. These observations
indicate that the addition of salts or sugars to food products as
preservatives or flavor components can compromise the efficacy of high
temperature treatment for the inactivation of contaminant organisms.
The University found that betaine, which is found at high levels in
edible plants such as spinach and cereal grains, block the ability of
salt additives to increase the thermotolerance of bacteria. Part of the
research project will be to carry out a comprehensive characterization
of all available structural relatives of betaine for their ability to
counteract the induction of increased thetmotolerance by salt additives
in food pathogenic bacteria. This procedure may uncover new food
additives that might be used to increase the efficacy of thermal
inactivation in food contaminating bacteria. A second component of the
project will be to discover genes which are involved in the induction
of increased heat tolerance by salt. The understanding of the
mechanistic connection between high salinity and increased
thermotolerance has the potential application that it might lead to the
design of new antimicrobial compound that could lead to decreased
survival of food pathogens during thermal processing.
Molecular Biology of Aflatoxin Biosynthesis in Aspergillus flavus,
Purdue University, $160,000. Aflatoxins produced by the fungus
Aspergillus flavus, are toxic and carcinogenic compounds contaminating
a variety of food products. In addition to the significant health risks
associated with aflatoxins, there is also an economic burden. Millions
of dollars are spent each year to test potentially affected food,
including corn, peanuts, figs, tree nuts and milk. Aflatoxins are
products of fungal secondary metabolism. The genes involved in the
biosynthesis of aflatoxin are grouped together in a single cluster. The
cluster contains at least 18 genes that code for the pathway enzymes
and for regulation of aflatoxin biosynthesis. This research project
will investigate an unusual mutation in A. flavus. Strain 649 has a DNA
deletion at the afl-1 locus that includes the entire cluster of
aflatoxin biosynthesis genes. Diploids formed by crosses between strain
649 and aflatoxin-producing strains do not produce aflatoxin. The goal
of the research is to determine the mechanism responsible for this
suppression of aflatoxin biosynthesis. The specific objectives are to
isolate and characterize the DNA at the deletion break-junction region
in strain 649, and to determine the involvement of the regulatory gene
aflR in repression of aflatoxin biosynthesis. This research will impact
agriculture by furthering our understanding about the regulation of
aflatoxin biosynthesis and contribute information leading to
development of new strategies for eliminating aflatoxin contamination.
Modeling Food Fluctuating Microbial Populations and Their Aperiodic
Outbursts, University of Massachusetts, $90,000. The total number of
microorganisms, or of specific types, which are encountered in raw beef
or dairy products for example tend to fluctuate. Usually such daily or
hourly fluctuations are within a specified range and hence raise little
or no safety concern. Only occasionally, and in some cases without an
apparent cause the numbers encountered are unusually high and may be
considered a safety problem. The University of Massachusetts plans to
analyze the fluctuations pattern, and by mathematical models and
statistical methods, to estimate the probability of the occurrence of
such an outburst. In other words, the University of Massachusetts
propose to convert the apparently random sequence of counts into a set
of probabilities of encountering outbreaks of a magnitude of safety
concern. These calculated probabilities can then be used as indication
of an impending microbial outbreak, and as a tool to assess
quantitatively the efficacy of preventive methods in reducing the risk.
Genomic Analysis of Escherichia coli O157:H7 Populations from
Cattle and Humans, University of Nebraska, $150,000. Genetic
fingerprinting of E. coli O157:H7 strains from cattle herds indicates
that certain strains can be repeatedly isolated from a given herd over
time (persistent population) despite the fact that other genetically
distinct E. coliO157:H7 strains may be introduced into the herd but are
unable to displace the persistent population. These results suggest
that persistent strains are better able to survive and/or propagate in
these environments. Are there particular herd management practices that
have selected for these persistent populations and are these strains
genetically distinct from those isolated from infected humans? The
University of Massachusetts has developed a powerful technique, termed
high-resolution genotyping (HRGT), that permits identification of even
minor genetic differences between different E. coli O157:H7 strains.
This procedure will be used to develop a database for rigorous
assessment of the genetic relatedness of persistent and non-persistent
and non-persistent isolates will be examined in further detail (full
genome coverage) by HRGT to identify genetic differences that may be
related to persistence. The genes that are marked by these differences
will then be examined to begin assessing how their function may
contribute to persistence and whether particular herd management
practices may have played a role in selecting for alterations in these
genes. Ultimately these results may provide a rational basis for
understanding the impact of herd management practices on the population
structure of this organism.
Antimicrobial Use and Emerging Resistance of Salmonella typhimurium
in Dairy Cattle, Cornell University, $120,000. Antibiotic-resistant
Salmonella infections in human are an increasing public health problem.
The use of antibiotics in food producing animals for disease prevention
or treatment and to enhance growth potentially selects for resistant
Salmonella strains which may be transmitted to humans. Livestock
investigations are needed to identify practices associated with the
emergence of Salmonella resistant to antibiotics currently important in
human medicine.
This project will investigate the effect of antibiotic treatment of
clinical salmonellosis in dairy cattle on the occurrence of antibiotic-
resistant Salmonella typhimurium, a major animal and human pathogen.
This will be done by identifying dairy herds with Salmonella
typhimurium-infected cattle based on diagnostic laboratory culture
results, obtaining antibiotic treatment information from farm records
and collecting fecal samples from cattle on the farm for Salmonella
isolation and determination or resistance patterns. The association
between cattle from the same herd will be analyzed. The characteristics
of study farms will be typical of large segment of the U.S. dairy
industry.
The study results will provide valuable information on the
emergence of antibiotic-resistant Salmonella typhimurium and specific
drug-use practices which are associated with resistance. This will
allow implementation of changes on farms designed to reduce the
development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and thereby decrease
foodborne or direct transmission of resistant strains from dairy cattle
to people. The project will also contribute data needed for policy
decisions by regulatory agencies related to antibiotic use in food
producing animals.
Identification of Human Enteric Viruses in Foods and Fooborne
Disease Outbreaks, North Carolina State University, $140, 000. Enteric
viruses are significant human pathogens, recently ranked fifth and
sixth amongst identified causes of foodborne disease in the U.S. While
these agents are responsible for diseases such as gastroenteritis and
hepatitis, the true scope and significance of foodborne viral infection
is drastically underestimated due to inadequacies in reporting and
detection methods. The introduction of molecular biological techniques
offers sensitive and specific alternatives for the detection of these
previously non-detectable viral agents. The purpose of this research is
to refine molecular methods to detect human enteric viruses from foods
and to further develop approaches for the investigation of outbreaks of
foodborne viral disease. The specific objectives are as follows: (1)
Refine methods to extract human enteric viruses from foods, (2) Improve
sensitivity, specificity, and speed of virus detection and
confirmation, (3) Develop methods specifically for the detection and
identification of small-round structured viruses of epidemiological
significance to humans, and (4) Develop a comprehensive approach to the
investigation of outbreaks of foodborne viral disease by linking
detection and identification in clinical (fecal) and food specimens.
The successful completion of this project will provide rapid and
economical methods for the detection of viral contamination of foods
and the investigation of foodborne viral disease outbreaks. These
benefits will ultimately improve the safety of food products, protect
public health, and minimize financial losses due to viral contamination
of foods.
Stress-Induced Resistance to High Pressure in Listeria
monocytogenes and Escherichia coli O157:H7, Ohio State University,
$90,000. High pressure processing is a novel, non-thermal technique for
inactivating pathogens in food by the application of extremely high
pressures. Application of pressures in the range of 5000-9000
atmospheres for 1-5 minutes, at room temperature, can significantly
reduce the microbial population in food and dramatically extend its
shelf life. Since heat is not used in the process, negligible flavor
and nutrient changes occur as a result of the high pressure treatment.
During the past two decades, new food-transmitted diseases emerged
such as those caused by the enterohemorrhagic E. coli and the
meningitis-causing Listeria. Such pathogenic bacteria are more likely
to survive during food processing if they were exposed to conditions
that make them resistant to preservation methods. For example, bacteria
that are normally sensitive to heat may become heat-resistant when they
are stressed during production, harvesting or even mild processing of
food. Therefore, adaptation of bacteria to various stresses may
compromise the safety of food.
This challenge to the food industry needs urgent attention when new
processing technologies (such high pressure processing) are introduced.
This project will identify the potential causes for increased
resistance of pathogens to pressure. Additionally, the study will
assess, in quantitative terms, the relationship between stress that
foodborne pathogens may encounter and resulting stress-induced
resistance to high-pressure processing. The outcome of this project
will help food manufacturers develop strategies to overcome and
eliminate stress-adaptation in foodborne pathogens.
The Molecular Epidemiology of Clostridium perfringens Type A Food
Poisoning, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, $160,000.
Clostridium perfringens type A food poisoning currently ranks as the
second most common foodborne disease in the U.S. The diarrhetic and
cramping symptoms of this illness are caused by C perftingens
enterotoxin (CPE). Recent studies have shown that the CPE gene encoding
this enterotoxin can be located on either chromosomal or
extrachromosomal DNA. However, only C. perfringens isolates carrying an
extrachromosomal CPE can cause non-foodborne intestinal disease. This
project will evaluate four possible explanations for the strong
association between chromosomal CPE isolates and food poisoning: i)
isolates carrying a chromosomal CPE are predominant in the food
poisoning environment, ii) chromosomal CPE isolates are more resistant
to food-associated stresses (e.g. cooking) than are isolates carrying
an extrachromosomal CPE, iii) the chromosomal CPE is more stable to
food-related stress than the extrachromosomal CPE, and iv) food-related
stress induces migration of the extrachromosomal CPE onto the
chromosome. These studies should improve the safety of the American
food supply by distinguishing whether only chromosomal CPE isolates are
able to cause food poisoning, or if isolates carrying an
extrachromosomal CPE can be converted, by food-related stress, into
chromosomal CPE isolates. This information will improve the safety of
the American Food supply in two ways: 1) it will become possible to
specifically detect the presence of C. perfiringens food poisoning
isolates in foods before these foods are consumed, and 2) it will
elucidate how/when C.perftingens food poisoning isolates enter foods,
which will allow the development of strategies to interfere with the
introduction of C. perftingens food poisoning isolates into foods.
Inactivation of Foodborne Pathogens Exposed to a Uniform Glow
Discharge Plasma, University of Tennessee, $71,442. Increased emphasis
on food safety has intensified research efforts to develop and evaluate
new and innovative means of inhibiting, destroying, and controlling
pathogenic microorganisms in foods. The overall objective of this
research is to evaluate the efficacy of a One Atmosphere Uniform Glow
Discharge Plasma (OAUGDP) for its ability to destroy foodborne
pathogens. The OAUGDP is a newly-invented form of electron discharge
which generates a uniform glow discharge plasma (plasma--the fourth
state of matter) in atmospheres of various gases such as helium, carbon
dioxide, and most importantly air. The sterilization properties of the
OAUGDP include ozone and other oxidative species, ultraviolet photons,
photons in the visible part of the spectrum, charged particles, and
neutral particles. Specific objectives of our proposed work are 1) to
determine the susceptibility of ten foodborne pathogenic microorganisms
to inactivation upon exposure to the OAUGDP, and 2) to determine the
effect of culture age, pH, and growth temperature on the susceptibility
of these foodborne pathogens to inactivation. The University of
Tennessee's previous studies have shown that the OAUGDP is an effective
means of destroying various microorganisms. Furthermore, the
University's results indicate that treatment of culture media with the
OAUGDP for the times required to kill bacteria does not result in the
development of by-products toxic to microbial growth. The OAUGDP unit
has the potential to be adapted as an in-line process suitable for
application as a mechanism of pasteurizing foods and controlling
foodborne pathogens.
Sporulation Control of Enterotoxin Synthesis in Clostridium
perfringens, University of Tennessee, $130,000. Clostridium perfringens
is a common source of food poisoning in humans, and it is responsible
for 10 percent of the outbreaks in the U.S. Most large outbreaks of C.
perfringens food poisoning are associated with commercial food
services, such as restaurants and institutions, but many infections
occur in the home as well. The symptoms of the disease (diarrhea,
nausea and vomiting) are due to the production of a potent enterotoxin
protein (CPE) in the intestinal tract by sporulating bacteria. The
ability of C. perfiringens to produce a heat resistant spore not only
leads directly to the production of the enterotoxin, but also leads to
increased outbreaks of the disease. Often foods are prepared at high
enough temperatures to kill vegetative cells, but not spores. If the
food is not refrigerated, the spores germinate and the cells grow
rapidly. When the contaminated food is eaten, the cells sporulate in
the small intestine, releasing the enterotoxin. The University is
interested in determining how the sporulation process regulates cpe
gene expression at the transcriptional level. To study this, the
University will take two experimental approaches: (1) Purify RNA
polymerase enzymes that transcribe cpe gene promoters, and (2)
Determine in which cell compartment of the developing spore
transcription factors needed for cpe gene expression are made.
Together, these studies will contribute to our knowledge of how heat
resistant spores and enterotoxin are produced by the cell. This
information can then be used to develop better food handling procedures
to reduce the incidence of this very common disease.
Novel Antimicrobial Systems for Control of Foodborne Pathogens,
University of Wisconsin, $90,000. The microbiological safety of
imported and domestic fruits, vegetables, and certain other foods has
become a major priority of the USDA, FDA, and HHS. Recent studies from
our laboratory have demonstrated that certain food-approved flavorants
markedly sensitize foodborne pathogens including Escherichia coli
O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes and Staphylococcus aureus to various
classes of food-grade antimicrobials and to certain antibodies. In
particular, in the presence of low concentrations (<100 ppm) of the
flavorants nerolidol and farnesol, microorganisms are inhibited by
markedly lower doses of certain antimicrobial agents and antibiotics.
These compounds are derived from natural plant sources. The
University's results indicate that these and related compounds could be
used to increase the efficacy of other food-grade antimicrobial agents.
In the present study, sensitization by terpenoids and inactivation of
foodborne pathogens will be investigated. Gram-negative and gram-
positive bacterial pathogens will be exposed to potential sensitizing
agents, and then evaluated for extent and kinetics of inactivation by
sanitizers, food-grade antimicrobials and antibiotics. Killing will be
assayed by traditional plating, and by flow cytometry. Organisms to be
tested include strains of E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella serovars Listeria
monocytogenes and Clostridium botulinum. The successful completion of
this proposal will provide novel elimination and sanitation
technologies to reduce the risk of foodborne disease from foods and
food contact surfaces and will enhance the public and media image
regarding the microbiological safety of raw and minimally processed
foods.
DNA-Binding Proteins CspE and Dps Protect DNA at Low pH in
Escherichia coli O157:H7, University of Wisconsin, $115,000. An
important characteristic of Escherichia coli O157:H7 is the ability of
10 to 100 O157:H7/gram of raw ground beef to survive processing,
storage, cooking, and host-defense systems and cause illness. It is
hypothesized that acid tolerance is a contributing factor to the low-
infectious dose noted for this human pathogen. Sustained acid tolerance
in serotype O157:H7 strains is primarily regulated by the stationary-
phase sigma factor o38, encoded by rpoS. The University has identified
a rpoS-regulated Protein (CspE) that is present in acid tolerant
strains of serotype O157:H7 strains and absent, or present at reduced
quantities, in acid-sensitive strains. This protein has been previously
identified as a cold-shock protein with no known function. Analysis of
protein and DNA sequences finds a high proportion of basic amino acids,
indicating that CspE is a DNA-bind protein Dps is another previously
described rpoS-regulated protein with DNA-binding properties that
result in DNA protection against oxidative stress. Because DNA is
sensitive to low pH and survival is dependent upon its protection, the
goal of this project is to define the contributions of CspE and Dps to
DNA protection in low pH environments (i.e. foods and synthetic gastric
fluid). Results from this study will provide industry and public health
agencies with the much needed data to further refine strategies for
control, identify areas of risk, and add to the scientific knowledge on
the survival of E. coli O157:H7.
special food safety research grants fiscal year 1998
Awards made after competitive peer review process
Nonthermal Processing Alternatives to Ensure the Safety of Apple
Cider Cornell University, $86,345. This project will evaluate
ultraviolet light, dimethyl carbonate and sulfur dioxide as
alternatives to pasteurization of apple cider to reduce or eliminate E.
coli O157:H7. These treatments would be cost-effective for small
producers and yield a product acceptable to consumers.
Location of S. stanley in Alfalfa Seeds and Sprout; Relation to
Treatment Efficacy, Rutgers University, $174,387. This proposal
addresses spatial location and survival of almonella stanley in alfalfa
seeds and sprouts, and defines new strategies using chlorine to kill .
stanley during germination and sprout growth. The contamination of
sprouts with seedborne pathogens is an important food safety issue.
Development of Washing Procedures to Reduce the Microbial Numbers
on Fresh Produce, North Dakota State University Agricultural Experiment
Station, $47,543. The objective of this proposal is to develop simple
washing procedures using household ingredients such as vinegar, baking
soda, and bleach, usable by consumers to reduce microbial contamination
on fresh produce, with an emphasis on E. coli.
Inactivation of Microorganisms in Fruits and Vegetables by Ozone
and Chlorine Dioxide Gas, Purdue Research Foundation, $208,873. The
objective of this project is to improve the safety of minimally
processed and refrigerated fruits and vegetables by combining modified
atmosphere packaging with the gaseous disinfectants ozone and chlorine
dioxide. The sensory quality of the treated produce will be examined to
ensure that it will still be acceptable to consumers.
Reducing Edible Sprout Microbial Contamination Using Foam Seed Mat
Technology, Ag Innovations LLC, State College, PA; $112,085. This
project will investigate growing edible sprouts in hydrophilic
(``water-loving'') foam as a method of reducing or eliminating
seedborne bacterial pathogens. The researchers believe that the foam
can soak up free water that may support the growth of pathogens. In
addition, they will attempt to increase the usefulness of the foam by
impregnating it with antimicrobial compounds.
Detection of Food Borne Pathogens on Fruits and Vegetables by PCR,
University of Delaware, $75,997. This project will assess the
usefulness of a commercially available PCR test kit for almonella, E.
coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes in detecting these pathogens on
fresh and minimally processed fruits and vegetables. The investigator
plans to develop guidelines or modifications to allow this kit to be
used for rapid identification of these pathogens.
New Approaches for Removal of Food Borne Pathogens from Surfaces of
Raw, Fresh Produce, University of Arkansas, $153,309. This project will
study the effectiveness for different audiences of treatments to remove
food borne pathogens from the surfaces of fruits and vegetables. For
food service providers and consumers, they will investigate the use of
GRAS (generally recognized as safe) household chemicals such as
acidified table salt or cooking oil. Research on chelators or edible
films in combination with bacteriocins, (antimicrobial proteins) will
be directed towards the needs of food processors.
Alternative Processing Techniques for Fresh Juices, University of
Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station, $206,589. This proposal
addresses methods to reduce or eliminate the pathogens E coli O157:H7,
almonella and Cryptosporidium parvum in apple cider and orange, grape
and cranberry juices, by treatments involving UV light and ozone, alone
or in combination.
Capacitive Dielectric Heating as a Food Safety Intervention Method
for Sprouted Seeds, Oregon State University Agricultural Experiment
Station, $171,008. This project will study capacitive dielectric
heating as a method to destroy pathogens on or in alfalfa and radish
seeds used for sprouting. Capacitive dielectric heating is a technique
in which an electric current passed through a mixture of materials with
different physical properties, in this case seeds embedded in a gel,
can be used to selectively heat the seeds. Much of the proposal is
concerned with developing the appropriate treatment conditions to
generate sufficient heat to kill pathogens in or on the seeds without
affecting seed viability or melting the edible gel in which the seed
will be embedded. This research addresses a serious food safety
problem, contamination of sprouts with seedborne pathogens, for which
there is currently no satisfactory intervention.
Mechanical and Antimicrobial Treatments to Remove Pathogens from
Produce, University of Florida, $184,195. This project's objectives are
to define how pathogenic bacteria and viruses attach to surfaces of
produce, determine the pathogens' survival rates on produce surfaces,
and assess the usefulness of selected mechanical and antimicrobial
treatments that are practical for industry and consumers to
decontaminate ready-to-eat produce. The organisms to be studied are
almonella, E. coli O157:H7, and rotavirus SA-11. It is particularly
valuable that the researchers have chosen to include a rotavirus in
their study, as these viruses are among the major causes of acute
gastroenteritis worldwide, yet their ecology is not well understood.
Development of Pathogen Reduction Treatments for Fresh Produce,
Auburn University, $251,573. This project will investigate the use of
antimicrobial compounds applied in cooling, washing or transportation
water, low-dose ionizing radiation, or combinations of the two, to
reduce or eliminate microbial pathogens from the surface of fresh
fruits and vegetables. Both the antimicrobial compounds and low-dose
ionizing radiation have been shown in principle to have antimicrobial
activity in foods. The study will analyze the usefulness of these
compounds against specific pathogens E. coli O157:H7, Listeria
monocytogenes, Salmonella and Giardia lamblia, on fresh fruits and
vegetables to develop treatment recommendations, and will assess the
effects of the treatments on the quality of the produce.
Liposome Biosensing Devices for Rapid Screening of Food Toxins and
Pathogens, Cornell University, $184,449. This project will modify
liposome biosensor technology for rapid detection of E. coli in foods.
This technology employs encapsulated antibodies or DNA probes in single
use ``dipstick'' devices that can be used in the field.
special site specific food safety research grants fiscal year 1998
Alliance for Food Protection, Nebraska, Georgia, $300,000. This is
a collaborative alliance between the University of Georgia Center for
Food Safety and Quality Enhancement and the University of Nebraska
Department of Food Science and Technology. fiscal year 1998 funds
supported research at the University of Nebraska on the detection,
identification and characterization of food allergens, the effects of
processing on peanut allergens, and investigation of the efficacy of
using various types of thermal processes to reduce or destroy the
toxicity and mutagenicity of certain Fusarium metabolites in corn and
corn products. Research at the University of Georgia was directed
toward determining the foodborne significance of Helicobacter pylori,
determining the effect of antimicrobials to eliminate Arcobacter from
pork, determining the survival of E. coli O157:H7 at reduced water
activity, and using extrusion cooking to destroy peanut allergens. The
University of Nebraska developed assays for detection of peanut, milk,
egg, and almond residues in processed foods; produced high-quality
antibodies for these assays; identified a soybean allergen and two
sunflower seed allergens; discovered clues as to the reason why Brazil
nuts cause severe allergic reactions; discovered that certain types of
Fusarium fungi do not produce mutagenic substances; developed a simple
liquid chromatographic procedure for determination of moniliformin
toxin; found that the corn flake manufacturing process can reduce
levels of fungal toxins such as aflatoxin and fumonisins; and also
found that low levels of carcinogenic aflatoxins in corn grits might be
reduced to less than regulatory actions levels by the corn flake
manufacturing process. The University of Georgia has developed methods
to culture Helicobacter pylori, and detect the pathogen in foods, the
effect of antibiotics on the fate of E. coli O157:H7 in reduced water
activity conditions, and found that extrusion cooking can greatly
reduce allergens in peanuts.
Center for Innovative Food Technology, Ohio, $281,000. Funds from
the fiscal year 1998 grants supported research projects on using neural
network/fuzzy logic tools to develop a model of a growing and
processing cycle for canning tomatoes, using electrostatic coating for
snack foods and baked goods, combining several non-thermal processing
techniques to sterilize low acid liquid foods, using Near Infrared
reflectance systems to measure protein and ash content in wheat flour,
using membrane separation systems to produce extended shelf life milk
products, and developing a protocol for testing the microbial load of
ingredients in meat processing facilities.
The original goal of the research was to develop innovative
processing techniques to increase food safety and quality or reduce
processing costs. The neural network project has developed a model for
predicting the harvesting time that will optimize product quality and
economic return to the grower, processor, and consumer. The coating
project has demonstrated the shelf life, sanitation, and product cost
advantages available through the use of this technology. The filtration
project will allow fluid milk processors to lower their costs and
increase water quality by removing high Biological Oxygen Demand
materials from municipal treatment systems. The sterilization project
will lower processing costs by increasing the shelf life of liquid
products. The extended shelf life project has resulted in the marketing
of single serving, long shelf life milk products, and the Near Infrared
project will allow flour millers to develop improved process control
systems.
Food Irradiation, Iowa, $200,000. Since the Linear Accelerator
Facility was placed in operation in March 1993, studies on the effect
of irradiation on shelf-life extension, safety and quality of ground
beef, beef steaks, ham, pork chops from loins, chicken breasts, and
turkey have been conducted. Studies combing irradiation with high
hydrostatic pressure and cooking, using whole chicken breasts, turkey
and ham, have been conducted to determine the combination of these
treatments that will yield a shelf-stable product while maintaining
high eating quality. Several studies were conducted to determine
whether consumers can detect a difference between irradiated and non-
irradiated ground beef patties. Experiments were also conducted to
investigate consumer acceptance of pork products irradiated to prevent
trichinosis. Test markets of irradiated chicken breasts were conducted
to determine consumers' willingness to pay for irradiated products.
Research on the effect of packaging materials on quality of irradiated
meat is in progress.
With the recent FDA clearance of irradiation of red meat, research
needs leading to commercialization of this technology have been
enhanced. Additionally, researchers from eight other research
institutes have used the irradiation facility for research projects.
The effectiveness of irradiation, using an electron beam accelerator,
in destroying known pathogenic bacteria in pork and beef has been
determined. Mathematical models have been developed to predict the
growth of bacteria in low-dose irradiated ground pork. Demonstration of
irradiation technology has been presented to some commercial firms, and
plans are being developed for some large scale test markets.
Food Processing Center, Nebraska, $42,000. The University of
Nebraska Food Processing Center has been conducting short-term, highly
applied research projects to assist small and mid-sized food processing
companies and entrepreneurs to develop or improve processes and
products and to develop new food processing enterprises. Projects were
selected based on the estimated economic impact of the technical
assistance or the criticality of the technical assistance to the future
of the firm or venture. Priorities were placed on projects relating to
the safety of the food product or process and to the fulfillment of
regulatory mandates such as nutrition labeling, use of approved and
effective ingredients, and adherence to regulations imposed by foreign
governments. In addition, several research projects were conducted to
improve or assess the quality, extend the shelf-life, or assess or
improve the processing efficiency of specialty food products which
impacted several processors or used alternative agricultural products.
The goal of the research, as stated previously, is to assist small
and mid-sized food processing companies and entrepreneurs to develop or
improve processes and products and to develop new food processing
enterprises. Technological evaluations were conducted for 120
individuals or companies interested in developing new food processing
businesses. These evaluations included formulations, processes,
processing equipment, packaging, shelf-life, sensory, nutritional
attributes, microbiological quality, regulatory considerations, and
other factors. Additionally, microbiological analysis, shelf-life
assessments, sanitation audits, and nutritional analyses were conducted
for numerous Nebraska food companies.
Food Quality, Alaska. This is a new grant in fiscal year 1999
($350,000). Research will be aimed at establishing the Salmon Quality
Implementation Project. The project has two parts. The first part is
the evaluation, design, and implementation of a voluntary quality seal
that can be attached to salmon that meet the existing standards for
premium and number one grade. The second part is a series of workshops
and training sessions on salmon quality handling and maintenance for
workers at all levels of the industry from harvesting to retail.
The original goal of this research was to ensure a consistent and
predictable level of handling and quality for Alaska seafood. In doing
so, the project will help Alaska seafood processors strengthen or
maintain their place in domestic and international markets. Because
this is a new grant, no progress has yet been reported.
Institute for Food Science and Engineering, Arkansas, $950,000. As
the flagship center for the Institute of Food Science and Engineering,
the Center for Food Processing and Engineering has as its objectives to
facilitate and encourage value-added research and improve the
processing of agricultural products. The Center requires researchers to
obtain matching funds from industry to support their research. Research
projects have been funded by 39 different companies from 17 states and
4 countries. The next request for proposals to the Institute will be
issued in February 1999. The Center for Food Safety and Quality, with a
mission to conduct research on the safety and quality of foods relative
to microbiological and chemical hazards, was activated on January 1,
1997. Center researchers are presently receiving funding through the
Food Safety Consortium. The Institute has also received funding from
the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization to establish a
Center of Excellence for Food Quality and Safety.
The original goal of this research is to establish an Institute of
Food Science and Engineering at the University of Arkansas-
Fayetteville. The Institute for Food Science and Engineering and the
Center for Food Processing and Engineering are operating. Research
projects at the Center include: postharvest management practices for
rice, such as studies of physicochernical properties, bacterial load of
rice products, and milling systems, and development of methods to
improve the texture and dill flavor of pickles, and the color of
acidified pickled vegetables, with estimated impact to the pickle
industry of one half million dollars annually. Researchers have
developed 12 mechanized systems for total vineyard mechanization which
maintain or improve juice and wine quality. Research on
physicochernical properties of potatoes and bitterness in carrots and
have had estimated economic impacts of several million dollars.
Research on elecrochemical flow-through systems for chicken processing
water and near infrared/mid-infrared imaging for large scale fruit
processing have important applications in industry. Institute staff,
including the Descriptive Sensory Panel, have assisted both national
food processing companies and small commercial kitchens in process
development, with an impact of up to 2 million annually on the Arkansas
vegetable processing industry. The Institute's Center of Excellence
presents workshops in the United States as well as planning train the
trainer courses in Mexico and Central America to improve the safety of
imported fresh fruit and vegetables. To date, 70 publications, two
IMPACT reports and a quarterly newsletter have served to keep the
industry and fellow scientists informed of research and technology
transfer activities.
Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance, Nebraska, $423,000.
The purpose of the Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance is to
expedite the development of new manufacturing and processing
technologies for food and related products derived from United States
produced crops and livestock. The Alliance involves research scientists
in food science and technology, food engineering, nutrition,
microbiology, computer science, and other relevant areas from 12
leading Midwestern universities and private sector researchers from
numerous U.S. food processing companies. Specific research projects are
awarded on a competitive basis to university scientists with matching
funds from non-federal sources for research involving the processing,
packaging, storage, and transportation of food products. Projects
selected for funding are merit reviewed by non-participating university
scientists, industry scientists and scientists from professional
organizations. Close cooperation between corporate and university
researchers assure that the latest scientific advances are applied to
the most relevant problems and that solutions are efficiently
transferred and used by the private sector.
Eleven projects were funded from fiscal year 1997 funds with
anticipated completion and final reports due by May 31, 1999. Nine
projects were funded from fiscal year 1998 funds with anticipated
completion and final reports due by May 31, 2000.
Milk Safety, Pennsylvania, $268,000. The overall goal of the milk
safety program is to provide insight into factors that help ensure an
adequate and safe milk supply. Toward that end, the research has
focused on factors that affect milk production, processing,
manufacturing, and consumption. Special attention has been given to
ways of preventing and/or treating pathogens that enter the milk
supply. Projects are selected for funding each year based on
competitive, peer reviews by scientists outside the recipient
institution. The research is aimed at minimizing or eliminating future
foodborne disease outbreaks from milk and dairy products. Researchers
demonstrated that when subjected to a sublethal heat shock prior to
pasteurization, Luterta monocytogenes becomes much more heat-resistant
than previously thought, likely requiring the design of new
pasteurization guidelines to ensure the safety of dairy products. They
also developed a simple, fast, sensitive, specific and inexpensive
method for the detection of Listeria monocytogenes in dairy products
that will allow dairy processors to rapidly and easily screen for the
presence of this pathogen in their products and in the processing
environment. A computer model of Listeria monocytogenes growth in dairy
foods under dynamic refrigeration conditions and during extended
storage is under development to provide producers and processors a
technology for further enhancing the safety of fluid milk and related
products. Researchers have identified potential approaches for
enhancing natural defense mechanisms of tile bovine mammary gland
through vaccination and immunoregulation. Discoveries of factors
influencing growth of taphylococcus aureus could be used to prevent or
contain growth of this pathogen in foods. Researchers have identified
and sequenced a gene from this bacterium that is essential for growth
under stressful conditions. Consumer research has identified
characteristics of consumers most likely to have a high general concern
about milk and dairy product safety and nutrition.
Preservation and Processing Research, Oklahoma, $226,000. Research
has focused on the effects of preharvest and postharvest factors on the
market quality of fresh and minimally processed horticultural products,
including marigolds, pecans, watermelons, and peaches. Researchers are
developing harvester prototypes for marigold flowers and drying and
threshing systems for marigold petal drying and separation. A fruit
orienting mechanism is being developed for incorporation into an on-
line grading system. An integrated harvesting and postharvest handling
system is being developed for fresh market and processing market
horticultural products. Research continues on methods to determine
textural properties of pecans, determine optimum operating parameters
for super critical carbon dioxide and other alternative partial oil
extraction, and develop and optimize modified atmosphere packaging
techniques for pecan shelf life extension.
A systems approach to develop complementary cropping, harvesting,
handling and processing operations has resulted in development of
improved handling systems for cucurbit and tree fruit crops.
Nondestructive processing systems for partial oil reduction of tree
nuts have been developed to extend shelf life and lower the calorie
content for the raw or processed product. Funding has been secured for
construction of a commercial nut extraction facility in Oklahoma,
pending successful pilot testing which is underway. Technologies and
procedures previously developed for cucurbit and tree fruit systems are
being applied to development of okra, pepper, sage, basil, tree nut
sweet corn, and marigold cropping, handling, and light processing
systems, with a targeted completion date of year 2001. Research from
this project provided the basis for commercial high relative humidity
storage of peaches and to attract companies to the state to construct
new value added food processing facilities.
Seafood Harvesting, Processing, and Marketing, Mississippi,
$305,000. Research related to seafood safety, quality and by-product
utilization is being performed. For fiscal year 1999, fruits will
support research on 1) microbial population changes during retail
display of shrimp, 2) development of an impedance-based method to
rapidly detect microorganisms on shrimp, 3) determine physical,
chemical, microbiological, and sensory differences between pond and
tank aquaculture tilapia, and 4) evaluate processes for utilization of
uncooked shrimp processing by-products for production of flavor
extracts.
The original goals of the research were to improve the quality and
safety of catfish and improve the utilization of catfish byproducts and
underutilized marine species. Due to successes of the original project,
subsequent efforts are focusing on additional uses of seafood and
aquaculture foods by improving processing strategies and providing
alternative products from waste materials. The project has expanded to
include crab, shrimp, oysters, freshwater prawns, hybrid striped bass,
tilapia, and crawfish. FDA has passed rulings affecting the potential
viability of Mississippi seafood and aquaculture harvesters and
processors. Emphasis is being placed on addressing possible adverse
consequences resulting from these changes.
Alternative Salmon Products, Alaska, $400,000. Research was aimed
at developing a commercial pin-bone removal machine to reduce
production costs of salmon fillets and open markets for salmon fillet
shatter packs. The research goal is the development of market-desired
salmon products using wild-caught salmon. In 1998, researchers
addressed the problem of deboning wild-caught fish so that they can be
marketed frozen rather than canned, and compete effectively with pen-
reared salmon. Researchers designed, built and tested three prototype
pinbone removal machines making sequential improvements in design.
Question. FDA recently provided the Committee a table showing the
funding and staffing levels for Food Safety Initiative activities, by
Center and field-related activities, funded from the increased funding
provided to FDA for food safety in each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999
and proposed for fiscal year 1999. Please provide a copy of this table
for the record.
FDA answer. We are happy to provide a copy of this table for the
record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR16.000
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR16.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR16.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR16.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR16.004
Question. The FDA Food Safety Initiative funding includes
$109,335,000 million in funding for food safety activities funded for
fiscal year 1997 and carried over as the Food Safety Initiative base
for each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000. This base includes
$100,476,000 for Foods'', $100,000 for Animal Drugs, and $8,759,000 for
Other Activities. For each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, and proposed for
fiscal year 2000, please indicate the food safety activities being
supported (both FTE and funding level) from the base amounts listed
above for the Food Safety Initiative.
Answer. The food safety activities being supported from the base
amounts for the Food Safety Initiative are listed in the following
table.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR16.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR16.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR16.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR16.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T01MR16.009
Question. Please list the increases requested in the President's
fiscal year 2000 budget for the Food Safety Initiative in order of
priority.
USDA answer. The goal of the President's Food Safety Initiative is
to further reduce the incidence of foodborne illness to the greatest
extent feasible. USDA, FDA, CDC, and EPA have worked to build consensus
and to identify opportunities to better utilize their resources and
expertise, and to strengthen partnerships with private organizations.
As directed by the President, the agencies have identified ways to
strengthen the systems of coordination, surveillance, inspections,
research, risk assessment, and education. The fiscal year 2000 budget
therefore represents an integrated package that must be viewed as a
unified, critical initiative.
FDA answer. The Food and Drug Administration is requesting an
increase of $30.0 million in fiscal year 2000. Surveillance,
coordination, inspections, education, research and risk assessment are
the interrelated building blocks of a strong science-based food safety
system. By meeting objectives identified in these six areas, FDA will
be able to better identify, track, and control food-related illness, or
prevent, to the extent possible, future illnesses. Because
surveillance, coordination, inspections, education, research, and risk
assessment are the interrelated building blocks of a strong science-
based food safety system, it is difficult to prioritize the categories.
Advances in research and risk assessment, in addition to surveillance,
must be successful before education programs and inspections based on
science-based solutions can be derived and implemented since research
and risk assessments and surveillance activities will provide the basis
for these science-based solutions. Activities within each FSI category
provide or rely on data or activities from other categories. For
example, Food safety research provides critically needed information to
develop the means to identify and characterize more rapidly and
accurately foodborne hazards; to develop food safety policy and set
standards for safe food handling; to provide science-based tools for
regulatory enforcement, including inspections based on preventative
strategies such as HACCP; and to develop effective interventions that
can be used, as appropriate, to prevent hazards at each step from
production to consumption.
Scientists and other food safety experts have concluded that the
most effective and efficient mechanism to ensure that food processors
identify and control hazards that could threaten the food supply is the
application of preventive controls--HACCP principles. These science-
based technologies, standards, and strategies of the Food Safety
Initiative are developed through several means, including the
surveillance data collected to recognize trends and target prevention
strategies that form the basis of inspections that are used to evaluate
the effectiveness and efficiency of the industry's preventive controls;
the conduct of research and risk assessments to determine the hazards
which are used to identify critical control points for industry
application of HACCP systems; and the conduct of research and risk
assessments to verify that critical control points in HACCP systems are
working, as well as, to target the data gaps that hamper preventive
control systems from working. The Food Safety Initiative and
implementation of HACCP systems, along with education programs, which
will provide a more efficient and effective system for monitoring the
nation's food supply to ensure safety and ultimately result in the
reduction of foodborne illness.
Question. If the caps on discretionary appropriations are enforced,
as we expect, funding for nondiscretionary appropriations will be less
than the fiscal year 1999 levels. Is increased funding for the Food
Safety Initiative a priority if it must come at the expense of reducing
funding for ongoing programs? What reductions in funding for existing
programs would you recommend in addition to those requested in the
President's fiscal year 2000 budget to offset necessary increases in
funding for the Food Safety Initiative?
USDA answer. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget includes
proposals for financing discretionary programs within the statutory
discretionary caps. Changes in authorizing legislation are proposed
that would reduce mandatory spending, establish user fees or raise
revenues where the savings would be designated as offsets to the
discretionary caps and provide for increases in priorities such as the
President's Food Safety initiative.
FDA answer. Without knowing the exact impact of such reductions, I
would be unable to speculate at this time on any reductions that might
result from caps on discretionary appropriations. I would note that the
President's budget request for fiscal year 2000 includes increases for
all of FDA's major programs, recognizing the limits of FDA's ability to
protect the public health in all of our program areas. I would also
note that all of our program areas have taken effective cuts, including
staffing reductions, in recent years as we have had to absorb pay
raises and other inflationary costs. Therefore, I don't believe we
could reduce other program areas to provide funding for the Food Safety
Initiative without jeopardizing the effectiveness of our other
programs.
While improving the safety of the food supply is of the utmost
importance, and is a high priority of this Administration, our other
programs to promote and protect the public health in the areas of
foods, drugs, biologics, and medical devices are also of vital
importance.
Questions Submitted by Senator Gorton
Question. USDA has requested more than $24 million for food safety
research in the fiscal year 2000 budget. These research dollars are
allocated by either eliminating or decreasing Agriculture Research
Service and Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service
programs consistently funded by Congress. What additional food safety
research will be conducted by USDA that is not already being performed
by the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health,
and the Food and Drug Administration? I am concerned that production
agriculture research is being eliminated at USDA for the sake of food
safety research that may already be ongoing at other federal agencies.
USDA answer. Food safety research conducted by USDA agencies (ARS,
CSREES, and ERS) is complementary to that conducted by DHHS agencies
(CDC, NIH, and FDA). USDA agencies address agricultural production-
related issues of food safety and the early processing segments of the
food chain. Increasingly, this research is important to farmers and
ranchers to insure the quality and safety of their production. USDA
research, in addition to being targeted to the technology needs of
farmers and the food processing industry, provides science based
technologies and risk assessments to enable FSIS to carry out its
inspection and regulatory policies for meat, poultry, and eggs. Within
DHHS, FDA research is focused on issues related to its regulatory
responsibility for the safety of marketed domestic and imported foods
other than meat and poultry products. The CDC and NIH focus their
research activities on the surveillance and epidemiology of food borne
illness outbreaks and fundamental work on the pathogenesis of enteric
diseases in humans, respectively. The additional food safety research
funding requested by USDA in fiscal year 2000 will not address
activities already performed by CDC, NIH, and FDA, but instead will
focus on improved pathogen detection and prevention technologies for
meat, poultry, and horticultural crop production and processing, as
well as understanding antimicrobial and antibiotic drug resistance of
microbial pathogens that can infect both food producing animals and
humans.
Question. Your testimony suggests that Americans have a greater
chance of encountering food borne illnesses due to increased consumer
food choices and additional access to prepared foods. Recognizing the
changes each agency has to make in order to address this new scenario,
would you consider our food source less safe today than ten years ago?
Five years go? Could you (USDA, FDA, or CDC) provide statistics or
figures relating to how many illnesses and deaths a year can be
attributed to food borne illnesses? Do the statistics suggest that the
problem is being addressed?
USDA answer: The statistics from FoodNet show that during 1998,
9,787 laboratory-confirmed cases of 9 diseases under surveillance were
identified: 4,031 of camplyobacteriosis, 2,849 of salmonellosis, 1,483
of shigellosis, 565 of cryptosporidiosis, 508 of E. coli O157:H7
infections, 186 of yersiniosis, 106 of listeriosis, 50 of vibrio
infections, and 9 of cyclosporiasis. Although these data don't reflect
all foodborne illnesses that occur, we suggest that they are
representative of the nationwide pattern of foodborne illnesses.
CDC collects epidemiological data relating to the incidence and
type of food borne illness that occur within the United States. ARS
provides research information relating to risk factor analysis that are
used by CDC in determining the risk of sustaining a food borne illness
from a specific food type. For example, ARS released the Salmonella
Risk Assessment Modeling Program for Poultry (S-RAMP), and the Food
Animal Risk Model for Poultry Pathogens (FARM-PP) which predicts the
severity of outcomes from consumption of poultry products with
Salmonella and Campylobacter.
ARS does not collect human epidemiological statistical data
relating to illnesses or deaths attributed to food borne illnesses.
______
FDA answer. Estimates of foodborne illness and death are imprecise
and widely diverse. The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology
(CAST) estimates that 9,000 deaths and 6.5 to 33 million illnesses in
the United States each year are food related. CDC is in the process of
analyzing and updating estimates of foodborne illness and death.
Statistics suggest that, despite advances to produce safe food and
protect consumers, foodborne illness remain a significant public health
problem. FDA will carefully review the analysis and will provide
additional data when possible.
It also is important to recognize that, as surveillance and
laboratory methods improve, we may see an increase in foodborne
illness. Better surveillance leads to better and more accurate disease
detection, which in turn leads to more investigations. As surveillance
improves, more outbreaks, not fewer, will be detected. By finding and
investigating such outbreaks, CDC can define risks, develop and
implement interventions, and over the long term target and ultimately
eliminate the risk.
In order to determine whether our food source is safer today than
it was five or ten years ago, we need to compare the incidence of death
and illness from foodborne pathogens over that particular time period.
However, estimates of foodborne illness and death are imprecise and
widely diverse. The number of deaths and illnesses attributed to
foodborne disease are estimates--calculated from the number of
individual cases that come to the attention of CDC and other public
health agencies--from clinicians, laboratory analyses and surveys. Only
1 to 10 percent of actual cases of foodborne illness are reported.
Therefore, multiplication factors are obtained from small studies to
allow estimates of the total illness. These values all have an
uncertainty range about them, and the final estimate will be the most
likely value with an accompanying range of possible values. The widely
quoted estimates of 6.5 million to 33 million annual cases and 9,000
deaths come from the 1994 Council for Agricultural Science and
Technology or CAST report on Foodborne Pathogens.
The recently developed FoodNet system is designed to be more
comprehensive in collecting the incidence of illnesses and to determine
the various factors more accurately. As additional FoodNet information
is collected, the estimates of illness should become more accurate and
the ranges should be reduced. We would be happy to provide information
for the record on the rate of detection of selected pathogens.
[The information follows:]
RATE \1\ OF SELECTED PATHOGENS DETECTED BY THE FOODBORNE DISEASES ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE NETWORK (FOODNET) \2\
ILLNESS RATES OF FOODBORNE PATHOGENS FROM THE 1996-1998 FOODNET SYSTEM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isolate 1996 1997 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Campylobacter................................................... 23.5 25.2 21.7
Cryptosporidium................................................. ( \3\ ) 2.7 2.5
Cyclospora...................................................... ( \3\ ) 0.3 0
E.coli O157:H7.................................................. 2.7 2.3 2.8
Listeria........................................................ 0.5 0.5 0.5
Salmonella...................................................... 14.5 13.6 12.4
Shigella........................................................ 8.9 7.5 8.5
Vibrio.......................................................... 0.1 0.3 0.3
Yersinia........................................................ 1.0 0.9 1.0
-----------------------------------------------
Total................................................... \4\ 51.2 \4\ 50.3 47.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 1996, active surveillance was initiated for laboratory-confirmed cases of Campylobacter, Shiga toxin-
producing E.coli O157, Listeria, Salmonella, Shigella, Vibrio, and Yersinia infections in Minnesota and Oregon
and in selected counties in California, Connecticut, and Georgia. In 1997, surveillance for laboratory-
confirmed cases of Cryptosporidium and Cyclospora infections was initiated in Minnesota and Oregon and in
selected counties in California and Connecticut. Data presented in this table are from these original FoodNet
sites only.
\2\ Values are illnesses per 100,000 population.
\3\ Not reported.
\4\ Excludes Crytosporidum and Cyclospora.
NOTE: This table is based upon information provided in CDC's March 12, 1999 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report (MMWR).
Although the development of baseline data from FoodNet is still in
its early stages, the figures from the CDC report of March 12 may
indicate that the Food Safety Initiative efforts are having an affect
in some areas. Comparing data from the five original FoodNet sites,
overall incidence of laboratory-confirmed infections caused by the
pathogens under surveillance declined from 1996 to 1998.
Although the U.S. systems for reporting foodborne disease are
globally pre-eminent, they only capture a fraction of the cases that
occur. This limitation reflects the fact that for sporadic cases of
foodborne disease, only a small percentage of these medical events are
reported. Even with outbreaks involving multiple victims, only about 40
percent are investigated sufficiently to identify the causative agent.
One goal of the Food Safety Initiative has been to improve this
reporting system, while simultaneously initiating programs to prevent
foodborne disease. It is also important to recognize that, as
surveillance and laboratory methods improve, we may see an increase in
foodborne illness. Better surveillance leads to better and more
accurate disease detection, which in turn leads to more investigations.
As surveillance improves, more outbreaks, not fewer, will be detected.
By finding and investigating such outbreaks, FDA, CDC, and USDA can
define risks, develop and implement interventions, and over the long
term target and ultimately eliminate the risk.
Question. Where do you believe the biggest food safety threat
lies--in domestic produced crops, imported commodities, consumer
preparation, or a mix? Where would the emphasis of the U.S. tax dollar
be best spent?
FDA answer. Risk and benefits cost analyses have been done or are
being done for some food safety risks such as E. coli O157:H7 in ground
beef and Salmonella in eggs. Much more needs to be done for other food
safety risks. Unfortunately, risk assessment is far less developed for
foodborne pathogens than for chemical hazards. Even chemical hazards,
for which risk assessment methods have been the most thoroughly
developed, data gaps force continued use of assumptions about exposure,
hazard potency, and characteristics of the populations at risk.
The President's Council on Food Safety has requested that the
Interagency Food Safety Risk Assessment Consortium consider how to
develop a comparative risk analysis for food safety strategic planning.
Various steps may need to be taken to evaluate risks including a
ranking of foodborne pathogen risks based on surveillance and economic
data; consideration of a broader range of food safety hazards including
not only microbial risks, but also pesticides and chemicals; and
finally, selection of highly ranked hazards, an evaluation of control
measures, and an evaluations of net benefits.
Risk assessment provides a strong foundation upon which efficient
allocation of scarce food safety resources can be made. It plays a
central role in the development of any science-based system of
preventive controls. Risk assessment also provides essential
information for estimating and analyzing the costs and benefits of
policy alternatives. We are continuing to emphasize the development,
testing, and validation of microbial risk assessments and foodborne
illness evaluation methods. Improving risk assessment will allow us, in
the future, to target the prevention of foodborne disease by informing
surveillance plans, prevention strategies for process control systems
and for food inspections based on HACCP principles, and research
programs to fill critical food safety information gaps. By
incorporating the results of risk assessments with economic analyses,
we will enhance our understanding of the economic consequences of
specific food safety policies and make better-informed choices among
alternative and policy options.
Question. Pending at FDA is a proposed rule to require the
imposition of mandatory HACCP on juice processors. Recognizing that 98
percent of all juices are pasteurized, what is FDA's rationale for the
imposition of HACCP on juice processors that use a guaranteed pathogen
kill step?
FDA answer. While pasteurization effectively controls pathogens in
juice, there are other hazards associated with juice that are not heat-
treatable. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point or HACCP is a
preventive strategy for food safety that addresses microbiological,
physical and chemical hazards. Because of the variety of hazards
associated with juice, FDA tentatively concluded that HACCP and safety
performance criteria offer the most effective way to control the
significant microbial hazards, along with other potential hazards, that
may affect public health. The Agency's decision was based on a
recommendation by the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological
Criteria for Foods that HACCP with a performance standard could form
the general framework needed to ensure the safety of juices. The HACCP
proposal for juice includes a 5-log performance standard for pathogen
control that producers must meet in order to have a valid HACCP plan.
FDA proposed on April 24, 1998, that HACCP be mandatory for the
juice industry and is currently involved in rule making on this matter.
HACCP also considers chemical and physical hazards in addition to the
microbiological hazards. The proposal gives excellent examples of
instances in which non-microbiological hazards occurred in juice
products. These examples were tin, poisonous plant parts, lead,
patulin, unapproved use of food and color additives, improper
sanitation procedures or faulty equipment, glass, plastic and a more
recent 1999 recall with undeclared sulfites in grape juice.
Question. Where do you believe the biggest food safety threat
lies--in domestic produced crops, imported commodities, consumer
preparation, or a mix? Where would the emphasis of the U.S. tax dollar
be best spent?
FDA answer. FDA believes that the biggest threat to food safety
lies within a mix of factors. As a result of this mix of factors, U.S.
dollars are best spent on a mix of the six FSI categories--
surveillance, coordination, inspections and compliance, risk
assessment, research and education. Each of the categories are
intertwined and serve a unique function in addressing the threats to
domestic crops, imported commodities, consumer preparation, and other
sources such as retail establishments, including food restaurants,
vending operations, and institutional feeding operations such as
schools, hospitals and nursing homes.
Surveillance and investigation are powerful tools to detect new
foodborne disease challenges, to determine what specific food sources
are implicated in foodborne illness, and to learn how best to keep
foods from becoming contaminated. Enhancing the capacity of states to
monitor foodborne disease and to investigate and control outbreaks will
lead to better general control measures and fewer illnesses.
Federal and state inspection programs are an important component of
the nation's food safety inspection system that cover domestic and
imported products. The move toward HACCP will pose a challenge to the
states to implement. Federal agencies can help the state systems meet
that challenge. If HACCP is to be an effective program for ensuring
that food processors have modern, state-of-the-art procedures in
effect, FDA must improve its inspection capabilities, so that the
highest--risk food plants are inspected at least once per year.
Risk assessment is far less developed for foodborne pathogens than
for chemical contaminants. Intensive commitment is necessary to develop
critically needed methods of analyzing the available data and
addressing its uncertainty; methods that account for variability,
specifically of living microbial pathogens, are essential.
Food safety research is critically needed to develop the means to
identify and characterize more rapidly and accurately foodborne
hazards, to provide the tools for regulatory enforcement, and to
develop effective interventions that can be used as appropriate to
prevent hazards at each step from production to consumption.
An integral part of the overall food safety initiative is providing
food safety education to a variety of audiences: consumers, that is the
general public and specific groups at risk for foodborne illness;
public health professionals and physicians; retail, food-service, and
institutional food preparers; veterinarians, animal and other food
producers; and food transportation workers. The challenge is to create
educational messages that address the risks relevant to each audience
throughout the food chain.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator McConnell
Question. In 1998 FSIS and FAS estimated implementation and
enforcement of new country of origin labeling requirements for imported
meat would cost USDA $60 million. There are no funding requests for
implementation of such a program in USDA's fiscal year 2000 budget.
Should Congress pass imported meat country of origin labeling
legislation, how will USDA pay for the costs associated with the
establishment and enforcement of such a program?
USDA answer. The cost estimates to which you refer were
preliminary, and based on the fact that the greatest impact would
appear to be at the retail level, since most labels on fresh meat cuts
are applied at retail and FSIS has limited presence at the retail
level. Should this legislation be enacted, we would have to examine
what resources would be necessary for implementation.
The country of origin labeling report currently being developed
will propose various monitoring and enforcement regimes. Briefly, those
options include: (1) enforcement by USDA at retail; (2) limited
enforcement at wholesale establishments, which are already regulated by
USDA; (3) enforcement at retail by States or other Federal agencies
involved in marketing; (4) monitoring and referral through private,
third-party certifiers; or (5) enforcement through a whistleblower or
competitor complaint system. Depending on the regulatory regime
Congress chooses, other Federal or State agencies or third parties may
be able to perform these tasks at a lesser cost.
Question. What offsets would have to be made in other program
areas?
USDA answer. The broad issue of country of origin labeling is
primarily a marketing issue, not a food safety issue. FSIS must apply
its resources to ensure the safety of meat, poultry, and egg products.
Question. If the price of meat rises as a result of country of
origin labeling mandates, how will this impact individuals who rely on
government assistance for their family food purchases?
USDA answer. From preliminary information, it would be expected
that, if the price of meat increases as a result of mandatory country
of origin labeling, all consumers of meat products would experience a
corresponding price increase, at least in the short term, including
those who rely on government assistance programs. According to data
from USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS), the amount of imported
fresh muscle cuts of beef consumed in the U.S. is very small compared
to consumption of the same domestically produced product. The volume of
imported beef muscle cuts represents about one percent of domestic beef
production.
Question. Will country of origin labeling for imported meat result
in higher cattle or sheep prices or higher profits for products?
USDA answer. Information from USDA's the Economic Research Service
(ERS) and the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) that a country of
origin labeling requirement would probably increase some costs to
packers, processors, and retailers. These would include the cost of
preserving the identity of domestic and imported products, the direct
costs of new or revised labels, and possible shifted costs if firms
cease using imported products as a result of a new labeling regime.
Domestic products would have to be labeled, too. It is reasonable to
expect that those costs would be passed along to consumers to some
extent. The profits realized by the sale of those products would depend
on the increased cost of processing and distribution in relation to the
costs incurred as a result of new requirements, and the degree to which
product manufacturers believe they can pass along those costs to
consumers and still remain competitive in the marketplace.
Question. Is the United States a net exporter or net importer of
meat products? What has been the trend over the past several years?
USDA answer. The United States is a net exporter of all meat
products, including all red meat and poultry meat. In 1998, U.S. meat
exports were 4.2 million tons valued at $6.4 billion and imports were
1.3 million tons valued at nearly $2.8 billion. The U.S. meat trade
surplus in 1998 was about 3 million tons valued at $3.6 billion.
Poultry meat exports account for most of the surplus as the United
States is the world's largest poultry meat exporter but imports only
minimal amounts. The United States is a significant importer of beef
and pork. In 1998, U.S. net exports of beef and pork, including variety
meat, were 317,000 tons and $1.3 billion. In comparison, the U.S.
poultry meat trade surplus was 2.5 million tons and $2.1 billion.
The meat trade surplus has grown significantly since 1994. In value
terms, the meat surplus was $2.6 billion in 1994, peaking at $4.7
billion in 1996. The recent decline in the value of the meat trade
surplus is due to lower meat prices during the past 2 years and a sharp
drop in Russian imports of poultry meat at the end of 1998. The trade
balance in volume terms had been steadily increasing until the onset of
the Russian ruble crisis. The balance in volume terms was slightly
lower in 1998.
Question. Which countries represent the largest markets for U.S.
meat exports?
USDA answer. The leading markets for U.S. meat exports are Japan,
Russia, Mexico, Canada, Hong Kong, Korea, and Taiwan. In volume terms,
Russia is the leading U.S. meat export market because of the large
quantities of poultry meat exported there--more than 715,000 tons in
1998 and 981,000 tons in 1997. However, in terms of value, Japan is the
leading U. S. market by a large margin. U.S. meat exports to Japan were
$2.4 billion in 1998, accounting for 37 percent of the total value of
U.S. meat exports. Mexico at $860 million was the second leading market
for the United States, followed by Russia at $708 million and Canada at
$681 million. Russia and Hong Kong are primarily markets for U.S.
poultry meat, while Japan, Canada, and Mexico are leading destinations
for both poultry and red meat. The United States exports red meat to
Korea and Taiwan.
Question. Would the establishment of a new meat labeling regime in
the United States be viewed as a non-tariff barrier by our trading
partners?
USDA answer. FSIS requires that all meat imported into the United
States bear the name of the country of origin, which remains with the
product to the retail level--unless it is further processed under U.S.
inspection. Meat and poultry products can only be imported into the
United States from countries and plants approved by and recognized as
imposing inspection requirements ``at least equal to'' those of the
U.S. To this end, labeling is approved prior to entry. The proposed
legislation would set a new precedent regarding the rules of origin and
product labeling which could invite mirror action by U.S. trading
partners. Mandatory country of origin requirements could change the way
both domestic and foreign meat retailers and others involved in
production and distribution do business, thereby affecting their costs
and consumer choices. Article IX of the GATT 1994 allows countries to
require marks of origin on imported products, so long as the marking
requirement does not seriously damage the imported products, materially
reduce their value, or unreasonably increase their cost. However, if
the new labeling requirement does not qualify under GATT-permitted
marking rules, i.e. if the label requires the word ``imported'' rather
than the specific country name, it might be challenged as violating
national treatment and constituting a prohibited restriction. In
addition, if the effect on imports is severe enough, a protesting
country could bring a WTO non-violation nullification or impairment
challenge against the new labeling requirement.
Question. Would the establishment of such a labeling requirement
affect U.S. exports?
USDA answer. The effect on U.S. exports would depend upon the types
of labeling requirements established by foreign countries.
Question. Has the United States challenged labeling or other non-
tariff barriers proposed in other countries?
USDA answer. The United States continues to oppose mandatory
labeling of foods obtained through biotechnology--European Union (EU)
biotechnology labeling. It has also criticized other foreign nations,
i.e. Korea and EU, for attempting to adopt similar country of origin
requirements for meat products, and has challenged Korea, the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Cooperation Council countries--
Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, UAE--for imposing mandatory government
set shelf-life labeling requirements which impede U.S. food imports. In
each case, the new labeling requirements were inappropriate remedies
unrelated to either the safety or quality attributes of imported food
products being marketed.
Question. You recently told the House Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee that some meat and poultry plants are resisting the effort
to remove unnecessary layers of the old inspection system. Could you
please provide the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee with
more complete detail about the types of plants that are resisting de-
layering and a list of specific regulations that plants have told the
agency they do not want removed?
USDA answer. A number of establishments have strongly opposed FSIS
regulatory reform efforts regarding certain regulations. The
elimination of prior approval for proprietary substances and nonfood
compounds included within the proposed rule on ``Sanitation
Requirements for Official Meat and Poultry Establishments'' (62 FR
45045); the conversion of the historically prescriptive thermal
processing (canning) requirements into performance standards (9 CFR
318.300 and 381.300); and the elimination of prior approval for
equipment included within the final rule on ``Eliminating of Prior
Approval Requirements for Establishment Drawings and Specifications,
Equipment, and Certain Partial Quality Control Programs'' (62 FR 45016)
are among those reforms opposed by various segments of the industry.
Question. Is imported meat, or meat derived from imported cattle,
less safe than meat of domestic origin?
USDA answer. FSIS has measures to ensure that imported meat is safe
through its stringent equivalence requirements including reinspection
activities at ports of entry. Approximately 9,000,000 pounds of product
are rejected each year due to reinspection. In 1998 9,923,000 pounds
were refused.
Question. Would country of origin labeling enhance food safety?
USDA answer. There are no data that support a link to food safety.
Question. FSIS has been testing ground beef for E. coli O157:H7
since 1996. Out of 26,088 samples, they have found only 25 positives.
How much is it costing USDA to look for something they only find 0.096
percent of the time, or less than once in every one-thousand samples
tested.
USDA answer. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) spends
approximately $10.4 million per year on testing meat and poultry
products for 9 potentially deadly pathogens, including E. coli O157:H7,
Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Listeria.
Question. None of these samples were connected to an outbreak or
illness--so what is the val ue of this testing?
USDA answer. The testing program for E. coli O157:H7 began after
the tragic outbreak of foodborne illness associated with this pathogen
in the State of Washington. USDA estimates that over 10,000 illnesses
per year result from consuming foods contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.
As the Washington outbreak demonstrated, the most susceptible to
this pathogen include children, the elderly, and the immune
compromised. Testing programs like that for E. coli O157:H7 assist FSIS
in controlling deadly pathogens by identifying contaminated product in
time to remove it from the market before it can cause foodborne
illness. The justification for continuing this program is that the
agency believes this testing program is reducing the risk of illnesses/
outbreaks caused by E. coli O157:H7 in raw ground beef. The FSIS
program of random sampling at federal, State, and import establishments
and at the retail level, as well as the implications of a positive
finding, encourage the meat industry to use good manufacturing
practices, good sanitation procedures, antimicrobial interventions,
microbial testing, and other measures to eliminate this serious
pathogen from the nation's meat supply.
Question. Most of the 26,088 samples were collected from grocery
stores. How can testing at grocery stores for E. coli O157:H7 or any
pathogen contribute to the protection of the public's health if the
consumer has already eaten the food by the time you get the test
results back? Shouldn't the testing be done before the food reaches
stores?
USDA answer. The FSIS Raw Ground Beef Products Testing Program
collects approximately 60 percent of the samples from retail stores and
approximately 40 percent of the samples directly from processing
plants. Many retail stores further process ground beef from a federal
plant, and the testing program is targeted to detect contamination
problems at this level. Further, FSIS conducts a variety of separate
testing--monitoring--programs for foodborne pathogens in ready-to-eat
products, and all of these monitoring samples are collected at the
processing plant level. Detection and removal of pathogen-contaminated
foods at any point of distribution will serve to protect the public
from foodborne illness, if an effective recall can be accomplished.
Again, knowledge of food contamination problems promotes corrective
actions on the part of producers, and serves to prevent future
foodborne health hazards.
Question. I understand that FSIS has announced a plan to test
moving its food inspectors out of the Federal slaughter and processing
plants and move them into retail such as into grocery stores. Grocery
stores are already under inspection by FDA and the state and local
public health departments. This doesn't seem very efficient or
productive given that other areas are in greater need of food safety
inspection. For example, Senator Susan Collins and the Government
Accounting Office have identified a real need for increased inspection
of imported foods at the ports of entry. Why not put these inspectors
where there is a need rather than where you will just be duplicating
effort? Do you have any data to show that grocery stores need more
inspect ion than imported foods?
USDA answer. Reassigning FSIS inspectors to FDA for port-of-entry
inspection is not a viable option for these reasons. Under HACCP
implementation, FSIS does not contemplate any change in the continuous
inspection requirements of the statutes or in the overall number of
inspection personnel. FSIS anticipates full productive use of its
inspection resources in pursuing food safety work for meat, poultry,
and egg products.
The implementation of HACCP involves overseeing industry
implementation and compliance with the regulatory requirements outlined
in the Pathogen Reduction and HACCP final rule that was promulgated in
July 1996. The HACCP provisions of that rule have different effective
dates based on the size of establishments, e.g., large, small, and very
small. The last phase of implementation does not occur until January
2000 when very small plants are required to implement HACCP systems.
During fiscal year 1999, FSIS redeployed approximately 100
employees from large HACCP plants to cover critical vacancies in small
HACCP plants. This redeployment of inspection personnel was done to
assure that adequate resources were available to oversee successful
implementation of HACCP in small plants. We do not anticipate any
further need to redeploy inspection personnel prior to implementation
of HACCP in very small plants in January 2000.
Under the slaughter models component of the HACCP-based Inspection
Models Project, FSIS is exploring alternative ways in which slaughter
inspection might be accomplished in establishments that have already
implemented HACCP systems and that exclusively slaughter certain market
classes of animals. These market classes are young poultry, steers and
heifers, and market hogs. In all cases, these are young, healthy
animals that do not exhibit the same disease and public health concerns
that may be present in older animals. The alternative slaughter
inspection models under consideration meet current statutory
requirements for continuous inspection, but may require fewer
inspection personnel within the slaughter department of some
establishments.
FSIS has food safety and other statutory obligations that are
sufficient to fully occupy the inspection resources that may become
available through this project. It is necessary as part of the
verification of industry HACCP systems to assure that product bearing
the Federal marks of inspection continues to move through
transportation, distribution, and marketing channels in a manner that
does not cause such product to become adulterated or misbranded. The
second component of the HACCP-based Inspection Models project, the in-
distribution model, addresses this issue by using a limited number of
inspection resources to expand existing oversight of Federal product
in-distribution channels.
For the record, FSIS and the National Joint Council of Food
Inspection Locals have reached an impasse in negotiations necessary to
begin the pilot tests for both the slaughter models and the in-
distribution models. The parties have jointly requested assistance from
the Federal Service Impasses Panel to resolve the impasse. Until such
resolution occurs, the pilot tests will not be started and it would be
premature to determine the number of resources that may be available
for other FSIS food safety and economic adulteration concerns.
______
Questions Submitted to Dr. Catherine E. Woteki, Under Secretary for
Food Safety
Questions Submitted by Senator Burns
codex alimentarius standards
Question. Codex Alimentarius is a program to encourage fair
international trade in food and promote the health and economic
interests of consumers. What effects do you expect Codex Alimentarius
to have on international uniformity in food safety standards in the
long-term?
USDA answer. Codex standards have value as reference points. The
food safety measures embodied in the standards, guidelines and codes of
practice that constitute the Codex Alimentarius, if developed in
accordance with principles that hold bases in sound science as the
predominant value, will have unquestioned value to nations as bases for
their own development of mandatory food safety measures. Nations could
then act under the premise that the measure is scientifically linked to
a specified public health concern. The value of Codex Alimentarius in
the long term will be dependent on how true it remains to the
principles of sound science. Codex standards are recognized as
international standards for purposes of the Sanitary/Phyto-Sanitary
(SPS) agreement and impact decisions of the World Trade Organization
(WTO).
Question. You stated that REE has conducted $64 million in food
safety research, under ARS and CSREES. What were the primary findings
and what do you intend to do with the results of this research?
USDA answer. In fiscal year 1998 the USDA (ARS/CSREES/ERS)
undertook $61.4 million in food safety research related to pathogens
and chemical residues. A brief summary of ARS accomplishments during
this fiscal year follows:
accomplishments in the area of detection methods
A. Human Pathogens
--Monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) that bind specifically to
Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli have been
developed, and patented. These antibodies will be used in an
immunologically based method (ELISA) to improve the current
specific detection methods for Campylobacter.
--A laser assisted method (MALDI) has been developed for the rapid
detection of Campylobacter. The methods advantage is that only
a single bacterial colony is needed for analysis. The MALDI
technique also has the potential to be widely used for
confirmatory analysis of other pathogenic bacteria.
--A nucleic acid based (PCR) method was developed which
simultaneously detects enterotoxigenic and Shiga toxin-
producing E. coli (O157:H7) strains from calves. The method is
being used by diagnostic laboratories to rapidly identify,
differentiate and characterize pathogenic E. coli. will be
useful for to producers and veterinarians for the rapid
diagnosis of all the diseases caused by E. coli in calves.
--An ELISA based test (immuno-precipitation pregnancy test design)
called Meridian was developed. The test uses monoclonal
antibodies to specifically detect all E. coli O157 strains, not
just O157:H7. Meridian has found widespread use by food
companies since it has a much lower incidence of false
negatives than other comparable tests.
--In cooperation with IGEN of Gaithersburg, MD, ARS has developed an
immunomagnetic electro-chemiluminescent (IM-EC) method for the
detection of E. coli O157:H7. The test is rapid, sensitive to
low numbers of bacteria, inexpensive, and user-friendly. The
technology is currently under evaluation by the FSIS.
--Optimized methods to identify, differentiate, and characterize
pathogenic E. coli isolates from bovine sources were developed.
Anti-O157 MAbs in an ELISA format accurately detected serum
antibodies to E. coli O157, as well as to the important non-
O157 EHEC serotypes, E. coli O26 and E. coli O111, in cattle
and other livestock. Serum detection of antibodies to E. coli
O157:H7 will allow accurate detection of all animals exposed to
this pathogen at any time during animal growth.
--A laser based detector that illuminates fecal contamination on meat
was developed and patented. The instrument could be used to
immediately alert meat packers to contamination, allowing
carcasses to be promptly decontaminated.
--Research by ARS determined that automated nucleic acid based
ribotyping of Salmonella was a better discriminator between
isolates than serotyping. Ribotyping however, is not a
replacement for serotyping. It was recommended that for
epidemiological investigations, both techniques should be used
simultaneously.
B. Chemical Contaminants
--A method of analysis for multiple diverse pesticides was developed
for fatty samples using chromatography/ion trap mass
spectrometric detection. The method enables extraction of meat
tissue as well as fat, expands the range of pesticides that can
be analyzed. The method uses no chlorinated solvents, and
provides a single step quantitation and confirmation analysis.
This method will increase the capabilities of regulatory and
other laboratories to analyze pesticide residues in food, and
will provide more accurate data for risk assessment purposes.
--A monoclonal antibody capable of detecting the antibiotic
Hygromycin B was formatted into a rapid ELISA assay, and a
patent was issued and the antibodies licensed to a private kit
manufacturing company. The method will allow the detection of
drug residues in poultry by regulatory agencies.
--Supercritical fluid extraction and microdialysis methodologies have
been developed to isolate and detect prohibited drug and other
chemical residues in eggs. The methods have been transferred to
the FDA and the FSIS for their evaluation, and use, as dictated
by their regulatory programs.
--Valid and reliable laboratory methods for assaying iron were
established as an indicator of soft bone constituents in trim
beef derived form advanced meat recovery systems (AMRS).
Studies indicated that iron content of AMR trim beef could be
determined by either dry ash or wet ash (nitric/sulfuric)
procedures, although the dry ash method was selected for
routine analysis. The procedure will be implemented by the
FSIS.
--An instrument for monitoring chlorine dioxide during disinfection
of food processing water was developed. The membrane sensor can
determine chlorine dioxide in the presence of chlorine and/or
other oxidants and provide instantaneous analytical results.
The instrument can be used to assure both adequate residual
levels and to minimize unnecessary water overuse.
Progress in the area of pathogen reduction:
--In order to determine the effectiveness of a pathogen reduction
method bacteria need to be modified to allow their
identification and discrimination from background microflora.
ARS has developed a genetic technique that allows the
construction of (model) pathogens that bioluminesce under UV
light due to production of a green fluorescent protein (GFP).
Various model strains of E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella were
constructed having the same growth and attachment
characteristics as the wild type strain. This research
technology will aid in understanding the basis of microbial
attachment and detachment to animal carcasses in real-time. The
technology also offers a more rapid means to evaluate
antimicrobial carcass treatments that do not rely on sampling,
culturing and back-extrapolation of the resulting plate counts
to large surface areas.
--ARS concluded research on washing and sanitizing hog hauling
trailers and holding pens. The results have led to procedures
to significantly reduce Salmonella, Campylobacter and E. coli
contamination on animals entering slaughter plants.
--A surface pasteurization technique was developed to reduce
microbial contamination (Salmonella, Campylobacter and
Listeria) on the surface of solid foods without loss of
quality. A prototype design to briefly steam fresh whole
broiler carcasses, so that surface organisms are killed but
with no appreciable cooking of the meat, was built, tested and
patented.
--Various conventional and experimental wash formulations were
evaluated to determine their efficacy in decontaminating apples
of human pathogens (Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7, Listeria).
Solutions containing 5 percent hydrogen peroxide, alone or in
combination with acidic detergents achieved a 3-4 log pathogen
reduction. These studies demonstrated that current conventional
methods of washing apples are largely ineffective. Development
of efficacious cleaning methods for fruit are crucial for the
production of unpasteurized juices.
--Low dose gamma irradiation was found to be efficacious for
destroying the human bacterial pathogens E. coli O157:H7,
Listeria and Salmonella on seed used for the growth of sprouts.
Irradiation is a useful technology that significantly reduces
pathogens in certain food commodities, while increasing shelf
life and maintaining freshness, all major consumer demands.
Progress in the area of pathogen control through intervention
strategies:
--A competitive exclusion culture (CEC) to control Salmonella on
commercial broiler farms was developed. The FDA approved this
CEC under the trade name PREEMPTTM for use in commercially
produced broiler chickens. This was the first CEC to receive
FDA approval for use in commercial poultry flocks, and is a
major milestone in an integrated program to prevent Salmonella
contamination in food products from poultry.
--Feed withdrawal in broilers prior to slaughter is used to induce
molt and to stimulate egg laying in aged flocks, however,
withdrawal increased infection rates in their crops by
Salmonella and Campylobacter. Research showed that methods such
as adding lactose to drinking water had the ability to restore
resistance, and reduce infection rates.
--Electrostatic ionization of the air in an area housing S.
enteritidis-infected adult birds was found to reduce the number
of S. enteritidis in the air environment. Airborne transmission
of Salmonella has gained considerable recognition as an
important mechanism of spread of this pathogen within poultry
houses.
--A porcine lymphokine (IL-12) that activates a protective responses
in neonatal pigs has been isolated from the splenic T cells of
S. enteritidis--immune pigs. Oral administration of the
lymphokine will protect weaned pigs from S. choleraesuis organ
invasion, cecal colonization, and will enhance growth
performance and neutrophil function. Enhancing the host immune
response to bacterial and parasitic infection will decrease the
dependence on antibiotic administration.
--Cattle fed large amounts of grain (> 45 percent of DM), accumulate
volatile fatty acids in the colons resulting in a decline in
gut pH. This causes a significant increase in total E. coli
numbers and acid resistance. However, cattle fed hay appeared
to have decreased total E. coli numbers, and decreased acid-
resistance. Although additional studies are required, it is
possible that feeding hay to cattle prior to slaughter may
significantly reduce post harvest contamination by pathogenic
E. coli.
--It was discovered that some naturally occurring food additives
blocked the attachment of E. coli to bovine fascia and
connective tissues. Inhibition of E. coli O157:H7 attachment to
intact meat tissues by use of these substances will offer an
processors additional means to help to prevent E. coli O157:H7
contamination of meats.
--ARS in collaboration with FSIS conducted a nationwide evaluation of
color of cooked beef patties relative to potential food safety
risk for E. coli O157:H7. The study provided solid evidence
that cooked beef patty color is not a good indicator of
internal patty temperature. The results were a major factor in
the development of the new FSIS consumer message that
``consumers should not eat ground beef patties that are pink or
red in the middle unless a food thermometer has been used to
verify cooked temperature.''
--The discovery that electropolishing surfaces significantly reduces
attachment of pathogens such as Campylobacter and subsequent
biofilm formation. This finding will aid equipment
manufacturers in developing methods and selecting materials to
be used in processing foods.
--Controlled atmospheric storage of fresh produce does not appear to
offer a viable method for controlling Listeria monocytogenes.
Therefore the fresh cut industry should consider alternate
methods for controlling this pathogen.
--Low dose gamma irradiation was found to be efficacious for the
control of parasitic pathogens, such as, the coccidia
Cyclosporidium and Cryptosporidium, on soft fruits such as
berries, while increasing shelf life and maintaining freshness,
all major consumer demands.
Progress in the area of antimicrobial/antibiotic resistance:
--The acid tolerance of E. coli O157:H7 contributes to its ability to
cause disease by increasing both its ability to persist in
food, and its infectivity. ARS developed a technique to induce
maximum acid tolerance in these microorganisms, and identified
that the sensitivity to acid inactivation is dependent on
acidulant identity, prior exposure to an acid environment, and
strain identity.
--Over 5,000 clinical, non-clinical and slaughter Salmonella isolates
were analyzed under the National Antimicrobial Susceptibility
Monitoring System. This monitoring program in collaboration
with the FDA and CDC provides critical information to prolong
the useful life of antibiotics for both human and animal use,
and its success has allowed expansion of the program to include
testing of Campylobacter and E. coli.
Progress in the area of risk assessment:
--Bioluminescent strains of Salmonella were used as a tool for
modeling behavior of Salmonella in raw and cooked poultry
products. The data were incorporated into version 2.0 of the
Salmonella--Risk Assessment Modeling Program for Poultry (S-
RAMPP). A new simulation model, the Food Animal Risk Model for
Poultry Pathogens (FARM-PP) was also developed which predicts
the severity of outcomes from consumption of poultry products
contaminated with Salmonella and/or Campylobacter.
The results of this research will be shared and utilized among the
various governmental agencies involved in food safety research. The
staff members of the various agencies are in frequent contact with one
another regarding research agenda in their respective programs. They
also participate with each other in workshops, and committee meetings.
The results will also be shared with Universities scientists at
professional meetings, producers and processors at national, state and
regional meetings, as well as through manuscripts published in
refereed, trade or government publications.
Because CSREES provides funding via extramural grants to various
universities, research institutes and laboratories, it is difficult to
provide a complete accomplishment for specific grants which were
awarded in 1998 for periods of 2-3 years. Therefore, we have provided
some outcomes which are directly related to food safety research grants
made by CSREES within the past 2-3 years. We would anticipate even
greater accomplishments with the current portfolio of research projects
now in progress as a result of the increased funding in 1998.
National Research Initiative
The Food Safety program of the National Research Initiative has
several significant results from research funded in prior fiscal years.
These results can be grouped in five areas: bacteriocins, basic
microbial physiology, prevention of microbial colonization, biosensor
development and production system epidemiology. In the following
examples, more than one university usually has been involved in the
research which has culminated in the outcomes cited. Where feasible,
specific states have been mentioned in the text.
Bacteriocins.--Bacteriocins are proteins produced by lactic acid
bacteria (the kind responsible for producing cheeses and yogurt) that
have the property of inhibiting the growth of other, possibly
pathogenic, bacteria. Investigators have been able to extract and
purify these proteins from several kinds of lactic acid bacteria. One
of these bacteriocins, called nisin, has been adapted as a coating for
machine parts in processing plants and has been demonstrated to retard
the growth of pathogenic bacteria in this setting.
Microbial Physiology.--Genetic and physiologic studies on microbial
contaminants increase our understanding of their disease producing
capabilities. Listeria monocytogenes is a bacteria that can normally
grow at refrigeration temperatures. Investigators have found mutants of
these bacteria that are cold-sensitive and produce so called ``cold-
shock'' proteins. These cold-shock proteins are being studied to see if
they inhibit the growth of normal L. monocytogenes and if they can be
produced in quantities sufficient to be useful as antibacterial washes.
Several studies on Escherichia coli O157:H7 have demonstrated that some
of its pathogenic potential results from tolerating acid levels present
in some foods that would normally inhibit the growth of bacteria.
Further work on this has been funded.
Prevention of Microbial Colonization.--If pathogenic microbes
cannot attach themselves to tissue surfaces, their ability to produce
disease is severely reduced. Two ways that have been investigated are
competitive exclusion and immunization. The principle of competitive
exclusion is to block the tissue receptors to which the microbes would
normally attach. Investigators have demonstrated that the inclusion of
a yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, in the drinking water in poultry
raising facilities will keep pathogenic Salmonella enteritidis from
colonizing the chicken gastro-intestinal tract. Research has also been
funded to test a vaccine against E. coli O157:H7 in cattle. Preliminary
results have demonstrated a level of serum antibody sufficient to keep
the bacteria from binding in calves.
Biosensor Development.--Fusarium moniliforme is a fungus that
infects corn and corn-products resulting in the production of a
mycotoxin, fumonisin, which is both poisonous and carcinogenic.
Investigators report that they have developed an ELISA assay for
fumonisin that detects in the 10-100 ppm range with an accuracy of 65
percent. This is ten times more sensitive than the standard test.
Another research group developed a PCR-ELISA for E. coli O157:H7 that
was 100 times more sensitive than the current test and also suitable
for large-scale screening tests. Another ELISA was developed to detect
Staphylococcus aureus toxin in foods. The test can be run in four
minutes in a processing plant environment. Development of a
piezoelectric sensor for Salmonella species has been successfully
tested and is being combined with other multi-probe biosensors on a
commercial line.
Production System Epidemiology.--A survey for Salmonella bacteria
was conducted on 18 swine finishing farms in North Carolina. The field
study revealed that all the farms had Salmonella of varying species and
serotypes present in both the adult and nursery swine. The most
important finding was, however, that current cleaning and disinfection
procedures are insufficient to kill all of the Salmonella bacteria
present in one group of pigs from infecting the next group of pigs
placed in the ``clean'' facility. This was confirmed on 5 of the 18
finishing farms.
special research grants
Epidemiology of Escherichia coli (E. coli) in beef cattle--Kansas State
University
This research is now entering its fourth year. Shedding of E. coli
has been monitored on a frequent basis for more than 24 months in both
small and large cow-calf operations. Percent of cattle shedding
bacteria varies among times of the year and has appeared to be
associated with certain management practices. Shedding is especially
high during the calving period when cattle are brought together in
closer proximity. Management systems to reduce the frequency of
shedding are now being evaluated. It appears that contaminated water
sources are a major source of exposure for the cattle.
Fresh Fruits and Vegetables--several universities
The Food Safety Research Grants program funded 12 projects directed
at food safety problems involving fresh fruits and vegetables in the
fiscal year 1998 funding cycle. These projects were directed at
detection systems, methods for pathogen reduction on fresh produce, and
non-thermal treatments for juices. A variety of institutions received
these grants representing all sectors of the U. S. (Indiana, Delaware,
North Dakota, New Jersey, New York (Cornell), Tennessee, Arkansas,
Florida, Oregon, and Alabama).
Outcomes from this research are being used as the basis for
development of educational programs which are delivered to a variety of
constituents including consumers, food handlers, producers, production
advisors, veterinarians, and others.
ERS accomplishments related to food safety include:
Costs associated with campylobacter.--As detailed in an article in
Food Review, ERS research showed that the estimated annual costs of
Campylobacter-associated Guillan-Barre Syndrome (GBS) are $0.2-$1.8
billion. When these costs are added to the previously ERS-estimated
costs of campylobacteriosis ($1.3-$6.2 billion), total annual costs
from Campylobacter are $1.5-$8.0 billion (1995 dollars). Assuming 55-70
percent of costs are attributable to food borne sources, costs of
campylobacteriosis from food sources ($0.7-$4.3 billion) and costs of
associated GBS ($0.1-$1.3 billion) combined equal total annual costs of
$0.8-$5.6 billion from food borne Campylobacter. Reducing Campylobacter
in food could prevent up to $5.6 billion in costs annually.
Distributional consequences of food borne illness.--The economic
impact of the costs of food borne disease on the U.S. economy was
reported in an article, ``A Distributional Analysis of the Costs of
Food borne Illness: Who Ultimately Pays,'' Journal of Agricultural and
Applied Economics. Previous estimates of the costs of seven food borne
pathogens were disaggregated by type and distributed across the
population. Initial income losses resulting from premature death cause
a decrease in economic activity. Medical costs, in contrast, result in
economic growth, though this does not outweigh the total costs of a
premature death. This accounting of how costs and illnesses are
diffused through the economy provides useful information for policy
makers.
Methods for valuing food safety risk reductions.--Food borne
diseases caused by microbial pathogens impose an economic burden on
society by causing premature death and productivity losses when people
made sick are unable to return to work. An article, ``Measuring the
Consumer Benefits of Food Safety Risk Reduction,'' Journal of
Agricultural and Applied Economics explored three valuation
methodologies that place a monetary value on food safety risk
reduction, and presented a case study for each. These techniques
include contingent valuation models (where consumers are asked in
surveys their willingness to pay for food-safety risk reductions),
experimental auctions (where people actually exchange money for
products with varying levels of food-safety risk), and the cost-of-
illness approach (which values health risks on the basis of medical
costs and productivity losses assigned to food borne illness).
ARS research has also been valuable to FSIS in areas over which
FSIS has no jurisdiction. For instance, research that ARS completed for
food animal production and transport is currently aiding the industry
in meeting pathogen reduction guidelines. Indeed, both the results of
ARS research plus advice received from ARS scientists aided FSIS in
making the HACCP rule an effective and practical instrument.
Question. The President's goal is to ``develop a comprehensive food
safety strategy and coordinate food safety budgets that will result in
further improvements in the safety of the food supply and will ensure
the most effective use of Federal resources''. Can you outline, the
specific steps that have been taken to ensure this happens and how you
plan to implement them?
USDA answer. On August 25, 1998, through Executive Order 13100, the
President established the Council on Food Safety. The Council is co-
chaired by the Secretaries of Agriculture and of Health and Human
Services and the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology/
Director of the Office of Science and Technology policy. The President
charged the Council to develop a comprehensive strategic plan for
federal food safety activities and to make recommendations to the
President on how to implement the plan. In addition, the Council will
advise Federal agencies in setting priority areas for investment in
food safety and developing a coordinated budget for the Administration.
Finally, the Council will oversee the research efforts of the Joint
Institute for Food Safety Research. The development of a strategic plan
is already underway. In fact, the President's Food Safety Initiative
was an initial step towards a national food safety plan. The plan's
principal goal is to enhance the safety of the nations food supply and
protect the public health through a seamless science-and risk-based
food safety system. The plan will set priorities, improve coordination
and efficiency, and identify gaps in the current system and mechanisms
to fill those gaps, continue to strengthen and enhance prevention
strategies, and develop performance measures to show progress.
The implementation process will certainly pose some significant
challenges because of the diversity of stakeholders in food safety.
There will be a need to have a high degree of cooperation,
coordination, and communication, since each Federal, state and local
agency has unique mandates, authorities, history, culture, and
operating procedures. The Council plans to use an open process in
developing the plan--a process that will be responsive to all
stakeholder concerns--in order to have credibility and obtain public
support.
Question. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has found that
successful integrated operation of a food safety system requires that
officials at all levels of government work together in support of
common goals of a science-based system. How do you intend to facilitate
interagency cooperation?
USDA answer. Federal food safety agencies and State and local
agencies have expertise and resources that, when combined in an
integrated program, significantly enhance the impact of food safety
programs. While more needs to be done to optimize and develop new
partnerships, the Federal food safety agencies have already established
extensive interactions with state and local regulatory agencies. We
believe that the strategic planning process under the direction of the
President's Council will provide new opportunities for officials at all
levels of government to participate as primary and equal partners in
the development of the future food safety system.
Question. On October 5, 1998 USDA's Recall Policy Working Group
issued a report making several recommendations for improvements in the
operation of food recalls. What is the status of USDA's implementation
of the Recall Policy Working Group's recommendations?
USDA answer. The Agency provided an opportunity for public comment
on the working group's report. It has evaluated the comments that it
received and is now in the process of preparing a set of
recommendations for the Secretary. The Agency will take appropriate
action based on the Secretary's decision.
______
Questions Submitted to Thomas J. Billy, Administrator, Food Safety and
Inspection Service
Question. E. coli outbreaks continue to be a problem in the
agricultural sector. Although numbers of incidences are down, public
perception of beef and beef products do not appear to have improved
significantly. How does the FSIS intend to work further with industry
and consumer groups to reduce illness and improve consumer perception?
USDA answer. The Agency's Meat and Poultry Hotline and consumer
education program have long provided answers to questions and basic
consumer information about E. coli and safe practices for preparing
foods. In fiscal year 1998, the Agency partnered with the Agricultural
Research Service to study the color of ground beef--as it relates to
reaching a safe internal temperature of 160 degrees. As a result of the
study's findings, the Agency published new consumer information about
safely preparing hamburgers using a thermometer instead of using color
as an indicator of doneness.
The Agency has also began work with the thermometer industry and
retail establishments to encourage them to make thermometers easily
available to consumers and make their packaging carry correct and
consistent information about safe temperatures.
Question. Listeria monocytogenes is estimated to have affected 1100
people. How will FSIS continue to address the listeriosis issue and
reduce the rate of illnesses?
USDA answer. FSIS has undertaken an aggressive strategy to decrease
the risks from Listeria on ready-to-eat products. Included in this
strategy is: developing guidance to industry on ``best practices'' that
can help to reduce the potential of product contamination; targeting
consumer education for high-risk groups; initiating a study to address
shelf-life and Listeria risks; and, conducting a quantitative risk
assessment for Listeria that will determine the foods that pose the
greatest risk to consumers and specific subpopulations at increased
risk of contracting listeriosis.
Question. I congratulate you on your timely address of the Y2K
issue. I urge you to continue to raise awareness of the Y2K problem and
the threat it may pose to our nation's food supply, as well as to plan
to address any problems that may occur within the food safety industry.
When will you have Y2K revisions completed?
USDA answer. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is
continuing to raise awareness of the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem through
its outreach efforts to the public and industry. The Agency is
participating in USDA's Food Supply Working Group (FSWG) and operates
its own Year 2000 Homepage, which is linked to that of the FSWG.
FSIS has recently issued a letter to managers of Federally-
inspected meat, poultry and egg establishments, updating them on Agency
progress in achieving Y2K compliance and alerting them to the needs to
ensure that their own systems will not experience Y2K problems.
The Agency has completed Y2K revisions and testing for its mission
critical systems. We plan to complete Y2K work on our remaining non-
mission critical systems, telecommunications and vulnerable systems and
processes by September 30, 1999.
Question. What are the specific implications of having AMS assume
part of the certification responsibility in the exporting industry?
USDA answer. As long as the export service remains voluntary and
fee-based, there is no implication of having AMS assume a part of the
certification. Although AMS is not a regulatory agency, its mission is
to foster and assist in the development of new or expanded domestic and
foreign markets. AMS partially accomplishes this through voluntary,
user-funded grading, certification, and inspection of agricultural
commodities, some of which are exported. It is the policy of AMS to
immediately notify APHIS, FDA, or FSIS regarding any hazards observed
during the performance of our services.
Question. User fees, or a food safety tax, such as the one
proposed, could hurt the 500,000 workers who depend on the economic
well-being of the agriculture industry. It would lead to a loss of jobs
and damage businesses, large and small, that depend on the economy of
rural America. Agricultural producers are struggling to make ends meet.
They cannot afford the effects new user fees will have on the already
depressed market. What other means will FSIS employ to gain funding
that user fees would provide?
USDA answer. If the proposed user fee funding structure is not
approved by the Congress, FSIS will pursue obtaining appropriated funds
to continue its mission of ensuring the safety of meat, poultry, and
egg products that are supplied to the general public.
Question. I understand you have been in discussions with the FDA
about the possibility of a cooperative effort between the agencies
where resources freed-up by the implementation of HACCP in meat and
poultry facilities would be utilized at ports of entry for inspecting
imported foods. What is the status of those discussions?
USDA answer. Reassigning FSIS inspectors to FDA for port-of-entry
inspection is not a viable option for these reasons. Under HACCP
implementation, FSIS does not contemplate any change in the continuous
inspection requirements of the statutes or in the overall number of
inspection personnel. FSIS anticipates full productive use of its
inspection resources in pursuing food safety work for meat, poultry,
and egg products.
The implementation of HACCP involves overseeing industry
implementation and compliance with the regulatory requirements outlined
in the Pathogen Reduction and HACCP final rule that was promulgated in
July 1996. The HACCP provisions of that rule have different effective
dates based on the size of establishments, e.g., large, small, and very
small. The last phase of implementation does not occur until January
2000 when very small plants are required to implement HACCP systems.
During fiscal year 1999, FSIS redeployed approximately 100
employees from large HACCP plants to cover critical vacancies in small
HACCP plants. This redeployment of inspection personnel was done to
assure that adequate resources were available to oversee successful
implementation of HACCP in small plants. We do not anticipate any
further need to redeploy inspection personnel prior to implementation
of HACCP in very small plants in January 2000.
Under the slaughter models component of the HACCP-based Inspection
Models Project, FSIS is exploring alternative ways in which slaughter
inspection might be accomplished in establishments that have already
implemented HACCP systems and that exclusively slaughter certain market
classes of animals. These market classes are young poultry, steers and
heifers, and market hogs. In all cases, these are young, healthy
animals that do not exhibit the same disease and public health concerns
that may be present in older animals. The alternative slaughter
inspection models under consideration meet current statutory
requirements for continuous inspection, but may require fewer
inspection personnel within the slaughter department of some
establishments.
FSIS has food safety and other statutory obligations that are
sufficient to fully occupy the inspection resources that may become
available through this project. It is necessary as part of the
verification of industry HACCP systems to assure that product bearing
the Federal marks of inspection continues to move through
transportation, distribution, and marketing channels in a manner that
does not cause such product to become adulterated or misbranded. The
second component of the HACCP-based Inspection Models project, the in-
distribution model, addresses this issue by using a limited number of
inspection resources to expand existing oversight of Federal product
in-distribution channels.
For the record, FSIS and the National Joint Council of Food
Inspection Locals have reached an impasse in negotiations necessary to
begin the pilot tests for both the slaughter models and the in-
distribution models. The parties have jointly requested assistance from
the Federal Service Impasses Panel to resolve the impasse. Until such
resolution occurs, the pilot tests will not be started and it would be
premature to determine the number of resources that may be available
for other FSIS food safety and economic adulteration concerns.
Question. HACCP inspections for very small plants are scheduled for
January 25, 2000. ``There are about 40 state inspected plants in
Montana; most already above federally inspected standards. Some of the
state inspected plants in fact are larger than the approximately three
federally inspected plants. Under the FSIS program, state inspected
plants must meet standards greater than or equal to federal standards.
Will the FSIS use discretion and common sense in examination of these
plants?
USDA answer. FSIS has been very proactive is supporting the
transition to HACCP for small and very small State and federal plants.
Examples of FSIS assistance include:
--FSIS provided training and training materials to State program
trainers who are presenting the training to State inspectors.
--FSIS has put on ``HACCP demonstration projects'' and public
meetings for industry groups including state and federal
plants.
--FSIS provided training materials for use by States in working with
industry in HACCP training.
--FSIS has a National HACCP Coordinator--for HACCP in small and very
small plants--who is accessible to State inspection programs
and plants.
--A State HACCP network is in place that is a cooperative
undertaking. Each State has a primary contact, often the State
inspection program director and a coordinator, often a
technical person from a university.
--The National HACCP Coordinator--for HACCP in small and very small
plants--holds periodic nationwide conference calls with the
State HACCP contacts to address any and all HACCP issues.
--FSIS prepared a letter that was sent to all federal very small
plants regarding a recommended HACCP preparation time-table and
assistance for HACCP implementation. The same information is
being provided to all State programs for their use.
The FSIS Technical Service Center (TSC) is responsible for in-plant
reviews for foreign plants, federal plants and State plants. The
procedure used to review or ``examine'' State HACCP plants is
consistent with the process used for foreign and federal plants and has
been in place since January of 1999. Furthermore, in-plant reviews are
performed using a team concept. The team is made up of the FSIS, TSC
reviewer, the director of the State program, or his/her designee, the
relevant State supervisor and the inspector-in-charge. The State
program has the option to take the lead during the review. The findings
are reviewed prior to leaving a plant and, to date, consensus has
consistently been reached.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Conrad Burns
Question. It is extremely important to have all state laboratories
included in a system such as PulseNet, which is a program to enhance
the ability of laboratory-based surveillance to rapidly identify
clusters of related foodborne infections. How will CDC gain
participation in all states in order to increase awareness and decrease
foodborne illnesses?
FDA/CDC answer. CDC agrees that it is important to include all
States in the PulseNet system in view of PulseNet's vital role in
surveillance and investigation of foodborne illness outbreaks. States
area critical element in the Nation's public health system, and are
eager to participate in PulseNet and other systems to improve capacity
to protect public health. Prior to PulseNet, most public health
laboratories recognized the value of DNA fingerprinting, but few had
ability to do such fingerprinting. Those that did have the capability
did not use standardized techniques. PulseNet participants use a
standardized protocol and have the capability to exchange information
quickly.
Through its Emerging Infections Programs and Epidemiology and
Laboratory Capacity cooperative agreements, CDC provides funds to
public health laboratories for PulseNet training and technology
transfer. Additional states are participating in PulseNet each year.
Question. A strong science base, as you mentioned, is vital to the
Food Safety Initiative. Unfounded reports hurt agricultural producers
immensely and must be stopped. How does the FDA plan to work with
industry groups to ensure that science is used as a basis for a ll
reports of outbreaks?
FDA/CDC answer. In fiscal year 1998, the foundation was set for
creating a state-of-the art science-based food safety system. The
system focuses on early detection and containment of foodborne hazards,
and prevention, education and verification. As part of the Food Safety
Initiative or FSI, FDA has met with representatives of producers,
wholesale/distributors and retail agricultural commodities to solicit
their input and support to develop more effective and timely tracebacks
of agricultural commodities implicated in foodborne outbreaks.
The level of science being applied to foodborne disease through FSI
resources is rapidly identifying clusters of related cases and
contaminated foods that would have been missed just a few years ago. To
develop a comprehensive, coordinated national foodborne illness
outbreak response system among federal, state and local agencies, DHHS,
USDA, and EPA signed, in May 1998, a memorandum of understanding to
create the Foodborne Outbreak Response Coordinating Group, or FORC-G.
This group's objective is to enhance coordination and communication
among federal, state and local agencies, guide efficient use of
resources and expertise during an outbreak, and prepare for new and
emerging threats to the U.S. food supply. In addition to federal
officials, other members of FORC-G include the Association of Food and
Drug Officials, Association of Public Health Laboratory Directors,
Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, and the National
Association of State Departments of Agriculture.
In June 1998, FDA participated in a workshop at the annual meeting
of the Association of Food and Drug Officials, or AFDO, on the need to
improve outbreak coordination and investigations. Participants agreed
that improved coordination of communication between the epidemiologists
who investigate systematic and emerging food safety system failures and
food regulatory officials who control the preventive and corrective
facets as well as the food product and production environment of the
food regulatory system is critically needed.
In September 1998, FDA hosted an important meeting of food safety
officials from all 50 states, the District of Columbia and other
localities, Puerto Rico, USDA and CDC to better integrate appropriate
food safety functions at the local, state and federal levels.
Integration efforts are focusing on inspection, analytical methodology,
laboratory utilization, and response to disease outbreaks. The goals of
this integration effort are better use of laboratory resources and
investigative expertise and faster response to and control of foodborne
illness outbreaks. FDA will seek input from industry and consumers on
their recommendations for a science-based national food safety system.
In those instances where agricultural commodities are thought to be
the vehicle, FDA and CDC will work with the state and local
investigators to assure that on-site causes for the outbreak are
carefully considered and illuminated before issuing reports or
statements that the agricultural commodity was contaminated in
distribution or at its source.
Additionally, we are equally concerned that the information
released to the public on an outbreak be as consistent, accurate,
validated, and timely as possible. While it is sometimes impossible to
have all the information verified at the moment a public health
regulatory intervention must be communicated, it is a goal we always
strive to achieve. FDA will work with appropriate local, state and
federal agencies, and affected industries drawing on the available
scientific expertise to make sound decisions. Some reports which
question the safety of food originate from sources other than FDA. In
these instances, the FDA Press Office and the Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition/Center for Veterinary Medicine/Office of
Regulatory Affairs organizations work together to communicate the
scientifically accurate information to the public. In addition, the
Center for Veterinary Medicine, or CVM, issues CVM updates and also
places this information on the CVM's internet home page.
Question. FDA has consistently failed to meet deadlines on reviews.
While the statutory deadline on approval of generic drugs is 6 months,
the FDA continues to drag its feet and take up to 32 months for
approval. It is vitally important to both drug companies and consumers
to have these drugs approved and on the market. Many consumers cannot
afford the high cost of brand name prescriptions, while drug companies
lose enormous profits waiting on FDA approval. How will the FDA find a
way to complete reviews on time?
FDA/CDC answer. As background regarding Abbreviated New Animal Drug
Applications or ANDAs, either an approval or disapproval is considered
by FDA to be a final action. The agency makes every attempt to meet
this requirement; however, for a number of reasons it is not always
possible to do so. After receiving a disapproval action, manufacturers
frequently resubmit applications that address the deficiencies
indicated in the disapproval action.
Neither the Center nor the Office of Generic Drugs has conducted a
study on the budgetary needs to review the majority of applications
within 180 days given the current review environment. However, it
believes the needs are substantial and would have to include the needs
of other Agency components that play a supporting but critical role in
the generic drug review process.
At this time, the Center believes that the key to addressing
current review backlog and improving action times is increasing the
number of chemistry, microbiology, and labeling reviewers as well as
support staff within OGD.
Question. Dr. Henney, I understand that Bill Schultz has left to go
over to the Justice Department. What are your plans for his position
and the Office of Policy?
FDA/CDC answer. Mr. William K. Hubbard, Associate Commissioner for
Policy Coordination, has assumed the responsibilities of Mr. Schulz's
position. The Office of Policy will be included with all other
components of the Office of the Commissioner in the organizational
review that I committed to in my confirmation hearing in September
1998. This study is underway, and I expect to make decisions on the
future structure of the Office of the Commissioner in the near future.
Question. The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act
(FDAMA) directed FDA to publish for pubic comment a proposed amendment
to current regulation relating to the labeling of foods treated with
ionizing radiation. The Conferees further directed that final
regulations could be issued not more than 12 months after the date of
enactment of FDAMA, which was November 21, 1997. FDA just recently
published an Announced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the labeling of
irradiated foods, an action that was clearly overdue. Why has it taken
FDA so long to follow Congress' intent?
FDA/CDC answer. FDAMA imposed on FDA several foods-related tasks
both in the statutory language of FDAMA and its accompanying Conferees'
report. FDA was able to complete virtually all of its statutorily
mandated tasks within the time frames specified in FDAMA. FDA was also
able to complete some of the tasks discussed in the Conferees' report
within the specified time frames. FDA will continue to work diligently
to accomplish all tasks in a timely manner.
Congress addressed three specific tasks regarding food irradiation;
timely decision by FDA on the petition to permit irradiation of meat;
limitations on FDA's authority regarding disclosure statements; and a
public comment process on the amendment of the irradiation labeling
regulations. FDA's actions for each of these tasks is addressed below.
As indicated, first priority was placed on the two irradiation tasks
required by the statutory language of FDAMA.
First, Congress mandated FDA to reach a timely decision on the
petition to permit irradiation of meat. FDA issued its final decision
on December 3, 1997, approximately two weeks after the enactment of
FDAMA, which was well within the 60 days specified in the Act.
Second, Congress established limits on the prominence of a
radiation disclosure statement. To conform FDA regulations with the
statutory language of FDAMA, on August 17, 1998, FDA issued a final
rule that amended its regulations to ensure that the disclosure
statement would not be presumed to be required to be more prominent
than the ingredient statement.
Last, the Conferees Report directed FDA to use the public comment
process to provide an opportunity for the public to comment on whether
the regulations should be amended further to revise the proposed
nomenclature for the labeling of irradiated foods. The conferees gave
general guidance, such as labeling should not be perceived as a warning
or give rise to inappropriate consumer anxiety, but gave no specific
instructions regarding how these objectives should be accomplished. On
February 17, 1999, FDA published an advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking soliciting comment on the appropriate labeling for
irradiated foods. The comment period is open until May 18, 1999. FDA
has not addressed the directive to consider whether the regulation
should be revised since the comment period on the notice has not yet
closed.
Question. Under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, irradiation is
regulated as a food additive. Is this a necessary requirement in light
of what we know today about this food processing technology?
FDA/CDC answer. The legislative history for the Food Additives
Amendment makes it clear that it is the equipment used to irradiate
food, not the process of irradiation itself, that is regulated as a
food additive. The various reports explicitly cite radioactive
isotopes, particle accelerators and X-ray machines as the additives
whose use is regulated. This was done to ensure that the safety of the
process be established before it was used on food in commerce. At that
time, the effects of radiation on food were not at all well understood.
Food irradiation involves exposing a food to a source of ionizing
radiation. It does not involve adding radioactive isotopes to food nor
does it make food radioactive when the process is properly conducted
under the limitations in FDA's regulations. The other important safety
issues--chemical change, nutrient losses, and differential effects on
different microorganisms--are important in all food processes. FDA has
not evaluated in depth all possible applications of food irradiation.
However, from what FDA has evaluated, nothing has been discovered that
would distinguish irradiation from other processes.
FDA recognizes that some expert bodies throughout the world have
concluded that irradiation processing does not raise concerns different
from other processing. Others have emphasized the need for close
monitoring consistent with the caution in adopting any new technology.
No expert body anywhere has concluded that irradiation is unsafe, but
not all have endorsed it either.
Certainly, as with the adoption of all new technologies, caution is
needed to avoid making preventable mistakes. FDA can work to ensure
safe application either through the current premarket approval route or
by general oversight.
Question. Dr. Henney, every year FDA comes before this Subcommittee
with a presentation that generally includes a discussion of the
agency's successes over the past year in reducing the time it takes the
agency to review applications for foods, drugs, and medical devices. In
order to help Subcommittee members more accurately compare the agency's
performance in this regard from year to year, please provide answers to
the following questions:
In FDA's reports and statements to Congress over the last five
years, has there been any change in the method (e.g., mean vs. median)
FDA uses to measure the time it takes to review: food additive
petitions; new drug applications; abbreviated new drug applications;
510(k)s; premarket approval applications; new animal drug applications;
and abbreviated new animal drug applications? If yes for any type of
petition or application, please explain.
FDA/CDC answer. Over the past five years, methods of measurement
for most programs have changed only slightly. For the new drug and
abbreviated drug applications, no changes have occurred. FDA has added
a measurement of median times to the 510(k), premarket approval
applications, new animal drug applications and abbreviated new animal
drug applications. For those applications, averages are still measured
and reported, but the Agency believes that the median can give a better
representation of Agency performance in those cases in which outliers
skew the mean. The median is a particularly valuable piece of data in
program areas with a small number of applications.
The Foods Program has altered its definition of the term first
action in recent years. Historically, for food additive petitions, the
Program has considered a first action to be when it notifies an
applicant that a substantive deficiency has been noted, even if reviews
of other parts of the application have not been completed. Thus there
could have been multiple first action responses to a sponsor as reviews
of additional parts of the application were completed. However, the
Foods Program is now establishing performance goals for the timely
review of a complete package, and is measuring timeliness of review of
food additives from the date of receipt of a fileable petition to a
complete first action as defined in the Foods Program performance
goals. This measure started with the applications received in fiscal
year 1998.
In the Animal Drugs and Feeds Program, measures of performance are
evolving to reflect the improved drug review process. The Program has
significantly improved its review process by reviewing data submitted
to the investigational new animal drug file prior to the filing of the
new animal drug application. This allows the Agency to evaluate and
comment on data as they are collected, as opposed to the earlier
process of waiting until the sponsor developed and collected the
entirety of the data at considerable expense before the FDA made an
approval or deficient decision. In the old process, there was no chance
to recognize and resolve an early critical deficiency, such one
involving the effective dose, before other required work was done, such
as other dose-dependent studies or developing and validating
manufacturing processes. This new process has allowed the Agency and
sponsors to interact more effectively so that sponsors can make
necessary modifications to the drug development plan, based on the FDA
evaluation of initial data submissions.
The Agency currently working with its stakeholders to develop new
measures or metrics that will satisfy both Agency and stakeholders'
needs. These measures may replace traditional metrics that no longer
are as valid in measuring the improved drug review process. This
cooperative effort to develop more meaningful measures is being
conducted in the spirit of the FDA Modernization Act. The new measures
will also allow the Animal Drugs and Feeds Program to better fulfill
its responsibilities under GPRA, because they are being developed to
more appropriately measure outcome-based performance.
Question. How does FDA currently define the term ``filing'' for:
food additive petitions; new drug applications; abbreviated new drug
applications; 510(k)s; premarket approval applications; new animal drug
applications; and abbreviated new animal drug applications?
FDA/CDC answer. For the Foods Program, regulations concerning the
acceptance or nonacceptance of food additive petitions (filing) are
laid out in the Code of Federal Regulations (21CFR 171.1). Filing of
food additive petitions in the Animal Drugs and Feeds Program is
defined in 571.1(I)(1). For both programs, upon receipt of an
application, the information is examined to see if the petition
requirements from the stature have been addressed. The petitioner is
informed of the filing decision within 15 working days. If the petition
is accepted for filing, the date of the notification letter to the
sponsor becomes the date of filing, and a notice of the filing
acceptance is published in the Federal Register.
For new drug applications or abbreviated new drug application, the
agency will determine if the application may be filed within 60 days of
receipt. The filing of a new drug application, or NDA, or abbreviated
new drug application, or ANDA means that FDA has made a threshold
determination that the application is sufficiently complete to permit a
substantive review.
There is no definition of filing for 510(k)s. They are not filed,
rather they are received by the agency and reviewed. For premarket
approval applications, under 21 CFR 814.42, the filing of an
application means that FDA has made a determination that the
application is sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review.
In virtually all cases of new animal drug applications and
abbreviated new animal drug applications, the filing as defined in
514.110 [a] is denoted by the date the application is initially
received by the Document Control Unit of the Center. The only exception
is for rare instances in which a sponsor withdraws an application
before the Program's initial evaluation is complete, or the application
is so deficient on its face that the Program retroactively refuses to
file the application. In these cases, the filing date is that on which
the application is resubmitted or reactivated.
Question. In FDA's report and statements to Congress over the last
five fiscal years has there been any change to FDA's definition for the
term ``filing'' for: food additive petitions; new drug applications;
abbreviated new drug applications; 510(k)s premarket approval
applications; new animal drug applications; and abbreviated new animal
drug applications? If yes for any type of petition or application.
Please explain.
FDA/CDC answer. There has been no change in the agency's definition
of the term filing for food additive petitions; new drug applications;
abbreviated new drug applications; 510(k)s or premarket approval
applications in the past five fiscal years. The minor change in new
animal drug applications and abbreviated new animal drug applications
is in which a sponsor withdraws an application before the Program's
initial evaluation is complete, or the application is so deficient on
its face that the Program refuses to file the application. In those
cases, the filing date is adjusted to the date on which the application
is resubmitted/reactivated. This filing date adjustment was not used
prior to 1997 and is rarely employed. This change in the definition of
filing for this small number of applications makes the filing-to-
approval-time measure equivalent to the first-substantive-review-to-
approval measure.
Question. How does FDA currently define the term ``review cycle''
for: food additive petitions; new drug applications; abbreviated new
drug applications; 510(k)s; premarket approval applications; new animal
drug applications; and abbreviated new animal drug applications?
FDA/CDC answer. The review cycle has not been a metric the Agency
has used to measure performance for food additive petitions, new animal
drug applications or abbreviated new animal drug applications, so there
is no definition of the term for those areas.
A review cycle for a new drug application and an abbreviated new
drug application begins when an application is filed by FDA and ends
when the agency issues an action letter. Generally, these letters
communicate to the sponsor that their application is approved or not
approved. If not approved, the sponsor is provided with the reasons why
and has an opportunity to submit information needed to address these
deficiencies. When this information is received a new cycle begins.
For 510(k)s, section 510(k) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act establishes a 90-day benchmark for the review of a premarket
notification. In addition, 21 CFR 807.81(a) and 21 CFR 807.87(l)
reference the 90-day benchmark for 510(k)s. If a final decision on the
notification cannot be made on the basis of information supplied, it is
placed on hold and a new 90-day review period (cycle) begins when the
requested information is received. For premarket approval applications,
section 515(d)(1)(A) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
establishes a 180-day benchmark for Agency action on a PMA. In
addition, 21 CFR 814.37(c)(1) and 21 CFR 814.40 reference a 180-day
review period, or cycle, for a PMA. A new 180-day review period, or
cycle, begins when a major amendment containing significant new or
updated data, detailed new analyses, or information previously omitted
is received.
Question. In FDA's reports and statements to Congress over the last
five fiscal years, has there been any change to FDA's definition for
the term ``review cycle'' for: food additive petitions; new drug
applications; abbreviated new drug applications; 510(k)s; premarket
approval applications; new animal drug applications; and abbreviated
new animal drug applications? If yes for any type of petition or
application, please explain.
FDA/CDC answer. FDA has not changed the definition for the term
review cycle over the last five fiscal years in any Program where
review cycle is measured.
Question. How does FDA currently define the term ``approval'' for:
food additive petitions; new drug applications; abbreviated new drug
applications; 510(k)s; premarket approval applications; new animal drug
applications; and abbreviated new animal drug applications?
FDA/CDC answer. The definitions of approval vary, often due to
requirements of the statute. For food additive petitions under review
by the Foods or Veterinary Medicine Programs, current law states that a
food additive may be marketed only when a regulation for the food
additive exists, specifying the conditions for safe use of the
additive. Approval of a food additive petition occurs when a regulation
authorizing the use of the additive is published in the Federal
Register.
For new drug applications and abbreviated new drug applications, a
firm gains permission to market a product when an approval letter is
issued.
For 510(k)s, the term approval is not relevant. Under 21 CFR Sec.
807.97, the 510(k) is a clearance and not an approval. A device for
which premarket notification is submitted is found substantially
equivalent to a legally marketed predicate device and a letter is sent
to the applicant informing them of FDA's determination. The letter
gives the applicant clearance to market the device.
In the case of premarket approval applications, Section FD&C Sec.
515(d)(1)(A)(I) states that FDA will issue an order approving a PMA if
none of the grounds for denying approval apply specified in section
515(d)(2) and 21 CFR 814.44(d)(1). FDA issues an order approving the
application if there is reasonable assurance that the device is safe
and effective for the intended use for the target population.
For new animal drug applications and abbreviated new animal drug
applications, approval is the status an application acquires when the
drug product has been deemed safe and effective and the sponsor of the
application is informed by letter and Federal Register notice that the
application has met all of the requirements for approval under the FD&C
Act.
Question. In FDA's reports and statements to Congress over the last
five fiscal years, has there been any change to FDA's definition of the
term ``approval'' for: food additive petitions; new drug applications;
abbreviated new drug applications; 510(k)s; premarket approval
applications; new animal drug applications; and abbreviated new animal
drug applications? If yes for and type of petition or application,
please explain.
FDA/CDC answer. The use of the term approval has been consistently
applied by FDA for food additive petitions, new drug applications,
abbreviated new drug applications, 510(k)s and premarket approval
applications in the last five fiscal years. However, a provision was
established in the Food and Drug Modernization Act, or FDAMA, for the
premarket notification of food additives that fit the definition of
food contact substances, e.g., food packaging materials. If certain
funding provisions of the Act are fulfilled, and the Premarket
Notification Program for Food Contact Substances becomes operational,
eligible substances may be lawfully marketed 120 days after submitting
a notification, absent an objection by the Agency.
For new animal drug applications and abbreviated new animal drug
applications, there has been a change in the date some applications are
considered approved. For an application to be considered approved, both
the sponsor and the public have to be notified. The sponsor is notified
in a letter of the Agency decision to approve, while the public is
notified by publication of the information in the Federal Register.
Because of recent changes in legislation, the Animal Drug Availability
Act of 1996, some animal feed drugs are now considered approved as of
the date of the letter to the sponsor and sponsors are not required to
wait for Federal Register publication to market the drug.
Question. How does FDA currently define the term ``mean''
concerning the review of: food additive petitions; new drug
applications; abbreviated new drug applications; 510(k)s; premarket
approval applications; new animal drug applications; and abbreviated
new animal drug applications?
FDA/CDC answer. FDA defines the mean as the sum of all values in a
group of data, divided by the number of values. This definition is used
across all program areas.
Question. In FDA's reports and statements to Congress over the last
five fiscal years, has there been any change to FDA's definition for
the term ``mean'' concerning the review of: food additive petitions;
new drug applications; abbreviated new drug applications; 510(k)s;
premarket approval applications; new animal drug applications and
abbreviated new animal drug applications? If yes for any type of
petition or application, please explain.
FDA/CDC answer. There has been no change in the agency's definition
of the term mean in the last five fiscal years.
Question. How does FDA currently define the term ``median''
concerning the review of: food additive petitions; new drug
applications; abbreviated new drug applications; 510(k)s; premarket
approval applications; new animal drug applications; and abbreviated
new animal drug applications?
FDA/CDC answer. FDA defines the median as the point in an ordered
group of data at which half of the data falls above and half below. The
median is the exact midpoint of the collected information. If the
number of values is even, the median is the average of the two middle
values.
Question. In FDA's reports and statements to Congress over the last
five fiscal years, has there been a change to FDA's definition for the
term ``median'' concerning the review of: food additive petitions; new
drug applications; abbreviated new drug applications; 510(k)s;
premarket approval applications; new animal drug applications; and
abbreviated new animal drug applications? If yes for any type of
petition or application, please explain.
FDA/CDC answer. There has been no change to FDA's definition for
the term median in the last five fiscal years.
Question. How does FDA currently define the term ``average''
concerning the review of: food additive petitions; new drug
applications; abbreviated new drug applications; 510(k)s; premarket
approval applications; new animal drug applications; and abbreviated
new animal drug applications?
FDA/CDC answer. FDA defines the term average as the sum of all
values in a group of data, divided by the number of values. The terms
mean and average are used interchangeably.
Question. In FDA's reports and statements to Congress over the last
five fiscal years, has there been any change to FDA's definition for
the term ``average'' concerning the review of: food additive petitions;
new drug applications; abbreviated new drug applications; 510(k)s;
premarket approval applications; new animal drug applications;
abbreviated new animal drug applications? If yes for any type of
petition or application, please explain.
FDA/CDC answer. No, there has been no change in the agency's
definition of the term average in the last five fiscal years.
Question. How does FDA currently define the term ``receipt'' for:
food additive petitions; new drug applications; abbreviated new drug
applications; 510(k)s; premarket approval applications; new animal drug
applications; and abbreviated new animal drug applications?
FDA/CDC answer. Across the Agency, there are only minor, technical
variations in how the receipt of a petition or applications is defined.
For food additive petitions, receipt is defined as the day the petition
is logged in to the Office of Premarket Approval and an acknowledgment
letter is forwarded to the petitioner on the day of arrival or the
following business day.
Receipt of a New Drug Application is considered to be when it is
received by the agency and when it is accompanied by any required user
fee payment, 5-day grace period, where applicable.
Receipt of an abbreviated new drug application or ANDA is defined
as when a sponsor or applicant physically submits an ANDA to the Office
of Generic Drugs. Receipt is independent of the filing status of an
ANDA.
For 510(k) and premarket applications, FDA defines the term receipt
as the date that a submission is received and date stamped in FDA's
Document Mail Center. Similarly, the receipt of an animal drug
application or abbreviated new animal drug application is considered to
be when an application is received at the Document Control Unit of the
Center for Veterinary Medicine and date stamped. Since processing of
new submissions ceases for the day at 2:00 p.m., submissions received
after 2:00 p.m. are stamped with the receipt date of the next business
day.
Question. In FDA's reports and statements to Congress over the last
five fiscal years, has there been any change to FDA's definition for
the term ``receipt'' for: food additive petitions; new drug
applications; abbreviated new drug applications; 510(k)s; premarket
approval applications; new animal drug applications; and abbreviated
new animal drug applications? If yes for any type of petition or
application, please explain.
FDA/CDC answer. No, there has been no change to FDA's definition
for the term ``receipt'' in reports and statements to Congress over the
last five fiscal years.
Question. How does FDA currently define the term ``overdue''
concerning the review of food additive petitions?
FDA/CDC answer. In previous years, overdue petitions have been
defined and reported as those pending before the agency for more than
180 days after filing without any action taken on them by the Agency.
However, approval of a food additive requires complete review of a
petition, preparation and review of an order that specifies the
regulation and lays out the basis for Agency's decision, and
publication of the document in the Federal Register. Most commentators
and stakeholders in the food additive petition review process have
agreed that 180 days is an impractical timeframe to complete each of
the steps in the process. Accordingly, the agency has begun using 360
days after filing in its GPRA performance goals as the time period
after which a petition would be considered overdue.
Question. In FDA's reports and statements to Congress over the last
five fiscal years, has there been any change to FDA's definition for
the term ``overdue'' concerning the review of food additive petitions?
If yes, please explain.
FDA/CDC answer. In previous years, overdue petitions have been
defined and reported as those pending before the agency for more than
180 days after filing.
Nevertheless, because approval of a food additive requires not only
complete review of a petition, but also preparation and review of an
order that specifies the regulation and lays out the agency's basis for
its decision, and publication of the document in the Federal Register,
most commentators and stakeholders on this process agree that 180 days
is impractical. The agency has begun using 360 days in its GPRA
performance goals for time to first action. In any future reporting,
overdues calculated in terms of GPRA goals will be clearly defined and
delineated.
Question. How does FDA currently define the term ``completed''
concerning the review of new animal drug applications and abbreviated
new animal drug applications?
FDA/CDC answer. A submission involving a New Animal Drug
Application (NADA) or Abbreviated New Animal Drug Application (ANADA)
is completed when the Animal Drugs and Feeds Program has finished the
review of the information contained, or referenced, in the submission
and informed the sponsor by letter of its findings. A favorable letter
regarding the final submission to an NADA or ANADA will reflect
approval of the application.
Depending on the information and data submitted, the application
may be judged to be either approved or deficient. If the application is
approved, then notification of the approval is sent by letter and
subsequently published in the Federal Register and the drug may be
marketed consistent with the conditions of approval. If deficiencies
are found in the application i.e., the information submitted is
inadequate to show the drug to be safe and effective, then the sponsor
is notified of the deficiencies and can address these deficiencies and
reactivate the application with that information. The Animal Drugs and
Feeds Program will then review the reactivated application.
Question. In FDA's reports and statements to Congress over the last
five fiscal years, has there been any change to FDA's definition for
the term ``completed'' concerning the review of new animal drug
applications and abbreviated new animal drug applications? If yes,
please explain.
FDA/CDC answer. The definition of completed has not changed in the
last five years.
Question. How does FDA currently define the term ``processed
original'' when describing new animal drug applications?
FDA/CDC answer. The phrase processed original as used in the budget
report is synonymous with the phrase original applications or simply
originals in the context of original applications received, completed,
or approved.
Question. When and why did FDA start using the term ``processed
original'' in agency reports and statements to Congress when describing
new animal applications?
FDA/CDC answer. In fiscal year 1999 the Animal Drugs and Feeds
program revised the format for reporting program activity data in the
Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees--President's
Budget. Prior, to fiscal year 1999, data was not reported in a
consistent manner. For example, we reported medicated Feed Applications
Processed, New Animal Drug Application Submissions Received and
Completed and Original New Animal Drug Applications Approved. In fiscal
year 1999 we began reporting program workload and output as Received,
Completed and Approved. Processed original is redundant and provides no
meaning, therefore we will omit it in future documents.
Question. How does FDA currently define the phrase ``FDA days-
approval'' concerning the review of premarket approval applications and
premarket approval application supplements?
FDA/CDC answer. FDA does not currently use the phrase FDA days-
approval. FDA reports several measures for PMAs that include average
review time and average elapsed time to approval. FDA also reports
three components of time-FDA, non-FDA and total time. The FDA portion
is the number of days FDA took to review the application in the last
review cycle that led to a final approval decision.
Question. When and why did FDA start using the phrase ``FDA days-
approval'' concerning the review of premarket approval applications and
premarket approval application supplements?
FDA/CDC answer. FDA has not used the phrase FDA days-approval
concerning the review of premarket approval applications and premarket
approval application supplements.
Question. How does FDA currently define the phrase ``FDA days-
clearance'' concerning the review of 510(k)s?
FDA/CDC answer. FDA does not currently use the phrase FDA-days
clearance concerning the review of 510(k)s. FDA reports several
measures for 510(k)s that include average review time, and median
review time. The review time for a 510(k) is the number of days FDA was
reviewing the 510(k) from the day of receipt of the submission until
the date of issuance of the substantially equivalent letter.
Question. When and why did FDA start using the phrase ``FDA days-
clearance'' concerning the review of 510(k)s?
FDA/CDC answer. FDA has not used the phrase FDA days-clearance
concerning the review of 510(k)s.
Question. How does FDA currently define the phrase ``review and act
on'' concerning the review of abbreviated new drug applications?
FDA/CDC answer. The phrase review and act on is defined by FDA as
the examination of the chemistry data submitted in an ANDA and the
communication with the sponsor or applicant that the ANDA is approved
or disapproved. ANDA's that are disapproved are sent deficiencies in
the form of not approvable or other types of letters.
Question. When and why did FDA start using the phrase ``review and
act on'' concerning the review of abbreviated new drug applications?
FDA/CDC answer. The phrase ``review and act on'' originated with
the implementation of PDUFA. The industry and Congress requested an
affirmative statement to communicate the result of a review to the
sponsor. The term and act on was added to review to meet this industry
request. The phrase is meant to communicate both meeting the required
time frame of the review as well as the result. Act on is defined as
the issuance of a complete action letter after filing of an
application. FDA issues three types of action letters: Approval
letters, Approvable letters, and Not Approvable letters. The action
letter, if it is not an approval, must set forth in detail the specific
deficiencies, and, where appropriate, the actions necessary to place
the application in a condition for approval. For the past few years FDA
has used the phrase review and act on with non-PDUFA abbreviated new
drug applications to communicate similar information to their sponsors.
Question. Dr. Henney, this Committee has made it clear that we
expect your agency to meet its statutory deadlines for review of all
applications and petitions. However, we are also aware that resources
are limited. For each type of application listed below, could you
please provide the Committee with your best estimates of how much money
and the number of FTEs the agency would need to meet 100 percent of its
statutory deadlines for: food additive petitions; new drug
applications; abbreviated new drug applications; 510(k)s; premarket
approval applications; new animal drug applications; and abbreviated
new animal drug applications?
FDA/CDC answer. Preparing the FDAMA implementation plan made it
quite apparent to us that FDA is responsible for managing a rather
complex triad of statutory expectations regarding the performance of
review processes. First, and perhaps foremost, the agency's FDAMA
mission statement directs us to the intended outcome of a successful
review process--promotion of the public health by ensuring the timely
marketing of new regulated products. In addition to this results-
oriented goal, the statutory requirements for the FDAMA plan specify
two enabling objectives. The first is to maximize the availability and
clarity of information about the application review processes, and the
second is to establish mechanisms for meeting the review time periods
specified in the Act. The fiscal year 2000 budget request reflects our
closely integrated approach to these three statutory requirements.
Because of their confluence, it is not appropriate to develop separate
cost estimates for the individual objectives.
We are fortunate to have an extremely robust template for this
triad of statutory expectations. Beginning with the design of the
initial Prescription Drug User Fee Act in 1992, and as it was updated
the FDA Modernization Act, FDA's drug and biologic review processes
have been striving to ensure that safe and effective new products are
actually available to the publicnot just reviewed--as quickly as
possible. This results-oriented societal goal has effectively made FDA
and sponsors of new products collaborators during the entire
development process, as well as during the final review steps, to
ensure that the maximum possible number of safe and effective products
are commercialized as quickly as possible.
The PDUFA results have given us a deeper understanding of the
relationship between results measures, new product availability, and
process measures, review timeliness. Measuring from the year before
PDUFA in 1992, approval times for new drugs have been reduced by a
year, clinical development times are two years quicker and the success
rate, the percentage of applications approved, are up from less than 60
percent to 85 percent now. Yet, review time, the statutory time
interval, has only decreased by about 2 months from the median interval
of 12.5 months in 1992. This apparent paradox can be explained by the
benefits realized by sponsors from a more transparent process affording
more effective pre-submission collaboration with FDA that results in
quicker preparation of higher quality submissions that can be approved
by FDA on the first try. In the reauthorization of PDUFA through 2002,
the pharmaceutical industry focused its willingness to pay additional
fees on further expanded FDA collaboration within the development
process. Their projections for 2002 predict an overall drug development
time that is a year faster, but only a small fraction of that time
savings is expected from quicker review times. The industry's
acceptance of review timeframes that are longer than statutory goals
acknowledges the amount of work that must be done within the review
process, and the desirability of resolving problems within the first
review cycle rather than churn through multiple review cycles, even if
each might be within the statutory timeframe.
This collaborative approach that has effectively demonstrated its
ability to ensure more timely access to the greatest number of safe and
effective new products is evident in the fiscal year 2000 budget
request for other FDA review processes. The President's specific
funding requests for additional review capabilities in the device
review process and the food additive process invite the sponsors of
these submissions to collaborate with the agency, with both their
energy and user fee funding, to achieve the jointly desired goal of
more timely consumer access to new products. Looking forward, I believe
the eventual level of funding for these FDA review processes will
increase proportionally with the degree of industry confidence in the
collaborative paradigm demonstrated by the success of PDUFA. This is
necessarily an incremental process where initial commitments of
industry collaboration and fee funding prove their worth in terms of
quicker and more certain new product development cycles. Eventually, I
believe full implementation of this new collaborative review paradigm
will effectively achieve most of the regulatory review timeframes in
the course of satisfying the broader FDAMA goals. However, I will not
be surprised if this step-wise proof by experience in the various FDA
product areas will suggest that some of the present statutory review
timeframes are not the optimal intervals for realization of the broader
FDAMA objectives.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Kohl
Question. Any initiative such as the Food Safety Initiative, that
crosses agency and departmental lines requires high levels of agency
coordination and cooperation. What steps are being taken to ensure that
all food safety activities are properly coordinated? Is there any one
agency or person responsible for taking the lead on food safety
activities? What steps are needed to improve communication and
cooperation among the agencies?
USDA answer. On August 25, 1998, the President, by Executive Order
13100, established the President's Council on Food Safety. The purpose
of the Council is to protect the health of the American people by
preventing foodborne illness through improving the safety of the food
supply by means of sciencebased regulation and well-coordinated
investigation, inspection, enforcement, research, and educational
programs. The Secretaries of Agriculture and of Health and Human
Services and the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology/
Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy serve as co-
chairs of the Council.
The Council is charged with:
--the development and periodic update of a comprehensive strategic
plan for food safety activities;
--making recommendations to the President on how to implement the
comprehensive strategy and enhance coordination among Federal
agencies, State, local and tribal governments, and the private
sector;
--advising federal agencies in setting priority areas for investment
in food safety and developing a coordinated food safety budget
for the administration; and
--overseeing research efforts of the Joint Institute for Food Safety
Research.
In recent years, we have made tremendous progress in strengthening
ties among food safety agencies at all levels of government, industry,
academia, and the public sharing a common public health mission and
fulfilling that mission more effectively by continuing to build
partnerships in so many food safety areas. The development of the
comprehensive strategic plan for food safety and the development of
coordinated food safety budgets under the guidance of the President's
Council will be major steps in improving coordination and cooperation
among agencies.
FDA answer. Since the implementation of the Food Safety Initiative,
with release of the ``Farm-to-Table'' plan in May, 1997, the food
safety agencies have worked to coordinate activities in every area of
the initiative. The Partnership for Food Safety Education was formed by
the agencies, industry, states, and consumer groups, to mount a
coordinated approach to changing consumers' food practices.
Representatives of federal and state agencies joined to form the
Foodborne Outbreak Response Coordinating Group, or FORCG, as a means of
improving the response to foodborne outbreaks whether they are multi-
state outbreaks or occur at the state or local level, and improving
consumer safe food practices. Interagency working groups were also
formed to set up the Risk Assessment Consortium and to coordinate
research planning.
FDA, in a coordinated effort with CDC, USDA, and EPA, developed a
joint research plan. The plan provides a broad, uniform, and
complementary approach to research that is intended to fill critical
gaps in our scientific understanding of foodborne illness. To further
assure that there is a mutual understanding of the issues surrounding
foodborne illness. FDA and USDA participate on the National Advisory
Committee for Microbiological Criteria for Foods, or NAMCF. This
committee discusses scientific issues and research program needs for
pathogens that may wind up in or on foods. FDA and USDA have also
cooperated in joint food safety training programs such as the recent
training on the application of Good Agricultural Practices. In order to
assure that consumers and others keep abreast of food safety
initiatives, the participating agencies have sponsored and will
continue to sponsor a series of food safety education conferences.
On July 3, 1998, President Clinton directed the Department of
Health and Human Services, DHHS, and the Department of Agriculture,
USDA, to report back within 90 days with a plan to create a Joint
Institute for Food Safety Research. The Institute is to coordinate
planning and priority setting for food safety research among the two
Departments, other government agencies, and the private sector and
foster effective translation of research results into practice along
the farm-to-table continuum. Enhanced and more efficient national
investment in food safety research will do much to lower incidence of
foodborne illness in the United States.
DHHS and USDA will have joint leadership of the Institute and will
use existing resources to support it. This acknowledgment of the
critical need to expand and coordinate food safety research also
emphasizes the companion needs to expand and strengthen public-private
partnerships and to augment collaboration among state, local, and other
Federal agencies, thereby providing effective scientific information
required to help achieve public health goals.
Likewise, Executive Order 13100 establishing the Food Safety
Council has formalized interagency food safety budget planning and
overall strategic planning. These processes are augmented by the
numerous interagency working groups formed to coordinate food safety
activities.
Question. Is there any one agency or person responsible for taking
the lead on food safety activities?
FDA answer. No, no one person or agency has the lead or the
responsibility on food safety activities. All the food safety
agencies--FDA, CDC, USDA, and EPA--are working together, in a
coordinated effort to achieve the goals of the Food Safety Initiative.
The President's Food Safety Council released its response to the
National Academy of Sciences, or NAS, report ``Ensuring Safe Food from
Production to Consumption'' on March 15, 1999. One of the
recommendations within the NAS report called for Congress to
``establish by statute a unified and central framework for managing
federal food safety programs, one that is headed by a single official
and which has the responsibility and control of resources for all
federal food safety activities . . .'' The Council strongly agrees with
the goal of a unified framework for the food safety programs, while
noting that there may be many organizational approaches to achieving a
``single voice'' for federal food safety activities. The Council will
conduct an assessment of structural models and other mechanisms that
could strengthen the federal food safety system through better
coordination, planning and resources allocation.
Question. What steps are needed to improve communication and
cooperation among the agencies?
FDA answer. In the interests of solidifying interagency
coordination and communication, numerous interagency committees have
been formed with representatives ranging from the working level to the
agency's senior decision makers. We believe that the strategic planning
process, conducted by the Food Safety Council, will further solidify
lines of communication between the agencies as they work together to
develop the national food safety plan described in the Council response
to the National Academy of Science's report Ensuring Safe Food.
Question. I have been provided by the Food and Drug Administration
a map of the United States which shows Food-Borne Disease Outbreaks
from the period of January to July, 1998. I understand this map is
based on information provided by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. This map indicates that some states with relatively low
populations, such as Wisconsin and Kansas, have a large number of
outbreaks compared to states with relatively high populations, such as
Texas, Florida, and New York. What is the actual definition of a
``Food-Borne Disease Outbreak''?
USDA answer. The definition of a foodborne disease outbreak is the
occurrence of two or more cases of a similar illness resulting from the
ingestion of a common food.
Question. Is the period shown on this map (January to July, 1998)
representative of incidents of outbreaks generally?
USDA answer. The period shown on the map--January to July 1998--is
not representative of outbreaks, generally. Rather, it is probably more
representative of the reporting of outbreaks to the CDC. Thus, the
number of outbreaks in some States may be higher because they are more
likely to report their outbreaks than other States.
Question. I have been provided by the Food and Drug Administration
a map of the United States which shows Foodborne Disease Outbreaks from
the period of January to July, 1998. I understand this map is based on
information provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
This map indicates that some states with relatively low populations,
such as Wisconsin and Kansas, have a large number of outbreaks compared
to states with relatively high populations, such as Texas, Florida, and
New York.
What is the actual definition of a ``Foodborne Disease Outbreak''?
FDA answer. An outbreak is defined as an occurrence of 2 or more
cases of a similar illness resulting from the ingestion of a common
food. (MMWR V45, #SS-5, 10/25/96)
FDA answer. The map illustrates outbreaks during that period of
time; it is not generalizable to other time periods.
Question. To the extent outbreaks were a problem in Wisconsin
during the period shown on this map, what is FDA or any other agency
doing to help control this problem?
USDA answer. FSIS staff is available to help investigate plants
that may be associated with foodborne illness in Wisconsin at the
request of the Wisconsin state epidemiologist. This is usually done in
collaboration with the local health department and CDC. FSIS assisted
Wisconsin in this fashion once during 1998.
FDA answer. In general, CDC supports strengthening states' ability
to detect and investigate outbreaks of foodborne illness through
enhanced surveillance capacity.
Wisconsin is sophisticated in laboratory methods and epidemiology,
with the aid of Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity (ELC) cooperative
agreements and as a member of PulseNet. The result of epidemiologic
sophistication is better surveillance, which leads to better and more
accurate disease detection. It is important to note that the outbreaks
in Wisconsin illustrated by the map are the result of techniques that
have allowed for detection of widely dispersed outbreaks and small
clusters that would have previously been missed. FDA or USDA will
investigate those outbreaks that involve regulated products under their
corresponding jurisdictions. A renewed Memorandum of Understanding, or
MOU, between the two agencies was signed in February 1999 that will
facilitate enhanced exchange of information at the field level about
food establishments and operations that are subject to the jurisdiction
of both agencies. Most foodborne outbreaks involve mishandling at the
point of preparation and/or two products that would have traveled in
intrastate commerce. In such cases, the state public health agencies
would respond at the state or local levels, as appropriate. States that
show an apparent disproportionately large number of outbreaks, most
likely indicate more active surveillance investigation and reporting by
the State and public health agencies. In general, FDA and CDC support
strengthening states' ability to detect and investigate outbreaks of
foodborne illness through enhanced surveillance capacity. Specifically,
Wisconsin's state public health agencies are sophisticated in
laboratory methods and epidemiology, with the aid of Epidemiology and
Laboratory Capacity, or ELC, cooperative agreements and as a member of
Pulsenet. The result of epidemiologic sophistication is better
surveillance, which leads to better and more accurate disease
detection. It is important to note that the outbreaks in Wisconsin
illustrated by the map are the result of techniques that have allowed
for detection of widely dispersed outbreaks and small clusters that
previously would have been missed.
Question. Last year, USDA began implementation of the Hazard
Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) program for large meat and
poultry processing plants both in the United States and foreign
countries who export to the U.S. Earlier this month, similar programs
were implemented for small firms both here and abroad. Although the
inspection programs in foreign countries do not have to be identical to
those in the U.S., they must be equivalent. What changes have occurred
in the safety of meat and poultry products from foreign nations since
the implementation of HACCP? How has implementation of HACCP in foreign
plants compared to implementation in U.S. plants?
USDA answer. For the record, the following chart summarizes the
status of eligible foreign countries with regard to the implementation
of HACCP Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SSOPs) and generic
E. coli testing. FSIS is in the process of its review of the
implementation of HACCP and Salmonella testing in eligible foreign
countries.
[The information follows:]
STATUS OF PR/HACCP EQUIVALENCE DETERMINATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSOP and E. coli Testing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Was data/info.
COUNTRY 1998 Import ``Identical'' Alternate received and NO
Volume SSOP & E. coli Sanitary Were Measures equivalence
Testing? Measures? Equivalent? determination
made?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argentina................... 73,718,507 Yes............ No............. ............... No
Australia................... 706,370,059 Yes............ Yes............ No \1\......... No
Austria..................... 7,291 Yes............ No............. ............... No
Belgium..................... 10,479,587 Yes............ No............. ............... No
Brazil...................... 69,991,833 Yes............ No............. ............... No
Canada...................... 1,413,660,410 Yes............ No............. ............... No
Costa Rica.................. 19,750,003 Yes............ No............. ............... No
Croatia..................... 2,013,764 Yes............ No............. ............... No
Czech Republic.............. .............. SSOP--yes E. No............. ............... Yes, more E.
coli--see. This campaign
covers all aspects of food safety, including information that pertains
to safe handling of eggs.
national center
National Center (directed to FDA).--The National Center for Food
Safety and Technology located at the Illinois Institute of Technology
near Chicago is a research and development facility that supports the
FDA in its mission to ensure the safety of food products other than
meat and poultry. It is a ten year old collaboration between the
Federal government, private business, and academia. It relies on FDA
funding to help address the growing incidence of food borne epidemics.
Question. What role do you see the National Center playing in the
President's Food Safety Initiative?
FDA answer. Most of the cooperative research projects currently
underway at the National Center for Food Safety and Technology, or
NCFST, are part of the overall Food Safety Initiative. The academic/
government/industry consortium at the NCFST presents a unique
opportunity for examination and resolution of food safety issues,
development of measures to prevent food contamination, and
implementation of those measures by the food industry.
NCFST will continue to play a major role in the Food Safety
Initiative. NCFST resources that are available to the FDA include the
use of food processing and analytical equipment, research facilities
such as a special containment pilot plant for study of pathogens under
actual processing conditions, and the scientific expertise of the
universities and industry scientists at the NCFST.
FDA would be happy to provide for the record some of the recent
accomplishments by the Center:
[The information follows:]
food and drug administration national center for food safety and
technology accomplishments
Developed a test for rapidly detecting E. coli O157:H7 in foods.
This procedure is currently being used in the food plants to improve
food safety.
Organized a sprout safety task force with the International Sprout
Growers Association to develop techniques for improving the safety of
sprouts. Sprouts have been implicated in several foodborne illness
outbreaks.
Formed a task force of 20 leading industry partners to obtain FDA
approval of specific polymer packaging to be used with in-package
irradiated foods. These packages will be used to protect red meats and
poultry from contamination after they have been irradiated.
Contributed to the development of a high pressure process to make
raw oysters safe to eat by eliminating Vibrio vulnificus bacteria. This
is a new technology that, conceivably, may be accessible to small
businesses and retail establishments in the future.
Conducted research to validate high pressure and ultra-violet light
processes to kill pathogens in fresh fruit juices [on-going]. Once this
research is finished, the processes may be very useful to small
businesses.
Question. Do you envision any of that increase going to the
National Center?
Answer. Based upon FDA's past experience, the Agency may
temporarily increase funding to NCFST to supplement planned research
projects. When FDA originally formulated its' $3.7 million request for
research, the Agency did not incorporate an expansion of activities for
NCFST. However, since the NCFST is central to the FDA's research
activities aimed at developing and evaluating techniques to prevent
food contamination, FDA may direct resources to the Center for support.
In fiscal year 1998, FDA expended an additional $175,000 on two major
research projects that helped address the growing incidence of
foodborne epidemics.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Cochran. Well, let me thank all of you for your
participation in our hearing today. I think it has been an
excellent hearing focusing on the budget request to deal with
the problems of food safety in our country. We will give this
request very careful attention, and also the legislative
proposals that are pending in the Senate, to make the process
more efficient and more effective.
[Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m., Tuesday, March 16, the
subcommittee was recessed to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday
April 27.]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety
STATEMENT OF CATHERINE E. WOTEKI, UNDER SECRETARY FOR
FOOD SAFETY
ACCOMPANIED BY:
DR. EILEEN KENNEDY, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH,
EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS
TOM BILLY, ADMINISTRATOR, FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE
DR. ENRIQUE FIGUEROA, ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING
SERVICE
DENNIS KAPLAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM
ANALYSIS
STATEMENT OF CATHERINE WOTEKI
Senator Cochran. Dr. Woteki, you may proceed.
Dr. Woteki. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I am pleased to appear before you today with my
colleagues from the Department of Health and Human Services to
discuss the President's food safety initiative and the fiscal
year 2000 budget for food safety.
I am going to be emphasizing our request within the
Department of Agriculture, as well as talking more broadly
about the President's Food Safety Initiative. And because the
food safety activities within the Department of Agriculture are
really dispersed among seven different agencies, there are
several people who are here with me today that I would like to
introduce to the subcommittee.
Dr. Eileen Kennedy, who is the Deputy Under Secretary for
Research, Education and Economics, oversees four of those
agencies; Mr. Tom Billy, the Administrator of the Food Safety
and Inspection Service; and Dr. Enrique Figueroa, who is
Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service.
We very much appreciate that copies of our written
testimony will be inserted into the record. And I will then
briefly summarize that testimony.
But before I begin that, I would like to thank you and the
members of the subcommittee for looking favorably on the
administration's request last year for the President's Food
Safety Initiative and also for the department's fiscal year
1999 budget requests as they related to agencies that support
our food safety efforts. The funding has helped us to make some
very substantial progress that is more fully discussed in the
written testimony.
PRESIDENT'S FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE
I would like now to turn to the President's Food Safety
Initiative. The fiscal year 2000 budget request is, as Dr.
Henney indicated, the third year that the administration has
submitted a coordinated request to maximize the use of our
resources toward achieving improvements in the safety of the
food supply.
The request builds on the strategy outlined in the May 1997
report to the President that was entitled, ``Food Safety from
Farm to Table, a National Food Safety Initiative.''
Now the coordinated activities that we have undertaken
through the initiative have greatly enhanced the capacities of
both the States, as well as the Federal Government, to better
monitor the incidence of specific foodborne diseases, to more
rapidly respond when there are outbreaks of these illnesses,
and, we hope, to diminish future outbreaks, to identify
foodborne hazards that pose the highest public health risk, and
also to direct resources to minimize those risks and, lastly,
to develop education programs aimed at improving food safety
practices and therefore improve food safety for Americans.
The FightBAC! TM campaign is an example of one
of those activities undertaken under the initiative. As you can
see from the poster here, it includes four very simple messages
for consumers. The messages were actually developed through a
public-private partnership.
INTER-AGENCY COOPERATION
The agencies represented at the table here, the Centers for
Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, the
Department of Agriculture, as well as the Department of
Education, all participated in the development of this
campaign, along with industry and representatives of consumers.
We believe that the investment in the initiative is already
paying off. FoodNet monitoring of foodborne illnesses and the
PulseNet DNA fingerprinting technologies have already been
used, as Dr. Koplan described, to monitor as well as to
initiate actions in response to foodborne outbreaks of disease.
We have also established a foodborne outbreak response
coordination group, in which USDA agencies, the Food and Drug
Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency have
been working closely with States to develop better procedures
to respond to foodborne disease outbreaks.
The Food Safety Inspection Service and the Food and Drug
Administration have recently signed a memorandum of
understanding to share information gained from inspections in
food plants for which both agencies have regulatory
responsibilities.
These are just a few examples of the payoff from the Food
Safety Initiative's emphasis on cooperation and on partnerships
to further improve the safety of the Nation's food supply; but
these are all works in progress.
We anticipate the continued emphasis on investment in these
areas, such as research coordination through the Joint
Institute for Food Safety Research, will continue to pay
dividends in enhanced safety of the food supply.
This last initiative, the Joint Institute for Food Safety
Research, is another example of cooperation among and between
the agencies. In this case, this activity is being co-chaired
by Dr. Kennedy for the Department of Agriculture and Dr. Bill
Raub for the Department of Health and Human Services.
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL ON FOOD SAFETY
While much progress is being made, we recognize that there
is also room for further improvement. That is why last August
President Clinton established a Council on Food Safety to
develop a comprehensive strategic plan for federal food safety
activities and to make recommendations to the President on how
to implement the plan.
The President also directed the council to assess the
findings and recommendations of the National Academy of
Sciences for scientific and organizational changes needed to
ensure an effective food safety system in the United States.
The council's response was released yesterday. And it supports
all the goals contained in the academy's recommendations to
strengthen the food safety system. The council has already
begun to develop a strategic plan and to coordinate the
development of food safety budgets.
As part of its work, it will review food safety statutes
and focus on areas where regulatory efforts can be strengthened
or where jurisdiction is split between agencies and where
resources could be more effectively shared between agencies.
SAFE AND FAIR ENFORCEMENT AND RECALL OF MEAT AND POULTRY ACT
The administration will work with Congress to pass the Safe
and Fair Enforcement and Recall of Meat and Poultry Act that
Senator Harkin introduced this session.
This act would fill one of the gaps identified by the
academy report and strengthen the authorities of the Department
of Agriculture in three key areas. These are notification,
recalls, and civil penalties.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST
With respect to the Food Safety Initiative's budget request
for fiscal year 2000, six of USDA's agencies are requesting a
total of $151 million to support the President's Food Safety
Initiative. This request is an increase of $34.8 million over
the fiscal year 1999 level.
The initiative budget for the Food Safety and Inspection
Service includes increases in the amount of $2.9 million to
address food safety risks in three critical areas. The first is
emergency coordination with the states in investigating
foodborne illness outbreaks.
The second is validation of the ability of State
laboratories to meet pathogen testing requirements; and the
third is pathogen testing in Federal laboratories of State-
inspected meat and poultry products.
The budget request for research, education, and economics
includes increases in the amount of $25.7 million that would
support the work that is done by all four agencies within that
mission area.
These include such areas as research on the development of
new pathogen intervention technologies, particularly
emphasizing the pre-harvest level; research that will lead to
better understanding of how the use of antibiotics in food-
producing animals increases the risk of emergence of micro-
organisms that are resistant to specific antibiotics; emphasis
on integration of research and education activities in food
safety for producers as well as for the general public; and
also the conduct of economic analyses necessary to evaluate the
effectiveness of various risk reduction strategies that are
under consideration for further reducing foodborne illness.
The sixth agency represented in the President's initiative
within the Department of Agriculture for fiscal year 2000 is
the Agricultural Marketing Service. Their request is for $6.2
million to establish microbiological baselines for pathogens in
fruits and vegetables.
Particularly for these agencies in REE and AMS, these
research and education and survey activities are supportive of
both the Food and Drug Administration's and the Food Safety and
Inspection Service's regulatory missions. They are also
responsive to the needs of producers and processors.
I would like to turn now to talk specifically about the
Food Safety and Inspection Service's accomplishments. I would
like to very briefly summarize them, as well as their budget
request.
HACCP IMPLEMENTATION
In January of this year, we reached another milestone. At
that date over 2,500 large and small plants that account for 92
percent of meat and poultry production were operating under the
new HACCP system, the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points
approach.
The agency recognized from the very beginning that small
plants, which had to reach this goal in January of this year,
those that employed between 10 and 499 employees, that they had
fewer resources to draw on than large plants. Because of this,
we prepared for implementation of the rule in the small plants
by providing extensive technical assistance. [Chart.]
This chart shows what we believe, that HACCP implementation
is a success. In January of a year ago, the large plants, those
that employed more than 500, which are shown on the left and
numbered approximately 300 plants, implemented this system; 274
of those plants were fully successful in their HACCP
implementation. Regulatory actions were taken in 26 plants.
For the small plants, those employing between 10 and 499
employees--those are shown in the second set of bars--there
were, 2,198 that were fully successful in implementation of
HACCP. And regulatory actions were taken in 13 cases.
In order to arrive at this successful implementation, the
agency, as well as the organizations and the plants themselves,
had to undertake a lot of activities. FSIS provided technical
assistance through a variety of different means. We appointed a
national HACCP small plant coordinator, established a network
of contacts and state coordinators, and conducted small plant
demonstration workshops throughout the country.
The agency encouraged large plants to act as sponsors for
the small plants, in order to help them develop their HACCP
plans. And many, many of these large plants did step up and do
that.
The agency, in addition, held a series of 20 meetings
around the country to answer questions from the small plant
owners and managers. Each field supervisor made personal visits
to each plant to assist in their preparations for HACCP
implementation.
So these are just some examples of the extensive outreach
activities that the agency undertook. I think an enormous
amount of credit also goes to the plants themselves, the
companies, as well as to their trade associations, and to the
universities that worked extremely hard to provide assistance
and training to the members, as well as to the small plants.
The very smallest of the meat and poultry plants, those
that employ less than ten people, will need to implement HACCP
in January of 2000. FSIS is planning to continue these outreach
activities and is committed to ensuring a smooth transition for
these very smallest of plants.
A year ago there were a lot of questions that were raised
about whether HACCP would really work; and I think that we can
tell you now that we have answers to those questions. New data
from the first year of testing in large plants show that the
prevalence of Salmonella in broilers, swine and ground beef and
ground turkey was substantially lower after HACCP
implementation than in the baseline studies conducted before
implementation. [Chart.]
If you look at the chart on the top, for those four
categories of products, the first column of numbers are the
baseline prevalence levels for Salmonella in these four types
of products. You can see in the second column the one year's
data of performance testing for Salmonella in these four
categories of products, that there have been declines in the
range of 50 percent for broilers and a quarter to a third for
the other three categories of products.
These data indicate that the Administration's science-based
inspection system has already had a significant effect on the
safety of food that American families eat by reducing the
prevalence of Salmonella in these types of products.
Dr. Koplan has described the new data that are available
from the FoodNet surveillance system that also indicate
parallel declines in human illnesses attributable to
Salmonella.
I am also pleased to indicate that the compliance with the
requirements of the rule has also been excellent. This second
chart, the one on the bottom, shows that 88 percent of large
plants with completed sample sets are actually meeting the
government's Salmonella standard. We have similarly high
compliance data for the remainder of the requirements of the
rule.
Those establishments that are not meeting or that did not
meet the standards were required to take immediate corrective
actions. The agency also has throughout this first year of
implementation, and will continue in the future, to publish
quarterly enforcement reports so that the public can follow the
progress on HACCP implementation.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 FSIS BUDGET REQUEST
Now with respect to FSIS's budget request, the budget for
fiscal year 2000 proposes a program level of $742 million, of
which $653 million would be appropriated under current law.
This is a net increase of $36 million over the 1999 current
estimate.
The 2000 budget includes increases for pay costs to meet
our statutory obligation to provide inspection services and
also a programmatic increase to implement our farm-to-table
food safety strategy.
The request also provides funding for the staffing and
operations of the Office of the U.S. Manager for the Codex
Alimentarius. The Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for
Disease Control, the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Department of Commerce, along with USDA agencies, all
participate in and also support the U.S. Codex activities.
The 2000 budget includes increases to help the Food Safety
and Inspection Service's inspection workforce make the
transition to a new HACCP environment, including conversion of
638 inspection positions to consumer safety officer positions.
In these new positions, our employees will be responsible
for conducting scientific testing and inspections in plants and
also in product distribution. Some of these personnel will be
deployed to cover critical inspection vacancies in the nearly
3,400 very small establishments that will be coming under HACCP
in January of next year.
In the near future, we will be transmitting to Congress the
legislation necessary to support the 2000 budget proposal to
recover the full cost of providing Federal meat, poultry, and
egg products inspections through user fees. The user fees
exclude grants to States and special assistance for State
programs.
The overall impact on prices as a result of these fees has
been estimated to be less than a cent per pound of meat,
poultry, and egg products production.
The implementation of the user fee authority would be
designed to be fair and equitable, promote accountability and
efficiency and minimize the impact on the competitive balance
among affected industries. Appropriated funds are requested to
convert the program, the Federal program, to user fees and also
for maintaining State inspection programs.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I again thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today,
representing the seven agencies in USDA with direct and
supportive roles for food safety, and also to discuss with you
the administration's goals to enhance food safety. We certainly
look forward to working with you.
PREPARED STATEMENT
My colleagues and I are happy to answer any questions that
you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Catherine E. Woteki
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
appear before you today to discuss the President's Food Safety
Initiative and fiscal year 2000 budget for Food Safety within the
Department of Agriculture.
Before I begin, I would like to thank you for looking favorably on
our fiscal year 1999 budget request. This funding has helped us make
progress in fulfilling our Federal responsibilities of maintaining a
safe food supply while we continue to make improvements in food safety
research and in the inspection of meat, poultry, and egg products.
usda food safety overview
USDA has adopted a farm-to-table approach for improving food
safety. The farm-to-table approach views agricultural production, food
processing, and food retailing as integrated and interdependent
systems. Consequently, actions taken to reduce foodborne hazards must
be directed across the food production, distribution, and consumption
continuum rather than focused on any individual component. However, our
farm-to-table strategy recognizes that our statutory authorities limit
regulatory oversight and enforcement to prescribed areas. Therefore,
our strategy relies upon voluntary adoption of quality control programs
at the production level, and partnership with States, the private
sector, and research and education agencies to strengthen the base for
such voluntary programs.
Reorganization
Much has been said about the need for organizational and structural
change and improved coordination in the Federal government's food
safety system. The Administration has been actively engaged in
organizational and program changes to improve coordination and
eliminate conflicts, enhance coordination of responses to public health
issues and emergencies, and coordinate research planning and
prioritization.
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety: In 1994, the
Congress and Administration cooperated in enacting a major
reorganization of food safety within USDA, creating the new mission
area and Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, which oversees
the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the U.S. Manager of
Codex Alimentarius. Under that legislation, a mission area dedicated to
public health was created within USDA, and the legislation mandated
that this office be occupied by an individual with a proven background
in public health and safety.
This action also effectively eliminated what had appeared to some
as a conflict of interest by separating the food safety and regulatory
function from marketing functions related to agricultural products, two
mission areas that had previously been housed together within the
Department.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service: FSIS, which is the USDA
regulatory agency reporting to the Under Secretary for Food Safety and
is responsible for the safety of meat, poultry, and egg products, also
underwent a major reorganization. Among its most significant features
were the establishment of a more efficient field organizational
structure and the establishment of a new Office of Public Health and
Science to provide scientific focus, leadership, and expertise to
address the most important public health risks related to meat,
poultry, and egg products.
Codex Alimentarius
Codex Alimentarius is the major international mechanism for
encouraging fair international trade in food while promoting the health
and economic interests of consumers. Management of Codex Alimentarius,
which coordinates U.S. activity in Codex, is aimed at establishing
international uniformity in food safety standards. Over the last year,
I chaired a new Codex Steering Committee, which includes both policy
and technical groups and has an expanded membership involving
additional Federal Agencies including: the Departments of State and
Commerce, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR),
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and USDA agencies. We are
pleased that the Administrator of FSIS is a vice chair of Codex
Alimentarius and that he brings his public health experience to this
international organization.
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics
The 1994 reorganization of USDA centralized research activities in
the newly created mission area of Research, Education and Economics
(REE). Food safety research is largely funded through two USDA
agencies: the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the Cooperative
State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES). Together in
fiscal year 1998 the REE agencies conducted and funded about $64
million in food safety research. The centralized research focus enables
the Department to better leverage appropriated funds.
The REE research activities are intended to meet the needs of the
regulatory agencies to achieve improved food safety through HACCP
implementation and other initiatives. To that end, ARS, the intramural
research arm of USDA, and FSIS have yearly food safety and research
budget and planning sessions. These sessions provide one mechanism to
ensure that proposed research initiatives address the specific
priorities of FSIS. In addition, FSIS consults closely with other USDA
agencies to ensure that its critical research and information needs are
being met.
In fiscal year 2000, ARS will conduct pre-harvest food safety
research to study animal pathogen resistance to antibiotics, study
pathogen infestation in animal waste, and examine the risks associated
with transmission of zoonotic pathogens from animals to humans. ARS
will also conduct post-harvest research to enhance detection and
measurement of microbial pathogens during the handling, distribution,
and storage of fresh fruits and vegetables to determine the sources of
contamination and risks of disease transmission, an effort which will
provide important information to producers and, of course, to the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
CSREES supports food safety research via several funding
mechanisms--formula funds, National Research Initiative competitive
grants, special research grants awarded by a competitive process, and
special site-specific grants that are appropriated by Congress. For
example, in fiscal year 2000 CSREES will provide the necessary training
to small retail establishments in helping them to implement HACCP.
CSREES will also administer competitive grants for food safety-related
projects.
The Economic Research Service (ERS) collaborates with other Federal
and USDA agencies to assess the costs of foodborne illness and the
economic implications of different options to improve food safety.
President's Food Safety Initiative
For the third consecutive year, USDA and the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) have coordinated the President's Food Safety
Initiative to protect the health of the American public by improving
the safety of the Nation's food supply. Through joint planning, we are
maximizing the use of our resources and achieving substantial
improvements in food safety. This process began with the May 1997
report to the President, entitled, Food Safety from Farm-to-Table: A
National Food Safety Initiative. The report recognized foodborne
illness as an emerging public health hazard that required aggressive
government action, identified critical gaps in the food safety system
for controlling or eliminating foodborne pathogens from the food
supply, and proposed a strategy for closing those gaps.
Both USDA and HHS have focused on building a strong, scientific
foundation for a farm-to-table food safety system. The coordinated
activities have greatly enhanced the capacities of the States and the
Federal government to better monitor the incidence of specific
foodborne diseases, rapidly respond to outbreaks of foodborne illness
and diminish future outbreaks, identify foodborne hazards that pose the
highest public health risks and direct resources to minimize those
risks, and develop education programs aimed at improving safe food
practices and therefore, food safety for Americans.
The 1999 initiative is building on gains made in these areas, and
places increased emphasis on ensuring the safety of domestic and
imported fresh produce and imported foods, targeting retail food safety
education, transforming traditional meat and poultry inspection systems
to science-based HACCP systems, and developing scientific information
and tools to control a greater range of food safety hazards.
Significant gains have already accrued with direct benefits to the
public health. I'd like to share some of these achievements with you.
The PulseNet (DNA fingerprinting) and FoodNet (monitoring of
foodborne illness) technology has already been used in several
instances to reduce foodborne outbreaks. State and Federal health
officials used PulseNet data to detect and limit the size of foodborne
illness outbreaks in products such as alfalfa sprouts, mesclun lettuce
mix, ground beef, cheese curds, and Salmonella Agona in cereal.
The most recent Listeria monocytogenes outbreak was also detected
from widely dispersed reports of incidences of patient illness. It was
tracked by fingerprinting and traced to one source--a meat products
plant. In the past, such a geographically scattered outbreak would have
continued for months longer. Therefore, while we are saddened by the
results of the outbreak, we are pleased that the system worked to halt
shipment of even more potentially contaminated products and resulted in
a sharp decline in illness following the company's voluntary recall.
While we cannot quantify the number of illnesses prevented, by
identifying outbreaks and taking appropriate regulatory actions and
public notifications much earlier than we otherwise would have, we
believe that the number of potential illnesses in these particular
cases was substantially reduced.
FoodNet sites identified Campylobacter as the most common cause of
foodborne disease, although it has rarely caused outbreaks of illness
since the 1980s. These findings led to new interagency efforts in
research and surveillance to better understand how this pathogen enters
the food chain and how to control it. Within FoodNet, there are now
special studies to determine which foods and behaviors are associated
with Campylobacter, E. coli O157:H7, and some Salmonella.
We're also working very hard on our outreach program to consumers.
In 1996, the Secretaries of USDA, HHS, and Education along with
industry, consumer groups, and public health officials, established the
Partnership for Food Safety Education. This public-private partnership
was established in order to promote safe food practices. The
Partnership also developed the ``Fight BAC!'' character to promote
consumer safety practices. The life-size ``BAC'' character and ``BAC''
puppets are used to deliver food safety messages to adults and school
age children. More than 100 national, State, and local organizations
from the public health, government, consumer, and industry sectors
support the ``FIGHT BAC!'' campaign and disseminate education
materials. These ``BAC Fighters'' will maximize the campaign's national
outreach and provide important links into thousands of communities
nationwide.
We have also worked with the States to develop a website that links
all food safety agencies--at the Federal, State, and local level--
together. The ``Gateway to Government Food Safety Information'' website
can be accessed at www.foodsafety.gov.
President's Council on Food Safety
In August 1998, the President issued an Executive Order creating
the Council on Food Safety. Throughout 1999, the Council, co-chaired by
the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services, the
President's Science Advisor, and the Head of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, will work to meet the President's goal of developing
a comprehensive food safety strategy and coordinating food safety
budgets that will result in further improvements in the safety of the
food supply and will ensure the most effective use of Federal
resources.
The strategic plan will take into consideration the findings and
recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report and
input from the public. The NAS report, initiated in 1997 at the request
of Congress, provides an examination of the scientific and
organizational needs of an effective food safety system. Upon
completion of its evaluation of the current food safety system, the
Council will make additional recommendations on how to advance the
efforts identified in the President's Food Safety Initiative. The
Council held four public meetings to receive input concerning important
elements of the food safety system.
USDA, HHS, and EPA are identifying new opportunities to improve
food safety, avoid duplication, and leverage agency resources. This
process is greatly enhanced by the Joint Institute for Food Safety
Research (JIFSR), which was created by Executive Order in July 1998. By
creating the JIFSR and setting it within the Council, the President has
re-emphasized the importance of establishing a seamless, science-based
food safety system. This represents an efficient and effective way to
ensure the implementation of a farm-to-table food safety strategy that
reduces the level of foodborne illness in the most effective way
possible.
This vision also reflects the findings from the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) report, Ensuring Safe Food from Production to
Consumption, that an effective food safety system is a coordinated,
interdependent system composed of government agencies at all levels, as
well as other stakeholders. NAS found that the successful integrated
operation of a food safety system requires that officials at all levels
of government work together in support of common goals of a science-
based system.
usda response to nas report
Part of the President's direction to the Council was to prepare
comments and information for him concerning the report by the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) requested by the Congress and issued last
summer. Each Department has reviewed the report carefully.
The NAS report, Ensuring Safe Food from Production to Consumption,
identifies a desire for a ``national food law that is clear, rational,
and comprehensive, as well as scientifically based on risk'' as a major
component of a model food safety system. USDA certainly agrees with the
NAS that our food safety systems should be science-based and should
utilize risk analysis whenever possible.
The document also notes that the continuous inspection system of
meat and poultry through sight, smell, and touch creates
inefficiencies, and should be replaced by a science-based approach that
is capable of detecting hazards of concern.
Even though the current law requires continuous inspection, it does
not specify how this inspection is to be carried out. The statutes do
require appropriate examination of animals prior to slaughter and
examination post-slaughter at all official slaughter and processing
facilities. Among other significant food safety purposes, this
continuous inspection requirement ensures use of the best sanitary
dressing processes, prevention of fecal contamination, and prevention
of meat from diseased animals entering the food supply.
Under the statutory flexibility that already exists, USDA has begun
to develop and test a more risk based inspection system, including
adopting regulations requiring that HACCP be implemented in all
slaughter and processing plants. In addition, USDA is studying how best
to effect further improvements in the inspection of meat and poultry.
Statutory Differences
It should be noted that there is a fundamental difference between
the statutes that govern the inspection and oversight of meat, poultry,
and egg products, implemented by FSIS, and the statutes for other
foods, enforced by HHS via the Food and Drug Administration.
It is FSIS' statutory responsibility to ensure that no meat and
poultry that may be adulterated receives the mark of inspection and
enters the marketplace. Companies slaughtering or processing meat and
poultry have a legal obligation to report such activity to FSIS, and
FSIS is obligated to provide appropriate inspection to the plant. FSIS
also has the responsibility to ensure that only countries that maintain
inspection systems for meat, poultry, and egg products that are
equivalent to the U.S. systems may export these products to American
consumers.
FDA's statutory responsibility is much different. FDA is obligated
to remove adulterated foods from the marketplace. FDA has the authority
to inspect establishments producing food but does not provide daily
inspection of even high-risk food products at this time.
USDA will continue working through the Council to analyze and
coordinate our resources to provide science and risk based research,
comparative risk analysis, surveillance, inspection, and education to
carry out the recommendations of the NAS report.
fsis activities
HACCP Implementation
On January 25, 1999, a milestone was reached in our strategy for
making significant gains in improving the safety of America's food
supply. On this date, over 3,000 large and small plants accounting for
92 percent of meat and poultry production were operating under HACCP
plans. We recognized from the very beginning that small plants, those
with between 10 and 499 employees, had fewer resources to draw on than
large plants. Because of this, we prepared for implementation of the
rule in small plants by providing extensive technical assistance.
We appointed a National HACCP Small Plant Coordinator to coordinate
the various activities underway to assist small plants. We established
a network of contacts and State coordinators around the country to
disseminate information on HACCP and provide technical guidance to
small plants. We also conducted small plant demonstration workshops
throughout the country to provide guidance and technical assistance to
small plants, asked large plants to act as sponsors for small plants in
order to help them develop their HACCP plans, and held a series of 20
implementation meetings around the country to answer any questions on
HACCP. Field supervisors made personal visits to each plant to assist
in their preparations for HACCP implementation. HACCP coordinators were
identified in all affected States. These are just a few examples of the
initiatives we put in place to assist small plants with HACCP
implementation.
Of course, credit needs to be shared. Numerous industry
associations and academic institutions worked extremely hard to provide
assistance and training to their members and to plants in their
vicinity. Small plant management also deserve much of the credit for
their hard work in preparing for HACCP implementation.
As you know, in January 1998 approximately 300 large plants
implemented HACCP, accounting for 75 percent of the volume of meat and
poultry production in the United States. Large plants had approximately
a 92 percent compliance rate during the first 9 months of
implementation. Where a few problems did occur, enforcement actions
were implemented and establishments responded by modifying and
strengthening their HACCP plans. Implementation in large and small
plants has been smooth thanks to the efforts of both industry and
government.
Very small plants, those with fewer than 10 employees, will
implement HACCP in January 2000. We will continue our outreach by
holding nationwide public meetings and workshops to prepare very small
plants for HACCP. We are committed to ensuring a smooth transition to
HACCP for very small plants.
One year ago, many questions were raised about whether HACCP would
really work. I believe we have the answers to those questions now. Data
released at the beginning of March based on the first 12 months of
testing in large plants show that the prevalence of Salmonella in
broilers, swine, ground beef, and ground turkey was substantially lower
after HACCP implementation than in baseline studies conducted before
implementation.
The first data released for ground beef samples showed 7.5 percent
testing positive for Salmonella prior to January 1998 and only 4.8
percent testing positive after HACCP implementation, a decline of 36
percent.
The new data for broilers and pork continue positive trends
reported several months ago. Of broiler carcasses, 20.0 percent tested
positive for Salmonella before HACCP implementation, compared to 10.9
percent after implementation. That's a decline of over 45 percent. On
swine carcasses, 8.7 percent tested positive prior to HACCP versus 6.5
percent after HACCP implementation, a decrease of more than 25 percent.
As for ground turkey, 49.9 percent tested prior to HACCP versus 36.4
percent after HACCP implementation. This represents a decline of nearly
27 percent.
These data, while preliminary, indicate that the Administration's
science-based inspection system has already had a significant effect on
the safety of food American families eat by reducing the prevalence of
Salmonella. Salmonella is a potentially deadly bacteria that in the
past had sickened as many as 3.8 million Americans a year and cost
billions of dollars in lost productivity and medical costs annually.
Compliance with the requirements of the rule has been excellent.
For example, 88 percent of large plants with completed sample sets are
meeting the government's Salmonella standard, and we have similarly
high compliance data for the remainder of the requirements of the rule.
Those establishments that did not meet the standards were required to
take immediate corrective action. We have been putting out quarterly
enforcement reports so the public can follow our progress, and we
should have a new enforcement report out soon.
New Inspection Models
As USDA focuses on HACCP implementation throughout the industry, it
has begun development of a project to design new inspection models that
better address current public health risks in the meat and poultry
supply. These changes will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
inspection oversight and permit better use of Department resources.
State Cooperative Meat and Poultry Inspection Programs
FSIS oversees and supports (with more than $40 million annually) 26
State inspection programs for meat and poultry. These cooperative
programs permit States to inspect product for distribution within their
own boundaries. The State inspection programs must be equal to the
Federal program conducted by FSIS. All State plants required to enter
the program have implemented HACCP. Very small plants are required to
implement HACCP in January 2000.
Information Sharing
FSIS has a trained inspection force in every Federally inspected
meat and poultry slaughter and processing plant in the United States.
In some cases, products are being processed in the same plants that
fall under the jurisdiction of FDA because these are food products that
do not contain meat or poultry. FSIS and FDA are in the process of
establishing and implementing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to
facilitate appropriate sharing of information among senior agency field
personnel regarding safe food production in these plants.
Modernizing Information Technology
As one step in the adoption of new information technologies in
inspection programs, FSIS has developed an interactive computer
system--the Field Automation and Information Management (FAIM) system--
for its own use, and is encouraging states to adopt it by sharing the
costs of implementation. The system permits the field inspection force
to have access to regulations, scheduling information, and appropriate
information regarding enforcement. It can also be used for training.
FSIS has conducted discussions with FDA regarding FAIM's applicability
to its inspection system.
Food Code and International Standards
USDA is also working more closely with its counterparts at the
Federal, State, and local level to encourage national uniformity in
food safety standards through support and endorsement of the Food Code.
The Food Code provides guidelines for maintaining food safety in
restaurants, grocery stores, nursing homes, and other institutional and
retail settings.
Because world trade in agricultural commodities continues to grow,
USDA is working through the Codex Alimentarius Commission to encourage
international uniformity in food safety standards. Responsibility for
oversight of the U.S. Manager of Codex is located in the Office of
Under Secretary for Food Safety.
Voluntary Quality Control Programs
The Animal Production Food Safety Staff in FSIS is an excellent
example of developing partnership with States to encourage the
voluntary implementation of quality control programs at the animal
production level. The education of small producers is of particular
concern as we move forward with HACCP implementation in small plants.
We believe that changes in the marketing of animals will be expected by
plants operating under HACCP, and we want to help producers be ready
for these changes.
fy 2000 usda food safety budget request
FSIS Budget Request
The FSIS fiscal year 2000 budget proposes a program level of $742
million, of which $653 million would be appropriated under current law.
This is a net increase of $36 million over the 1999 current estimate.
The 2000 budget includes increases for pay costs to meet our statutory
obligation to provide inspection services and a programmatic increase
to implement our farm-to-table food safety strategy. The 2000 budget
includes increases to help the FSIS inspection workforce make the
transition to a new HACCP environment, including conversion of 638
inspection positions to Consumer Safety Officer positions.
In these new positions, employees will be responsible for
conducting scientific testing and inspections in plants and in product
distribution. Some of these personnel will be redeployed to cover
critical inspection vacancies in nearly 3,400 very small
establishments. These redeployments and upgrades will increase the
professional qualifications of the inspection workforce.
In the near future, the Administration will be transmitting to
Congress the legislation necessary to support the 2000 budget proposal
to recover the full cost of providing Federal meat, poultry, and egg
products inspection through user fees. The user fees exclude Grants to
States and Special Assistance for State Programs. Requiring the payment
of user fees for Federal inspection services would not only result in
savings to the taxpayer, but would also ensure that sufficient
resources are available to provide the mandatory inspection services
needed to meet increasing industry demand and assure consumers of
appropriate oversight and enforcement. The overall impact on prices as
a result of these fees has been estimated to be less than one cent per
pound of meat, poultry, and egg products production. The implementation
of the user fee authority would be designed to be fair and equitable,
promote accountability and efficiency, and minimize the impact on the
competitive balance among affected industries. Appropriated funds are
requested to convert the Federal program to user fees and for
maintaining State inspection programs.
Food Safety Initiative Budget Request
Six of USDA's agencies are requesting a total of $151 million to
support the President's Food Safety Initiative, an increase of $34.8
million over the fiscal year 1999 level. With the additional funds, the
agencies will improve our ability to identify food safety hazards,
develop more effective control strategies, and improve our response to
outbreaks of foodborne illnesses when they occur.
In support of the President's Food Safety Initiative, the budget
for FSIS includes increases in the amount of $2.9 million to address
food safety risks in three critical areas: emergency response
coordination with the States in investigating foodborne illness
outbreaks; validation of the ability of State laboratories to meet
HACCP pathogen testing requirements; and pathogen testing in Federal
laboratories of State-inspected product.
The budget for Research, Education and Economics (REE) includes
increases in the amount of $25.7 million to: expand research for the
development of new pathogen intervention technologies at the pre-
harvest level, initiate research that will lead to a better
understanding of how the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals
increases the risk of emergence of micro-organisms that are resistant
to specific antibiotics, integrate research and education in food
safety, and provide the economic analysis necessary to evaluate the
effectiveness of various risk-reduction strategies for reducing
foodborne illness. This amount will be distributed to the following
agencies within REE: Agricultural Research Service ($11.7 million),
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service ($11.0
million), Economic Research Service ($0.5 million), and the National
Agricultural Statistics Service ($2.5 million).
The budget for the Agricultural Marketing Service, within Marketing
and Regulatory Programs (MRP), includes $6.2 million to establish
microbiological baselines for pathogens on fruits and vegetables.
conclusion
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today and
discuss the Administration's goals to enhance food safety. I look
forward to working with you and my colleagues and I will be happy to
answer any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have.
CONSUMER SAFETY OFFICES
Senator Cochran. I have a few questions that I will ask at
the outset and then yield to other Senators for their comments
and questions.
One thing that I noticed in your statement, Dr. Woteki, is
the mention of the redeployment of Food Safety and inspection
service personnel. I noted that you have something called a
Consumer Safety Officer, which is a new phrase. Tell us what
the Consumer Safety Officers will be doing and where they will
be deployed.
Dr. Woteki. Well, I would like to ask Mr. Tom Billy, the
FSIS Administrator, to join me at the table. While he is
getting up to do so, let me just briefly say that one of the
objectives that we are trying to achieve through the
development of this new job classification series is an
upgrading of the technical expertise that exists within the
FSIS inspection workforce.
There are many jobs, both within plants, as well as jobs
that compliance officers and others do, that require these
additional technical background and skills.
part of what the agency's major goal in creating this new
series is to create the opportunity to both upgrade within our
workforce those who have these skills, as well as to recruit
from outside.
Mr. Billy has been spending quite a bit of time thinking
about how those Consumer Safety Officers are going to be going
about doing their work. I would like him to respond.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Billy.
Mr. Billy. Good morning. The shift to a HACCP-based
approach not only brings with it a number of scientific
components but also the need for inspectors to be able to use
the tools of science and statistics to make judgments about
process control. We need a different kind of inspector than we
have traditionally had.
This new classification series--and that is what it is--
will provide us with the kind of person with a college degree
and a certain number of credit hours in the sciences that will
enter the workforce and, with training, be able to carry out
our responsibilities of oversight and verification under this
new HACCP-based system.
It also fits well with some of the other roles we play in
compliance. I might add that it is the backbone in terms of the
classification series in FDA for their field inspection force.
So it is well tested and I think will serve us well as we look
to the future.
Senator Cochran. There has been one suggestion that some of
these redeployed personnel may be assigned to the distribution
system, as well as in grocery stores or in other areas.
My question is: If that is true, what analysis have you
done to see whether you are overlapping with State and local
public health department inspections and Food and Drug
Administration inspections that are already being carried out
in those areas?
Dr. Woteki. Well, Senator, I understand that there has been
some concern raised by State officials about overlapping
responsibilities. I do want to assure you, as we have assured
them, that as we are developing this plan and moving forward in
doing some tests, we will not be duplicating those
responsibilities.
I would like to ask Mr. Billy again to describe to you in
some detail the approach that the agency is taking.
Mr. Billy. We have, for many years, in fact decades, had a
presence in the marketplace represented by our compliance
officers that visit retail establishments, and check products.
It is one of the final verifications under HACCP that in fact
products are in compliance with our requirements.
They also investigate consumer complaints about products.
When we find problems, we take the appropriate regulatory
follow-up action. We conducted over 26,000 such verifications
last year. These consumer safety officers and many of our
compliance people will continue that type of responsibility.
In addition, we have been working very closely in
conjunction with FDA and with the Food Protection Conference,
which is an organization set up by the states to oversee their
regulation of the retail sector. We plan to continue to work
closely in that framework to assist the state and local
authorities in terms of making sure that, with regard to meat,
poultry and egg products, there are proper, effective standards
in place, and those regulatory people are trained in ways to
make sure that those standards are being met.
We have worked this through the States. We have an ongoing
training program for retail inspectors at the State level. It
is in cooperation with FDA. It is done through satellite down-
link type of approach. We are providing important training so
that those people at the State and local level can carry out
their responsibilities.
INSPECTION OF IMPORTED FOODS
Senator Cochran. We have had hearings in the Senate chaired
by Senator Susan Collins, chairman of the permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations of the Governmental Affairs
Committee. Those hearings have indicated that there is really a
need to do more in the imported food area, particularly with
respect to the inspection of fruits and vegetables and many
other commodities coming into our country.
Will it be part of the administration's effort of
consolidation and reorganization to see that this area, which
has not been sufficiently covered by inspection personnel, is
addressed? I think Dr. Henney may have more responsibility
statutorily in this area than others. Would you like to respond
to that?
Dr. Henney. Mr. Chairman, while we all share an interest in
imported food products, I think the particular sector that you
are talking about, particularly produce is within our
jurisdiction. And within the request that we are giving you
today, about $17 million of the $30 million request is targeted
towards our inspectional capability.
With this money we would be able to develop more tools for
our inspectors to use. We would be able to inspect
domestically, as I said, at least in our high-risk areas once a
year.
But more importantly and to your question, our foreign
inspections would double, not only with inspections of foreign
food processors, but we would be able to continue evaluating
the systems that are used by foreign countries to access their
adequacy and determine if their systems are equivalency to our
own.
Senator Cochran. One part of our law suggests that the
imports into the country will not be permitted in some areas of
processed foods, foods that have been processed in other
countries, that they have to abide by the same kind of
inspection regime and safeguards that our domestic
slaughterhouses and processors have to follow.
How is that law enforced in terms of inspections to verify
that the right kinds of practices are occurring in other
countries and stopping the importation of food products that do
not comply with that rule?
Dr. Woteki. Well, Senator, I might respond to that
question. The legislative authorities for the Department of
Agriculture essentially require that any country shipping,
exporting meat and poultry products to the United States, has a
system that will provide the same level of consumer protection
as the U.S. system.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service is implementing that
legislative authority using a three-pronged approach.
The first level is for any country that wants to export
meat or poultry products to us, that we first of all review
their statutes, we review their regulations to assure that they
do have a system in place of inspections that will be
considered, or could be considered, to be equivalent to our
own.
The second prong is actual visits to meat packing
establishments to inspect that indeed what is going on within
those plants is meeting that country's system, which has been
determined to be equivalent to our own.
Then the third prong is when a product is imported into the
United States, when it reaches the port, it is reinspected. So
I think we have a good program in place for meat and poultry
that assures that imported products do meet the same level of
protection that we have here for domestically produced
products.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Senator Kohl?
COORDINATION OF FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVES
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Cochran. Any initiatives
such as the Food Safety Initiative that crosses agency and
departmental lines clearly requires high levels of cooperation
and coordination. For all of you, what steps are being taken to
ensure that all food safety initiatives and activities are
properly coordinated?
Is there any one agency or person responsible for taking
the lead on food safety initiatives? And what steps are needed
to improve communication and cooperation among the agencies?
Dr. Woteki. Senator, we have actually the President's Food
Safety Council that is co-chaired by Secretary Glickman,
Secretary Shalala and Dr. Neil Lane. It was established by
presidential directive in August of last year. I alluded to the
council's activities in my opening statement. The council is
working on developing a strategic plan for food safety. It is
working to develop coordinated budgets.
So I believe that certainly the council is playing a very
important role in providing very high level oversight and
directions to the actions and activities of the many agencies
that are involved in food safety.
Beyond that, we also have a number of different
coordinating mechanisms that are in place. One of them is that
there are periodic meetings of a group of principals who are
responsible for food safety. Another I alluded to also in my
opening statement, the Foodborne Outbreak Response Coordination
Group.
So there are a number of different activities that we have
underway so that we can be sharing information, developing
plans, coordinating our activities, not only at the federal
level but also involving the states as well.
Senator Kohl. Dr. Henney?
Dr. Henney. I, like Dr. Koplan, have returned back to
federal service after a five-year hiatus. And I must say my
observation is very similar to his in terms of being quite
gratified at the level of cooperation that there is between and
among the federal agencies, and particularly our important
partners at the State level.
I think Dr. Woteki is very correct in her observations that
at a very high level of government, there is oversight of
policy and budget development.
But I think more importantly is the day-to-day issue that
worries the average American citizen, that is: is my food safe.
At an operational level, the people working within the agencies
when an outbreak does occur are working on initiatives to see
that outbreaks are prevented. These efforts are is very intense
and very tightly coordinated.
Senator Kohl. Mr. Koplan?
Dr. Koplan. The only thing I would add is, at the daily
working level, we now have assignees from each other's agencies
working in our own agency. This is something that had not
occurred before. It is tremendously helpful on a daily basis to
anticipate problems that can come up and to facilitate
communication.
These folks know who to call in the other agency when
something is needed and know how the other agencies work. I
know CDC has assignees in both of my colleagues' organizations,
working daily on their issues, and informing them about what we
are doing in that area as well. It is a very helpful mechanism.
FOODBORNE DISEASE OUTBREAK
Senator Kohl. All right. I have been provided by the FDA a
map of the United States which shows foodborne disease
outbreaks for the period of January to July of 1998. I
understand this map is based on information provided by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This map indicates
that some states with relatively low populations, such as
Wisconsin and Kansas, have a large number of outbreaks compared
to other states with relatively high populations, such as
Texas, Florida and New York.
What is the actual definition of foodborne disease
outbreak? Is the period shown on this map representative of
incidents of outbreaks generally? And to the extent that
outbreaks were a problem in Wisconsin during the period shown
on this map, what is the FDA or any other agency doing to help
control this problem?
Dr. Henney?
Dr. Henney. Senator Kohl, I appreciate your question,
knowing that I lived in Kansas for six years. Those are very
important states to me. I believe the definition of an outbreak
involves an illness of two or more persons related to a
particular food.
I think that I would go back to what I said in my opening
statement. The map that you see is only reflective of that
period of time. If we would look at a snapshot of what happened
last week or another six-month period, it might involve highly
urban areas or different states altogether.
The way food is distributed in this country, the foods that
can be affected in terms of a foodborne illness makes this a
very complex kind of issue. But we do try to give snapshots of
what is going on at any period of time. We can usually track it
back to a particular kind of food.
INCIDENCE OF FOODBORNE ILLNESS
Senator Kohl. So are you saying that what we see on those
maps, which would indicate that Wisconsin and Kansas have an
unusually high incident, that that is not representative or
would not be representative over a period of time?
Dr. Henney. That is exactly correct. It might be that
Kansas and Wisconsin had a particular distribution of a type of
food, and it was only eaten by that population. It may very
well be that the Department of Health or the physicians seeing
those patients that were affected were particularly alert to a
situation. It is a multi-factor kind of issue, I think, that
could be observed in any state.
Perhaps Dr. Koplan could add a little bit more to that.
Dr. Koplan. One thing I would add, in keeping with Dr.
Henney's last comment, is that for a disease surveillance,
another factor that one must consider is the quality of the
surveillance in that locality. Some places that are more
aggressive and have people reporting more will show a higher
incidence.
From past experience over many years in public health, I
can tell you that your state has one of the better state health
departments. Dr. Davis who is in charge of infectious disease
epidemiology is superb. This may reflect the increased
incidence that has been found.
It may also indicate that in a given year even one outbreak
can cause many more cases of illness than the previous year.
One must look over a longer trend.
One of the things that we are doing to address this issue
is, as part of these initiatives, to try to come up with a
better estimate of the real incidence of diarrheal diseases
around the country, so as to make comparisons from one state to
another a little more controlled. We are in the process of
doing that now. Over the next few months, we hope to have
better data that permits the kind of comparison that gets
around the issue: Is surveillance better in one place than
another?
Senator Kohl. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Senator Durbin.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the outset, I
would like my opening statement be made part of the record.
Senator Cochran. It will be.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Durbin
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing today. Food safety
is a subject that affects every person in our country every day.
Unfortunately, we all too often take the safety of our food supply for
granted. But, recent outbreaks--from ham at a church picnic to imported
raspberries to eggs to recalls of hot dogs and ground beef--remind us
of the food safety dangers that can many times prove deadly.
I come at this topic from several different angles. First, I'm a
consumer. I want the food supply to be as safe as possible for my
family and especially for my almost three-year-old grandson. Second, I
have a deep respect for those who grow and produce our food and fiber.
American agriculture does produce the safest and most abundant food in
the world. But, I believe that we can always do more to ensure it is
safe. And, finally, when I served on the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Agriculture, I was on the front lines of earlier
efforts to improve food safety, from Hazard Analysis and Critical
Control Point--HACCP--to funding for additional meat inspectors.
I congratulate this Administration on its hard fought efforts to
improve the safety of our food supply. The Pathogen Reduction and HACCP
systems regulations are proving to be a significant advance in food
safety. The President's Food Safety Initiative is gaining steam and
drawing more cooperation within the Executive Branch. I was pleased to
join Senator Harkin last year when we took the funding question to the
Senate floor and found that almost three quarters of our colleagues
agreed that the President's initiative on food safety should be
adequately funded. But, we can always do better.
With regard to improving the safety of our food supply, allow me to
mention a topic that I believe to be the next logical step to more
effective regulation, lower costs, and clearer goals in our food safety
battle.
Currently, there are at least 12 different Federal agencies and 35
different laws governing food safety and inspection functions. With so
many bureaucrats in the kitchen, it is no wonder that breakdowns occur.
Overlapping jurisdictions, Federal agencies without accountability, and
resources that are wasted are just inexcusable. A single, independent
agency that will focus our policy and improve the enforcement of food
safety inspection is really overdue.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) has called for the
consolidation of our country's food safety and inspection functions
hundreds of times in the last decade. I have found Congressional
reports that date back as far as 1949 that lament the fragmented
structure of the Federal government's approach to food safety. The most
ironic example is the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee hearings on
the adequacy of Federal food safety inspection in 1977--led by Chairman
Ribicoff of Connecticut and Ranking Member Percy of Illinois. The
Committee report contained the following passage: ``Divided
responsibility for regulating food production has resulted in a
regulatory program which is often duplicative, sometimes contradictory,
undeniably costly, and unduly complex. We believe the bifurcated food
regulation system should be unified in a single agency.''
I serve on the Governmental Affairs Committee with Chairman Cochran
and others. Last Congress, we held four subcommittee hearings into the
safety of imported foods and the idea of a single, independent agency
was discussed--twenty years after the Committee concluded that the
current structure just didn't make sense.
Vice President Gore, in the National Performance Review, also made
a case for a unified approach to food safety.
And, this past summer the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
released their findings on how the Federal government deals with food
safety and inspection. I don't think it will surprise anyone that the
NAS concluded that one of the more important short-term goals should be
fixing the overlap and finding a way for all of the agencies and
departments to work together in a unified manner.
In the next few weeks, I'll be reintroducing legislation that
consolidates our food safety and inspection functions into a single,
independent agency. I hope the Administration and my colleagues will
join me in this discussion. I believe it is a topic that is simply too
important to ignore any longer.
Let me quickly touch on a couple of other topics. First, egg
safety. Last year, Secretary Glickman issued an administrative order
that barred the practice of repackaging eggs. I followed up that
initiative with language in the Omnibus Appropriations bill that
codified the order. I am pleased to report that those packers that
participate in the voluntary USDA egg grading system are no longer
allowed to repackage eggs, a dangerous practice that oftentimes leads
to redating and selling of old eggs. The language also called for a
joint USDA-FDA report on egg safety to Congress. We're still waiting
for that report. Also, the GAO is undertaking a thorough evaluation of
egg and egg product safety. I hope USDA and FDA will work with us as we
attempt to reassure the American consumer that the eggs they buy are
indeed safe. When more than 660,000 Americans get sick every year from
eating eggs contaminated with Salmonella enteritidis (SE), we need to
do better.
Finally, in Illinois, we have what some have described as a secret
weapon in the fight to detect and prevent foodborne illnesses. It's
called the National Center for Food Safety and Technology at the
Illinois Institute of Technology near Chicago. It is one of a kind. The
National Center is a research and development facility that supports
the FDA in its mission to ensure the safety of food products other than
meat and poultry. It's a ten-year-old collaboration between the Federal
government, private business, and academia. And, I can tell you from
first-hand experience, it's working. In the coming weeks, I'll be
asking my colleagues on this Committee as well as the FDA to work with
me in order to help the National Center continue its pursuit of
solutions to our food safety problems.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Kohl, thank you for organizing this hearing
today. Food safety is a matter that should be a high priority for all
of us. I look forward to working with you and the Administration as we
go the extra mile to reassure consumers that we're doing all we can to
continue to supply the safest food in the world.
FOOD SAFETY PROGRAMS
Senator Durbin. I would like to acknowledge the presence of
Dr. Henney and Dr. Woteki. I have not met Dr. Koplan, but I
thank him for joining us. I have worked with Dr. Henney for
many years at the Food and Drug Administration, I've always
respected her contribution. I am happy that she is in a
leadership position there. And, I am looking forward to
continuing working with her.
Dr. Woteki, with the USDA, thank you again for all that you
have done. The Centers for Disease Control enjoy an excellent
reputation in this area also.
I was curious yesterday when the White House announced its
statement on the National Academy of Sciences report. It
included a provision or recommendation which said, ``A new
statute should be enacted that establishes a unified framework
for food safety programs with a single official with control
over all federal food safety resources.''
I think that is fairly clearly stated. I am happy to hear
it, of course, because for 50 years on Capitol Hill we have
been debating that very same issue. Whether we are finally
going to take the dozen different federal agencies that inspect
food and put them under one coordinated leader, I think that is
a clear result or recommendation from this report.
The oddity is in Washington, Spin City USA, we have press
releases from the Grocery Manufacturers of America, as well as
the National Food Processors Association, which conclude just
the opposite, that this report does not suggest that there will
be a single official heading these food safety agencies.
I would recommend to the people in industry that they take
a closer look at the actual recommendation in that report. I
would also suggest to them that it is in their best interest to
work with us, to coordinate this effort, rather than resist it.
The agencies represented here and the work that they do is
important, but it can be improved upon.
And if we can avoid duplication and avoid overlap, the food
industry should be in our corner. They should be working with
us, not throwing out these press releases creating the
smokescreen of opposition to what is just plain common sense.
HACCP COMPLIANCE
Let me go into three specific areas where I think we can
definitely improve the situation. Let us talk about HACCP
compliance, I noticed Dr. Woteki raised that issue. The first
year of HACCP implementation in meat, poultry and seafood
showed radically different results between the FDA and the
USDA.
While the large meat and poultry plants had a compliance
rate of over 90 percent, the compliance rate for the seafood
industry was only 30 percent. The FDA found that 70 percent of
seafood plants had ``serious or critical'' violations of HACCP
rules.
Forty percent of those plants were not even implementing
the new requirements. For imported seafood, the record was even
worse. Eighty percent of seafood importers had serious or
critical violations.
Some have criticized the FDA's system for failing to have
frequent inspections and mandatory testing and say it is little
more than an industry honor system. I would like, Dr. Henney,
if you would respond to that.
FREQUENCY OF INSPECTION UNDER HACCP
Dr. Henney. Senator Durbin, let me respond in terms of
speaking a little bit about the differences in approach of the
two departments in terms of what has been done by agriculture
with respect to meat and poultry and our approach with respect
to seafood HACCP.
I think as Dr. Woteki mentioned, USDA, as they approached
implementing a HACCP program, has taken a stepwise or a phase-
in approach to it. We took the approach of looking at all
domestic process inspectors and having them inspected within
the first year. So we are looking everywhere from the smallest
mom and pop kind of shop to very large seafood processors.
Our frequency of inspection is annual. We are very rigorous
in that.
Senator Durbin. Excuse me, Dr. Henney. How does that
compare with Dr. Woteki at USDA? How frequently do you inspect?
Dr. Henney. They do a continuous----
INSPECTIONS
Senator Durbin. So it is a daily inspection, as opposed to
an annual inspection.
Dr. Henney. It is continuous. I do not know if that is
daily or--it is more than annual.
Senator Durbin. So we have an annual inspection for
seafood, a daily inspection for meat and poultry. Does that
give a lot of confidence to consumers in America? I do not
think so.
Dr. Henney. I think that the HACCP approach, because it is
science-based, and if there is an appropriate plan in place and
it is implemented well, an annual approach for this kind of
inspection is reasonable. We are looking at different kinds of
things when you talk about meat and poultry compared to
seafood.
In meat and poultry you have a number of bacteria that are
found in much greater frequency. We have to look in seafood not
only for some of those kind of issues, but also important
chemical and physical property issues as well. So the HACCP
program is very comprehensive with respect to seafood.
With respect to the rate of compliance, the 70-percent rate
meant that we left a letter with those processors. When you
look at the actual violations that occurred, the kind of
companies that are considered volative, is at a rate of less
than five percent. And that compares with the total food that
we inspect in all of our programs which has a 6-percent
volative rate.
So while I do believe that there is a need to be concerned
and that we get more of the processors in compliance. I think
in the very first year we expected a fairly high percentage of
the seafood industry not being compliant with this new system.
We intend to take a multipronged approach to do that.
But we were actually pleased to look at that end product of
the volative rate not being higher than what we see in the
total food system.
Senator Durbin. Dr. Henney, I would disagree with that and
say that when 40 percent of the plants were not even
implementing the new requirements, I do not think that is a
good result. I think we can do better.
INSPECTION OF IMPORTED PRODUCT
Let me give another example. Imported meat and poultry
products are subject to a two-stage approval process by USDA.
First, the exporting countries meat and poultry inspection
system must be approved by USDA.
Then the individual plant must be inspected by USDA before
it can ship meat to the United States. Even then, it is subject
to random verification checks at the border.
And the Food and Drug Administration only has the authority
to inspect food at the border, but has the staff to check less
than 2 percent of import shipments. The Food and Drug
Administration cannot send inspectors to foreign countries
except by invitation, even when they are checking the source of
food involved in an outbreak in the United States.
Again, Dr. Henney, that seems such a dramatic difference
between the standards that are being used. For the consumer,
the fact that we are talking about a polish ham, as opposed to
some processed food in a can, really does not make a big
difference.
They expect everything on the shelf having gone through
some government inspection, whether USDA or FDA, to be safe for
their family. And yet we still have this wide disparity in the
standards that are used.
I am not blaming you for this. Congress has the blame for
this. We have created this mess. But do you believe, as I do,
that unless we can harmonize these two inspection systems, we
cannot give consumers in America the assurance they need about
the safety of the food they eat?
Dr. Henney. Senator, I said at the time of my confirmation
hearings that an inspection system, an inspection force that is
limited to inspecting less than 2 percent of foreign imports is
less than credible.
And I think that is one reason why we are bringing forward
this budgetary request that would greatly enhance our ability
to inspect not only at the borders, but to do some of those
foreign inspections that you speak about.
Senator Durbin. I am not going to dwell any longer, because
Senator Harkin, who has been a real leader on this issue is
next. And I am sure he has some important questions that he
wants to ask and is anxious. [Laughter.]
EGG SAFETY INSPECTIONS
I do want to say that we are waiting for a report is egg
safety inspection. The incredible, edible egg is inspected by
so many different Federal agencies in so many different ways
and with little or no assurance for the consumers.
We did have, thanks to Secretary Glickman's leadership, an
initiative about repackaging eggs. So I think the industry is
more attentive to their responsibility to consumers.
But I will be looking forward to that report. And believe
me, if I have been critical today, the criticism should really
be self-directed. Congress for 50 years has created this mess.
We have to work with you to straighten it out. And I sincerely
hope that the response of the industry to this National Food
Safety Council report yesterday is no indication that they are
going to be resistant. They should be working with us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Senator Harkin.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Harkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like
to also ask that my statement be made a part of the record in
its entirety.
Senator Cochran. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Harkin
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Dr Woteki, Dr. Henney and Dr. Koplan.
Mr Chairman, I applaud you for this unified approach to our study of
Federal food safety programs. The Food Safety Initiative, now in its
third year, represents an integrated approach to the problem of food
safety, and it is fitting to discuss funding issues in this holistic
context.
Let me first express my regards to each of the Agency officials
here today, and recognize the tremendous progress we have made in the
past three years. We are just beginning to see the benefits of these
efforts, as Dr. Koplan has reported, in decreased illness rates for
Salmonella and Campylobacter. ``Fingerprinting'' of pathogens, advances
in testing methods, and the ongoing work of inspectors, scientists,
epidemiologists and regulators, have changed the way we understand and
respond to foodborne illness. This, and the successful implementation
of HACCP systems for meat and poultry inspection, are helping us
respond more effectively to illness or, even better, to prevent it
entirely.
I am pleased that the Agencies are addressing the problem of safety
in fresh produce. Consumption of these products brings reductions in
cancer and other chronic diseases, and yesterday's Wall Street Journal
reported that the produce department is a crucial draw for consumers in
their choice of grocery stores. But we have a number of emerging
problems with this part of our food supply. The absence of domestic
regulatory standards for fresh fruits and vegetables is a problem that
hampers our ability to assure safety, both domestically and abroad. I
plan to introduce legislation in the near future that will help assure
the safety of these products for American consumers, by setting Federal
standards.
In the 105th Congress, I introduced legislation to grant the
Secretary of Agriculture the authority to mandate a recall of
adulterated meat and poultry products. I introduced the legislation
again on the first day of this Congress. Events of the last year and a
half have only convinced me further that this is a necessary authority.
Dr. Woteki, I look forward to working with you to give the USDA the
tools it needs to keep our food safe.
I intend to give my strongest support to full funding for the
President's Food Safety Initiative. The Initiative is a complete menu
of innovative programs. PulseNet, the genetic fingerprinting network,
is a leap forward in the way we manage illness and outbreaks. FoodNet
can finally give us answers about victims of foodborne illness, and why
they got sick. The Produce Initiative offers an integrated research
strategy to allow us to enjoy these healthful foods safely. NARMS, the
National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System, is a model system
to predict resistance problems in foodborne pathogens. Each of these
programs draws on the best that each of the three Agencies here has to
offer, and each one has already shown its value.
Each year bring new successes with the Food Safety Initiative, and
new challenges from emerging pathogens. This is a race we can't afford
to lose. I applaud the work done by my colleagues, and by our food
safety leaders in the Agencies. I look forward to working with each of
you to assure the best possible system to protect our consumers.
FOOD SAFETY PROGRESS
Senator Harkin. I would like to pick up where Senator
Durbin just left off. But first of all, let me just say a
couple of things. I do applaud the work that all of you are
doing in this unified approach to food safety funding. I think
it is making a significant difference, having watched it now
over 20-some years.
And I believe the Food Safety Initiative instituted by the
administration now in its third year is promoting this type of
integrated approach. And it seems we are making some progress.
I want to personally thank each of the agencies who are
here today for the progress that we have made in those 3 years,
everything from genetic fingerprinting--I think that is an
important step forward--research methodologies, the HACCP
programs that are now implemented. I think it has made us
respond more effectively to outbreaks. But also, I think it is
giving a little bit higher rate of confidence among people,
that we are really attacking this problem.
Every time I go into a grocery store and I walk around,
whether it is fresh meats, or fresh fruits and vegetables--and
I am going to focus a lot of my comments or questions in that
area--you just realize how much trust people have, picking up
stuff off the shelves and taking it home and eating it. Just
think of the inherent trust they have. They are trusting the
store and the people who put it out there. But I believe that
periodically they see signs that say ``USDA inspected,'' ``FDA
inspected.'' And they believe that the Government is also doing
their job to keep them safe.
CHANGES IN FOOD DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
While we have done a reasonably good job in the past, in
the last, 15 or 20 years the changes we have made in our food
distribution system in this country have been phenomenal.
Meat processed and slaughtered in California is on a store
shelf in North Carolina the next day. And part of that meat is
in Michigan, part of it is in New Mexico, and just all over the
place. It used to be that a small supplied supply a small area.
The same is true of fruits and vegetables. You had small
suppliers. We had warehouses. You go there, and they would
supply a small area. The distribution is nationwide now. It is
very hard to track distribution now.
RECALL AUTHORITY
I have a couple questions and concerns, first of all, Dr.
Woteki, on recall authority. I introduced a bill in the 105th
Congress. I reintroduced it again earlier this year, with
Senator Daschle, on the first day of the session. S. 18 gives
the Department of Agriculture mandatory recall authority. A lot
of people are surprised to find out that he does not have that
authority, that it is only by request.
Recent events that we have had convinced me that we do need
to have this kind of authority. If you had that authority,
could it be useful? How would it have worked on any of the
recent outbreaks, for example? How do you view the issue of
mandatory recall authority?
Dr. Woteki. First of all, I thank you for introducing the
bill, because it does respond to three areas that the
administration and Secretary of Agriculture feel very strongly
are areas in which additional enforcement authorities are badly
needed.
The mandatory recall area that is included in the bill is
an area where you are absolutely correct, we do not have the
authority to mandate a recall. We request that companies
voluntarily conduct recalls. Now I do need to point out that by
and large, most companies, the vast majority of companies, do
respond and do respond quickly to requests from the department
to conduct a recall when there is a problem. But there are
occasions when there is foot dragging. There are some very rare
occasions, such as ones we have encountered in this last year,
where the mandatory recall authority would have been extremely
helpful.
I think it is also important to point out that the
mandatory notification requirement also contained within the
bill is an area in which we also believe that it would make our
food safety system much stronger, if the department had that
authority. Currently, both producers, the slaughter and
processing houses, as well as some of their customers, are
doing more and more product testing for pathogens present in
foods. Yet they are not required to report those results to the
department; and there have been instances where we do not know
whether product that has been tested positive has been removed
from commerce.
We do believe that that mandatory notification authority
would also be very important to the department. We think both
mandatory recall and notification are very important.
The third is the civil penalties area. Clearly in HACCP
systems, it would be also very important to have the ability to
level fines. The Secretary has frequently testified on this
topic, and he is fond of using the term that he has the atomic
bomb authority. He can withhold inspection, he can withdraw
inspection and essentially close down a company.
But there are many different types of situations, either
systems failures within HACCP plants, violations that occur
outside of official plants, or cases of economic adulteration
in which the ability to level civil penalties, we believe,
would be the appropriate type of enforcement to take. It would
get companies to pay attention to these important problems. We
believe that the bill, the authorities within the bill, would
be very important for also filling this gap in our current
approach toward food safety.
REGULATORY STANDARDS FOR FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
Senator Harkin. I hope we can get some action on that this
year. As I said, and just to repeat for emphasis sake,
distribution system has changed radically, but our system has
not changed to meet requirements.
And that leads me, Dr. Henney, into this other area of
great concern, and that is the issue of fresh fruits,
vegetables and produce. I dare say 15 years ago, when I walked
into my local Safeway in the middle of winter, you did not find
raspberries from Guatemala, and lettuce from Mexico and
tomatoes from Mexico and Chile and places like that.
You might have gone to one of the places like Sutton Place
Gourmet or something like that, and maybe you would find it
there. But now it is all over. And more and more we are hearing
stories of outbreaks of pathogens and other problems in our
produce, in our fruits.
I have a two-part question. First, I understand the FDA is
working with industry to develop some voluntary guidelines on
produce safety. Your comment on that.
Second--and here is what I think Senator Durbin was getting
at--when it comes to meat and poultry inspection, we have
national standards. We have standards that we have implemented
by law so that if a country wants to ship meat and meat
products into this country, we can have them meet those
standards. And it is not a violation of the World Trade
Organization or anything else.
But in produce and in fruits and vegetables, we do not have
those. So that if we try to do something, they will claim it is
a violation of WTO. And they are probably right, because we do
not have these national standards.
So I want to get to the issue of absence of regulatory
standards for fruits, vegetables and produce and how that
hampers our ability, not only here but also abroad.
Having said that, I will give you a heads up. I am working
on legislation--I have talked to you about it--to set Federal
standards in these areas I think a lot of people probably think
we have, these standards now, but we do not. So I would like
any comments that you have on that line.
Basically, are you working on the voluntary guidelines?
Second, this whole issue of domestic regulatory standards and
how that is hampered.
Dr. Henney. Senator Harkin, let me take the first part of
your question and ask the Director for the Center for Foods,
Mr. Joe Levitt, to join me in terms of giving you a more
comprehensive response in respect to the second part of your
question.
I think that the voluntary standards or the work that we
have with industry with respect to fresh fruits and vegetables
has been the subject of a guidance document that was issued
recently. It is contained in this booklet. It is the first step
and first approach to try to get a handle on the issue that you
raised.
One issue is our having access and availability of fresh
fruits and produce to us year round from many different sources
and yet trying to minimize any particular microbial infections
that may be present on that food, whether it is domestic or
imported. But let me ask Mr. Levitt to respond to the second
part of your question.
Mr. Levitt. The first part, also, the guide that Dr. Henney
held up, was produced last year using the funds that the
Congress provided for fiscal year 1998. For fiscal year 1999 we
are actively working with colleagues at the Department of
Agriculture to roll out that guide to fresh fruit and vegetable
processors, both domestically and overseas.
We are working with Dr. Kennedy's group domestically and
with the Foreign Agricultural Service overseas. And we, between
us, have two conferences that are scheduled in April in order
to do that. And we have a joint steering committee. So that
this is a fully coordinated effort.
I think your question in terms of should there be more
mandatory standards, I think that right now is more a function
of where we are in time and on the science. We started with
this guide largely because of what was known to date.
A lot of the areas that Dr. Henney and others have
mentioned in terms of a changing food supply, one of the major
areas of the Food Safety Initiative is research into new
methods, not just for detection, but also for prevention.
And I think when we look at whether this should be a
mandatory program, should it be a voluntary program, the first
question is: What are you going to mandate? I think as a
precursor we first need more research in what are the
preventive controls that would be effective in reducing
pathogens in fresh fruits and vegetables at the level that we
would want to see.
But in terms of where we are right now, we are--we believe
where the science is, is at the voluntary guidance stage, which
we think is an important first step tied to a very
comprehensive research effort.
REGULATORY STANDARDS
Senator Harkin. You asked me a question. Okay. I will give
you an answer. For example, if we do not have mandatory
standards on the washing of fruits and produce, and the source
of the water that is used to clean them, how can we impose that
on another country? We do not. If we can wash produce, and
fruits with surface water, they can in other countries. That is
one area. It does not take a lot of research. I do not think
that is too highly scientific.
Secondly, if we do not have standards on warehousing
procedures for fruits and vegetables and produce in open
buildings where rats can get in and birds fly through and bird
droppings can fall on the food, if we do not do that, how can
we mandate that in another country?
Those are just a couple, very simple, off the shelf. I do
not know that it requires a lot of research for that.
Mr. Levitt. The requirements that we do have in place stem
from our statute in terms of our general provisions against
adulteration and sanitation. And so, I mean, the statutory
framework does provide a basis on which we regulate both
domestically and looking at products coming in from other
countries. So we use a general statutory umbrella.
I was listening to your question more in terms of should
there be specifically targeted regulations of fresh fruits and
produce. And as I said, we are moving in that direction. But in
terms of what we have done so far, we have felt that, this is
where we are right now.
Senator Harkin. The absence--I am still trying to get to
this central question. The absence of national standards, how
does that inhibit you from doing your work in other countries,
if we do not have national standards, domestic regulatory
standards, like we do for meat and poultry? We want to get to
the issue of produce. I am still in a little haze about the
answer to the question.
Mr. Levitt. Well, the first----
Senator Harkin. We talked about the voluntary guidelines. I
know you are working on that. I am talking about the next step,
the next step of getting domestic regulatory standards. Now is
your answer to my question that you do not have enough
information or we do not have enough research, we do not have
enough data now for domestic regulatory standards?
Mr. Levitt. That is correct in terms of a comprehensive set
of national standards. And that is why we moved with the
guidance, which is where we felt the support was. We have a
joint advisory committee, which we operate with the Department
of Agriculture, the National Advisory Committee for
Microbiological Criteria. This issue was raised directly, and
these are experts from around the country in terms of what do
we know now, what is the right step based on what we know.
That does not mean that is where any of us would like to
be, but we need to--in these areas, we need to both drive the
science, drive the prevention and let the regulations reflect
the state of science. We all are looking for science-based
solutions, as we have with our HACCP programs.
OUTBREAKS FROM FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
Senator Harkin. Dr. Koplan, what do you see from CDC in
terms of outbreak of pathogens in produce and fruits and
vegetables? What is your experience? I mean, what have we seen
lately?
Dr. Koplan. In the last few years, you know, there have
been some widely publicized outbreaks. Raspberries of a couple
of years ago----
Senator Harkin. Strawberries.
Dr. Koplan [continuing]. Strawberries, sprouts. As with----
Senator Harkin. That was Salmonella, if I am not mistaken,
in the sprouts, was it not? Was it Salmonella?
Dr. Koplan. Salmonella and E. coli.
Senator Harkin. And E. coli.
Dr. Koplan. They, as well as most processed and unprocessed
can be contaminated.
FOOD IRRADIATION
Senator Harkin. Lastly, and I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, food
irradiation. I remember 13 years ago, 14--it was 1985--we had a
luncheon downtown, a bunch of us Ag types. You may have been
there for all I know. There was a luncheon of all irradiated
foods. We had it down at the National Press Club. I know we had
irradiated strawberries, irradiated meats off the shelf, and
discussed how long the shelf life would be and how it would
destroy all these pathogens. That is 14 years ago.
Now we are moving ahead on the meat and poultry end of
irradiation. But it seems to me that this lends itself to
fruits and vegetables and things like sprouts. I am just
wondering what is happening. How come we are not moving ahead
more aggressively in this area?
Dr. Henney. Senator Harkin, actually we are looking at a
variety of methodologies in terms of safe food processing. I
was out at our district office in Chicago last week and paid a
visit to the Moffett Center.
They are not only looking at the issue which you raised,
which is food irradiation, in the sprout area they are looking
at things like chlorine washes, they are looking at high
pressure methodology, they are looking at electron beam
methodology, as other techniques that could be used in terms of
interventions to make the food supply safer.
So I think we are not only looking at irradiation as the
only process that might help the issue of food safety.
Senator Harkin. Well, Mr. Chairman, I just--you know, food
irradiation, electron beam radiation right now is being used in
the marketplace. And companies are selling these to sterilize
pharmaceutical equipment and stuff like that, high speed. So if
they can have it, why could it not happen with food?
I always had a question why we could not move to that
system. That would seem to me to almost give you the highest
level of assurance that you would have no pathogens on your
food, at least when you bought it. What you did with it after
that is your own--that is up to you. But at least when you
bought it in the store, you would have a high level of
assurance there would not be any pathogens there.
Thank you.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Dorgan.
INSPECTION OF IMPORTED FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I will be brief. I
regret that we had a classified hearing this morning on energy
and the Armed Services Committee on the Chinese espionage
issue. And so I was necessarily delayed. But this is a very
interesting and important issue. And a number of my colleagues
have done more work in this area than I have. But I would like
to ask just a couple questions.
The discussion here sort of reminds me of the creative
tension that exists on the issue of regulation. And especially
in recent years, regulation is kind of a bad word here on
Capitol Hill. I come down on the side of more regulation with
respect to food.
I think regulation is the only connection to that trust
that Senator Harkin described when someone goes into a grocery
store and picks up a strawberry and takes it home and eats it.
The trust that they have that somehow that food that found its
way to that shelf was food safe for them and their family to
eat, I think, comes from effective regulation.
Let me ask you a question. Food that comes into this
country by an importer that does not meet FDA standards and you
discover that in a refrigerated container at the dock, what
happens to that food?
Dr. Henney. Senator Dorgan, let me give you a little bit of
a snapshot into what happens. We would have sampled it. We
would have found it to be contaminated. As we are sampling, we
have the importer hold that particular cargo until it can be
released, when we notify them that it can be released. If it is
found to be contaminated, it is no longer allowed in the food
supply.
Senator Dorgan. It is destroyed?
Dr. Henney. I believe so.
Senator Dorgan. My understanding is----
Dr. Henney. I have my center director for the field
operation here, but it is essentially held and often times
deplaned and then--I do not know if destruction is the right
word. So perhaps he could supply me with the correct word. But
it is taken out of the food supply.
U.S. CUSTOMS-FDA COOPERATION
Senator Dorgan. My understanding is that it is denied
entry, but that we do not have the authority to require it be
destroyed. I might be wrong about that. But I visited a dock
recently, and I was particularly interested in what Customs was
doing.
In one of the warehouses they were unloading some frozen
broccoli from Poland, a huge container of frozen broccoli from
Poland. They were looking for contraband. And so I was just
curious. I said, ``Well, do you know anything about this
broccoli?'' Not that frozen broccoli would have any great
appeal to me. But I said, ``Do you know under what conditions
this might have been produced in Poland? Is this a reputable
importer?''
Dr. Woteki talks about the farm-to-table approach. Clearly
we cannot do a farm-to-table approach with respect to frozen
broccoli coming from Eastern Union.
So I asked the Customs folks, ``Tell me about frozen
broccoli here. Who would be here to make sure that that
broccoli comes into our country to go to a restaurant or a
grocery store to be sold to consumers with some confidence that
that was not produced with an herbicide or a pesticide that
would be prohibited here and would be harmful to our health?''
Their answer was, ``Well, that is not Customs. That is
FDA.''
And I said, ``I would expect that. So how much inspection
occurs?''
Well, the answer was what I expected as well, that we have
a very, very small amount of resources for a large amount of
food coming into this country.
And then I said, ``Well, what happens on the dock here if
they ship in food that the FDA decides is not able to enter
this country?''
And they said, ``Well, the authority does not exist to
destroy it. We cannot require the importers to destroy it.''
So they are able to move it back someplace and then, I
suppose, they may mix it with some other things and try to move
it in someplace else, or ship food that is inappropriate for
this country to some other unsuspecting population somewhere
else.
I would like you to look into that, because if we need to
give you some additional authority to say to an importer that
is trying to foist upon us some contaminated food, that if you
try to do that, we will destroy it on you. I mean, maybe we
need to give you that authority.
Dr. Henney. Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Dykstra does correct me, in
that we do not have the authority to order that it be
destroyed. And reexportation is possible. I would like to
assure you that the work that we do at the docks, however, is
coordinated, and I believe coordinated quite well, with
Customs.
We developed a system with Customs a few years ago known as
the OASIS system, so that we do know of product that is coming
into the country, have a reasonably good handle on countries
that we might have a concern about or a particular broker. So
this is an issue that we have given quite a lot of attention
to.
Senator Dorgan. And I appreciate that. And I also
appreciate the effort and the work that you are doing in these
areas, all three agencies. I would just observe that the farm-
to-table approach, which our farmers understand and acknowledge
is a useful thing, because they want to move to the American
table a quality product that is free from question about
contamination. That is in the interest of our farmers. We
understand that.
But I worry with the global economy and the lack of
resources you have and the staggering job just to try to deal
with all of this coming into the country that we do not have
the same capability of implementing a farm-to-table program
dealing with import of foods.
And I guess I just ask your impression of that. What
additional resources would you need and what kind of authority
would you want in order to give us some measurable improvement
in feeling that our imported food is meeting the same standards
as the food we produce in this country?
Dr. Henney. Well, Mr. Dorgan, with respect to budgetary
needs of the proposal we are bringing forward this morning,
there is money targeted to increase our level of foreign
inspections and increase our work at the dock. And so we would
hope that you would look favorably on that request.
With respect to additional authorities, I would appreciate
the opportunity to meet with you and your staff on that to see
what might be most appropriate. I did not come with a
particular list in that regard.
Senator Dorgan. Let me just add my voice to the comments of
Senator Durbin. I think it is rather byzantine that over so
many decades has grown, I guess, a fracturing of the authority
for dealing with food safety issues. I think it would make a
lot of sense for us to try to pull some of that together and
merge some of those responsibilities.
And I understand each agency involved would have some
concern about that. But the description, if you have a cheese
pizza, you may not be inspected in a decade, and if you have a
pepperoni pizza, you are inspected every day, consumers might
wonder about a government that decides that that is the right
approach.
And that is just because all of this has developed over a
good number of years, and we have not stopped to bring it all
back together in a way that I think would make some sense.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I was necessarily late. You are good to
allow me to question at the end.
And let me just thank the agencies for coming. I also share
Senator Durbin's critical concerns that much of this really
relates to us here in the Congress. You know, we need to
provide the resources. If we decide what we want with respect
to food safety, we need to provide the resources. If we believe
reorganization is necessary, we have to do that.
And so I look forward--the leadership of the chairman of
this subcommittee is very important. And I admire the work he
has done. I look forward to working with other members of this
subcommittee on these issues.
Thank you very much.
INTERAGENCY FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator, for your comments and
your participation in our hearing and in the work on these
issues.
Let me ask a couple final questions before we conclude our
hearing. There has been some comment about the President's Food
Safety Initiative. Our panel has mentioned that in statements
that have been presented to the committee this morning. And
there is some confusion in my mind about what is and what is
not a part of the President's Food Safety Initiative. We see,
for example, that FDA's seafood HACCP funding is counted as a
part of this initiative, but the FSIS HACCP program is not.
When you look at the entire budget of the Food Safety and
Inspection Service, $600 million plus, only $18 million of that
is counted. The President's budget does not even request
funding for a lot of the mandated programs of the Food Safety
and Inspection Service.
On the other hand, there are some other programs where the
base funding of ongoing activities that predate the
announcement of the President's Food Safety and Inspection
Service are counted in the funding levels for the Food Safety
Initiative.
So it is very confusing. Can any one of you help us define
what the President's Food Safety Initiative is and is not? Dr.
Woteki?
Dr. Woteki. I will take a run at that, Senator. It is
actually all laid out in that May 1997 report to the President.
In that report we identified, we collectively, the agencies
here, six areas that were gaps that were not receiving
sufficient attention and funding for particular emphasis in a
budgetary initiative.
One of the six areas was the development of a surveillance
system at CDC that would help us in responding much more
quickly, first to identify outbreaks of disease and then to
help in response.
The report proposed additional funds for risk assessment,
an area that we are increasingly relying on, but for which we
need methods developed, and also funding to conduct some of
these risk assessments.
In the case of the Food and Drug Administration, their
inspection programs are identified in that report as being
areas in which, particularly for the food system, they have
responsibility for the food sector which was an area in which
an infusion of new funds was identified as being badly needed.
We also identified research in the report as being an area
in need of a focused infusion, a focused investment, of new
funds, particularly emphasizing pathogens in foods, as well as
some areas that we are particularly concerned about: the
development of resistence to traditional processing approaches,
heat tolerance, for instance, in pathogens, or increasing
resistence to antibiotics because of use in food animals. These
were areas of research that if we had some additional funds, we
could make some real breakthroughs.
We also identified education, farm-to-table, but in
particular with an emphasis on consumers as being an important
area for additional new funding as well. So these half-dozen
areas in that initial report in 1997 is really a kind of
roadmap to the President's Food Safety Initiative.
In addition, that report also identified and committed us
to doing some longer range strategic planning, which is now
being undertaken under the auspices of the President's Council
Food Safety.
Senator Cochran. Dr. Henney, do you have any comments about
that?
Dr. Henney. No. I believe that Dr. Woteki has outlined very
well the areas that were identified specifically for the Food
Safety Initiative. You are very right. We have many other
activities in the food arena where we are making requests for
budgets or asking for funding in particular types of ways. But
I think the areas that Dr. Woteki has identified have been
consistent through the Food Safety Initiative.
PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON IRRADIATION OF RED MEAT
Senator Cochran. Dr. Koplan, any other comments on it?
There is one area where we heard some comment this morning, and
it is about the proposed rulemaking issuing a regulation
governing irradiation of red meat. We understand this is in the
60-day comment period that ends in April, at the end of April.
My question is: At the close of the comment period, what do
you anticipate in terms of the agency implementing rules or
regulations to make this added food safety technology available
to industry? What is the timeframe that is anticipated?
Dr. Woteki. Well, I think to a certain extent that is going
to depend on the nature of the comments. They will be reviewed
promptly. Clearly, this is a high priority for us to do a
prompt review and response. At this point, I have not
personally looked at the comments that have been received, so I
do not have a sense for how complex they are, what kind of
challenges they are going to offer.
If the responses that are coming in are generally
favorable, there should be little impediment then to a rapid
review and issuing of a final----
Senator Cochran. Is this process similar to a public
opinion poll, or is it science-based?
Dr. Woteki. Well, it is most definitely science based. As
part of the comment period on any of our rules, we frequently
data submitted from the industry, from academic scientists and
from others that needs to be reviewed and taken into
consideration.
FOOD SAFETY EDUCATION
Senator Cochran. One thing that always strikes me as
interesting in news reports about foodborne illnesses or so-
called outbreaks--which you have reminded us is two or more
people suffering from the same malady, I guess, as a result of
a foodborne contaminant--is that after the initial big headline
and the first couple of paragraphs, there is the line in there:
But if the food, whatever it is, was cooked, there is no danger
of illness, or less likely danger, than we have just been
advertised exists.
I wonder to what extent are the agencies involved--CDC may
be involved in this, too--in trying to help ensure that we all
have all of the story, and we get the information that we need
in order to make judgments, not just about an overall
impression of the quality of the food that we have access to,
but how we should prepare it, the thorough cooking that is
required, the handling of food, and the like. Are we doing
enough in that area? And, does this budget provide the funding
that you need in order to have outreach programs that make a
difference in this area?
Dr. Henney. Let me take a crack at that. I think one of the
programs that we are all very much committed to, that Dr.
Woteki mentioned in her testimony, was the FightBAC!
TM campaign.
And that is to have consumers keep constant vigilance in
terms of the things that they can do to make sure that their
food is safe. It comes down to chilling, cooking, cleaning and
making sure that there is no cross-contamination as they
prepare food.
And I think from the individual consumer, who is preparing
food in the home, to particularly people who are preparing food
for others, those kind of four basics need to be very strongly
ingrained.
We have taken, as a part of the Food Safety Initiative,
this educational program very seriously. I think that we are
trying to impress this message far and wide. I know that,
speaking for the FDA, we have undertaken many an initiative
using the basic structure of the FightBAC! TM really
all across the country using our district offices as the hub
for outputting that kind of message.
But I do take your point that there are things that we need
to do all the way through the system, anywhere from that first
preparation of a product, to an inspection, all the way to the
table that is important to make sure that our food is safe.
Senator Cochran. Well, there is some discretion, too--I do
not know which agency maybe has the controlling authority--on
which kinds of contaminations are advertised or given great
notice. It is almost like the federal Government decides which
episode to release and which not to release. Is that true? That
is coming to me through some of the material that I have
reviewed in preparation for this hearing. I did not realize
that there was that kind of discretion being exercised by the
agencies.
Dr. Woteki. Well, if you are referring to information that
is released about recalls----
Senator Cochran. Maybe that is it. Yes.
Dr. Woteki [continuing]. There are different categories of
potential hazards to the public that are used for categorizing
each recall-type situation.
Senator Cochran. That is what I read. That is exactly what
I read.
Dr. Woteki. Some of those situations, where the consumer
has the ability to identify the product and return it, are the
cases in which we go to the media and publicize so that
consumers can take actions to protect themselves.
Frequently what happens, when there is an outbreak of
disease, and a recall is associated with it, there is a stepped
up level of testing that is then done. So you may see a cluster
of recalls that are related to a particular organism. That is
what has happened with the Listeria situation that Dr. Koplan
described in his testimony.
There can be a clustering in time of outbreaks and then
recalls that are associated with a specific organism.
FIGHT BAC
Senator Cochran. Dr. Koplan.
Dr. Koplan. Yes. You know, over the last 50 years we have
probably investigated thousands of outbreaks, many of them
foodborne outbreaks, and view all of these as an opportunity to
educate the public about what risk factors are present and how
to avoid future problems like this.
I think what you see here in the FightBAC! TM
campaign is a terrific example of something that is at the end
of the chain of developing data, information and science. It
begins with surveillance in the community. Are we seeing those
2, 5, 100, 1,000 cases of something associated with a common
food, then investigating it? Is it an outbreak? What is the
cause. Then doing some more studies to determine what are the
specific risk factors. Those risk factors are addressed by the
four different elements of the FightBAC! TM
campaign.
We have a group of college students who begin to cook for
themselves for the first time alone in a dorm, and they use a
common cutting board to cut up raw chicken and then to prepare
their salad. That is the separate piece.
You have folks who will buy shrimp in a market and leave it
on the counter for a long period of time and then decide to
cook it. There are a series of elements that from our science
background and doing case control studies, doing surveillance,
investigating, provide the science base for health education
program. We link all those in a chain.
Senator Cochran. Dr. Woteki.
Dr. Woteki. One final comment about the
FightBAC!TM campaign is to just reemphasize that it
is a public-private partnership. A substantial amount of the
funding for the campaign has come from the private sector.
In addition, the agencies here have all participated in the
development of those messages and, as Dr. Henney indicated, in
the distribution of that educational message.
The current program under development under the FightBAC!
TM campaign is going to be oriented toward school-
aged children, which is also part of what Dr. Henney referred
to as the constant need for education and then reinforcement of
this message at all ages, because school-aged children are also
preparing food at home, as well as their parents. Education
needs to be conducted throughout the age continuum.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Cochran. Well, let me thank all of you for your
participation in our hearing today. I think it has been an
excellent hearing focusing on the budget request to deal with
the problems of food safety in our country. We will give this
request very careful attention, and also the legislative
proposals that are pending in the Senate, to make the process
more efficient and more effective.
[Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m., Tuesday, March 16, the
subcommittee was recessed to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday
April 27.]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Thad Cochran (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Cochran, Kohl, Dorgan, and Durbin.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
STATEMENT OF SHIRLEY R. WATKINS, UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD, NUTRITION
AND CONSUMER SERVICES
ACCOMPANIED BY:
SAMUEL CHAMBERS, ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE FOOD AND NUTRITION
SERVICE
DR. RAJEN ANAND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR NUTRITION
POLICY AND PROMOTION
DENNIS KAPLAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF BUDGET, LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY SYSTEMS, OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS
OPENING REMARKS
Senator Cochran. This subcommittee will please come to
order. This morning our subcommittee continues our review of
the proposed budget for the next fiscal year that begins in
October of 1999 as it relates to the functions and activities
of the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug
Administration.
This morning we are concluding our hearings on this year's
budget and we have with us to discuss the Food and Nutrition
Service budget, Ms. Shirley Watkins, who is Under Secretary of
Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services; Dr. Rajen Anand,
Executive Director of the Center for Nutrition Policy and
Promotion; and Dennis Kaplan with the Budget Office of the
Department of Agriculture.
The Food and Nutrition Service manages 15 nutrition
assistance programs funded at approximately $36 billion. The
agency is the largest agency funded each year in the
Agriculture appropriations bill.
The President's budget includes proposals to improve the
nutritional status of program recipients, continue Y2K
compliance and fund activities to monitor and improve program
and financial integrity.
We appreciate very much the efforts of this Under Secretary
to aggressively deal with problems relating to food stamp fraud
and abuse. We hope that further success can be achieved by
fully implementing the electronic benefit transfer program.
The budget request also proposes that the Food and
Nutrition Service continue its role of providing nutrition
education and food and commodities to the general public with
increased funding for the Food Stamp Program, The Emergency
Food Assistance Program, WIC, and the Child Nutrition Programs.
We will be interested in comments from the Under Secretary
about how this budget will achieve those goals. We appreciate
having the benefit of your written testimony and we will make
it a part of the record in full. Before proceeding to summarize
it, however, I'm going to yield to my distinguished colleague
from Wisconsin, the senior Democratic member of this
subcommittee for any comments he would like to make at this
time. Senator Kohl.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Cochran. I have a
statement that I will insert into the record.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Cochran. It will be inserted and printed into the
record without objection.
[Statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Herb Kohl
Our hearing today is on the subject of nutrition and public health.
I want to extend a welcome to Secretary Watkins from the Department of
Agriculture and her associates with the Food, Nutrition and Consumer
Services. I again want to welcome Dr. Jane Henney of the Food and Drug
Administration.
The last hearing before this subcommittee was on the topic of food
safety, and in many ways it is fitting that today's hearing follows
that subject. It is well that we dedicate resources to ensure the food
we eat does not make us sick, but I worry that not enough attention is
given to ensure that the food we eat makes us healthy. When I look at
the common diets of many Americans, I grow concerned about what long-
term health risks await many of us. More and more Americans, especially
young people, are turning more to foods of convenience than to meals of
substance. I am especially concerned that wholesome beverages, such as
milk, are being replaced by sodas and other less nutritious drinks,
even in the arena of our public schools where education should include
lessons on how to live not only a productive life, but a healthy one as
well.
Nutrition programs represent, by far, the largest levels of funding
in our appropriations bill. Not only does this fact point to how
important these programs are, but they also suggest how difficult they
may be to manage. The effects of welfare reform of a few years ago are
still being felt and those effects are present in the administration of
our nation's nutrition programs. A few years ago, large carry overs in
the WIC program, possibly one of the most successful and popular
program's funded by Congress, raised issues about how best to manage
the programs resources. Today, declining rolls in the food stamp
program are resulting in surpluses far in excess of the President's
original estimates and again bring into question how best to manage
these programs.
Dr. Henney joined us recently during our hearing on food safety,
but the responsibilities of FDA are much broader in scope than that
single topic. During our hearing on food safety, it was pointed out how
much technology has changed and foods grown in one part of the world
can be marketed a few days later in another part of the world. Changing
technologies also may affect public health. Today, a person exposed to
a deadly virus can board a plane in a distant part of the world and
within a matter of hours that plane can touch down in Los Angeles,
Dallas, Atlanta, or Milwaukee and suddenly a disease that once seemed
remote is on our door step. The challenges to FDA are great and I look
forward to Dr. Henney's testimony today as we proceed to determine how
we can best work together.
Senator Cochran. Ms. Watkins, welcome. You may proceed to
describe your proposed budget in any way that you think will be
helpful to the committee.
We apologize to you and the other panel which will follow
you for having to shorten the expected duration of the hearing
because of a full committee hearing that's being called at 10
o'clock to review the supplemental emergency request for
military funds for Kosovo.
We will try to complete this hearing so we can get over
there before that ends and be a part of that hearing. You may
proceed.
THE FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE FISCAL YEAR 2000 BUDGET REQUEST
Ms. Watkins. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and, Senator
Kohl, I appreciate all of the support that you have given us
for our nutrition assistance programs at USDA. And I'm grateful
for the opportunity to be able to present the fiscal year 2000
budget request for the agency.
With me in the audience is the Deputy Under Secretary Julie
Parodis and the Administrator for FNS, Sam Chambers.
I'd like to begin very briefly and discuss some of the
issues that are in our 2000 budget request which in total is a
$36.5 billion request for the year 2000.
About one in five people participated in one or more of our
nutrition assistance programs. And those programs help us to
combat critical diet and health risk factors that contribute to
four out of ten of the leading causes of death in the United
States.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, we meet during a period of
unparalleled economic success for our Nation. Nonetheless, it
is especially important in good economic times that we remember
the role of the public nutrition assistance programs in
promoting the nutritional well being of low income families and
the need for these programs by the working poor remains
extremely strong.
Our program that serves as a safety net for nutrition
assistance is the Food Stamp Program which reaches one in
fourteen people. We're requesting $22.5 billion in fiscal year
2000 to support our food stamp requirements.
FOOD STAMP PROGRAM
This includes the food stamp benefit reserve of a billion
dollars and $1.268 billion for Nutrition Assistance Programs
for Puerto Rico, $75 million for the Food Distribution Program
on Indian Reservations and $100 million for commodity purchase
for the TEFAP program, The Emergency Food Assistance Program.
We know that food stamp participation has fallen by over
nine million participants and that's a drop of a third between
March of 1994 and November of 1998 and that participation is
not surprising. But part of the drop is attributable to the
strength of the economy and the success of Welfare Reform in
moving families from welfare to work and part can be traced to
the new restrictions on participation of certain legal
immigrants and able-bodied adults without dependents. But the
magnitude of the decline points to other factors that are a
reason for a great deal of concern.
Between 1995 and 1997, food stamp participation fell five
times as fast as poverty, suggesting that many of the poor
families that left the program have left the program despite
their eligibility and these working families, especially those
leaving the welfare system, need to be made aware that they may
still be eligible for food stamp benefits.
Although the Ag, Research Extension and Education Reform
Act restored some food benefits, in this budget we're
requesting an additional restoration of $10 million for those
legal immigrants who are elderly and vulnerable.
We propose to restore eligibility to qualified non-citizens
with lawful permanent resident status on August 22nd, 1996,
once they reach the age of 65.
CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS
In the Child Nutrition Programs, which we are responsible
for, we are requesting a total of $9.5 billion in fiscal year
2000. These programs include the school meal programs that play
a key role in maximizing our children's potential.
We expect that schools will serve more free meals in fiscal
year 2000 and there are several possible explanations for this
trend.
First, we have direct certification for many children who
are eligible for free meals even though many of them wouldn't
have been eligible with an application, but they do come
forward in direct certification.
And, second, Title I funding is tight and there is a strong
incentive in school districts to identify the number of
children who are eligible to receive free meals.
And, finally, the technological improvements have reduced
the stigma of participation by maintaining the confidentiality
and the identity of those eligible students.
We currently are serving about 26 million children daily in
the School Lunch Program and that's about 50 percent of the
total enrollment. But participation in the breakfast program is
only about 7 million and then only about 16 percent of low
income children in the School Lunch Program participate in the
Summer Food Service Program.
So we plan to make these programs more accessible to more
children so that they will have benefits of good nutrition.
The reauthorization proposal provided snacks in after
school programs. So we will be working aggressively to ensure
that that participation grows in 2000 in both school programs
and child care centers.
The after school program has been very successful based on
the early indications of information that we've had from the
school districts and child care centers.
We also in the Reauthorization Act had provision to pilot
test a research project for breakfast in six school districts
to determine the effects of breakfast on learning and behavior
in schools.
We have requested $13 million in fiscal year 2000 to do a
very rigorous pilot study to ensure that we have the best data
possible on breakfast and learning. To make sure that child
nutrition programs are as effective as they can be, we have
requested a modest $2 million to restore the Nutrition,
Education and Training Program.
Some people have argued that NET is no longer necessary
since we have Team Nutrition that has been successful.
But we need to make a clear distinction between these two
programs. The grants that states receive under the NET program
provides state level infrastructure that delivers the materials
that we develop through Team Nutrition.
The Team Nutrition funds are used to develop model
nutrition programs. And we seriously need to look at the NET
and make certain that we understand the difference between NET
and Team Nutrition. Both of those programs need our support.
WIC PROGRAM
The other program we are responsible for is the WIC
program. Since early 1993, WIC participation has increased
about 37 percent or about 2 million new clients. And in fiscal
year 2000, our budget request is for $4.1 billion. This funding
amount supports the President's commitment to fund the average
monthly participation of 7.5 million.
Between fiscal years 1997 and 1998, the average monthly
food cost per person rose by only one-half of 1 percent while
the general food inflation rose by only 2 percent. So we are
doing quite well with the WIC program and very proud of that.
We'll continue to work on WIC and look at all of the
possible changes that we can make in the program with our new
regulations that we have sent to OMB.
We're also expanding the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition
Program which greatly benefits not only WIC participants, but
small farmers. In fiscal year 1998, the program reached 32
states, the District of Columbia, two Indian Tribal
Organizations. And during fiscal year 1999, we're adding
Alabama, Guam and two more additional Indian Tribal
Organizations.
COMMODITY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The Commodity Assistance Program. We are improving the
nutritional quality of commodities and providing benefit
delivery through electronic ordering and delivery system and
it's called electronic data interchange.
In fiscal year 2000, we are requesting $152.2 million to
support the commodity assistance program which includes an
additional $5 million to support the expansion of the Farmers'
Market Nutrition Program and this increased from $15 million in
fiscal year 1999.
We're also making major changes to our commodity
distribution program. So you will notice that we have a
reinvention program for commodity distribution program that
involves ASFSA and our state commodity distributing agencies as
well as the industry.
FOOD PROGRAM ACCOUNT
In addition, our FPA account which is our Food Program
Administration account, we're requesting $119.8 million and
that's an increase of $11.3 million.
We've requested this to support our strategy of achieving a
higher level of effectiveness in concert with our state
partners in the integrity and oversight of our food assistance
programs.
In each program, whether it's WIC, food stamps, commodity
distribution, school meals, we've placed nutrition as the
foundation of all of our policies and all of our activities
including staffing changes so that nutrition is reflected.
We've developed educational materials which we are sharing
between programs with a consistent nutrition message so that
there is no confusion on what we're trying to accomplish.
We're also working very closely with the Human Nutrition
Research Laboratories as well as ARS, CSREES and other USDA
mission areas. We believe that it is the role and
responsibility of the Department of Agriculture's Food,
Nutrition and Consumer Services to deliver a consistent
nutrition education message across programs.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, I hope that has given you a bird's eye view
of what we're trying to accomplish through the year 2000 budget
request. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may
have or the members of the committee.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Shirley R. Watkins
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to present the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the
Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services (FNCS). As the Under Secretary
for FNCS, I am responsible for America's domestic Nutrition Assistance
Programs which include the anchor programs of Food Stamps, Child
Nutrition and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC), administered by the Food and Nutrition
Service. I am also responsible for the Center for Nutrition Policy and
Promotion (CNPP) which is the lead Federal agency in promoting
effective human nutrition. I am accompanied today by Samuel Chambers,
the Administrator for the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). Mr.
Chambers was appointed to this position in August 1998. Prior to being
named FNS Administrator, Mr. Chambers was the Director of the Michigan
Family Independence Agency for Wayne County in Detroit, Michigan. I am
also accompanied by Dr. Rajen Anand, the Executive Director for CNPP
and Stephen Dewhurst, the Department's Budget Officer.
The mission of FNCS is to reduce hunger and food insecurity by
providing children and needy people access to food, a healthful diet
and nutrition education in a manner which is supportive of American
agriculture and inspires public confidence. These programs are vital to
our Nation since about one in five Americans participate in one or more
nutrition assistance programs. The critical importance of our mission
is clear--poor diet is a significant contributing factor in 4 out of
the 10 leading causes of death in the United States. Heart disease,
cancer, stroke and diabetes which are significantly impacted by diet,
account for 1.4 million deaths annually or about two-thirds of total
deaths in the United States. Diet also plays a critical role in other
health concerns such as obesity, hypertension, and osteoporosis. Taken
together, these diet related diseases cost society an estimated $250
billion each year in medical cost and lost productivity.
Mr. Chairman, this Administration has led the Nation to a period of
unparalleled economic success. With record job creation, low
unemployment, and expectations of continued low inflation, the outlook
for the future remains bright. Yet it is essential that in good
economic times we remember the role of Federal nutrition assistance in
harnessing our agricultural abundance to help low- income families. The
need for these programs by low-income needy families remains strong.
By fighting hunger and promoting good nutrition, these programs
help to ensure the well-being of all Americans, as well as play a
critical role in supporting those who are making the difficult
transition from welfare to work. Even as we celebrate prosperous times
for our country, let us not lose sight of the role of nutrition
assistance in lifting families out of poverty.
program highlights
Food Stamps
Food Stamp Program (FSP) participants represent a broad cross-
section of the Nation's poor. The Food Stamp Program provides a
critical nutrition safety net for virtually all low-income people,
including children, working poor families, and the elderly. Welfare
reform legislation, however, has sharply tightened the eligibility
criteria and made some groups of individuals ineligible. Many
immigrants and unemployed adults without children are no longer
entitled to food stamps. The Agricultural, Research Extension and
Education Reform Act of 1998 (1998 Act) restored food stamp benefits to
some of our legal aliens and we are thankful for that. In this budget,
we are requesting additional restoration for those legal aliens who
become elderly and vulnerable. We are making significant strides in the
Food Stamp Program and our other programs, as well. Let me take this
opportunity to give you a few examples.
The Agency is leading the way on new benefit delivery technologies.
By the end of fiscal year 1998, more than 50 percent of all food stamp
benefits were issued using Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT). FNS is
continuing its efforts to provide needed technical assistance
associated with State EBT implementation and to provide ground breaking
technology in the development of a multi-program delivery system for
WIC and food stamp benefits.
In November 1998, the Food Stamp Act of 1977 was amended to require
food stamp State agencies to take certain actions to ensure that food
stamp coupons are not issued in the name of deceased individuals. Each
food stamp State agency is required to enter into a cooperative
agreement with the Social Security Administration (SSA) which would
result in the SSA providing information on deceased individuals to the
State agency. The State agency would in turn ensure that food stamp
benefits are not issued to these individuals.
Welfare Reform Implementation--FNS continues to support States
Welfare Reform efforts while providing technical assistance as State
policies evolve. On November 1, 1998, Food Stamp Program eligibility
was restored to about 225,000 legal aliens made ineligible by Welfare
Reform. FNS developed guidance for States on implementation and
bilingual materials for immigrants. FNS also worked with the Social
Security Administration (SSA) on a notice to Social Security Income
(SSI) recipients to advise them that they may again be eligible for
food stamp benefits.
Claims Collection/Tax Offset--Claims collections for overissued
food stamps increased to $200 million in fiscal year 1998, including
over $73 million in collections from tax offset. This represents a 71
percent increase in five years in total annual claims collected.
Child Nutrition
FNS administers the Child Nutrition Programs, which include the
National School Lunch and School Breakfast programs as well as the
Child and Adult Care and Summer Food Service Programs. These programs
serve meals to millions of children in schools and other settings each
day. For example, in 1998 everyday more than half of all children
enrolled in school ate a Federally supported school lunch. These
programs are very important because providing nutritious meals and
nutrition education to these children helps them to be more productive
and increases their likelihood for success in school. Well-educated and
healthy children mature into productive and healthy adults. The William
F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Goodling Act)
increases our ability to help children. The Goodling Act authorizes us
to reimburse snacks that are served to children between the ages of 12
and 18 in after school care programs by schools that participate in the
School Lunch Program and by child care centers that are located in low-
income areas and participate in the Child Care Food Program. In
addition, The Goodling Act authorizes us to pilot test a school
breakfast project in selected elementary schools in six school
districts. These pilot test schools will provide breakfasts, at no
cost, to all participating students. During the pilot test we will
carefully evaluate the effect of eating school breakfast on children's
behavior and educational performance. The Administration's budget
provides $13 million to conduct this test.
WIC
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC) continues to be one of our top priorities. The Clinton/
Gore Administration is committed to ensuring that every eligible
mother, infant and child is provided the opportunity to receive WIC
benefits. In fiscal year 1998, average monthly participation was almost
7.4 million persons. The WIC Program is very important to me and others
at FNS. We are making the effort to support this great endeavor and it
is working. For instance:
--FNS continues to promote breastfeeding as the best form of
nutrition for infants. Currently, States are spending more than
$51 million for breast feeding promotion. The agency sponsors
semi-annual meetings of the Breastfeeding Promotion
Consortium--health professionals representing government,
advocacy and public health interests in breastfeeding
promotion. In 1997, FNS implemented a WIC National
Breastfeeding Promotion Campaign, in cooperation with WIC State
agencies. The goal of the Loving Support Campaign is to raise
awareness of the importance and benefits of breastfeeding among
WIC-eligible women, fathers, family health care providers and
the public, to help create a community environment that accepts
and supports a woman's decision to breastfeed. Over 48 WIC
agencies are currently participating in the campaign by
creatively using the Loving Support materials--brochures, media
spots, posters and with consistent breastfeeding themes and
messages. USDA participated with the Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS) in the sponsoring and development of a
Health Care Physicians' and Providers' Breastfeeding Support
Kit by Best Start. The breastfeeding kits were developed for
health care professionals to complement the Loving Support
Campaign materials which focus on consumer education.
--Over the past 10 years, WIC per person food costs have actually
declined or reflected very modest increases due to the diligent
cost containment efforts of State and FNS partnerships. We are
making improvements in the integrity of the WIC Food Delivery
System. During fiscal year 1998, FNS issued a proposed rule
that would require the disqualification of any WIC vendor who
has been disqualified from the Food Stamp Program. In addition,
uniform sanctions would be established for the most serious
violations.
--The agency is aggressively pursuing activities to advance EBT
systems that improve benefit delivery and client services in
the WIC Program. The agency is working with individual State
initiatives to research, plan, fund and implement WIC EBT
systems. Several States are pursuing hybrid benefit delivery
systems at point-of-sale which would combine on-line food stamp
benefit redemption with off-line WIC benefit authorization. FNS
has earmarked $3.5 million in grants for WIC EBT in fiscal year
1999.
--FNS and the Center for Disease Control are working with nonfederal
partners to increase access to immunization through the WIC
Program. Currently, nearly three quarters of all local WIC
agencies assess immunization status and make appropriate
referrals to immunization services for children.
--Currently, the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program encompasses 35
State agencies, providing fruits and vegetables to WIC
participants. During 1998, the Farmers' Market Nutrition
Program was expanded to five new States--Alaska, Arkansas,
Florida, Georgia and Mississippi. The President's budget
transfers the program from WIC to the Commodity Assistance
Program and increases funding of this vital program from $15
million to $20 million to support expansion into additional
States.
WIC is without a doubt one of the best nutrition assistance
programs ever initiated. It provides mothers access to nutrition
education, healthcare referrals, and supplemental foods rich in needed
target ingredients that they otherwise could not afford, WIC babies
thus get a healthier start in life.
Commodity Assistance Programs
In our Commodity Assistance Programs, we have enhanced the
flexibility of State and local agencies in serving needy populations--
that is, agencies operating the Commodity Supplemental Food Program can
now serve women, infants and children and the elderly as needed.
Although the women, infants and children population remains the top
priority, States are no longer required to seek permission from FNS to
convert caseload between the women, infants and children population and
the elderly.
Program service has been improved through redesigned inventory
systems. Federal inventory is now replenished based on historical data,
rather than requiring organizations to place orders five months prior
to delivery. This significantly reduces the need for organizations to
adjust orders and increases their ability to have the foods they need
on hand.
The Emergency Food Assistance Program
In The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), the ability (in
fiscal year 1999) for States to have latitude in using administrative
funds for food is a tremendous plus for the program. We have been able
to purchase a greater variety of healthful foods for TEFAP. In fiscal
year 1998, bonus commodities donated to States reflected a significant
increase from fiscal year 1997.
FNS recognizes there is a critical link between nutrition and
health. To that end, we have formed strategic partnerships to promote
better nutrition among participants in our nutrition assistance
programs.
This past July, I attended a statewide meeting in Los Angeles,
California. At that time the California Nutrition Network--a group of
200 partners from the private, non-profit and public sectors launched
the California 5 a Day--for Better Health campaign. The State Health
Director indicated that this program offers the Network an opportunity
to improve the health of Californians on a larger scale than previously
thought possible. Mr. Chairman, this is merely one example of how FNS
programs and our public/private partnerships can change the dietary
habits of not just benefit recipients but all Americans. USDA believes
people need to know how to use their nutrition assistance benefits in a
manner to keep them healthy. We not only want to get food to the people
who need it--we want to provide them with the skills, information and
motivation they need to support healthy eating.
The Administration must also ensure both the program and financial
integrity of each program and the timely delivery of benefits to all
qualified recipients. Our Food Program Administration (FPA) account is
a critical component of the Agency's mission. Most of the
administrative support for the nutrition assistance programs is funded
from FPA. FNS staff continue to be committed to finding new and
innovative approaches to improve program integrity and program services
and have had numerous successes. I will have more to say concerning new
initiatives in this account.
In addition to the nutrition assistance programs, FNCS operates the
Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. The Center is the focal
point for advancing and coordinating nutrition promotion and education
policy. The Center provides important research and analysis and
collaborates with public, private and non-profit organizations to
expand access to critical nutrition information.
fiscal year 2000 request
The Administration is committed to reducing domestic food
insecurity, and the FNCS fiscal year 2000 budget request encompasses
critical proposals essential to achieving this objective. We at FNCS,
are striving to promote the long-term health and productivity of
working families and enhance public confidence through increased
program integrity.
Our fiscal year 2000 budget request of $36.5 billion reflects our
commitment to the President's initiatives in Welfare Reform by
supporting ``Welfare to Work'', as well as initiatives in the National
Performance Review by promoting and enhancing program integrity. I
would like to take a few moments to focus on the key aspects of the
budget request and our policy goals. The testimony of Samuel Chambers,
is being submitted for the record, and will present the technical
aspects of our request.
promoting the long-term health and productivity of working families
We are grateful for restoration of food stamp benefits to some
legal aliens under the 1998 Act. Nonetheless, more needs to be done to
better serve and meet the food needs of others still vulnerable. A
substantial number of elderly legal aliens who were in the country as
of August 22, 1996, have not had benefits restored. Therefore, we are
proposing legislation to restore eligibility to qualified aliens who
were lawfully residing in the United States on August 22, 1996 once
they have reached the age of 65.
We are requesting $22.5 billion for the Food Stamp Program, a
slight decrease from fiscal year 1999. This estimate includes a benefit
reserve of $1 billion--a $900 million increase from fiscal year 1999.
The Food Stamp Program is the primary source of nutrition assistance
for low-income families. Its mission is to ensure that all households
have access to healthful diets through food assistance and nutrition
education. Although we are committed to maintaining the food assistance
safety net for all low- income people and teaching life-long healthful
eating habits, we also recognize the importance of implementing
programs that help people obtain and keep jobs. As part of the Food
Stamp Program operations, States conduct an Employment and Training
(E&T) program to assist program participants in gaining the skills,
training or experience that will increase their ability to obtain
regular employment. In fiscal year 2000, we are requesting $330 million
to support the E&T program. In addition, during fiscal year 1999 States
will be allowed to use any unspent fiscal year 1998 E&T funds, in
accordance with the provisions of the 1998 Act.
Included in our request for the Food Stamp Program is $7 million to
support a nutrition education program, a program designed to provide
information on eligibility to underserved groups such as the elderly
and the working poor. The full benefits of the FSP can be realized only
if we provide the resources, the information and the skills necessary
to enable low-income families to purchase and prepare a healthful,
nutritional diet.
In the Child Nutrition Programs we are requesting resources of $9.5
billion--an increase of $331 million. Most of this modest increase is
the result of projected increases in enrollment and the increasing
number of children participating in the school meals programs. I am
pleased that we have included in our request $2 million for Nutrition
Education and Training activities. It is important to provide some
level of funds for instructing teachers in nutrition education and
teaching children about the relationship of nutrition and health. We
are also requesting $13 million for a three-year school breakfast
research pilot authorized by the Goodling Act. It is critical for
members of Congress, parents, teachers, and school board officials to
know the answer to the question: Does the consumption of a breakfast at
school positively impact a child's potential for success? Finally, our
request for resources to support the important Team Nutrition program
remains at the fiscal year 1999 level of about $10 million.
For the WIC Program, our request is $4.1 billion--a nominal $181
million increase from fiscal year 1999. The request will support
average monthly participation of 7.5 million needy women, infants and
children receiving the nutrition education and food benefits of this
most important assistance program and fulfill the Presidents goal of
WIC full participation.
In our Commodity Assistance Program (CAP), we are requesting $155.2
million--a netincrease of $9 million. This request includes $20 million
for the Farmer's Market Nutrition Program (FMNP), an increase of $5
million over the fiscal year 1999 FMNP level which has been funded in
the WIC appropriation in prior years. The $20 million request will not
only sustain the current program level in 35 State agencies but will
also permit continued expansion in these States and allow new States to
join the program as well. As you know, the CAP also supports the
Commodity Supplemental Food Program for women, infants and children as
well as the elderly and will support the same caseload level in fiscal
year 2000 as in fiscal year 1999; our request for TEFAP administrative
expenses is $45 million--the same level as for fiscal year 1999.
Finally, we are requesting $150 million for the Nutrition Program
for the Elderly--a $10 million increase from fiscal year 1999. The
increase will allow funding in the Nutrition Program for the Elderly to
keep pace with the proposed increase in the home-delivered meals
program administered by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Alternatively, the increase would allow a slight increase in the rate
of assistance per meal, which was eroded over the years as a result of
inflation, to better support the meal service providers.
In our Food Program Administration account, we are requesting
$119.8 million--an increase of $9.3 million above fiscal year 1999. The
full amount of the increase being requested is to support FNCS moving
to a higher plane in concert with our State partners regarding the
integrity and oversight of all FNCS programs. I will talk specifically
about some of these initiatives as I address the Program Integrity
area.
program integrity
The Food and Nutrition Service is continually seeking better ways
to improve integrity in all of the programs it administers. A few
examples follow.
In 1998, FNS requested and received funding from the Economic
Research Service to initiate two new program integrity related
surveys--(1) a study concerning the extent of food stamp trafficking
after Welfare Reform which will update fiscal year 1995 estimates, and
(2) a survey of successful State computer matching activities compiled
as an easy reference document to be used by other States in finding
solutions to their own problems.
The Goodling Act increases the WIC program's ability to ensure that
only eligible persons are certified for WIC. The law requires the
physical presence of applicants and income documentation of WIC program
participants. States are implementing procedures to comply with these
changes.
In 1997 and 1998, FNS expanded its program integrity efforts in the
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). In 1997 the Agency issued
Management Improvement Guidance for Family Day Care Homes and in 1998
issued similar guidance for Child Care Centers. These manuals provide
guidance in the prevention of fraud and abuse, while also providing
better practices for training State monitors. Starting in fiscal year
1999, and continuing through fiscal year 2003, $1 million of the CACFP
funding, as authorized by the Goodling Act, will be used to improve
CACFP integrity and oversight in such areas as establishing improved
management practices for all levels of CACFP administration, enhanced
assistance to States in their oversight responsibilities and an
increased level of oversight throughout the Program. Also, as part of
its comprehensive integrity strategy, the agency will reconvene the
CACFP Integrity Task Force to assist in developing materials and
training and providing increased on-site presence.
Our fiscal year 2000 budget request contains initiatives that focus
directly on the concerns of this Administration and the Congress
regarding integrity in FNCS programs. As I indicated earlier, the
increase in our FPA request for fiscal year 2000 supports program
integrity. I will discuss them in three segments.
We are requesting an increase of $6 million that will assist us in
maintaining the accuracy of the Food Stamp Program Quality Control (QC)
System to reduce error rates and/or avoid error rate increases. The QC
system measures the accuracy of recipients' food stamp benefits. States
with a high percentage of inaccurate cases face fiscal sanction and
those with very low levels receive enhanced funding. It is imperative
that the system remain statistically sound and legally defensible in
order to provide accurate management information and to support State
billings, appeals, and settlement actions. We will also implement new
data matching programs. In addition, staff will work directly with
States on State specific management improvements. We expect that this
investment will save over $50 million due to reduced overpayment
errors.
We also recognize the importance of continuing and expanding our
integrity efforts in the Child Nutrition Programs. Specifically, in
addition to our Coordinated Review and audit efforts, we are requesting
$2 million to identify and reduce errors in the School Lunch Program.
We are concerned that free lunch participation continues to climb,
despite reductions in poverty and improvements in the economy.
We are requesting $1.3 million for several additional initiatives.
First is additional staff for the oversight of State Automated System
Development activities. In order to protect the considerable program
and financial interests of the Federal government, it is essential that
FNS maintain oversight of Advance Planning Documents submitted by State
agencies. Second, in the area of retailer integrity, resources will be
devoted to enhance FNS' ability to oversee retail store operations and
detect and sanction stores violating program rules. Onsite undercover
investigations will increase. Staff will ensure that retailer
applications and re-authorizations are processed timely and thoroughly.
Review of State and EBT processor accounting, processing and reporting
will be enhanced. Third, additional staff will be deployed to oversee
Food Stamp Program State administrative expenses which total about $1.6
billion. We believe this to have enormous possibilities for cost
reduction. With adequate oversight, we conservatively estimate
achievable savings of 3 percent--equivalent to about $55 million.
Fourth, resources will be used to exploit EBT data to detect stores
trafficking in food stamp benefits utilizing the Anti-Fraud Locator
using EBT Retailer Transactions (ALERT) system, a newly developed and
implemented automated system that analyzes food stamp EBT transactions
to detect possible fraudulent activity in stores. Fifth, additional
resources will be deployed to assist in eliminating backlogs and
implementing the FSP participation in the Department of Treasury's
replacement of its tax and salary offset methods. Sixth, staff would be
assigned to assist States and Indian Tribes in all aspects of the
commodity distribution programs.
All of these initiatives have cost saving implications to the
American taxpayer. We believe our request represents a minimal
investment with paybacks of enormous values.
Finally, we are requesting funds for studies in support of the
Agency's nutrition assistance programs. In the Food Stamp Account, our
request is $10.7 million, in the Child Nutrition Account our request is
$3 million; and we are requesting $3.5 million for WIC-related
research. The absence of study and demonstration funds at FNS over the
last few years has limited the depth of FNS support to Congressional
staff, decreased our ability to respond to States, and restricted us
from providing practical research-based guidance to the managers of our
programs. The study funds are appropriately located in FNS because of
the need to target these funds to action-oriented and program specific
needs. FNS will use the study funds to assist in formulating its
nutrition policy, measure program impacts and integrity, and advise
Administration officials and Congress of the potential costs and
effects of legislative proposals that are under consideration.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, I am sure you agree that FNCS provides a
comprehensive nutrition safety net of services designed to assist those
most in need. In order to successfully carry out our mission we have
formed a cadre of coalitions and partnerships with organizations and
agencies with a shared interest. Thanks to your support and the support
of this Subcommittee, over the years, our programs have made a
tremendous difference in the lives of those we serve. This concludes my
statement. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
ELECTRONIC BENEFIT TRANSFER
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Ms. Watkins. Let me
compliment you on your efforts to strengthen the programs under
your jurisdiction, to make sure that the benefits get to those
who are eligible and to eliminate fraud and abuse of the
programs.
I've been impressed with some of the Inspector General's
work in this area too. I think we have to recognize that that's
been a very important aspect of the effort to eliminate fraud
and abuse in these programs.
We understand the electronic benefit transfer program is
designed to deal with some of these problems of abuse. Is that
your observation that it is being successful? And, what is the
outlook for having 100 percent delivery of food stamps by
electronic benefit transfer?
Ms. Watkins. Mr. Chairman, my observation is the same as
yours. And we are pleased that we've been able to have a great
deal of success in working with the Inspector General. We
expect to have by 2002, which is the scheduled date, all of the
EBT systems in place. We're currently serving over 50 percent
and delivering over 50 percent of the benefits by Electronic
Benefit Transfer.
Senator Cochran. Now is my understanding correct that when
you have the EBT program in force in every state that it will
be possible for those who have food stamps to carry them across
state lines and use them in states other than those states that
were issuing the food stamps? Is that a problem? Is that going
to result in difficulties for grocery stores or places that
redeem these stamps?
Ms. Watkins. That currently is a problem, Mr. Chairman. But
we are working on an interoperability study to eliminate that
as a problem. And we've already begun the process and we're
waiting for the results of that interoperability study. That
has been a request from some states and we are working very
aggressively on that.
We don't see that as a problem for grocers once we get the
interoperability working. We think that people will be very
pleased with that.
We had a six-month pilot that started on March 1st. And we
will actually need to identify the cost for interoperability.
We will be working on looking at cost during the pilot study.
FOOD STAMP PROGRAM
Senator Cochran. We heard you in your opening statement
make comments about the need to increase funds to make food
stamps available to elderly legal aliens. You say $10 million
is included in this request for that purpose.
How do you come up with that $10 million figure? Is that
based on an estimate of elderly legal aliens who would be
eligible for the benefits?
Ms. Watkins. Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman. And we looked at
those legal aliens who are in the country and would not be
eligible. We wanted to make certain that we were taking care of
those seniors who were legal and at age 65 would be eligible
for the program benefits.
Senator Cochran. The budget also has a request for 7
million additional dollars to support a nutrition education
program for those who receive benefits from the food stamp
program. Is this a new program and how does the agency plan to
implement it?
Ms. Watkins. This is an aggressive effort for us to provide
nutrition education for food stamp recipients. Early on we had
indicated that we wanted to serve food stamp recipients and
provide adequate nutrition information so they could make wise
food choices. And that is a part of that.
We do have, in our reorganization with the staff, a person
who is working on nutrition education in the Food Stamp
Program. This is the first time we have had in the agency a
person working specifically on food stamp nutrition education.
And she will coordinate that with CSREES, ARS and ERS and our
delivery of those services in addition to working with colleges
and universities who are in the land grant system.
Senator Cochran. One reason that my questions so far have
centered on the food stamp program is that it is the largest
program that is administered by this agency. The budget this
year has $22.5 billion projected for food stamp benefits. Let
me ask you this.
We've noticed over the last few years, the budget requests
for food stamps have greatly exceeded what's really needed as
it turns out. I think I asked at last year's hearing why is the
model so wrong. And if it is wrong, why is it continually used
from one year to the next. It doesn't seem like there's any
improvement in the projections being closer to the realities.
It always seems to be overestimated by a considerable amount.
Are you using any different economic assumptions this year in
coming up with a request or how are you coming up with the
request?
Ms. Watkins. We're not using a different economic model,
Mr. Chairman. One of the things that we've noticed and you may
notice in the budget that we are asking for is funds for
outreach for food stamp recipients.
One of the things that has happened is that we have more
people who are eligible and not participating in the program.
What we've seen is that participants are increasingly going to
food banks and soup kitchens and pantries instead of applying
for food stamp benefits for which they are eligible. Many
people who are a part of the TANF program or were on TANF did
not realize that they were still eligible for food stamps.
We've had some incidents in some states where people were
being sent to food banks and soup kitchens. And we've indicated
to them that those eligible recipients must be made aware that
they are eligible for food stamps. So that's why you have the
difference.
As I indicated, the number of food stamp recipients is down
dramatically. Yet the poverty rate is 5 percent. So we do have
a discrepancy there and I can understand your concern. But when
we have states who are sending people to the soup kitchens and
food banks, then those people don't know that they are eligible
for food stamp benefits and that's why we want to do an
outreach to let people know that they are eligible.
Senator Cochran. I have some other questions on some of the
other programs. I'm going to defer those until my colleagues
have had a chance to ask some questions. Senator Kohl.
SOFT DRINKS
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
Ms. Watkins, I'm concerned about the dietary habits of many
Americans and especially our children. As you know, soft drinks
are becoming the beverage of choice for many of our young
people. Last month I wrote a letter to Secretary Glickman
regarding this trend and the role that the USDA might play in
promoting a healthy diet for young people. Would you please
comment on this trend and provide your thoughts on how best to
encourage our young people to consume more healthy beverages
such as milk rather than soda pop?
Ms. Watkins. Mr. Kohl, you're exactly right. The trend has
gone upwards. There has been a thousand percent increase in
purchases in schools for soft drinks and a decline of about 25,
26 percent of the milk consumption. We are very concerned that
our children's dietary needs are placed in jeopardy when
schools are using those funds to supplement school funds. We do
have a serious situation in how we need to address the
nutrition and dietary habits of children and how we look at
that.
We are trying to, as you perhaps know, our regulations are
lacking in strength to do something about the sale of soft
drinks in schools. We are trying to address that and figure
out--how do we change the school environment. And that's going
to be a little difficult. We're going to need a lot of support
if we should move in that direction.
Senator Kohl. All right. What role could the USDA child
nutrition programs play in this context?
Ms. Watkins. We can develop standards and work with schools
and provide technical assistance, but a great deal of effort is
going to need to be developed around how you work with school
administrators, superintendents, school principals and teachers
in that effort. And I think we are going to need a lot of
support from the Department of Education as we move in the
direction of developing standards for school meals that are
served in schools to protect the nutritional integrity of the
program.
Senator Kohl. All right. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Senator Dorgan.
FOOD BANKS AND THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Ms.
Watkins, thank you for appearing today.
Let me ask you a question about a survey released by
Congressman Tony Hall recently. As you know, Tony heads an
organization dealing with hungry issues. I sit on the board of
that organization, but he's talking about the increase in the
number of people using food banks across our country increasing
22 percent in the last year. And, conversely, the Congressional
Research Service reports that the number of people using the
food stamp program has fallen dramatically in the last couple
of years. Those two reports seem to be contradictions to me.
Can you give us your analysis of what's happening?
Ms. Watkins. We've had several roundtables around the
country and many hungry tours and we are finding pretty much
the same thing that Congressman Hall has identified in his
information. We are seeing more people standing in line in food
banks and fewer people actually participating and applying for
food stamps.
We're supporting the food bank system with TEFAP that goes
out to food pantries and that also has increased. And we are
proposing information on a campaign that's focused on the
elderly and the working poor and encouraging states to inform
their TEFAP eligible households who might be confused about
their eligibility. So that's what we're doing.
We need to make certain that we are strengthening our Food
Stamp Program which is the safety net. It's our nutrition
safety net for the working poor.
Senator Dorgan. I support the TEFAP program and always
have. I think if a reduction in the usage of food stamps
indicates that there are fewer hungry people, that's wonderful.
But that seems to be at odds with Mr. Hall's and your
observation that you have longer lines at soup kitchens and so
on. I don't think you answered the question. What could explain
a substantial decrease in the usage of food stamps at a time
when more people appear to be hungry because they show up at
food banks and soup kitchens to be fed?
Ms. Watkins. Partly, as I indicated in my presentation very
briefly, it's due to the strength of the economy and partly due
to the new restrictions for legal immigrants and the able-
bodied who are the unemployed adults without dependent
children.
But there are other factors in there. We currently are
looking at some data that has been collected to help us to try
to determine where the gaps are and where those people are who
are eligible and not participating in the program.
Senator Dorgan. So you think some of the restrictions that
have been imposed are telling people who perhaps have need of
food stamps or who are hungry that you've got to go to a food
bank some place or to a soup kitchen. You can't access food
stamps.
You probably can't do it now, but give me your analysis
later, if you would, with your staff. How do we reconcile those
two conflicting reports? And I appreciate your tentative answer
to it. If you have additional information, I'd like it.
SCHOOL BREAKFAST PROGRAM
One last brief question, Mr. Chairman. The project on
school breakfast relating behavior and education performance to
school breakfast, I happen to think that's a remarkably good
idea. But it seems to me that, as I was thinking about this,
somebody must have evaluated that 2 years, 5 years, 10 or 20
years ago.
If you have a breakfast program, do students' grades
improve? Is their behavior better? Has that not been evaluated
before?
Ms. Watkins. There are several studies including a study
that was done by Harvard, including schools in Baltimore as
well as Philadelphia. There was also a study done by the
Minnesota Department of Education. There was an earlier study
done by Tufts in the early eighties on school breakfast and
performance. But there has not been a rigorous study done using
a controlled group of students and students actually
participating in the breakfast program.
We have never been able to do one involving all children
with breakfast provided for all children and that's the intent
of the study. And there are so many different tests. We had a
breakfast symposium last Thursday, and the science researchers
indicated to us that the only significant piece of compelling
evidence we have is attendance. We do know that attendance goes
up. But we've not done a rigorous study in any of those
universities on what happens to cognitive development, and that
would be the intent, to find out if all children are served
breakfast what happens to the cognitive development. Will we
see those increases as is indicated in the Massachusetts study?
Senator Dorgan. Ms. Watkins, I bet you and I know the
answer to that study.
The late Nicky Lenner and I held a hearing one day many
years ago when a young 12-year-old boy named David Bright from
New York said words I'll never forget. He said, ``No 12-year-
old boy like me should have to lay his head down on his desk in
the afternoon at school because it hurts to be hungry.''
I bet I know the answer to this study. I'm glad you're
doing it, and I hope that all of us recognize the value of
these programs.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
In the budget request you have $13 million, as you pointed
out, for a pilot breakfast program. Six elementary school
districts would participate, as I understand it, and $10
million of the $13 million being requested is to evaluate the
pilot program. This would be free breakfast for all the
students in the schools as I understand it.
How do you come up with the $10 million cost for evaluation
of the program and only $3 million that would be used, I guess,
to buy the food or make the breakfast available to the
students?
Ms. Watkins. The breakfast that we would have available--we
already have reimbursement rates established for a school
breakfast. So that would be those children who would not be
eligible for a free or reduced price breakfast. And if we
looked at the $10 million, that's necessary to cover the
standardized test and collecting the 24-hour dietary recall and
performing the nutrient and dietary information. This would
involve thousands of children because we are talking about
doing a total of 72 schools.
Senator Cochran. How many?
Ms. Watkins. Seventy-two schools in the six districts. So
that we would have a control group and the group who was
actually participating in the test.
Senator Cochran. Have the districts been selected?
Ms. Watkins. The districts have not been selected.
Senator Cochran. How do you know there will be that many
schools? Are these just geographical districts or not school
districts?
Ms. Watkins. These would be school districts, the six
school districts and then you would choose 30----
Senator Cochran. If you haven't already selected them, how
do you know how many schools are in those districts?
Ms. Watkins. Well, you don't. But you would end up with--72
is what we're projecting and that's what we based everything
on.
One of the things that would happen is--if you don't have
the technology in the school districts, then we're going to
either have to do it manually or provide the new technology to
do interoperability from the management data collected in the
classroom and the data collected in the cafeteria. So there are
now opportunities for connecting the two. So that may cut down
on some expense.
When we did this, we had no awareness at that time that
they were looking at interoperability between what is collected
at the cash register at point of sale and what is going on in
the classroom and collecting that data. So that has some
potential for dropping the cost, but we need to look at that
very carefully as we determine the number of students and
schools participating. I certainly would like to see that
happen rather than trying to hand calculate all of the data
that we're going to be looking at.
Senator Cochran. I would encourage you to explore the
option of having the National Food Service Management Institute
conduct the evaluation of the program.
Have you made a determination at this point how you're
going to evaluate it, whether you will contract that out with
that $10 million or would you hire new people?
Ms. Watkins. We will have to contract this out because of
the enormous task that will be needed in providing the adequate
data. We certainly will take your suggestion of using the
Institute in helping us to formulate some of the study data.
NUTRITION EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Senator Cochran. The request for child nutrition programs
includes funding of $2 million for a nutrition education
training activity. Is that a realistic amount to be distributed
in a nationwide program?
Ms. Watkins. Mr. Chairman, it certainly isn't. But that was
the amount that we could come up with and it certainly is not
going to be adequate. But we needed to have an amount of money
to restore NET or Nutrition Education and Training across this
country. We have no funds in the budget for the 1999 school
year. So we are really struggling with how we're going to and
what we're going to be able to do with the $2 million. But it
certainly is better than not having any moneys at all.
Senator Cochran. The $2 million would be in addition to the
$10 million requested for the NET program generally?
Ms. Watkins. The $10 million is for Team Nutrition and
that's for us to develop model nutrition education materials
that can be delivered by those people in the states for
nutrition education not only for school nutrition personnel,
but also for teachers, administrators, and parents.
CHILDREN'S FOOD GUIDE PYRAMID
Senator Cochran. The Department recently published a new
children's food guide pyramid. I wrote a letter to the
Secretary and to you, I think, about some complaints that I had
heard about how that was developed and decisions made about
what to put at the top and what to put at the bottom; in other
words, the things to illustrate what is good for you and what
is bad for you. Could you tell us what process you followed in
the development of the new food pyramid?
Ms. Watkins. Sure, Mr. Chairman. And we appreciate your
interest in the children's Food Guide Pyramid. And what we did
was to use a variety of focus groups. We used information from
the Dietary Guidelines. And we used information that we
received from caregivers and parents.
This is an adaptation for young children ages 2 to 6 and
there were no real changes. We wanted to make it so that little
children could understand how to use the Food Guide Pyramid. We
based it on food consumption data information for children of
those ages, 2 to 6. And we also added physical activity. We
used lower numbers for serving sizes.
One of the things that we had heard from parents and
caregivers and consumers is that they did not understand the
original pyramid and how to use the serving sizes or they
didn't understand what a serving size was. So we wanted to make
that clear on the children's food guide pyramid. And we also
included those serving sizes.
I don't know if Dr. Anand wants to add anything that I may
have missed.
Senator Cochran. Dr. Anand.
Dr. Anand. Yes. We actually took three years to develop the
Food Guide Pyramid for Children. It really validates the
original pyramid. The Food Guide Pyramid is based on three
factors, as Shirley mentioned.
One is the Dietary Guidelines. Number two is the RDA, the
Recommended Daily Allowance. And number three is the dietary
patterns of what children are eating. So the foods that are
depicted on the poster are the foods that most children eat.
Then physical activity was added.
This research actually validates the original pyramid and
we're very happy it does that. It is not a new thing. It's
really the same thing. The only thing that has changed, as
Shirley has mentioned, the food that is depicted is more
realistic and there is also the physical activity mentioned
there.
Senator Cochran. In most of our experiences, the serving
size is how much is in the container at least, that's the case
of ice cream. [Laughter.]
Let me ask you, was this funded from the Food and Nutrition
Service budget or how was it paid for? Were outside groups
involved in paying for it?
Mr. Anand. No. The only thing that was not funded by CNPP
was some research and focus group which were funded by FNS. All
the money came from the budget of CNPP. There was no money from
outside.
WIC PROGRAM
Senator Cochran. On the WIC program, the request is an
increase of $193 million to support what the budget describes
as the ``full'' WIC participation estimate. As I understand it,
that's a monthly average program participation rate of 7.5
million women, infants and children.
What evidence is there that participation will rise to that
level of participation per month during the next fiscal year?
Ms. Watkins. We use the same guidelines that we have used
in the past. You might know that we are working on some new
standards and trying to determine with the assistance of ERS
and validate whether or not those standards are adequate and if
we've used the right model.
That was one of the things that we were requested to do
last year and we're following up. So we've used the same
standard, Mr. Chairman, this year as we've used in the past for
WIC.
One of the things that happens to us in trying to ensure
that we're meeting the mark on those WIC numbers, the states
work really, really hard to stay within their budget. They know
that they cannot go beyond the numbers for WIC. So they monitor
those very carefully. And oftentimes they are afraid to go
beyond that.
So the numbers are very, very fragile if you look at what
we do in trying to keep the numbers within the state's budget.
So it's very difficult for us to get an exact number because
those numbers fluctuate. So with the new model, we are hopeful
that we can come up with something either better or validate
that the model that we're using is adequate.
Senator Cochran. Does this same optimism apply to the
average cost of per person per month, which includes a food
cost ingredient. I understand that the estimated WIC package
per person cost per month for 1999 is $44.47 and that it's
projected in the budget to increase to $45.46 in fiscal year
2000.
I'm curious to know whether or not this is in line with
other rates of inflation that are being assumed in the budget
or whether this is a separate analysis and how you come up with
that projected food cost increase of 79 cents per person per
month? And, what is the basis of the projected increase in
administrative costs as well, which are expected to increase 20
cents per participant per month from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal
year 2000?
Ms. Watkins. We're continuously working with the states to
ensure that their food costs are in line. We've worked very
aggressively.
I was in California last week and they are working with
their states--working with the state to determine whether or
not they are living within the current milk prices. And they
are working to keep those milk prices down so that their costs
are down. And they are going to end up saving over $20 million
which would allow them to provide more WIC benefits to clients.
So the states are working very hard. Now that's the
standard inflation rate that we've used and it was provided by
OMB. So that's the standard rate.
Senator Cochran. I have some other questions on the WIC
program particularly how you come up with the carry-out
estimates and other projections that are made in this program
which we will just submit and ask you to answer for the record.
On one part of the program, the farmers market nutrition
program for WIC beneficiaries, is there any evidence that this
program increases with participants consumption of fresh fruit
vegetables?
Ms. Watkins. It does, Mr. Chairman. And we're real proud of
that because in some instances our WIC recipients do not have
access to fresh fruits and vegetables. And we're using this as
a way to help them increase their fruit and vegetable
consumption which is a real concern for us for all of our
program recipients.
Senator Cochran. Thank you. Senator Kohl, do you have any
additional questions?
Senator Kohl. I have no additional questions. Thank you.
Senator Cochran. My good friend from Illinois has arrived,
former chairman of this subcommittee on the House side.
WIC BUDGET CUTS
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Senator Kohl.
I apologize for being a little late and I wanted to ask a
question. Perhaps my colleagues here can help me with the
answer. If I'm not mistaken, in the debate on the budget
resolution, there was a suggestion of some rather substantial
cuts in domestic discretionary spending.
Some protection was put in the budget resolution for the
Department of Defense and some education programs. It is not my
recollection that there was any protection put in there for the
WIC program. Is that correct?
Ms. Watkins. That's correct.
Senator Durbin. And if I'm not mistaken, the agencies that
were not protected, as we calculated it, could face up to a 12
percent cut in their budgets from this year's current
appropriation.
Do you have any calculation as to what the cuts might be in
WIC if we followed the budget resolution as enacted by the
Senate and the House?
Ms. Watkins. It's based on what Dennis has advised me.
We're talking about some 900,000 recipients in the WIC program.
Senator Durbin. Being eliminated?
Ms. Watkins. Yes.
Senator Durbin. Out of a total universe of how many?
Ms. Watkins. 7.5 million.
Senator Durbin. 7.5 million currently served and 900,000
would be eliminated?
Ms. Watkins. Right.
Senator Durbin. I can recall in my earlier incarnation in
the House that someone said that one out of four infants in
America is served by the WIC program. Is that statistic still
accurate?
Ms. Watkins. Yes, it is.
Senator Durbin. So that does not include all of the
potential infants and mothers who could be served, could be
eligible for this program, does it?
Ms. Watkins. Correct.
Senator Durbin. The 7.5 million represents what percentage
of eligible mothers and children for WIC services?
Ms. Watkins. The 7.5 indicates 80 percent of those who are
eligible and that's the formula that we've used.
Senator Durbin. So roughly it's somewhere under 10 million
eligible, 7.5 million currently served and our budget
resolution, unless something is done in terms of the
allocations to this subcommittee and others, could result in
about 900,000 being removed. Is that an accurate statement?
Ms. Watkins. Right.
Senator Durbin. I think that is a serious problem for those
of us who believe that WIC is absolutely essential for healthy
mothers and healthy babies. That is a step backwards. That is a
step toward the dark ages of our failing to realize the
importance of this program.
I sincerely hope that Senator Cochran and Senator Kohl and
myself and others can prevail on those who are making the
budget allocations to make certain that the WIC program does
not lose ground and perhaps gain some ground so that more and
more children can be born with the possibility of a good start
in life.
Thank you, Ms. Watkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
Ms. Watkins, that concludes our questions of you and this
panel appreciates very much your cooperation with our
committee. We look forward to working with you during the
balance of the year.
SUBMITTED QUESTIONS
Ms. Watkins. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and this
committee because without your support and help we would not be
able to do the kind of job that we do. And we certainly
appreciate all of the work that you do in helping us to provide
the very best that we can for the people who are most needy in
this country. Thank you very much.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Cochran
food stamp program
Question. Interoperability and portability of food stamps will
involve limited costs of electronically routing transactions across
state lines. Will the interoperability pilot program validate the
costs?
Answer. We are hopeful that the interoperability pilot project will
provide better information as to how much interoperability would cost.
This project, on which the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is working
with States and the Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) Council of the
National Automated Clearinghouse Association (NACHA), began in March
1999 and will run through September 1999. Most interested parties
believe the actual cost for nationwide interoperability would be low
and we expect this study to support that belief.
Question. Would USDA be able to pay these costs using savings
achieved by electronic conversion, given the need to no longer lease
terminals on state borders which allow food stamp recipients to shop in
either state?
Answer. FNS has no authority to pay 100 percent of the costs of
interoperable EBT transactions. Our statute provides for sharing State
costs for administering the Food Stamp Program at a 50 percent
reimbursement rate. Contracts for EBT services are between each State
and its vendor or vendors. FNS is not a party to EBT contracts and does
not directly pay for EBT services. FNS reimbursement to States has a
special limitation that operational costs must not exceed those of the
paper issuance system being replaced. This cost neutrality limitation
was part of the legislation allowing EBT as a State issuance option for
Food Stamp Program (FSP) and remains in place although legislation now
mandates EBT for the FSP by October 2002.
We have supported interoperability by initiating technical
specifications for EBT data, developing our Retailer EBT Data Exchange
system, and working with NACHA on the Quest Operating Rules. We support
States that chose to include interoperability as part of the services
procured through their EBT contracts. Of course, we will reimburse
States for 50 percent of all their EBT costs, including any fees for
transactions across State lines, as long as the cost neutrality measure
is not exceeded.
We, as well as most other EBT observers, expect the cost for
interoperability to be low. We believe the interoperability study being
conducted with NACHA may show the costs to be even lower than those
expectations. These are costs that we believe would be easily covered
by the EBT savings realized by both the Federal and State governments.
With regards to terminals installed across State borders, we do not
have data on how many stores are equipped across State borders, though
we believe the numbers are relatively small. We are hoping to get
additional information on these retailers through the interoperability
project currently underway.
However, it should be noted that EBT contracts generally hold that
border stores are to be equipped in accordance with State-established
criteria, and State contract prices generally do not increase as more
stores are added. Consequently, there is typically no incremental cost
in EBT contracts that can be attributed to additional border stores.
Moreover, at least in preliminary discussions, EBT contractors are
saying that they will not reduce their charges to States if already-
equipped border stores no longer need to be equipped.
Question. In November the Food Stamp Act was amended to require
food stamp State agencies to enter into a cooperative agreement with
the Social Security Administration (SSA) to ensure that food stamps are
not issued to the deceased. What is the status of these cooperative
agreements, and how do the agencies plan to ensure that food stamps are
not issued to the deceased?
Answer. Prior to the enactment of Public Law 105-379 (an Act to
amend the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to require food stamp State agencies
to take certain actions to ensure that food stamp coupons are not
issued for deceased individuals, to require the Secretary of
Agriculture to conduct a study of options for the design, development,
implementation, and operation of a National database to track
participation in Federal means-tested public assistance programs, and
for other purposes) on November 12, 1998, FNS and SSA engaged in
discussion to determine the best method for exchanging SSA's Death
Master File (DMF) data with food stamp State agencies. Two options were
discussed--making minor system modifications to SSA's State
Verification and Exchange System (SVES) or advising the State agencies
to purchase the DMF data from the Department of Commerce. An agreement
was reached in which SSA would make the modifications to SVES.
SSA recently advised FNS that it has now determined that more
extensive system modifications will be necessary to make the DMF
available through SVES.
FNS intends to work with SSA to develop a new work plan for
incorporating death match into SVES.
Question. The Community Food Security Grants Programs are funded
from the Food Stamp program account. What other grant programs are
funded from this account?
Answer. Funds for local versions of the Food Stamp program are
provided to The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands and to American Samoa. These grants are made
in fixed amounts. Other grants from the Food Stamp Program account
include: grants to Tribes for administrative expenses in the Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) which are
negotiated between the individual Tribe and the appropriate FNS
Regional office; grants to States for food stamp administrative
expenses in which FNS matches State expenses dollar for dollar; grants
for food stamp Employment and Training (E&T) which are distributed on a
formula basis to States to cover 100 percent of their E&T costs and E&T
grants to States for expenses over their share of the 100 percent
grants and to cover participants job hunting expenses, both of which
match States expenditure dollar for dollar.
commodity assistance programs
Question. Commodity assistance programs are now required to
replenish their inventory based on historical data, not by placing
orders five months prior to delivery. How has this new requirement
affected the cost of running the program?
Answer. The primary purpose for redesigning the system was to
improve customer service. Using historical data to determine the types
of commodities to be purchased will help ensure that the types of
commodities preferred by program participants are available on a timely
basis and spend less time in Federal, State and local inventory. The
historical data approach is used only in FDPIR and the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program, which are food package programs and,
therefore, need an adequate supply of specific foods to meet program
requirements. This approach has not affected the cost of administering
these programs. In fact, it has the potential to reduce costs. While we
have yet to see any reductions in inventory because of major changes in
the food package, the process of placing orders much closer to the time
when the food will actually be needed can reduce the length of storage
time and the amount of inventory necessary to sustain service to
program participants. This will result in reducing storage costs
incurred by Indian Tribal Organizations and State agencies.
elderly feeding
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request proposes a $10
million increase for the Nutrition Program for the Elderly so that this
would allow a slight increase in the rate of assistance per meal. How
much does the agency expect that the rate of assistance per meal will
increase?
Answer. Since fiscal year 1995, funding and participation in the
Nutrition Program for the Elderly (NPE) has been as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reimbursement per meal Number of meals
Fiscal year Appropriation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995..................................... $150,000,000 $0.5973 251,060,000
1996..................................... 150,000,000 0.5864 246,394,000
1997..................................... 140,000,000 0.5857 247,306,000
1998..................................... 140,000,000 0.5607 249,918,000
1999..................................... 140,000,000 0.5540 \1\ 252,667,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimate.
The appropriation for NPE was decreased from $150 million in fiscal
year 1996 to $140 million in fiscal year 1997 and has remained at this
level for three years. However, since fiscal year 1996, the number of
meals served has increased by 6,273,000, thus reducing the rate of
reimbursement from $0.5973 in fiscal year 1995 to $0.5540 in fiscal
year 1999 (a drop of $0.0433 per meal). The $10 million increase in
funding requested for fiscal year 2000 would allow for a rate of about
$0.5935 per meal assuming service of about 252.7 million meals. The
amount of additional funds requested would result in an increase of
$0.0395 in the reimbursement rate over the fiscal year 1999 rate, but
the rate would still be $0.0038 less than the fiscal year 1995 rate,
assuming participation remains steady at the fiscal year 1999 estimated
level.
school breakfast pilot
Question. The Goodling Act authorizes the Food and Nutrition
Service to pilot test a school breakfast project in selected elementary
schools in 6 districts. How will the 6 districts be chosen for the
pilot program?
Answer. School district selection will be structured to ensure that
the demonstration can assess the feasibility and impacts of a universal
breakfast program in a wide variety of different school districts.
Although specific selection criteria are yet to be determined, FNS
anticipates that school districts will be selected to ensure diversity
on a number of district characteristics including geographic region,
community type (urban, suburban, rural), school district size, and
economic levels of students' households.
Question. Will the pilot be in only one State or several?
Answer. To ensure diversity among pilot school districts it is
anticipated that these districts will be selected from a number of
different States.
Question. Is Mississippi being considered as an option for the
pilot program?
Answer. Selection of the pilot sites will not take place until
funding is appropriated for the study. If Mississippi nominates school
districts to participate in the pilot, those districts will receive the
same consideration as all school districts nominated by other State
agencies. Final selection criteria have not yet been determined, but
will be structured to ensure that a reliable and valid evaluation can
be conducted.
Question. What is the protocol for this pilot program, including
the evaluation?
Answer. A study design and general framework for assessing the
educational and nutritional outcomes, behaviors and attitudes
associated with participation in a universal-free school breakfast
program is currently being developed. This document will identify key
evaluation design and implementation issues that must be resolved for a
robust evaluation including:
--specification of the treatment and comparison and/or control
groups;
--means of assigning groups to a treatment condition;
--sample design considerations including sizes and characteristics of
each group identified;
--data collection strategies including frequency and nature of data
collection;
--required response rates;
--relevant outcome measures and controlling variables on which data
will be collected;
--and analyses of data to be collected.
FNS expects that a pretest-posttest control group design will be
used. Within each of the selected districts, an equal number of schools
would be randomly assigned as universal-free schools and control
schools. To permit the evaluation of pilot projects to distinguish the
effects of the pilot projects from other factors, schools selected as
treatment and control sites within the chosen districts should exhibit
similarities on a number of school characteristics such as school
enrollment, student academic proficiency and economic levels of
students' households. Measurements would be taken before and after
implementing the universal-free breakfast program. Where necessary,
statistical adjustments will be used to enhance group comparability.
Question. Will one protocol be used in all 6 districts or will each
participating district have its own protocol?
Answer. FNS anticipates that protocols will be established so there
is replication of the treatment across different pilot sites. Allowing
each participating district to establish its own protocol would
seriously hamper the study's ability to attribute any observed effect
to the universal-free breakfast program.
child nutrition programs
Question. In the fiscal year 2000 budget proposal there is an
increase in the appropriations for Team Nutrition and for Coordinated
Review so that Federal staff can operate the program in lieu of State
personnel. How does this improve the program integrity and reduce costs
of the programs?
Answer. The only increases proposed for these two programs is to
fund the cost of pay raises for Federal employees. The reference to
Federal staff operating the program in lieu of State personnel is an
error. That reference applies to State Administrative Expenses (SAE)
funds used by Federal employees when the Federal government is required
to operate programs when the State is unable or unwilling to do so.
Team Nutrition is a Departmental effort which provides States and
schools with nutrition education materials for children and families,
and technical assistance materials for school nutrition service
directors, managers and staff. State agency partners provide training
and technical assistance to support these programs in local schools.
The guidance provided under Team Nutrition helps ensure that program
meal requirements are adhered to and meals served to children are
healthful and nutritious.
The Coordinated Review Effort (CRE), on the other hand, is a
uniform system of review procedures used by both State agencies and the
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to assess the accuracy of the claims
for reimbursement submitted by school food authorities through on-site
evaluations of program operations. CRE was developed in consultation
with State agencies as a management tool to improve regulatory
compliance and program accountability in the National School Lunch
Program (NSLP). In addition to program oversight, FNS has developed
handbooks and other technical assistance materials to be used by States
in carrying out their CRE responsibilities. As a result of this
activity, program integrity is strengthened and costs reduced by
helping ensure that program meals are served to eligible children and
supported by accurate meal counts.
Question. Please provide a detailed accounting on how the funds
made available for the school meals initiative have been used in fiscal
years 1998 and 1999, and what is proposed for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The following table provides a detailed accounting on how
the School Meals Initiative funds have been used by spending category.
The fiscal year 1999 allocations represent the current spending plan
and the fiscal year 2000 allocations are projected.
SCHOOL MEALS INITIATIVE: SPENDING BY CATEGORY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Fiscal year 1999 2000
1998 (estimate) (proposed)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food Service Training and Technical Assistance:
Technical Assistance Materials.............................. $2,023,499 \1\$2,991,400 \1\$1,900,000
Print and Electronic Food Service Resource Systems.......... 475,000 475,000 475,000
NFSMI Cooperative Agreement for Food Service................ 500,000 800,000 800,000
Children's Education Resources.................................. 549,166 \1\ 787,600 \1\1,700,000
In-school Education Materials
Community Education Materials
Food Service Training Grants to States.......................... 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
USDA/FNS Direct Training and Education.......................... 27,050 ( \2\ ) \2\ 50,000
Children's Communications and Technology........................ 50,000 50,000 200,000
Team Nutrition Partnership Support.............................. 92,364 337,000 300,000
Resources for Team Nutrition Schools
Partnership Network Support
Evaluation & Administration..................................... 282,921 \3\ 559,000 \3\ 583,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 8,000,000 10,000,000 10,008,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes resources for the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and Summer Food Service Program (SFSP).
\2\ No direct training is planned for fiscal year 1999. The NSLP and CACFP meetings are planned for fiscal year
2000 that should include direct training and education to Program cooperators.
\3\ Includes full funding of the staff years allocated to the School Meals Initiative.
Question. Identify and include the use of any unobligated balances
from funds provided in fiscal years.
Answer. The following table provides a breakdown of funds obligated
in the year in which appropriated and funds carried over into the next
fiscal year. The fiscal year 2000 budget estimates that all of the
funds available in fiscal years 1998 and 1999 will be obligated.
Additional information which has become available since December now
indicates that some funds from fiscal years 1998 and 1999 will be
unobligated.
SCHOOL MEALS INITIATIVE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds carried
Funds over and
Fiscal year appropriated Obligated in obligated in
year the next
appropriated fiscal year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998.................................... $7,148,778 $851,222
1999 (est.)............................. 8,600,000 1,400,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes to restore funding
of $10 million to the Nutrition, Education, and Training (NET) program.
The budget also proposes funding $2 million for Nutrition Education and
Training activities in the Child Nutrition Programs. How will the use
of this funding differ from the way NET funds are to be used? How would
this funding be used differently from funding provided for training of
school food service personnel in the School Breakfast and Lunch
Programs?
Answer. The President's budget for the fiscal year 2000 includes
$10 million in funding for Team Nutrition and $2 million for the
Nutrition, Education and Training (NET) Program. Team Nutrition is a
Federally-directed nutrition, promotion and technical assistance effort
to support the implementation of the School Meals Initiative (SMI) in
the NSLP and the School Breakfast Program (SBP). Team Nutrition has
been successful in gaining grassroots support for SMI implementation at
the local level and has provided many high quality training and
technical assistance resources. Further, it has focused National
attention on the need to improve the quality of school breakfasts and
lunches and provide nutrition education to the Nation's children, which
will enable them to improve eating behaviors that can influence their
school performance and health in later years. The Department's $10
million request for Team Nutrition will allow it to continue this
Federal-level effort.
In order for Team Nutrition to be successful, it needs an
established infrastructure to deliver the ongoing technical assistance
and training required to support the new nutrition standards and menu
planning systems established under the SMI. The NET Program is that
infrastructure as a direct grant-to-States program which is the
nutrition education and food service training component of the Child
Nutrition Programs. It offers the vehicle to transport Team Nutrition
benefits to the 94,000 schools across the Nation in an educationally
effective and cost efficient manner. The $2 million included in the
President's budget represents the minimum necessary to maintain this
infrastructure while we work with Congress to ensure an appropriate
level of future funding for NET.
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request proposes an increase
of $2 million to identify and reduce errors in the School Lunch
Program. What errors exist in the School Lunch Program and how has this
cost been calculated at $2 million?
Answer. Errors in the School Lunch Program can be grouped into two
categories: (1) inaccurate payments that result from the actions of
households applying for benefits and (2) inaccurate payments that
result from errors made by administering schools and school districts.
Category one includes such things as households inaccurately
reporting income on applications for free or reduced price meals and
becoming approved for free or reduced price meals, but not notifying
schools during the school year when household income rises above the
eligibility threshold for free or reduced price meals. Category two
includes such things as schools (a) incorrectly approving children for
free or reduced price meals; (b) incorrectly recording the payment
status (free, reduced price, or paid) of students on documents (i.e.,
rosters) used to distribute free and reduced price benefits (e.g., meal
tickets); and (c) making errors in counting meals served and/or in
reporting meals served to USDA.
USDA's Income Verification study (1988) found that about 15 percent
of the households approved for free or reduced price meals were
ineligible. More recently (1997) USDA's Office of the Inspector General
(OIG) performed an audit of school districts' verification of free or
reduced price meal applications in Illinois. The OIG's audit produced
findings similar to those of USDA's Income Verification study.
The funds requested would allow us to consider whether changes to
current application and verification procedures would be cost-
effective. The level of resources requested is based on the cost of
similar research efforts and represents a modest investment relative to
the $7.1 billion spent annually (1998 cost) on the School Meals
Programs.
community food projects competitive grants program
Question. The Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program
(CFP) was established in 1996 to support projects designed to increase
food security in communities by meeting the needs of low income people.
How much funding was provided for this program in fiscal years 1996,
1997, 1998, 1999, and how much is estimated for fiscal year 2000? How
many grants were awarded for each of these fiscal years? Do these
grants allow communities and/or for-profits and non-profits to set up
gleaning recovery programs?
Answer. This program is managed by the USDA Cooperative State
Research, Education and Extension Service. Community Food Projects
received $1 million in 1996 and $2.5 million each in fiscal years 1997
and 1998. It is estimated that there will be $2.5 million in both
fiscal years 1999 and 2000. In fiscal year 1996, 13 grants were
awarded. In fiscal year 1997 and 1998, 18 grants were awarded each
year. The fiscal year 1999 Request for Proposals for the program closes
on June 4, 1999; accordingly, 1999 grants have not yet been awarded.
Under the authorizing statute for the program, only non-profit
organizations may receive funds; therefore for-profit entities and
local government agencies are not directly eligible to receive funds.
A small number of grantees in this program have incorporated some
gleaning and food recovery activities into their broader community food
project activities. However, under the authorizing statute for the
program, projects that are solely focused on food recovery and gleaning
would generally not rank high in the funding review process because
they would not meet all the standards for wide-ranging community food
projects as defined by the law. Consequently, while some number of food
recovery and gleaning projects have applied for funding under this
program, we have generally not been able to award them grants. This is
one reason the Department has requested funding and authorization for a
new grant program that would specifically make awards to food recovery
and gleaning projects to help them expand their infrastructure.
food program administration
Question. An increase of $9.3 million is proposed for food program
administration for fiscal year 2000. Of this amount $2 million will be
used to identify and reduce errors in the National School Lunch
Program. Please identify the proposed allocation of the $6 million for
food stamp program integrity efforts and the $1.3 million for
additional program and financial integrity initiatives.
Answer. The $6 million increase for Food Stamp Program integrity
efforts will be used to maintain store management and the accuracy of
the Quality Control (QC) System which maintains oversight of Food Stamp
Program benefits totaling approximately $19 billion annually. In order
to support State billings and settlement actions, it is important that
the QC system remain statistically valid and legally defensible. With
final regulations now in place to bill States under the liability
provisions of the Mickey Leland Childhood Hunger Relief Act of 1993,
the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) contemplates billing approximately
20 States each year for liabilities totaling about $60 million. It is
necessary that FNS ensure the integrity of the QC system both to
control billings and increase State payment accuracy.
The $1.3 million for additional program and financial integrity
initiatives will be used to support staff for the oversight of the
following:
Review of State Automated System Development activities.--50
percent or more of State system's life cycles have been exceeded and
must be replaced; others suffer from Welfare Reform and Year 2000
initiative impacts. In order to protect the Government's program and
financial interests, FNS must maintain a determined oversight posture
for technical review and oversight of Advance Planning Documents (APDs)
submitted by State agencies.
State administrative expense.--The Office of the Inspector General
audit report findings concluded that administrative expense reviews
conducted by FNS were found to be inadequate, in part, due to FNS'
limited resources in this area.
Retail store operations.--Oversight in this area will include
maintaining the number of undercover investigations; ensuring timely
and thorough handling of new retailer applications and re-
authorizations; and providing detailed guidance for reviews of State
and EBT processor accounting, processing and reporting systems, etc.
Question. How is the agency using the $752,000 increase provided
for fiscal year 1999 for program and financial integrity advancement?
Answer. In the Food Stamp Program the funds are being used to
support ongoing efforts to improve payment accuracy, recipient fraud,
claims management, and retailer integrity. Payment accuracy efforts
include increased State technical assistance and monitoring Quality
Control reinvestment and other State agency corrective action plans. A
major claims initiative that began in fiscal year 1997 uses special
reviews to assess the integrity of the recipient claims system in each
State agency. The reviews focus on timely claim establishment,
collection and reporting and integrity of the data contained in the
claims accountability system. All State claims systems are scheduled to
be in compliance by the end of fiscal year 2001. In the retailer
integrity area the agency is implementing a new tool that allows us to
detect fraud by monitoring transactions that occur at stores. We are
now able, in some instances, to detect fraud and take action to
eliminate it.
government performance and results act
Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within your agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. The agency developed a Strategic Plan which outlines the
goals it plans to achieve incrementally by fiscal year 2002. The agency
has also developed the fiscal years 1999 and 2000 Annual Performance
Plans which supports the Strategic Plan and specifies those annual
goals and objectives for both years.
Question. How are your agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. The agency has identified strategic and annual performance
goals and management initiatives the agency plans to achieve for fiscal
year 2000 and beyond. In support of this effort, each senior manager
within the agency develops an annual detailed plan of action which
provides specific activities that will be undertaken to support our
annual goals. Each senior manager provides a bi-annual report to the
Administrator which outlines specific accomplishments. The
Administrator uses this internal management tool as a means to assess
the agency operations and management performance.
Question. How is performance information being used to manage the
agency?
Answer. The FNS Annual Performance Plan identifies strategic and
annual performance goals as well as management initiatives the agency
plans to accomplish. The agency continuously monitors and evaluates its
progress toward achieving these goals. As a result the information
serves as one of many variable used by the Agency to determine policy
and effect program changes. Accordingly, this data is one very
important underpinning of most management decisions made at FNS.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding requests for fiscal year 2000? Please provide examples.
Answer. We use data such as Food Stamp Program participation,
school lunch and breakfast meal service data, general economic
indicators such as unemployment level and income, and demographic data
such as school enrollment as the basis for our budget projections.
Therefore, program performance data is the major driver behind all FNS
budget requests.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the strategic
and annual plans?
Answer. As required in annual performance planning, FNS has
incorporated a number of program and policy changes into its annual
performance plan and goals. The final results of our fiscal year 1999
efforts will be fully reviewed in the fiscal year 1999 Annual
Performance Report, but by the end of fiscal year 1999, FNS expects to:
--implement a policy and provide technical assistance to States to
restore food stamp eligibility for those legal immigrants
authorized under the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998;
--begin development of a National Food Stamp Program nutrition
education strategy;
--propose an incentive system to increase claims collection in the
Food Stamp Program;
--increase to 38 the number of States delivering Food Stamp Program
benefits through electronic benefits transfer (EBT);
--complete a demonstration project to explore the cost and
feasibility of using scrip in conjunction with EBT to make food
stamp purchases at farmer's markets;
--secure implementation by over 40 States of the WIC National
Breastfeeding Campaign;
--bring 4 new States into the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program;
--implement regulations to improve State oversight of the Summer Food
Service Program;
--secure participation by 45 State commodity distribution agencies in
the FNS Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) system;
--reduce State paperwork burden in the commodity distribution
programs;
--complete a new customer satisfaction survey of schools receiving
commodities through the National School Lunch Program;
--and distribute to all school food authorities a Step-by-Step Guide
to working with small farmers to buy fresh produce.
With regard to the procedures of plan implementation, FNS is
currently undertaking a project to integrate all of its current
planning activities, including the development and execution of
strategic and annual performance plans, into a single process. The
resulting unified process will help to ensure that the priorities
identified in strategic and annual planning are fully reflected in the
agency's budget and work-planning processes.
Significantly, the planning integration project is also tasked with
devising a strategy to communicate the strategic goals and objectives
to FNS employees and partners on an ongoing basis. This communication
is a critical step in ensuring that all those involved with Federal
nutrition assistance understand the agency's key goals and objectives,
and their roles and responsibilities in reaching them.
Question. How does the agency budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 & 2000 Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS) Annual Performance Plans (APP) identify the strategic and annual
performance goals, as well as management initiatives the agency plans
to accomplish the goals. The resources required to achieve these goals
are provided in the APP at the strategic goal level. FNS uses a matrix
format to link these resources to the major program activities outlined
in the Program and Financing schedules.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. FNS's current budget structure is set up by major program
and account activity. The APP and Strategic Plan structure reflect
goals that may span more than one program account. However, the basic
structure is similar. Therefore, the agency does not plan to make any
changes to the account structure at this time.
Question. Does the Agency fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance
plan include performance measures for which reliable data are not
likely to be available in time for the first performance report in
March 2000?
Answer. There are a number of performance indicators for which
reliable data will not be available for inclusion in the first Annual
Performance Report. In particular, while verification of the
achievement of goals related to the Child Nutrition Programs, the WIC
Program, and the Food Distribution Programs is based in many instances
on administrative data, validation of these findings through
evaluations or other independent mechanisms is often not possible.
In a number of instances--for example, for performance goals
dealing with program integrity in the Child and Adult Care Food Program
(CACFP), and nutrition quality of meals in the Summer Food Service
Program (SFSP)--FNS had planned to conduct studies that would provide
strong data to set performance baselines and measure progress in
reaching performance goals. However, the loss of funding for studies
and evaluations forced the agency to rely instead on less-rigorous
methods to evaluate our progress, or to change the goals to ensure that
they were measurable.
Question. If so, what steps are planned to improve the reliability
of these measures?
Answer. Currently, FNS is working to revise its strategic plan, to
better reflect its unifying mission and purposes and to make the plan
more useful as a strategic management tool. As part of this process,
the agency is reexamining its performance indicators to improve their
ability to reflect actual performance, including program outcomes. It
will also seek ways to validate its measures through evaluations or
other data sources.
It is important to note that the agency's loss of funding for
studies and evaluations has significantly hampered its ability to
develop new analytical and evaluation tools to measure and report
performance. As noted above, FNS intended to use a portion of this
funding to set performance baselines and measure progress in reaching
performance goals. Restoring this funding for studies and evaluations,
as requested in the President's budget, is a critical step in enabling
FNS to find new approaches to better measure its performance in
achieving its strategic goals and objectives.
Question. How will future funding requests take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance?
Answer. The Food and Nutrition Service periodically updates its
budget estimates based on program performance. The next update will
occur during the Midsession Review this coming July. If the changes are
major, they will be submitted to Congress and will also be considered
in future funding requests.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
agency performance goals reflect the full cost of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully associated to goals?
Answer. Each goal identified in the Agency's Annual Performance
Plan has been resource loaded and reflects the fiscal and capital costs
as well as the human resources required to achieve the goal.
food program studies and evaluations
Question. The Economic Research Service was given the
responsibility in fiscal year 1998 and again in fiscal year 1999 to
manage the research program for the nation's food assistance programs.
Does the Food and Nutrition Service believe it has had adequate
involvement in the determination of program priorities?
Answer. The Food and Nutrition Service and the Economic Research
Service (ERS) have made a good faith effort to create a practical study
agenda that responds to the operational needs of the Nutrition
Assistance Programs. This effort helped shape some of ERS' funding
decisions and resulted in an agreement between the two agencies that
allows FNS to pursue some of our operational study priorities with ERS
funding support. However, because the agencies have fundamentally
different research goals and methods, the agency firmly believes that
effective program management can best be supported by locating the
studies and evaluation functions within FNS. This will ensure tat
important policy issues in FNS programs are addressed in the agenda.
Effective program management requires a strong study and evaluation
function that is sensitive and responsive to emerging policy issues and
the needs of program operators. This is best achieved by maintaining
such a function within the agency responsible for Federal Nutrition
Assistance Programs. While both FNS and ERS have important roles to
play in developing research that supports the FNCS mission, managing
the right kind of applied studies and evaluations requires the program
expertise, sensitivity to evolving policy issues, and relationships
with multiple stakeholders that can only be developed and sustained
within FNS.
Question. For fiscal year 1999, the Appropriations Act provided
that the Economic Research Service transfer $2 million of the funds
provided for food and nutrition research to the Food and Nutrition
Service to conduct evaluations and analyses. How does the Food and
Nutrition Service plan to spend those funds?
Answer. The plan for using these funds in support of the agency's
mission is shown below.
food and nutrition service fiscal year 1999 research plan
Food Stamp Microsimulation and Related Analyses.--Microsimulation
is one of the core tools the agency uses to estimate the budgetary and
distributional consequences of program changes and alternative policies
under consideration by the Congress and others.
This project will support: (1) analyses of the effects of proposed
changes in the Food Stamp Program on the number and characteristics of
participants and program costs; (2) acquisition of new survey data as
they become available, updates of the simulation models with the more
current data, and appropriate documentation; (3) enhancement of
modeling capabilities to accommodate changes in the Food Stamp Program,
changes in other cash assistance programs received by food stamp
participants, and new technologies; and (4) research on the
characteristics and behavior of food stamp and other low-income
households to support future model enhancements and improvements.
Comparison of School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Data.--In 1993
USDA released the results of the School Nutrition Dietary Assessment
Study (SNDA I) which, among other analyses, examined the nutrient
content of the meals provided in the National School Lunch Program
(NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP). The Recommended Dietary
Allowances (RDAs) and the Dietary Guidelines for Americans were used as
standards against which to compare the meals. Following the study, FNS
significantly revised the nutritional standards that School Food
Authorities were required to meet. In order to assess the progress that
has been made from the time of the first study, in 1995 FNS awarded a
second contract to examine the nutrient content of meals.
This project will compare the nutrient content of the school meals
in 1993 and 1998. This comparison may require extensive recalculation
of the 1993 data. For example, recalculations may be required because
the actual nutrient values of some foods have changed over time or
because our ability to measure nutrient values has improved. This
project would recalculate the nutrient values so that valid comparisons
can be made.
Impact of SBP on Learning.--In recent years, a limited number of
researchers have conducted studies focusing on the relationship between
student breakfast consumption and academic performance. Unfortunately,
these studies have had serious methodological and implementation flaws.
In order to address this unresolved question, the William F. Goodling
Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act of 1998 authorized FNS to conduct a
pilot study that would examine the impact of a universal School
Breakfast Program on student performance in a limited number of
schools. The pilot study is subject to appropriation, and was not
funded in fiscal year 1999. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget
requests the funding needed to field this study. In order to conduct
the study in a timely manner, FNS will use fiscal year 1999 funding for
the initial design and development. This project will address numerous
complex design and implementation issues that must be resolved before
fielding the pilot. For example, this project would determine the most
scientifically sound measures of student academic performance, as well
as the identification of school districts with the necessary
demographic characteristics to conduct such a study.
Quick-Turnaround Budget Analyses and Expert Review.--This funding
will support quick turnaround studies providing tabulations of extant
data bases and short reports that are needed to support the fiscal year
2000 budget request, inform development of the fiscal year 2001 budget,
and respond to related Congressional inquiries. These services are
available through the WIC General Analytic Projects contract and the
Child Nutrition Analysis Projects contract. Expert review of draft
reports, needed to ensure the high quality of study products, will be
obtained through these contracts or through direct small purchases with
the reviewer.
Question. When the food and nutrition research program was
transferred to the Economic Research Service in fiscal year 1998 only
the funds for the research were transferred. The Food and Nutrition
Service retained in its base the funds it devoted to the management of
this program. It has been two years since the Congress moved the study
and evaluation funding to the Economic Research Service. One of the
Food and Nutrition Service's complaints in the past has been that it
does not have the funds to manage and oversee its programs. Since your
workload in the area of studies and evaluations has significantly
changed and the Congress did not reduce the Food and Nutrition
Service's salaries and expenses accordingly, how have you effectively
used the staff previously devoted to studies and evaluations to address
staffing needs in other areas?
Answer. The staff responsible for studies and evaluations continue
to have significant responsibilities that are critical to the success
of the agency mission. These responsibilities include work on assessing
the impact of potential policy alternatives on program costs and
participants; development and clearance of regulatory and civil rights
impact analyses; preparation of proposals for the annual agency budget
request; responses to Congressional, State and public inquiries; and
strategic planning.
In addition, the study and evaluation function has not gone away.
The agency is now using its in-house talent to gather and analyze
empirical data to improve program operations. Staff also stay abreast
of external research on nutrition, welfare and health programs in order
to assess and communicate their implications for FNS officials. In
addition, though the ability to procure the services of contract
research firms has diminished, we continue to manage a significant
number of contracts funded through previous appropriations. While the
decrease in funding seriously constrains the comprehensiveness of our
activity, the study and evaluation staff continue to provide ongoing
advice to program managers on the impacts of FNS programs as well as on
how to improve customer service, program integrity, administrative
efficiency, and measurement of performance results.
y2k emergency food response
Question. According to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, the Department's Food and Nutrition Service
(FNS) is the primary agency for the emergency support function to
identify, secure and arrange for the transportation of food assistance
to affected areas following a major emergency. Should a food emergency
situation occur due to Y2K-related problems or panic-induced
stockpiling, what preparations has FNS made to address this situation?
Answer. Because there are USDA foods for on-going Nutrition
Assistance Programs in every State that can be used to feed the general
public in emergencies, and because our current assessment indicates
that there should not be any widespread Y2K problems with the food
supply or distribution network, FNS has not set up a special food
reserve exclusively for Y2K. However, we continue to work with our
State partners, food suppliers, and other agencies in USDA to ensure
that our indicators are correct. In the coming weeks and months, our
efforts will be focused on developing and preparing contingency plans
to ensure that there are alternative sources of food available
throughout our communities in the unlikely event there is a Y2K-based
interruption in the food supply.
Question. What level of funding has been set aside by the
Department and FNS to deal with the potential need to quickly obtain
and distribute food should such a food emergency occur as a result of
Y2K?
Answer. In the unlikely event that there is a food shortage severe
enough to be considered an emergency as a result of Y2K problems, State
inventories located in warehouses, schools and charitable institutions
could be used to provide nutrition assistance. Additionally, a
Presidential declaration of emergency would invoke the provisions of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and
enable the Secretary to authorize the expenditure of funds available
under Section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935. Section 32 funds would
be used to purchase and deliver any additional food needed to provide
nutrition assistance.
Question. What is USDA's total annual expenditure for stocks of
commodity foods that are used for USDA-sponsored food programs,
including emergency food assistance?
Answer. The total expenditure for commodities purchased for use in
domestic nutrition assistance programs is anticipated to be at or above
$1,041,000,000 by the end of fiscal year 1999. This includes $658
million for Child Nutrition Programs, $90 million for The Emergency
Food Assistance Program, $76 million for CSFP, $53 million for FDPIR,
and $164 million in surplus removal commodities donated for use in all
domestic Nutrition Assistance Programs. USDA does not maintain a
separate inventory of commodities for use in emergency or disaster
situations. Commodities stored at the Federal, State and local levels
can be made available for use in these situations. Normally,
commodities purchased for schools and stored at the State or local
level are the first commodities used in emergency or disaster
situations. However, USDA is exploring the possibility of accelerating
commodity purchases for delivery prior to the end of the calendar year.
The commodities would be placed in Federal inventory and made available
for distribution in the event that food shortages occur as a result of
Y2K problems.
Question. What types, how much, and where are these commodity foods
stored.
Answer. The types of commodities purchased for USDA-sponsored
Nutrition Assistance Programs includes frozen beef, chicken and pork;
canned meats and fish; canned and frozen vegetables; canned and frozen
juices; dry and canned beans; processed and ready-to-eat cereals; flour
and flour mix; cheeses; pasta products; peanut products; rice; and
infant products.
The majority of the commodities purchased are delivered directly
from the manufacturer to State and local warehouses. However, a minimum
level of four months inventory is maintained in Federal warehouses in
Carthage, Missouri and Exeter, California. The commodities stored in
these warehouses are primarily for use in the FDPIR and the CSFP.
Federal inventory at the end of fiscal year 1998 was 30.2 million
pounds valued at $18.2 million dollars. This level of inventory is
necessary to maintain uninterrupted service to participants in these
programs. However, inventory levels vary significantly from time to
time during a year and between years, depending on the availability of
commodities purchased under agricultural support programs, which cannot
be predicted with any degree of certainty.
Commodities stored in Federal warehouses can be made available for
use in emergency and disaster situations. However, foods purchased for
schools and stored in State or local warehouses are usually the first
commodities used in such situations. In addition to the commodities
purchased on a regular basis for use in domestic Nutrition Assistance
Programs, $500,000 is available through a direct appropriation to FNS
for use in purchasing commodities in response to an emergency or
disaster situation. USDA is exploring the possibility of accelerating
commodity purchases for delivery prior to the end of the calendar year.
The commodities would be placed in inventory in Federal warehouses and
made available for distribution in the event that food shortages occur
as a result of Y2K problems.
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC)
Question. Please provide the WIC participation, food and
administrative cost rates for each month in fiscal year 1998 and in
fiscal year 1999 to date.
Answer. Monthly WIC participation levels, and food and nutrition
services and administration (NSA) costs for fiscal year 1998 and for
fiscal year 1999 to date are provided:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food cost per NSA cost per
Fiscal year Month Participation person person
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998.................................. October................. 7,425,255 $31.47 $10.98
November................ 7,271,569 31.60 9.39
December................ 7,236,854 31.63 12.13
January................. 7,332,302 31.98 14.48
February................ 7,315,333 31.55 10.68
March................... 7,394,810 31.46 9.55
April................... 7,418,120 31.69 11.97
May..................... 7,358,478 31.59 12.09
June.................... 7,402,206 31.65 10.94
July.................... 7,410,399 31.87 12.48
August \1\.............. 7,412,586 32.11 10.50
September \1\........... 7,414,565 32.53 18.92
1999.................................. October \1\............. 7,449,781 31.87 11.67
November \1\............ 7,340,512 32.24 10.85
December \1\............ 7,283,599 32.38 10.96
January \1\............. 7,332,945 32.72 11.44
February................ 7,266,734 32.95 12.56
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Indicates these amounts are not yet final; obtained from preliminary State reports for months in which
financial activity is not closed-out (verified and reconciled).
Question. The budget indicates a $100 million projected carryout in
each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000. Is the $100 million still the most
recent projection of the carryout for fiscal year 1999? If not, what is
the current estimate?
Answer. The $100 million projected carryout is our most recent
estimate. Question. What is the projected ``carry forward'' by states
into each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000?
Answer. We project that States will spendforward approximately $22
million into each of fiscal years 1999 and 2000.
Question. Based on actual monthly costs per participant to date, is
the fiscal year 1999 average monthly cost per participant still
projected to be $44.47 for fiscal year 1999, $32.63 for food costs and
$11.84 for administrative costs?
Answer. WIC program cost estimates for fiscal year 1999 have not
changed.
Question. If not, what are the most recent estimates?
Answer. WIC program cost estimates for fiscal year 1999 have not
changed.
Question. The Secretary has the authority to use up to $10 million
in unspent funds for infrastructure, special project grants, and
breastfeeding promotion and support activities. Please indicate how
these funds were spent in each of fiscal years 1997 and 1998 and in
fiscal year 1999 to date.
Answer. The amounts spent by category for each of the requested
fiscal years follows:
In fiscal year 1997, approximately $10 million was allocated for
these purposes as follows:
Infrastructure Grants to State Agencies.......................$7,201,444
Special Project Grant to State Agencies....................... 1,999,995
Breastfeeding Promotion and Support & Infrastructure Projects. 798,556
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 9,999,995
The Department allocated a total of $7.2 million to WIC State
agencies for State-specific infrastructure grants to help support the
overall goal of reaching more participants and providing quality
program service. Grants were awarded to 35 State agencies on a
competitive basis. The following table summarizes the breakout of the
categories of how the funds were expended.
Categories of Funds Expenditures Total Funds Allocated
Automated Management Information and Integrated Data Systems..$5,497,578
Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) Projects.................... 595,218
Service Integration, Coordination & Co-Location............... 166,700
Breastfeeding Promotion and Support........................... 152,888
Management Technologies and Improvement of Access to Services. 120,612
Facility Renovation and Non-ADP Purchase...................... 668,448
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 7,201,444
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) awarded $2.0 million to six
State agencies to support special State projects in fiscal year 1997.
The special State projects are of National or Regional significance and
are relevant to current WIC policy issues, designed to produce a
demonstrable impact and be transferable to other WIC programs. The
projects also suggest innovative or creative approaches to improving
the delivery of WIC services.
The following table summarizes fiscal year 1997 special project
grants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
State agency Project allocated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois.......................... Feeding with Love: $182,111
The Impact of
Nutrition Education
on the Bottle
Feeding habits of
WIC Preschoolers.
Mississippi....................... Breastfeeding 399,745
Promotion and
Support.
Montana........................... Integrated Data for 600,000
Evaluation and
Assessment.
New York.......................... Barriers to 215,198
Retention among
Infants and
Children in the WIC
Program.
North Carolina.................... A Model for 508,808
Evaluating and
Monitoring the
Effectiveness of
the WIC Program for
Children.
Virginia.......................... Distance Training on 94,133
Community-Based
Nutrition Education
for WIC
Professionals:
Implementation and
Evaluation.
---------------
Total......................... .................... 1,999,995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The remaining funds, approximately $800,000, were used to support
breastfeeding promotion and support activities and infrastructure
projects of National significance, including an Electronic Benefit
Transfer project. Several publications were developed and produced and
other breastfeeding promotional efforts have been conducted, as well as
a training course in pediatric nutrition and a co-location best
practices handbook.
In fiscal year 1998, approximately $9.4 million was allocated for
these purposes as follows:
Infrastructure Grants to State Agencies.......................$4,319,300
Special Project Grant to State Agencies....................... 478,716
Breastfeeding Promotion and Support, EBT & Infrastructure
Projects.................................................. 4,587,369
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 9,385,385
The Department has allocated a total of approximately $4.32 million
to WIC State agencies for State-specific infrastructure grants to help
support the overall goal of providing quality program service. Each of
our 7 Regional offices initially received $525,000 for allocation to
WIC State agencies and grants were awarded to 26 State agencies on a
competitive basis. During the grant period, additional funds became
available that were used to augment existing grant awards. The
following table summarizes the breakout of the categories of how the
funds were expended.
General Infrastructure Funds
Categories of Funds Expenditures Total Funds Allocated
Automated Management Information and Integrated Data Systems..$2,531,803
Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) Projects.................... 475,735
Breastfeeding Promotion and Support........................... 352,833
Management Technologies and Improvement of Access to Services. 467,158
Facility Renovation and Non-ADP Purchase...................... 491,771
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 4,319,300
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) awarded $478,716 to New York
to support special State projects in fiscal year 1998. As done in past
years, FNS funds special State projects of National or Regional
significance that are relevant to current WIC policy issues, designed
to produce a demonstrable impact and be transferable to other WIC
programs. The New York project was titled ``Nutrition Education Video
Series for WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program''.
The final $4.59 million of the nearly $9.4 million total is being
used to support breastfeeding promotion and support activities and
infrastructure projects of National significance, including Electronic
Benefit Transfer projects. Several publications were developed and
produced on breastfeeding promotion and support and other promotional
efforts have been conducted. Three States, Ohio, New Mexico and
Wyoming, received EBT funding totaling approximately $4.1 million.
In fiscal year 1999, the $10 million has been allocated for these
purposes as follows:
Infrastructure Grants to State Agencies.......................$3,675,000
Special Project Grant to State Agencies....................... 2,000,000
Electronic Benefit Transfer Projects (EBT).................... 3,500,000
Breastfeeding Promotion and Support, EBT & Infrastructure
Projects.................................................. 825,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total...................................................10,000,000
The Department will award a total of $3,675,000 to WIC State
agencies for State-specific infrastructure grants to help support the
overall goal of providing quality program service. Each of our 7
Regional offices received $525,000 for allocation to WIC State agencies
and are in the process of awarding these grants on a competitive basis.
The following table summarizes the breakout of the categories of
planned expenditures:
Categories of General Infrastructure Grant Total Funds Allocated
Automated Management Information and Integrated Data Systems..$2,429,496
Service Integration, Coordination, & Co-Location.............. 125,000
Management Technologies and Improvement of Access to Services. 418,541
Facility Renovation and Non-ADP Purchases..................... 701,963
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 3,675,000
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) has set aside $2,000,000 to
support special State projects in fiscal year 1999. As done in past
years, FNS funds special State projects of National or Regional
significance that are relevant to current WIC policy issues, designed
to produce a demonstrable impact and be transferable to other WIC
programs. The projects also suggest innovative or creative approaches
to improving the delivery of WIC services.
The final $4,325,000 is being used to support breastfeeding
promotion and support activities and infrastructure projects of
National significance, including Electronic Benefit Transfer projects.
At this time, we anticipate competitively awarding about $3.5 million
for State EBT projects. The remaining funds will be used in a variety
of ways to support breastfeeding activities.
Question. A number of changes were made in the WIC Program by last
year's Child Nutrition Program Reauthorization Act (Public Law 105-366)
Please indicate the impact, if any, this new statute will have on WIC
Program or participant costs.
Answer. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants and Children (WIC) is a discretionary program with funding
determined by annual appropriations. Thus P.L. 105-366 had no direct
impact on total program costs. In addition, we do not anticipate any
change in per-participant cost as a direct result of any of the
reauthorization provisions and thus the President's fiscal year 2000
WIC budget request does not reflect any costs or savings which are
attributable to reauthorization provisions.
However, the legislation did include numerous non-budgetary
modifications to the program. These include provisions designed to
improve the certification process and strengthen vendor management and
oversight. A summary of the WIC provisions of Public Law 105-366 is
provided for the record.
Supplemental Food Programs Division Regulatory Implementation Plan
[William F. Goodling Reauthorization Act of 1998]
Statutory Provision Program Affected
Sec. 203(a)(1). Requires physical presence, except in
certain circumstances............................... WIC
Sec. 203(a)(2). Requires documentation of income, except
in certain circumstances............................ WIC
Sec.203(b). Requires local agencies to provide education
or educational materials relating to the effects of
drug and alcohol use by pregnant, postpartum, or
breastfeeding women on developing children.......... WIC
Sec. 203(c). Allows the Secretary of Agriculture to
provide, in bulk quantity, nutrition education
materials developed under the WIC Program to CSFP
State agencies at no cost to that program........... WIC, CSFP
Sec. 203(d). Provides State agencies with greater
flexibility in the use of funds recovered from
vendors and participants............................ WIC
Sec. 203(e). Requires State agencies to implement a
system designed to identify participants
participating at more than one WIC site............. WIC
Sec. 203(f). Requires State agencies to identify high
risk vendors and conduct compliance buys on such
vendors............................................. WIC
Sec. 203(g). Reauthorizes the WIC Program through 2003.. WIC
Sec. 203(h). Allows State agencies to use food funds to
purchase breast pumps............................... WIC
Sec. 203(i)(1) (2) and (4). Extends nutrition services
and administration (NSA) funding authorization and
makes a technical amendment......................... WIC
Sec. 203(i)(3). Reduces from 15 percent to 10 percent
the threshold which the Secretary of Agriculture may
reduce a State agency's NSA funding if its actual
NSA expenditures exceed its per participant NSA
grant............................................... WIC
Sec. 203(i)(5). Allows State agencies that submit a plan
to reduce average food package costs per participant
and to increase participation above the level
estimated for the State agency to convert food funds
to NSA, based on the estimated participation
increase rather than actual increase................ WIC
Sec. 203(j). Requires State agencies to offer infant
formula rebate contracts to the bidder offering the
lowest net price, unless the State agency
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary of
Agriculture that the weighted average retail price
for different brands of formula in the State does
not vary by more than 5 percent..................... WIC
Sec. 203(k). Extends the requirement that the Secretary
to use up to $10 million in unspent funds for
infrastructure, special project grants and
breastfeeding promotion and support activities...... WIC
Sec. 203(l). Requires State agencies to consider, in
selecting retail stores, the prices the store
charges for WIC items compared to other stores'
prices. Also requires State agencies to establish
procedures to ensure that selected stores do not
subsequently raise prices to levels that would make
them in eligible.................................... WIC
Sec. 203(m). Requires the Secretary to establish, in
consultation with State agencies, retailers, and
other interested parties, a long-range plan for
developing and implementing information systems
(including electronic benefit transfer (EBT)
systems). Also, State agencies are prohibited from
requiring retail stores to pay the costs of EBT
systems prior to USDA completing a report on the
issue............................................... WIC
Sec. 203(n). Allows State agencies to spend back not
more than 1 percent of food funds and not more than
1 percent of NSA funds, respectively. Food funds
backspent must be used for food benefits; NSA funds
backspent can be used for either food or NSA costs.
It would also allow a State agency to spend forward
NSA funds for NSA purposes, an amount equal to not
more than 1 percent of total grant funds. Finally,
State agencies would be allowed, with the prior
approval of the Secretary, to carryforward NSA funds
in an amount not to exceed one-half of 1 percent of
total grant funds for the development of a
management information system, including an EBT
system.............................................. WIC
Sec. 203(o). Allows program income as a match source;
allows State agencies who wish to increase the value
of benefits to recipients to compete for expansion
funds; and eliminates specific State Plan ranking
criteria and preferences; Secretary is only required
to use objective criteria........................... FMNP
Sec. 203(p). Requires State agencies to permanently
disqualify WIC vendors convicted of trafficking in
food instruments or selling firearms, ammunition,
explosives, or controlled substances for food
instruments. The disqualification would be effective
on receipt of the notice of disqualification, and
the vendor would not be entitled to compensation for
revenues lost as a result of disqualification. A
State agency would be permitted to waive the
disqualification in certain circumstances........... WIC
Sec. 203(q). Allows a court to order a person convicted
of trafficking in WIC food instruments to forfeit
all property, real and personal, used in a
transaction or attempted transaction, to commit, or
to facilitate the commission of a violation (other
than a misdemeanor) of Program laws or regulations.. WIC
Sec. 203(r). Requires the Secretary to conduct a study
of the effect of States' cost containment practices
in selecting vendors and approved food items on:
program participation, access to and availability of
prescribed foods, voucher redemption rates and food
selections by participants, participants with
special diets or specific food allergies,
participant use of and satisfaction with prescribed
foods, achievement of positive health outcomes, and
program costs. A report to Congress is due not later
than 3 years after enactment........................ WIC
Sec. 203(s). Requires the General Accounting Office to
conduct a study that assess: the cost of delivering
WIC services (including the cost of cost containment
efforts), the fixed and variable costs incurred by
State and local government for delivering WIC
services, the quality of WIC services delivered, and
costs incurred for personnel, automation, central
support, and other activities to deliver services,
and whether the costs meet Federal audit standards
for allowable costs. A report to Congress is due no
later than 3 years after enactment.................. WIC
Question. Please report on the Department's latest efforts to
contain WIC Program costs.
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, infant formula rebates saved the WIC
Program approximately $1.35 billion, the most lucrative of the
program's cost containment measures. State agencies also employ a
variety of other measures to contain food costs. These measures
include, but are not limited to, limiting the type and package size of
WIC approved foods; limiting authorized food selections by, for
example, requiring participants to select lowest cost or store brand
products; carefully selecting and monitoring vendors; and contracting
with manufacturers to obtain rebates on WIC foods in addition to infant
formula.
In addition, the Department will soon be publishing proposed
regulations that implement cost containment statutory provisions of the
WIC Program reauthorization legislation, the William F. Goodling Child
Nutrition Reauthorization Act of 1998. These provisions include the
requirement that States consider, in selecting retail stores, the
prices stores charge for WIC food items compared to the prices charged
by other stores, and requires States to establish procedures to ensure
that selected stores do not subsequently raise prices to levels that
would make them ineligible.
Question. Eligible overseas military personnel are authorized to
receive WIC benefits. Do you agree with the National Association of WIC
Directors that funding for WIC overseas come from armed forces budget?
Answer. WIC's authorizing law does not authorize WIC services to be
provided outside of the United States or its territories. While USDA
supports the provision of benefits to military personnel serving
overseas, funding for such benefits should come from the Department of
Defense appropriation.
Question. Eligible overseas military personnel are authorized to
receive WIC benefits. Do you agree with the National Association of WIC
Directors that WIC programs overseas mirror state-side programs to
ensure that returning eligible military and civilian personnel are
fully eligible to participate in the WIC programs in transfer
locations?
Answer. Both USDA and the Department of Defense agree that there
should be a continuation of WIC-type services once personnel leave the
States for overseas assignment. As such, if a WIC-type program were to
be developed for military personnel serving overseas, such a program
should be as close as possible to the domestic WIC Program.
Question. What is the Food and Nutrition Service doing to advance
Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) systems that improve benefit delivery
and client services for the WIC Program?
Answer. The Food and Nutrition Service continues to facilitate the
design, development and implementation of EBT for WIC by providing
State agencies with special WIC EBT infrastructure development funds
and technical assistance. Since fiscal year 1994, FNS has provided
$10,500,000 to State agencies that are preparing to move from paper-
based service delivery systems to EBT. FNS has developed a National
vision and goals for WIC EBT including the development of EBT systems
in 7 States by the year 2000. FNS has developed functional guidelines
for WIC EBT and has been actively involved in developing National
standards for WIC electronic transaction processing.
Question. Funding for WIC, Food Stamp, and Child Nutrition program
studies and evaluations was transferred to the Economic Research
Service in fiscal year 1998. The explanatory notes indicate that
$538,145 in WIC funds were spent for studies, evaluations, and
technical assistance in fiscal year 1998. Was this funding available
from prior-year appropriations?
Answer. Of the total $538,145 presented in the explanatory notes,
$354,293 was from the WIC fiscal year 1998 appropriation and $183,852
was carryover from the WIC fiscal year 1997 appropriation.
Question. How was this $538,145 spent?
Answer. A table providing a detailed listing of the use of this
$538,145 in WIC funding is provided for the record.
Item Amount
Technical Assistance \1\...................................... $399,808
WIC Advisory Council.......................................... 30,000
WIC Participant & Program Characteristics 94-96............... 19,675
WIC Modeling and Analytic Project............................. 18,111
WIC Nutrition Education Assessment Study...................... 24,393
WIC Infant Feeding on WEB..................................... 357
Printing...................................................... 15,096
Electronic Distributing of FNS Reports........................ 15,000
Study of Savings in Medicaid or Indigent Care for Newborns
from Participation in WIC................................. 4,293
WIC Census/Single Audit Clearinghouse......................... 11,412
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 538,145
\1\ These funds were used for a wide variety of technical assistance
projects designed to support State agencies in their efforts to deliver
a quality program effectively and efficiently. Some of the major items
include:
--LPrinting of ``After You Deliver'', a publication which was developed
for State agencies for use in exit counseling for postpartum women who
will soon be categorically ineligible for WIC benefits. The publication
reminds participants of important health messages learned during WIC
participation, including the importance of a healthy diet, the critical
need for folate for women in reproductive years, the importance of
immunization of young children, the dangers of alcohol, tobacco and drug
use, and an encouragement to breastfeed for subsequent births. State
agencies also were each provided with a reproducible electronic disk of
the publication for their own printing purposes.
--LReprint, storage and shipping of USDA inventory of Nationally-
developed WIC materials for free distribution upon request from WIC
State and local agencies, such as USDA's required civil rights poster,
WIC's Infant Nutrition and Feeding Guide, How WIC Helps, After You
Deliver, Tickle Your Appetite, Drugs and Alcohol Can Hurt Your Unborn
Baby and reproducible negatives and electronic printing disks for State
agencies.
--LMeeting facilities, equipment and expert speakers for two meetings of
the Risk Identification and Selection Collaborative (RISC) in which
medical experts research and present technical information on specific
nutritionally related medical and dietary risks for use in determining
and modifying WIC nutritional risk criteria to RISC members. RISC is an
ongoing partnership between FNS and the National Association of WIC
Directors for continuing study of the state of the art of nutritional
risk for WIC eligibility purposes.
--LMeeting support funds for conferences promoting and supporting WIC
goals and objectives such as the Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies
Coalition's annual breastfeeding conference and National Association of
WIC Directors annual conference speaker honorariums; National
Association of WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program Directors annual
conference, including training sessions for new and prospective State
agencies.
--LA grant to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to conduct a
National meeting for State AAP and WIC breastfeeding coordinators.
--LA grant to the Association of State and Territorial Public Health
Nutritionists to conduct a survey of the public health and community
nutrition workforce consistent with Government Performance Report Act
commitments regarding public health professionals' recruitment and
retention.
--LA grant to Johns Hopkins University for an unsolicited proposal to
study the influence of males on breastfeeding incidence and duration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
wic farmers' market nutrition program
Question. The fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Act makes $10 million
immediately available for the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program and
another $5 million available once it is determined that these funds are
not needed to meet current caseload levels. Has the $5 million
contingent amount for the program been released and, if so, when was it
released?
Answer. On December 8, 1998, we allocated $12,613,879 in base grant
amounts to currently operating WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program
State agencies, which included $613,879 of the additional $5 million.
On April 2, 1999, we allocated all but $85,793 of the remainder of the
$5 million, based on funding requests for new State agencies and
expansion requests for current State agencies.
Question. The WIC farmers' Market Program serves WIC participants.
Why does the administration propose that it be funded under the
Commodity Assistance Program account rather than the WIC program
account?
Answer. While the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program does serve
WIC recipients, it also serves farmers. WIC recipients not only get the
advantages of fresh, unprocessed produce, they also have an opportunity
to be more closely connected to the real source of food, the farmer.
Farmers, in turn, are able to market the fruits of their labors
directly to customers. The regular WIC Program and WIC farmers' Market
program both deserve independent funding sources with the funds for one
program not being dependent on the adequacy of funds for the other.
Question. How many WIC participants received benefits through the
WIC Farmers' Market Program in fiscal year 1998?
Answer. The number of WIC recipients that received benefits from
the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program in fiscal year 1998 was 1.325
million.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dorgan
food stamp program
Question. According to a recent survey conducted by Congressman
Tony Hall's office of food banks across the country, the number of
people utilizing food banks has risen dramatically, an average of 22
percent in the last year. Can you give us some insight as to why you
think this is occurring?
Answer. We, too, have heard from food banks and other emergency
food providers who report strong and rising demand for assistance. The
specific reason for this demand is not entirely clear. But clearly the
fact that reported demand for food banks and other emergency food
programs is rising suggests that a significant number of households are
not getting adequate food. At the same time we have heard form
community leaders and advocates around the country that the nutrition
assistance needs of many are no longer being met by the Food Stamp
Program due to policy and procedural changes.
We have observed that food stamp participation has fallen by 9.7
million persons between March 1994, the peak, and February 1999, the
latest month for which information is available. This drop can be
explained partly by a strong economy and the strength of welfare reform
and new restrictions on the participation of certain legal immigrants
and able-bodied unemployed adults without dependent children.
But other factors may be at work. Between 1995 and 1997 food stamp
participation fell five times faster than poverty, suggesting that many
poor families have left the Food Stamp Program despite continued
eligibility. Some of these families might not be aware of their
eligibility; others may have been discouraged or even prevented from
participating in food stamps by State or local agencies. It would not
be surprising to find that many of these former program participants
would need to turn as a result to the emergency food network as an
alternative source of assistance.
Question. Conversely, the Congressional Research Service reports
that the number of people using the Food Stamp Program has fallen
dramatically in the last couple of years. Can you give me any insight
into the reasons for this dramatic decline?
Answer. Food stamp participation has fallen dramatically, by 9.7
million persons between March 1994, the peak, and February 1999, the
latest month for which information is available. Part of this drop can
be explained by the strength of the economy and the success of welfare
reform, which helped move many families from welfare to work. Part of
the drop is due to new restrictions on the participation of legal
immigrants and able-bodied unemployed adults without dependent
children.
But other factors may also be at work. Between 1995 and 1997, food
stamp participation fell five times as fast as poverty, a sign that the
nutritional needs of some low-income people may be going unmet. The
number of people in poverty fell by 850,000 over this period while the
number of food stamp participants fell by 4.4 million, suggesting that
many poor families have left the program despite their continuing
eligibility. Some families who leave welfare for work may not be aware
that they still may be eligible for food stamps; in other instances,
State or local agencies may have discouraged or prevented those
eligible for benefits from applying. In either case, this should not
happen.
Question. Can you explain why it appears that the Food Stamp
Program's role is declining so dramatically, yet food banks are
reporting a sharp increase in the number of people utilizing their
services?
Answer. There is, as yet, no unequivocal explanation for this
pattern. We have, however, heard from community leaders and advocates
around the country who are concerned that the nutrition assistance
needs of many are no longer being met by the Food Stamp Program, due to
policy and procedural changes.
While some food stamp recipients have left the program because the
strength of the economy and the success of welfare reform has improved
their economic situation, others have left for reasons that have little
to do with their need for nutrition assistance. Some are no longer
eligible for food stamps because they are an immigrant or an
unemployed, childless adult. Some may not be aware of their eligibility
for food stamps. And others may have been discouraged from
participating in the Food Stamp Program by administrative or procedural
barriers. As a result, it would not be surprising to find that many of
these former program participants would need to turn to the emergency
food network as an alternative source of assistance.
Question. Please detail the impact on current participants in the
Food Stamp Program of the proposed fiscal year 1999 Supplemental
Appropriations Bill reduction of $521 million. How will this reduction
affect the FNCS's ability to assist current participants in the
program?
Answer. The proposed reduction of $521 million in the fiscal year
1999 Supplemental Appropriations Bill will have no impact on current
participants in the Food Stamp Program. Of the Food Stamp Program funds
available in fiscal year 1999, at least $1.45 billion will lapse due to
lower-than-expected participation during this fiscal year. Therefore, a
reduction of $521 million, as proposed in the fiscal year 1999
Supplemental Appropriations Bill, will not affect the Food, Nutrition
and Consumer Service's ability to assist current Food Stamp Program
participants.
Question. Please provide the amount of funds requested to restore
benefits to elderly legal aliens.
Answer. The Agriculture Research, Extension, and Education Reform
Act restored food stamp benefits eligibility to any individual who was
residing in the United States on August 22, 1996 and was 65 years of
age, as well as other groups of legal immigrants. We estimated at the
time the bill was passed that it would cost $50 million in fiscal year
1999 to restore benefits to the elderly portion of this population.
Question. How many elderly legal aliens have been added to receive
food stamp benefits?
Answer. It is too early to measure exactly how many elderly legal
immigrants were added to the Food Stamp Program as a result of The
Agriculture Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act. The latest
data we have now on the citizenship status of food stamp participants
is the Food Stamp Quality Control data for fiscal year 1997. The
restoration of benefits did not begin until November 1998.
At the time the bill was passed, we estimated that 65,000 elderly
legal immigrants would have food stamp eligibility restored in fiscal
year 1999.
Question. Is this the biggest group being ``inadvertently'' denied
benefits?
Answer. No. There are two large groups of legal immigrants who have
not had their Food Stamp Program eligibility restored by the
Agricultural Research bill. These two groups include:
--parents of U.S. born children (who have always been eligible for
benefits) and parents of legal immigrant children (who had
their eligibility restored under the Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998) who were in the
United States before the enactment of welfare reform; and
--new immigrants who arrived in the country after the enactment of
welfare reform. These include elderly, disabled, children,
their parents, and other smaller subgroups. However, given
economic constraints, we believe that resources should be
targeted to the group of elderly immigrants helped by our
proposal who are particularly vulnerable and in need of
assistance.
child nutrition program
Question. Under Secretary Watkins testimony stated that the Child
Nutrition Reauthorization Act of 1998, allows USDA to ``pilot test'' a
school breakfast project at no cost to participating students in
selected elementary schools. During the pilot test USDA will evaluate
the effect of eating school breakfast on children's behavior and
education performance. Given that the appropriation language for fiscal
year 1999 does not fund the pilot test and, it is our understanding
that ERS has the funds to conduct evaluations, can FNCS move funds from
another account, such as the Food Program Administration account, to
fund the pilot test?
Answer. The William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act
of 1998 (Public Law 105-336) authorizes funding for demonstration
school breakfast projects, which are to include a rigorous evaluation.
No funds were provided for the demonstrations in fiscal year 1999. We
have estimated that the demonstrations would cost approximately $13
million over three years--$10 million for evaluation costs and $3
million to fund added meal costs in the demonstration sites. These
funds are requested in the President's fiscal year 2000 budget.
The $12 million funding for studies and evaluations of the
Nutrition Assistance Programs that appears in the 1999 budget of the
Economic Research Service (ERS) is not adequate to conduct the school
breakfast demonstrations. This funding is needed to address other
priority issues. For example, Public Law 105-336, authorized a study of
cost containment practices in the Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), and fiscal year 1999
appropriations report language specifically expressed the Congressional
expectation that this WIC study be conducted. The $2 million portion of
the funding allocated to the Food and Nutrition Service is largely used
to support microsimulation modeling needed for developing Food Stamp
Program legislative and budget impact estimates.
For fiscal year 1999, appropriations language prohibits the Food
and Nutrition Service (FNS) from using funds from the Food Stamp, Child
Nutrition, or WIC program accounts for research or evaluation. FNS has
determined that there is no prohibition on use of Food Program
Administration (FPA) funds for research activities, as research and
analysis is a legitimate and necessary activity for proper program
management. Thus FNS would not legally be prohibited from funding the
$13 million for demonstrations using the FPA account.
However, given the amount of funds needed, funding the
demonstrations through FPA is not possible. FNS' current FPA resources
are fully committed to staff and other program management needs.
Diversion of these resources to fund the demonstrations would leave FNS
unable to meet its most fundamental program management
responsibilities. Diminishing resources cannot keep pace with changing
program needs and the implementation of new legislation. Welfare
Reform, Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Chief
Financial Officer (CFO) Act, the Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans
Act, to name a few, have imposed significant, new, and ongoing
administrative burdens on already strained staff years and funds. FNS'
programs have expanded in size and complexity and the agency has been
called to improve the nutrition of program recipients, strengthen
program integrity and implement Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT)
Nationwide. FNS employees are so overburdened that they are forced to
discontinue important work and react as crises arise, rather than look
ahead and plan for the future.
Recent Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and General
Administration Office (GAO) audits reflect insufficient staff assigned
to ensure compliance with statutory requirements in areas such as
retailer integrity and food stamp fraud, the agency's financial
statements, documentation and collection of food stamp recipient
claims, frequency of management evaluations required by program
regulations, oversight of the Child and Adult Care Food Program
(CACFP), oversight of advanced planning documents, and State cost
allocation and claiming.
FNS' insufficient staffing level is a result of administrative
funding reductions which have required an 18 percent cut in staff since
1993. Additionally, the agency has cut all non-labor expenses, such as
travel and training, by more than five percent each year since 1994.
Accordingly, FNS is in no position to target FPA funds for this
demonstration.
nutrition education and training program
Question. I am concerned that Congress eliminated funding in fiscal
year 1999 for the Nutrition Education and Training Program (NET). This
is a small program but it has a big impact in North Dakota and other
states. There is a lot of confusion in Congress about the NET Program
and the Team Nutrition Programs. For the record, please provide a
clarification of the programs.
Answer. The Department recognizes that there is confusion about the
respective roles of Nutrition Education and Training (NET) and Team
Nutrition. There is an unfortunate misperception that they are
overlapping programs that do much the same thing. In fact, however, the
two programs are complementary. Team Nutrition develops education and
technical assistance materials designed to address issues of National
concern to a wide range of audiences, including food service
professionals, community organizations, families and, most important of
all, children. Team Nutrition also provides Federal assistance for
States' training efforts through Team Nutrition grants. However, NET
provides a vital counterpart to these Federal efforts at the State
level. Through NET, State Child Nutrition agencies are able to provide
materials and assistance that are tailored specifically to the needs of
their States. Moreover, by making grants available to local operators,
NET is able to support creative initiatives at the local level for a
very modest investment. Finally, NET provides the ongoing training and
technical assistance necessary for the efficient operation of the Child
Nutrition Programs, and the NET infrastructure is used by many States
to carry out training and technical assistance projects funded through
Team Nutrition Grants. For all of these reasons, NET and Team Nutrition
are not competitors, but partners.
nutrition assistance program
Question. FNCS has formed strategic partnerships to promote better
nutrition and healthy eating habits among participants in the nutrition
assistance programs. Please provide details on FNCS's strategic
partnerships and the latest efforts to promote better nutrition and
program participation.
Answer. Both FNS and the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion
(CNPP) have formed strategic partnerships with a wide range of
government agencies to promote better nutrition and healthy eating
habits among participants in Federal Nutrition Assistance Programs, and
among the population at large. A list of key strategic partnerships is
provided below.
In addition, FNS and CNPP collaborate on an ongoing basis with the
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to coordinate policies
and programs, including such agencies as the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Center for Health Statistics
(NCHS), the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (ODPHP),
the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) (including the
Maternal and Child Health Bureau), the Administration on Aging (AOA),
the Indian Health Service (IHS), and others.
FNS and CNPP also participate in many National efforts to
communicate sound eating and health behaviors, such as the National
Dietary Alliance, the National Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies
Coalition, Bright Futures, the Healthy People 2010 National Health
Objectives working groups, and many others.
Partnerships with FNS and CNPP Involvement
USDA Dietary Guidance Working Group.--CNPP chairs this group, and
FNS and CNPP serve as partner agencies. The Working Group promotes
consistency in USDA dietary guidance across USDA agencies and DHHS
agencies, and ensures that dietary guidance accurately reflects the
USDA/DHHS Dietary Guidelines, is supported by research-based knowledge,
and is objective in its presentation.
USDA Human Nutrition Coordinating Committee.--CNPP co-chairs this
committee with the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and FNS
participates as a partner agency. It is designed to: 1) ensure
communication among agencies involved in human nutrition within the
Department, and 2) explore and recommend positions on human nutrition-
related policy issues.
Thrifty Food Plan Working Group.--CNPP has convened this group,
with FNS as one of the partner agencies, to obtain input and support
from Federal partners in maintaining and updating the Thrifty Food
Plan.
Joint USDA/DHHS Nutrition Education Committee for Maternal and
Child Nutrition Publications.--FNS and CNPP both participate in this
committee, which provides a systematic mechanism for USDA and DHHS
agencies to report plans and progress related to maternal and child
nutrition education, to avoid duplication and facilitate coordination,
and to make more effective use of resources. The materials developed
and shared through this committee benefit FNS Nutrition Assistance
Program participants.
Federal Steering Committee for the Dietary Reference Intakes.--CNPP
and FNS are members. The Committee interfaces with representatives of
the Institute of Medicine's Food and Nutrition Board regarding work to
be done to update the 1989 RDA's to the new Dietary Reference Intakes.
Work is funded by various Federal agencies and by Health Canada, who
are represented on the steering committee.
Nutrition and Food Safety Education Task Force.--FNS and CNPP are
both involved in this interagency task force, which serves as a forum
for the exchange of materials and ideas on nutrition education and food
safety--materials and ideas that are used to benefit FNS Nutrition
Assistance Program participants.
Diet Appraisal Research Group.--CNPP chairs this group. Its purpose
is to communicate and share results of diet appraisal research being
conducted by the Federal government.
Partnerships with FNS Involvement
Team Nutrition.--FNS has partnered with an extensive network of
organizations at the National, State, and community levels to develop
and implement the diverse range of Team Nutrition projects, programs
and activities throughout the country.
Nutrition Support Networks.--These networks, supported through a
combination of State, private, and Federal matching funds, bring
together strategic partners at the State level to deliver nutrition
education and promotion to Food Stamp Program recipients. The networks
emphasize the Dietary Guidelines, and rely on integrated community-
based efforts, State flexibility, and use of innovative social
marketing approaches to nutrition promotion.
American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Nutrition.--FNS
maintains an active liaison relationship with the Academy concerning
all aspects of nutrition related to infants, children, and adolescents.
FNS acquires data which will form the scientific basis for nutrition
policy and nutrition promotion projects designed for FNS Nutrition
Assistance Program participants.
Interagency Committee on School Health (ICSH).--FNS is a partner in
this committee which is sponsored jointly by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, U.S. Department of Education, and U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services. The purpose of the ICSH is to increase the
overall effectiveness of Federal efforts to provide leadership to
improve the education and health of school-aged children and youth
through promotion and implementation of school health programs. It is
concerned with all Federal policies and programs, and other activities,
related to the promotion and implementation of school health
programming in elementary and secondary schools.
Bright Futures in Practice.--Nutrition Committee: FNS is a partner
in this committee, which has developed a Nutrition Implementation guide
to complement the Bright Futures publication on health care supervision
of infants, children, and adolescents.
Welfare Reform, Nutrition, and Data Needs Working Group.--FNS and
the National Center for Health Statistics co-chair this working group
of the Interagency Board on Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research.
The group holds quarterly meetings to focus on whether existing and
planned data collections will be adequate to assess nutritional status
under welfare reform. The meetings involve representatives from the
major Federal agencies and many private groups active in anti-hunger,
nutrition and welfare matters.
Girl Power and You Initiative.--FNS is a partner in this
initiative, which addresses the special information needs of adolescent
African-American girls regarding nutrition, physical activity and urban
growth.
Physical Activity Initiative Advisory Committee.--FNS is a partner
in this committee, which is developing physical activity initiatives
for children and adolescents.
Head Start Bureau Nutrition Education Liaison.--FNS provides
consultation in the area of the nutrition component of the Head Start
Program and serve on related ad hoc or continuing committees, as
convened.
Breastfeeding Promotion Consortium.--FNS created this active
consortium to facilitate communication and coordination among
organizations interested in breastfeeding promotion.
National Healthy Mothers/Healthy Babies Coalition's Breastfeeding
Promotion Committee.--FNS is a partner in this committee which promotes
public education efforts in maternal and child health through
collaborative activities and the sharing of information among
professional, voluntary, and government organizations. Through this
alliance, FNS actively promotes public education efforts related to
breastfeeding, which improves the health and nutrition status of
infants and children participating in FNS programs.
Surgeon General's Advisory Committee on Infant Mortality.--FNS is a
partner in this committee, which provides guidance and focuses
attention on the policies and resources required to address the
reduction of infant mortality, including improved nutrition of FNS'
target audience of low income nutrition assistance program
participants.
Oral Health Promotion Efforts.--FNS is a partner in the Surgeon
General's Federal Coordinating Committee Report on Oral Health and in
the Planning Committee on the Surgeon General's Conference and Workshop
on Oral Health. In these roles, FNS supports and assists in the
development of the Surgeon General's Report on Oral Health and related
activities and contributing a perspective on oral health as related to
FNS food assistance program participants. FNS is also partnering with
the DHHS Oral Health Initiative team in an effort to promote oral and
dental health among our similar target audiences.
Partnerships with CNPP Involvement
Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.--CNPP is Co-Executive
Secretary with ARS and HHS. The committee reviews and revises the 1995
Dietary Guidelines. This activity is authorized under the National
Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990, which directs
the Secretaries of USDA and HHS to issue jointly at least every five
years a report entitled Dietary Guidelines for Americans. CNPP will
take the lead in developing the consumer publication for the Guidelines
to be issued in 2000.
Dietary Guidelines Alliance.--CNPP is a liaison member. The
Alliance was formed by the American Dietetic Association, Federal
government agencies, and private-sector food commodity, trade and
consumer interest organizations to develop positive, simple, and
consistent messages to help consumers achieve healthy, active
lifestyles.
school lunch program--country-of-origin labeling
Question. There is a lingering perception that food products from
some countries might pose greater risks than those from others. For
example, a March 1997 outbreak of hepatitis A among Michigan
schoolchildren was linked to frozen strawberries purchased for the
school lunch program that were grown in Mexico. Please describe the
measures FNCS has taken to restrict imported foods from the School
Lunch Program.
Answer. As you know, a ``Buy American'' provision has applied to
schools for many years. The recent reauthorization legislation for the
Child Nutrition Programs codified the provision in that authorizing
statute by requiring schools participating in the school lunch and
breakfast programs to purchase, to the extent practicable,
unmanufactured food products grown or produced in the United States and
food products manufactured in the United States substantially from
agricultural products grown or produced in the United States. The
Department has advised schools of this new legislation and is including
this provision in a final regulation that should begin formal clearance
procedures shortly.
It must also be emphasized that the commodities which the
Department acquires and donates to schools as part of the assistance
provided under the school lunch program must be produced domestically.
This is because the Department acquires them to help stabilize the
agricultural economy. In the wake of the strawberry situation to which
you refer, the Department has intensified its procedures for ensuring
the integrity of foods acquired for distribution to schools and other
institutions.
Question. There is a lingering perception that food products from
some countries might pose greater risks than those from others. For
example, a March 1997 outbreak of hepatitis A among Michigan
schoolchildren was linked to frozen strawberries purchased for the
school lunch program that were grown in Mexico. How does FNCS handle
foods purchased with non-federal dollars?
Answer. As you know, Federal reimbursement for school meals
represents only part of the total funds in the school food service
account. Other monies come from State reimbursement, meal charges paid
by children who do not qualify for free meals and revenues generated by
the sale of competitive foods. These non-federal funds are not subject
to the ``Buy American'' provision of the law. However, other
restrictions on the use of the food service account do apply. These
restrictions are intended to ensure that the food service account is
used to provide nutrition benefits to children.
program and financial integrity
Question. The FNCS must ensure both the program and financial
integrity of each program and the timely delivery of benefits to all
qualified recipients.
Please provide a detailed list of program integrity studies.
Answer. A list of all 53 program integrity studies conducted by the
agency in recent years is attached.
food stamp program integrity studies
FSP General General
Study of State Law Enforcement Agreements.--by Leo Allman, Systems
Planning Associates, and Christopher Logan, Abt Associates, September
1996.
FSP Quality Control
Evaluating the Hunger Prevention Act Quality Control Reforms: A
Report to Congress.--by Gregory Mills, Nancy Burstein, Margaret Hart,
David Hoaglin, and Dorothy Rosenbaum, Abt Associates, September 1991.
Reforming the Negative Action Quality Control System: A Report to
Congress by Jenny Genser and Steven Carlson, Office of Analysis and
Evaluation, July 1990.
Redesign of the Negative Action Quality Control System in the Food
Stamp Program: Final Report by Gregory Mills and David Hoaglin, Abt
Associates, June 1990.
Treatment of Incomplete and Out-of-Scope Case Reviews in Food Stamp
Quality Control by Morris Hansen and Benjamin Tepping, Westat, June
1989.
Stratification and Estimation in Food Stamp Quality Control by
Morris Hansen and Benjamin Tepping, Westat, June 1989.
Evaluation of the Federal One-Tier Quality Control Pilot Project by
Lee Bawden, Pamela Holcomb, Neal Jeffries, Wayne Vroman, and Douglas
Wissoker, The Urban Institute, May 1989.
Redesign of the Negative Action Quality Control System in the Food
Stamp Program: Feasibility Report by Gregory Mills, Mary Beth Sullivan,
and David Hoaglin, Abt Associates, January 1989.
FSP Error Reduction
Evaluation of Grants to States for the Reduction of Payment Error
in the Food Stamp Program by Cynthia Holmes, Mary Kay Sistik, and
Robert Cook, KRA Corporation, September 1996.
Process Analysis as a Means to Error Reduction in the Food Stamp
Program: Final Report and Project Summary by MAXIMUS, Inc., February
1993.
User's Guide: Contingency Model for Food Stamp Program Error
Reduction by MAXIMUS, Inc., February 1993.
Error Reduction in the Food Stamp Program: Assessment of the Error
Controls Profile and the Contingency Model by Linda Maxfield, Cindy
Brach, Dean Conley, Kyle Conley, Deborah Chassman, and Ann Toch,
MAXIMUS, Inc., February 1993.
The Relationship Between Overpayments and Underpayments in the Food
Stamp Program: Updated Analysis by Gregory Mills, Abt Associates,
August 1991.
The Effect of Caseload Characteristics and Socioeconomic Conditions
on Food Stamp Payment Error Rates: State Level Analysis by Michael
Puma, Abt Associates, February 1989.
Reducing Food Stamp Overpayments: More Frequent Recertifications
and Monthly Reporting by Gregory Mills, Abt Associates, December 1988.
The Relationship Between Overpayments and Underpayments in the Food
Stamp Program by Gregory Mills, Abt Associates, September 1988.
State-Initiated FNP Demonstration Project Assistance and Evaluation
by Applied Management Sciences, August 1988 (3 volumes).
State Administrator's Quality Control Demonstration and Evaluation
Handbook by Applied Management Sciences, August 1988.
fsp trafficking
Synthesis Report for the Food Stamp Participant Trafficking Study
by Anne Ciemnecki, Lara Hulsey, James Ohls, Irving Piliavin, Mercer
Sullivan, and Josh Rossol, Mathematica Policy Research, July 1998
The Extent of Trafficking in the Food Stamp Program by Theodore
Macaluso, Office of Analysis and Evaluation, August 1995.
Food Stamp Program Integrity Methodological Feasibility Study by
James Lubalin and Jenny Schnaier, Research Triangle Institute, March
1991.
FSP Verification and Matching
The Cost-Effectiveness of the Income and Eligibility Verification
System in Arizona and Michigan by Nancy Fasciano and Sheena McConnell,
Mathematica Policy Research, April 1995 (two volumes).
The Income and Eligibility Verification System Targeting
Demonstrations: Findings and Guidelines for State Food Stamp IEVS
Programs by Myles Maxfield and Susan Allin, Mathematica Policy
Research, April 1995.
State Census of Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS)
Procedures by Susan Allin, Mathematica Policy Research, March 1992.
Computer Matching: A Review of Exemplary State Practices by David
Greenburg and Regina Yudd, The Urban Institute, November 1990.
State and Local Computer Matching Operations by Demetra Nightingale
and Regina Yudd, The Urban Institute, November 1990.
Costs and Benefits of the National Disqualification Reporting
Network by Mark Menne and William Hamilton, Abt Associates, November
1989.
Preventing Fraud and Abuse in the Food Stamp Program: The Use of
Computer Assisted Verification of Applicant-Reported Information by
Michael Puma, Abt Associates, January 1989.
FSP Claims Collection Claims Collection
Optimal Thresholds in the Collection of Food Stamp Program Claims
by Myles Maxfield, Mathematica Policy Research, December 1995.
Claims Collection Tracking and Aging Systems by Linda Wray,
Mathematica Policy Research, November 1990.
State and Local Claims Collection Operations by Sharon Long and
Linda Wray, Mathematica Policy Research, (undated).
FSP Retailer Operations
Retailer Pre-Authorization Visit Demonstration: Final Summary
Report by Christopher Logan, Julie Masker, John Blomquist, Abt
Associates, March 1998.
Food Stamp Program Guidebook for FCS Store Visit Contractors by Abt
Associates, September 1997.
Evaluation of Food Retailer Compliance Management Demonstrations in
EBT-Ready States and Related Initiatives by Christopher Logan and Paul
Elwood, Abt Associates, April 1997.
Food Stamp Coupon and WIC Voucher Management Practices and Program
Educational Needs of Food Stamp Retailers by Richard Mantovani, Johnnie
Daniel, Harry Liu, and Katy Hoffman, Macro International, December
1995.
Child Nutrition Programs Integrity Studies
Early Childhood and Child Care Study: Nutritional Assessment of the
CACFP: Final Report Volume II, Abt Associates, Inc. July 1997
Private Nonprofit Sponsors in the Summer Food Service Program,
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., January 1994
National Study of the Adult Component of the Child and Adult Care
Food Program (CACFP) Final Report--Volume I: Results, Volume II:
Technical Appendices and Tables, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (not
released until 3/94), October 1993
The School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study: School Food Service,
Meals Offered, and Dietary Intakes, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.,
October 1993
Child Nutrition Program Operations Study--Second Year Report, Abt
Associates Inc., June 1992
Review Systems for the National School Lunch Program, Office of
Analysis and Evaluation, Food and Nutrition Service, March 1992
Child Nutrition Program Operations Study--First Year Report, Abt
Associates Inc., August 1991
Study of Income Verification in the National School Lunch Program,
Abt Associates Inc., February 1990
Federal Review Final Report, Office of Analysis and Evaluation,
Food and Nutrition Service, February 1990
Study of the Child Care Food Program (CCFP), Abt Associates Inc.,
August 1988
An Evaluation of the Summer Food Service Program, Mathematica
Policy Research, Inc., July 1988
wic program integrity studies
Estimating the Number of People Eligible for WIC and the Full-
funding Participation Rate: A Review of the Issues Mathematica Policy
Research February 1999
Income Variability Among Families with Pregnant Women, Infants and
Young Children, Mathematica Policy Research, January 1997
WIC Nutrition Risk Criteria: A Scientific Assessment, National
Academy of Sciences, May 1996
WIC Vendor Issues Study 1991, Final Report, Aspen Systems
Corporation, Applied Management Sciences Division; Food and Nutrition
Service; Survey Design, Inc., May 1993
WIC Vendor Issues Study 1991, Chartbook, Aspen Systems Corporation,
Applied Management Sciences Division; and the Food and Nutrition
Service, May 1993 WIC Income Verification Study: Final Report QPC
Corporation December 1990
WIC Vendor Management Systems and Practices, Professional
Management Associates and the Office of Analysis and Evaluation, Food
and Nutrition Service, December 1990
Question. The FNCS must ensure both the program and financial
integrity of each program and the timely delivery of benefits to all
qualified recipients.
In addition, describe what problems have been found and what
solutions are being considered.
Answer. The studies have addressed a wide array of problems and
solutions. Some selected examples include:
Eligibility Determination
FNS studies have documented best error reduction practices and made
the information available to States. FNS studies have addressed
eligibility verification practices and cost-effective thresholds for
the collection of financial claims against food stamp recipients.
FNS research developed the most accurate annual State-level
estimates of the number of persons in poverty. Annual State-level
estimates of the number of persons eligible for the WIC Program are a
critical component of the formula used to allocate WIC funding to
States. Prior to development of these estimates, FNS had to rely on
information from the decennial census that was as much as 10 years out-
of-date.
Timely Work Requirements
FNS studies supported faster implementation of new work
requirements for able-bodied food stamp recipients. FNS' analyses have
guided State identification of the target population, waiver decisions
and disbursements of Employment and Training funds.
Nutritional Integrity
FNS research determined the nutrients provided to school children
in school lunches and breakfasts. This information was the foundation
for the recent, historic changes in the School Nutrition Programs. For
the first time since the program began in 1946, school meals are now
required to meet the standards for healthy meals. Data from the School
Lunch and Breakfast Cost Study provided critical information to conduct
a cost-benefit analysis of alternative menu planning options used in
the School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children.
Vendor Management
FNS studies demonstrated the feasibility of reducing fraud by using
private-sector firms to visit stores before they get Food Stamp
authorization. The FNS evaluation identified specific procedures to
encourage and avoid.
An FNS study generated the only data-based, National estimate of
the prevalence of trafficking in the Food Stamp Program. FNS analyzed
11,000 undercover investigations of food stores to establish a baseline
estimate of $815 million in trafficking--just under four cents of every
benefit dollar issued--for fiscal year 1993. An update for the current
period will be available later this year.
FNS studies have been used to uphold sanctions imposed upon food
retailers engaging in fraudulent EBT transactions, as well as to
develop systems to target store investigations effectively. One study
resulted in a 45 percent improvement in targeting of investigations
while freeing 35 staff years per year for more productive uses.
Administrative Efficiency
FNS studies supplied the foundation to develop and expand
electronic benefit transfer (EBT). Agency studies proved the financial
cost-effectiveness of EBT and continue to inform decisions on how to
use EBT data to fight fraud, extend electronic service to farmers'
markets, and balance cost with service.
FNS documented the Federal cost savings associated with
participation in the WIC Program. FNS demonstrated that $1 dollar
invested in prenatal WIC participation for very low-income women saves
an average of $3 in Medicaid costs during the first 60 days after an
infant's birth. FNS studies provided the ability to determine the
adequacy of Federal meal subsidies for the National School Lunch and
School Breakfast Programs. FNS determined that the combined Federal
subsidy for free lunches and breakfasts covered the average cost of
producing these meals, suggesting that the current reimbursement rates
are appropriate.
FNS research was instrumental in determining the future of the
Commodity Donation Program. FNS research provided the impetus for
substantial improvements in the Commodity Donation Program, rather than
abandoning the program in favor of alternatives such as Commodity
Letter of Credit or Cash-in-lieu of Commodities. The efficiency of USDA
purchasing and delivery systems was assessed along with the relative
importance of USDA commodity donations to schools.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byrd
school lunch/school breakfast programs
Question. Chairman Cochran, Senator Kohl, and members of the
Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to review the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) nutrition assistance programs, and
the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) programs.
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) administers the USDA food
assistance programs. The programs administered by the FNS provide a
federal safety net to ensure that Americans do not go hungry. While the
programs under the FNS are all significant, today, I will limit my
questions to FNS's National School Lunch Program.
First, I want to note that Ms. Martha C. Hill of Madison, West
Virginia is serving as the National President of the American School
Food Service Association, the professional association for persons
actively engaged in the delivery of food service in schools. I am proud
that Ms. Hill has earned this distinguished recognition, and I commend
Ms. Hill for her many years of selfless and honorable dedication to
betters the lives of countless young people. Ms. Hill and other school
lunch providers in West Virginia are actively promoting the highest
standards for school food service and nutrition programs, and she has
worked to enhance learning and quality of life through nutrition
programs in West Virginia and the nation. Secretary Watkins, please
provide me with a report on your agency's impact on the school lunch
and breakfast program in West Virginia.
Answer. West Virginia is one of our most progressive States in
implementing policies and procedures to enhance the nutritional
benefits of the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School
Breakfast Program (SBP). The foundation for their success is strong
State policies that complement Federal policy. Their policies have
resulted in providing healthy school meals and improving student access
to the programs. For example, all public schools must provide school
breakfasts, unless they have been granted a waiver. However, they
recognize that mandating a breakfast program is not enough to increase
student participation. Adequate time to eat and student friendly
customer services, such as their ``grab and go'' breakfast option and
breakfast bars are important. Other factors in improving access to the
lunch and breakfast programs have been computerized counting and
claiming systems; a family billing system, which has reduced any social
stigma associated with the programs; offering a variety of food; and
using direct certification procedures.
The State's ``Standards for School Nutrition'' exceed the Federal
requirements. In general, foods of minimal nutritional value cannot be
sold or served during the school day and all other foods available must
meet the Dietary Guidelines. Team Nutrition has significantly
contributed to the success of promoting nutrition education. A high
percentage of West Virginia schools have enrolled as Team Nutrition
schools. Additionally, West Virginia has enhanced the programs'
effectiveness with Team Nutrition Training grants, industry grants and
grants from advocacy organizations. In 1998, West Virginia was
recognized for their outstanding achievements in Child Nutrition by
being awarded a Dan Glickman Pyramid of Excellence Award for School
Nutrition Programs.
Question. Please provide me with a report on proposals that would
enhance the FNS support to West Virginia school child nutrition policy.
Answer. Through the years, FNS has supported West Virginia child
nutrition policy. To assist in West Virginia's comprehensive school
health initiative, we worked with West Virginia to develop a multi-use
free and reduced price application which would allow parents to request
information about the State's Medicaid Program. That application became
a model for other States.
We anticipate that West Virginia will benefit from the new
afterschool snack reimbursement in the NSLP and Child and Adult Care
Food Program (CACFP). Afterschool snacks are intended to give children
a nutritional boost and draw them into supervised activities that are
safe, fun and filled with learning opportunities. Snacks served in
afterschool care programs under the NSLP in a school or in the
attendance area of a school where at least 50 percent of the enrolled
children are eligible for free or reduced price meals will be
reimbursed at the free rate. These schools are ``area eligible.''
Snacks served in afterschool care programs in schools that do not meet
this criteria, that is, they are not area eligible, will be reimbursed
at the free, reduced price and paid rate depending on the child's
economic status. For the period July 1, 1998, through June 30, 1999,
reimbursement is $0.5325 for free snacks, $02675 for reduced price
snacks, and $0.04 for paid snacks. Additionally, Team Nutrition
Training (TNT) grant projects have been and continue to be successful
in promoting nutrition education. West Virginia received TNT grants in
1995, 1996, 1997, and they have applied for a 1999 grant. The 1999
grants have not yet been awarded.
small family farmers in appalachia
Question. Mr. Secretary, I have become increasingly concerned about
the plight of the small farmer of Appalachia. These farmers work hard
on land most often held in the same family for generations, and I
believe these farmers merit federal investment to ensure their future
productivity, and more importantly, to preserve a heritage that I deem
essential to this nation's moral fiber. There seems to be much talk
about small family farmers, but I am dismayed at federal programs that
define ``small'' to include ninety-five percent of all American
farmers.
Therefore, (1) I would appreciate a report on the status of the
small family farmer of Appalachia, including their numbers, and their
chances of future survival. (2) I would also appreciate a report on any
current plans that you might have for this important farming segment.
Answer. I share your concern for small farmers. In July, 1997, I
appointed a National Commission on Small Farms to provide
recommendations for improving the viability of small farms. This
Commission recommended that small farms be defined as those farms with
annual sales under $250,000. In the Appalachian region of Virginia,
West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and North Carolina approximately 95
percent of the 290,000 farms are considered ``small'' farms.
Using USDA's 1997 Agricultural Resource Management Study, the
Economic Research Service has described additional characteristics of
farms in Appalachia which I will provide for the record. According to
this report, approximately three-quarters of the farms are in a
favorable financial position because they have a positive income and
low debt. Only 2 percent have negative income and high debt which puts
them in a vulnerable situation. Survival for these farms and the
limited resource farms is the most problematic.
Our programs and plans for small farms, including those of
Appalachia, reflect the recommendations of the National Commission on
Small Farms The Commission's report, A Time to Act, released in January
1998, included 146 recommendations to improve USDA service to small and
beginning farmers. Many of these recommendations have been implemented
by USDA, including the establishment of the Office of Sustainable
Development and Small Farms at USDA and the formation of the Council on
Small Farms chaired by the Deputy Secretary.
The Department has also restructured responsibilities of the FSA
county committees, forcefully addressed long-standing civil rights
issues, and streamlined loan processing. Legislation has removed
restrictions on subsequent lending to borrowers approved for debt
restructuring. USDA has supported producer-friendly tobacco settlement
proposals, and expanded small farm research, extension and cooperative
development programs in response to commission recommendations. Small
farm training and outreach programs throughout the Department have been
strengthened. USDA has also supported mandatory price reporting and
country-of-origin labeling for beef and lamb, and has reorganized GIPSA
to protect producers from unfair trade practices.
The USDA budget for fiscal year 2000 includes $60 million for the
Fund for Rural America, and proposes full funding for FSA direct
ownership and operating loans, although at lower levels than
appropriated with emergency funding in 1999. The budget also increases
funding for the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Extension Program
(SARE), the Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural America program
(ATTRA), Rural Cooperative Development Grants (RCDG), and outreach
initiatives under the Section 2501 program.
Sustainable Agriculture Extension, Renewable Resources Extension,
and CSREES 1862/1890 formula funding for small farm programs would
continue at current levels. The CSREES small farm initiative proposed
in the budget for 1999 is proposed again for funding in 2000, and an
increase in small farm program funding is projected under the National
Research Initiative.
Small farm marketing efforts are supported with continued funding
for the Federal State Market Improvement Program (FSMIP), increased
funding for the WIC Farmers Market Program, National Organic Standards,
Wholesale Market Development, and strengthened livestock and poultry
industry analysis. Small farm conservation initiatives include
increased funding for the Stewardship Incentives Program (SIP). Further
detail on the requests for additional funding can be found in the chart
that is provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
data from usda's 1997 agricultural resource management study
Almost two-thirds of Appalachian farmers either say that they are
retired, but still farming, or that they have a major occupation other
than farming. Households associated with these two groups depend on
sources of income outside the farm. Another 13 percent are classified
as limited resource farms. They have low farm sales, few assets and low
household income. The Appalachian region has a higher proportion of
these limited resource farms than most other regions.
On average, total farm operator household income in 1997 for the
region was $48,485. This is comparable to the average U.S. household
and reflects the off-farm income received by farm households. Net farm
income for farms in the Appalachia region was about $10,000. Many
farms, even the small ones, have multiple owners and this net income
from farming is shared with those owners.
It is typical for farms to have financial losses in any given year,
so the asset base that farmers have is very important. The average farm
business in the Appalachia region had farm assets valued at $302,430 in
1997. Even the low sales farms where the operator lists farming as the
principal occupation have substantial assets at $377,115. Farms in the
region are not heavily leveraged as the average debt-to-asset ratio was
0.06.
The Economics Research Service has prepared the following table
that summarizes the characteristics of Appalachian farms.
SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF FARMS IN THE APPALACHIA REGION, 1997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low sales/ High sales/
Item Limited Retirement Residential/ Farming Farming Large Very large Non-family All farms
resource lifestyle occupation occupation family family \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farms..................................... 37,177 51,860 132,473 50,736 10,027 5,006 3,177 .......... 292,000
Percent of farms.......................... 12.7 17.8 45.4 17.4 3.4 1.7 1.1 .......... 100.0
Gross cash income......................... $5,398 $11,975 $8,619 $26,573 $135,724 $271,713 $579,683 .......... $28,478
Total expenses............................ 5,976 9,744 10,119 22,935 94,950 204,147 361,816 .......... 23,160
Net cash income........................... -577 2,239 -1,499 3,637 41,774 67,566 217,867 .......... 5,318
Net farm income........................... 3,131 8,200 3,261 9,190 44,128 61,906 193,453 .......... 10,404
Value of assets........................... 76,317 263,212 263,306 377,115 570,043 795,846 1,220,030 .......... 302,430
Liabilities............................... 1,675 7,663 12,623 17,962 65,069 127,057 289,030 .......... 18,774
Debt-to-asset ratio....................... 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.16 0.24 .......... 0.06
Financial position (percent):
Favorable............................. 79 91 72 76 78 73 60 .......... 77
Marginal income....................... 10 7 26 23 7 14 6 .......... 20
Marginal solvency..................... 1 2 ............ 1 11 11 4 .......... 2
Vulnerable............................ 10 .......... 1 .......... 5 2 5 .......... 2
Income from off-farm...................... 9,600 32,425 61,207 44,649 21,848 25,106 43,168 .......... 44,157
Total household income.................... $8,827 $33,571 $58,740 $56,847 $50,438 $66,042 $184,614 .......... $48,485
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The sample for non-family farms in the Appalachian region does not allow statistically reliable estimates. There are approximately 1,500 non-family
farms. We do not collect household income for the operators of these farms.
Source: USDA's 1997 Agricultural Resource Management Study.
PROGRAMS RECOMMENDED FOR AN INCREASE IN FUNDING BY THE NATIONAL
COMMISSION ON SMALL FARMS--PROGRAM LEVEL
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999
Program and Mission Area Current 2000 Budget
Estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research, Education and Economics:
Sustainable Agriculture Research and $8.0 $8.5
Extension (SARE).........................
Sustainable Agriculture Extension......... 3.3 3.3
1862/1890 Formula Funding for Small Farm 2.2 2.2
Programs.................................
Renewable Resources Extension............. 3.2 3.2
Small Farm Initiative..................... ........... 4.0
National Research Initiative.............. 5.0 7.0
-------------------------
Subtotal................................ 21.7 28.2
=========================
Rural Development:
Fund for Rural America.................... ........... 60.0
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural 1.3 2.0
America (ATTRA)..........................
Rural Cooperative Development Grants...... 2.0 5.0
Farmworker Housing Loans and Grants....... 31.4 40.0
-------------------------
Subtotal................................ 34.7 107.0
=========================
Marketing and Regulatory Programs:
Federal State Market Improvement Program 1.2 1.2
(FSMIP)..................................
GIPSA Poultry and Livestock Market 1.2 2.6
Industry Analysis........................
Wholesale Market Development.............. 2.2 2.6
National Organic Standards................ 0.9 1.7
-------------------------
Subtotal................................ 5.5 8.1
=========================
Other:
Outreach and Technical Assistance (Section 3.0 10.0
2501)....................................
WIC Farmers Market Program................ 15.0 20.0
NRE Stewardship and Incentives Programs 45.1 33.8
\1\......................................
Direct Ownership Loans.................... 85.6 128.0
Direct Operating Loans.................... 733.8 500.0
-------------------------
Subtotal................................ 882.5 691.8
=========================
Total................................... 944.4 835.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Forestry Incentives Program, Forest Stewardship Program,
and Stewardship Incentives Program.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Feinstein
child and adult care food program
Question. In March, the USDA Inspector General released his audit
of California's Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). The audit
focuses on ten sponsors whom USDA already suspected of fraud. These
sponsors receive over 20 percent of the total $150 million in CACFP
funds that go to California, so USDA feels that the extensive fraud
being committed by these sponsors is indicative of tremendous problems
within the California Department of Education's program. How long have
these problems been occurring in California, and why have they not been
addressed before?
Answer. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) was aware that State
and Federal program reviews had identified problems with program abuse
and mismanagement by child care institutions and facilities. FNS
requested that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) audit the Child
and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) in its efforts to determine the
adequacy of program financial and administrative controls. The findings
of the OIG validated the concern expressed by FNS, that select
institutions were negligent in their administration and operation of
CACFP. After OIG performed extensive work at the local level, they
began their review of the State of California's oversight of the CACFP.
FNS was not aware of the full magnitude of the problems in California
until OIG completed their work at the State level. It was at this time,
that FNS became aware of the systemic nature of the problems.
Question. What steps does the Food and Nutrition Service plan to
take to ensure that the State of California complies with the audit's
recommendations to increase its oversight of high-risk sponsors, review
all sponsor budgets, and improve coordination among the various units
that administer the program?
Answer. FNS has increased its oversight of the CACFP in California
and is working with the State agency to ensure there are sufficient
training and organizational controls in place for the CACFP. Since the
issuance of the first management alerts and subsequent individual
audits of sponsors and the State agency, FNS has been working with the
State agency to strengthen CACFP integrity. In early 1998, FNS began
working with the State agency to prioritize its resources to those
sponsors which fit a problem sponsor profile and has continued working
with the State agency to identify high-risk sponsors. In January 1999,
FNS participated with the Office of Inspector General and the State
agency in training State agency staff on sponsor fiscal management
practices and identifying high-risk sponsors. To improve the
coordination among the various units that administer the program, the
State agency reorganized its audit function and created an Integrity
Committee composed of audit, review, administrative, and management
staff to determine effective plans of action for individual sponsors,
and coordinate and determine State agency actions needed to ensure
sponsor integrity. FNS' efforts with the State agency are ongoing and
will be aided by additional funding now available to FNS through
appropriations that are specifically earmarked for its integrity
initiatives.
Question. Will the Inspector General seek any monetary penalties
against the State or against individual contractors?
Answer. FNS establishes overclaims based on audit findings, not the
Office of Inspector General. Further, program regulations do not allow
for monetary penalties to be assessed against the State or local
program operators. However, where a determination is made that Federal
funds were not spent in accordance with the regulations, States are
required to establish monetary overclaims and pursue the recovery of
funds from local program operators. FNS may impose fiscal action
against the State for failure to take appropriate collection actions
against local program operators. In California, the State agency has
established and pursued claims against program operators identified by
the Office of Inspector General.
Question. The audit also found that the Food and Nutrition
Service's oversight of the California program has not been sufficient.
What steps are you taking to improve that oversight?
Answer. In its continuing effort to improve program management, FNS
has increased oversight of the State agency's administration of the
CACFP. The FNS Western Regional Office (WRO) has been working
extensively with the State agency to address the OIG's audit findings
and focus attention, resources and actions on issues identified through
the audit to help the State agency to prioritize its resources to those
sponsors which fit a problem sponsor profile. The FNS-WRO has worked
closely with OIG pertaining to the actions taken by the State agency to
correct problems, and has participated with the OIG and the State
agency in training State agency staff. In March 1999, FNS conducted an
evaluation of the State agency's program operations for the purpose of
determining program compliance as well as offering technical assistance
to improve program operations.
A task force of State and Federal representatives provided
assistance to FNS in the development of guidance materials for
sponsoring organizations of family day care homes and centers as well
as independent centers. CACFP standards for family day care home
providers were published and distributed to State agencies in May 1997,
and standards for independent and sponsored centers were published and
distributed to State agencies in February 1998. These are comprehensive
guides that address the local level operational problems that have been
identified by the Inspector General. Additionally, FNS is currently
developing a training program designed for all State agency staff
directly involved in the administration of the CACFP. This National
training initiative will occur at different locations around the
country and will take place during the first half of fiscal year 2000.
The purpose of the training will be to strengthen program management
and will focus on institution budget and management plans, monitoring
systems, internal controls and determinations of serious deficiencies.
FNS' efforts with the State agency are ongoing and additional resources
for this effort have been provided by specially appropriated funds to
FNS.
food stamp caseload reductions
Question. In 1994, 27.5 million people were collecting food stamps.
In 1998, that number dropped to 19.8 million, a 28 percent reduction in
the caseload. This dramatic drop is not fully explained by the strong
economy and low unemployment. The actual number of people in poverty
has not fallen nearly as dramatically; 36.6 million Americans were
living in poverty in 1997, compared with 38.1 million in 1994. Has USDA
seen a pattern of states discouraging families from applying for food
assistance?
Answer. USDA has not identified a pattern on a Nation-wide basis.
We believe there is substantial compliance with our rules on access to
food stamp benefits. However, we did detect instances of local
departments implementing restrictive procedures in two urban areas. In
each such instance, USDA reviewed the situation and is working closely
with the State and Local agencies to assure that corrective measures
are implemented.
Question. What actions is the agency taking to better publicize the
food stamp program and ensure that all eligible families who want
assistance are served?
Answer. When Secretary Glickman released the US Action Plan on Food
Security on March 26, 1999, he announced a National campaign ``to
inform those who are unaware of their eligibility that there is help
for struggling families to get proper nourishment while they regain
their economic footing.'' The campaign was spurred by recent
information indicating that participation is falling faster than can be
explained by a strong economy alone. We are particularly concerned that
working families, the elderly and households with immigrant members
have information about their eligibility and access to the program.
FNS is currently finalizing our short-term and long-term strategies
to meet the Secretary's goals. However, many activities are already
underway. Some of the activities focus directly on our customers, that
is eligible households who may not realize they are eligible for
benefits. Other activities aim to enlist the assistance of our State
partners, the welfare agencies that directly service recipients and the
National, State and local organizations who work with or advocate for
our customers. To ensure that eligible households have access to
information, on April 9, 1999, we inaugurated a 1-800 number (1-800-
221-5689). Persons who call are sent basic information on Food Stamp
Program (FSP) eligibility and how to find their local welfare agency
that can provide benefits if they are eligible. Information that has
been available in hard copy and through the FNS web page will be
updated to ensure that it both contains needed information and is
customer-friendly. In addition to printed materials we will also use
our web page to make material available for downloading and local
reproduction by anyone providing program information services.
Since food stamp eligibility is determined by State and county
welfare agencies, they and their cooperating community organizations
are key to ensuring both that information on eligibility and how to
apply is available and that welfare agencies and others make the
application process user friendly. FNS is engaged in several efforts to
encourage local activities to make sure that eligible families who want
assistance are served. On January 29, 1999, FNS Administrator Sam
Chambers wrote all State commissioners reminding them of application
processing regulations and enlisting their assistance in making the FSP
accessible to households that are leaving TANF for work but who remain
eligible for food stamps. Our Regional administrators are talking to
their States about this issue and the agency is supporting the efforts
of community organizations who provide information and assistance to
low income citizens. Secretary Glickman's Pyramid of Excellence Award
for program operators offers an opportunity to showcase best practices
in client services. FNS will be seeking out and awarding State and
local agencies that provide excellent information and service and will
be sharing with others the methods that have been successful.
food stamp restoration for legal immigrants
Question. How many legal immigrants do you expect to become
eligible for food stamps under the Administration's budget proposal?
Answer. We estimate that 15,000 legal immigrants will become
eligible and choose to participate in the Food Stamp Program.
Question. Do you know how many of the newly eligible recipients
live in California?
Answer. Prior to the enactment of welfare reform, nearly one third
of legal immigrant food stamp recipients lived in California.
Therefore, it is reasonable to suppose that roughly 5,000 new
participants, representing one third of the 15,000 new participants
Nationwide, will live in California.
Question. Does the Administration support further food stamp
restorations for legal immigrants, such as the proposal in the Fairness
for Legal Immigrants Act to restore food stamps to all legal immigrants
who were in the country in 1996?
Answer. When the President signed welfare reform legislation in
1996, he stated that some provisions went too far. Legal immigrants,
individuals who have entered the country legally and have played by the
rules, were especially affected.
The Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act,
enacted in 1998, restored eligibility to the most vulnerable legal
immigrants who were legally in the United States at the time welfare
reform was enacted.
A substantial number of legal immigrants who were in the country as
of August 22, 1996, have not had food stamp benefits restored. The
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act was a ``down
payment'', but did not help everyone. The Fairness for Legal Immigrants
Act goes much further in restoring eligibility for all those legal
immigrants residing in the country on August 22, 1996. However, given
limited resources, the Administration budget focuses on restoring
benefits to those that were here before August 22, 1996, but who joined
the ranks of the elderly after that date.
special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children
(wic)
Question. President Clinton has pledged full funding for WIC, but
in California WIC administrators are being forced to cut 25,000
participants from the rolls this year due to inadequate funding and a
12 percent jump in the price of milk. How much of the requested
increase in WIC funds will go to California, and how many more women
and children will these funds serve?
Answer. In February, California did in fact instruct its local
agencies to cut caseload levels, which would have resulted in a total
caseload reduction of approximately 25,000. However, due to the State
agency's recent efforts to control costs by reducing the maximum
reimbursement amounts paid to WIC vendors for all foods except infant
formula, California now estimates that the savings from this step
should provide enough funds so that these caseload reductions will not
be necessary.
We have not yet calculated State agency grants for fiscal year
2000, and therefore do not know the specific grant amount that would be
allocated to California. If adequate funding is available, California
will receive its prior year grant plus an amount for inflation. The
number of additional participants that California will be able to serve
in fiscal year 2000 will be dependent on their food costs. Currently,
California's food costs are one of the highest Nationally for
geographic State agencies; we will continue to offer technical guidance
and support to the State on controlling food costs through various cost
containment initiatives, including vendor management.
Question. Is the Administration considering any additional
increases to the WIC program to offset the high cost of milk?
Answer. Fiscal year 1999 food cost estimates in the President's
fiscal year 2000 budget were constructed to take into account the
relatively high cost of milk projected for fiscal year 1999. The
administration is not planning to request a supplemental appropriation
for fiscal year 1999 due to the higher milk costs.
Question. The California WIC Association has raised serious
concerns regarding the Food and Nutrition Service's proposed funding
formulas rule. Among other issues, California is concerned that the
salary component of funding allocations may be reduced; that proposed
food inflation adjustments will not be sufficient; and that USDA is not
appropriately calculating estimates of WIC eligibility in the State.
What steps are you taking to address these concerns in the rulemaking
process.
Answer. A large number of comments were received on this issue from
a variety of sources. The Department will give careful consideration to
all comments in the development of the final rule.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Kohl
child nutrition--soda in schools
Question. As I mentioned in my opening statement, I am concerned
about the dietary habits of many Americans, especially our youth. I am
aware that soft drinks are becoming the beverage of choice for many
young people, which concerns me greatly. In fact, I wrote a letter to
Secretary Glickman last month regarding this trend and the role USDA
should be playing in promoting a healthy diet for our young. Would you
please comment on this trend and provide your thoughts on how best to
encourage our young people to consume more healthy beverages, such as
milk, rather than soda pop?
Answer. We in the Department of Agriculture share your concern that
consumption of soft drinks appears to be increasing in our schools. As
you know, the Department's regulations for both the National School
Lunch Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP) prohibit
the sale of foods of minimal nutritional value, including carbonated
beverages, in the food service area during meal periods. However, as a
result of court rulings, they may be given away as long as the food
service account is not used to purchase them, and they may be sold
elsewhere in the school. And of course, children may select whatever
foods they wish when they are outside the school.
Since children have so many opportunities to select foods both
inside and outside the school, there needs to be a three-way
partnership to teach children to make sound food choices. First, the
school meal programs need to provide children with a model of what an
appealing and healthy diet can be. To this end, the Department
continues to take an aggressive approach to ensuring that school meals
meet nutrition standards, and we are providing State and local food
service professionals with technical assistance to help them serve
foods that provide the basic nutrients children need to grow and be
healthy. The second partner is the education community. As I noted,
other foods are available in the school, and we are working with our
counterparts in the S. Department of Education to make State and local
school officials aware of these nutrition issues so that they can lend
their support to our efforts. The third and most important partner is
the family. For our efforts to be successful, the family needs to be
involved in helping children to learn the lesson of healthy eating. So
much of what children learn in this area they learn at home, and we are
working to help parents recognize the importance of balanced meals for
health and well being.
Question. What role could USDA Child Nutrition programs have in
this context?
Answer. We have a pivotal role in this undertaking. First, we need
to provide a model food program, and this means helping our local food
service professionals plan and prepare meals that contain nutritious
foods. Just as important, we are working with our partners at the U. S.
Department of Education and we are developing and distributing
technical assistance materials for school administrators so that we can
make the larger education community aware of the competition that foods
of minimal nutritional value create for the reimbursable school lunch
and breakfast. Finally, through Team Nutrition, we are developing and
distributing materials designed to educate children, their parents and
the community at large about the importance of sound nutrition and the
necessity for children to eat balanced meals. As part of this overall
undertaking, the Department is sponsoring a forum in June to discuss
the role of school environments in promoting healthy eating behaviors
in children. This forum will include experts in nutrition, health,
education fields, advocates, political leaders and federal officials;
and one of the prime objectives will be to explore ways that public and
private groups can work together to reshape the social, educational and
physical environment of schools to support dietary behaviors that
contribute to a better quality of life for future generations.
child and adult care food program--welfare changes
Question. The Child and Adult Care food program was established to
make sure free or reduced cost nutritious meals are available to
children and adults in day care settings--whether they be family day
cares or day care centers. I believe that this program is essential in
getting good food to those who need it most--the young and the
vulnerable. The program also serves to increase the quality of child
care since participation in it requires far more frequent inspections
than required by Federal or most State laws.
However, I have heard some complaints that the 1996 welfare law
changes to this program set up a complicated new reimbursement system--
especially for family day cares--that has led to more paperwork than
food provision. I also know that at least 12 states are not
participating in this program at all because of an outdated provision
that dictates to them what mix of Federal pools of money they must use
in order to be eligible for the Child and Adult Care Food Program
(CACFP). These are problems that need to be fixed by the authorizing
committee, I understand, but I would like to know from you today: What
can you do under current law to lend technical assistance to states and
CACFP sponsors to make sure we maximize the number of young children
receiving healthy meals under this program?
Answer. In reference to the two-tier reimbursement structure, from
the beginning of the implementation process, the Food and Nutrition
Service (FNS) has been very aware of the need for technical assistance.
For this reason, the agency made it a high priority to provide training
on the new system to all State and Regional staff in January and
February of 1997, well in advance of the July 1, 1997, implementation
date. It is our understanding that all State agencies held similar
training sessions for their sponsoring organizations in the spring of
1997. In addition, Under Secretary Watkins and agency staff made
presentations on the two-tiered reimbursement system at several
National and Regional conferences, including Save the Children/The
Sponsor's Forum, the Sponsor's Association, and the California
Roundtable--comprised of regional, State, and local program operators
and advocacy organizations.
With regard to States' pooling of subsidies for low-income child
care, which affects the ability of for-profit centers to participate in
CACFP, you are correct in noting that this is a feature of the National
School Lunch Act. The law requires that at least 25 percent of a for-
profit center's enrollment or licensed capacity be supported by Title
XX funds. This requirement provides a basis for determining that a for-
profit center is actually serving a substantial percentage of low-
income children.
However, since the advent of the Child Care Development Block Grant
(CCDBG) in 1990, Title XX is no longer the primary source of Federal
subsidies for low-income child care. In order to counter the
diminishing Title XX funds used in child care, many States have, after
discussion with USDA, included their reduced Title XX funds in a
funding pool along with other subsidies such as the CCDBG. As you note,
thirteen States currently have no for-profit participation in CACFP
because they have not used Title XX funds to subsidize child care;
other States have very low levels of for-profit participation because
they do not pool Title XX child care funds with other sources of
Federal support for low-income child care.
To ensure that States are aware of the acceptability and advantages
of pooling, the Department plans to reissue guidance on pooling to all
State CACFP directors in the near future.
meals in after school centers
Question. The Child Nutrition Act reauthorization provides snacks
for participants in certain after school centers and full meals to
children under 12. This is becoming more vital as we see more and more
children in--or in need of--after school and off-hour evening programs
while their parents work. Has USDA given any thought to the effects of
expanding the full meal allowance to all children as a way to improve
educational performance and to encourage children ages 12 to 17 to
participate in after-school programs--programs that have proved
successful in keeping these older kids safe and away from criminal
activity?
Answer. The National School Lunch Act as amended by the William F.
Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization Act of 1998, made provisions
for snacks to be provided to children in afterschool programs designed
to meet the needs of the at-risk population through the age of 18. The
snacks would be provided to children in structured after-school
activities through the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the
Child and Adult Care Program (CACFP). FNS has also been working
together with the Department of Education on a variety of programs
geared to meet the needs of children in after-school programs. Under
Secretary Watkins and a number of other agency officials have
participated in a number of after-school rollout events across the
country, and we hope to see many more.
While the law authorizes only a snack in the at-risk component of
NSLP and CACFP, we believe this to be a good start. The snack will
greatly assist schools and non-profit organizations in keeping the
interest of these adolescents through a structured activity coupled
with the nutritious snack. Although we do not provide reimbursement for
a full meal served in at-risk programs, we do encourage after-school
care programs to provide more food to older children to meet their
increased nutritional needs. This being said, we believe an expansion
of the snack program to a full meal would greatly increase program
costs. At this time, the effectiveness of providing snacks for
afterschool programs needs to be evaluated before further changes
should be considered so that any additional adjustments to the program
can be better focused.
wic immunization
Question. The WIC Program has long been one of the most popular and
successful programs in the federal government. In addition to the
direct nutritional benefits, there are other long-term health benefits
from WIC program features such as the WIC Immunization program.
Could you please summarize the status of the WIC-related programs
and provide your views on the value of their long-term benefits?
Answer. The WIC Program recently celebrated its 25th Anniversary.
Since the Program's inception in 1972, population-based research has
increasingly demonstrated the importance of the kinds of
supplementation, education, and referral services the program provides
to both short-and long-term educational and health outcomes.
Research studies have provided a substantial body of evidence
concerning WIC's effects on birth outcomes, health care costs, diet and
diet-related outcomes, infant feeding practices, immunization rates,
and cognitive development.
Birth Outcomes and Health Care Costs
Infants who are born premature or at low birth weight account for a
disproportionate share of health care costs, but studies suggest that
the WIC Program has been playing an important role in improving birth
outcomes and containing costs.
A series of reports published since 1990 have found that pregnant
women who participate in WIC during their pregnancies have
significantly longer pregnancies, fewer premature births, a lower
incidence of moderately low and very low birthweight, fewer infant
deaths, and a greater likelihood of receiving prenatal care relative to
similarly low-income women who do not participate in WIC. Associated
with these improvements in birth outcomes were significant savings in
health care costs.
The 1990 WIC Medicaid Study found that prenatal participation in
WIC by low-income women was associated with savings of $1.77 and $3.13
in Medicaid costs in the first 60 days postpartum for each dollar spent
on WIC.
A more recent study (WIC: Analysis of the 1988 National Maternal
and Infant Health Survey, 1995) found similar relationships among WIC
participation and birth outcomes in a Nationally representative sample
of WIC participants, suggesting that the positive effects of WIC are
not limited to the most disadvantaged segments of the low-income
population
Diet and Diet-Related Outcomes
The WIC Program provides participants with a supplemental food
package high in nutrients that are critical to periods of rapid growth
and development such as pregnancy and early childhood, and which are
also important during postpartum recovery and lactation.
The National WIC Evaluation found that children participating in
WIC had higher mean intakes of iron, vitamin C, thiamin, niacin and
vitamin B6, without an increase in food energy intake, indicating an
increase in the nutrient density of the diet.
Other studies have documented reductions in iron deficiency anemia
associated with WIC, and an increase in fruit and vegetable consumption
among WIC participants who received Farmers' Market coupons through
WIC.
Infant Feeding Practices
The American Academy of Pediatrics currently recommends that
infants be fed breastmilk or an iron-fortified infant formula from
birth to 12 months of age, and that other foods not be introduced until
the infant is four to six months of age. Introduction of cow's milk in
the first year of life is associated with intestinal bleeding, anemia,
and allergies.
Two FNS studies to date (WIC Breastfeeding Report, 1992 and WIC
Infant Feeding Practices Study, 1997) have found that overall rates of
breastfeeding initiation among WIC participants are below Healthy
People 2000 and 2010 goals, consistent with their more disadvantaged
socioeconomic status. However, both studies found that those who
receive breastfeeding advice and support from WIC are more likely to
breastfeed than similarly low-income women who do not receive such
advice and support.
WIC also increases the likelihood of appropriate feeding among non-
breastfeeding women. The National WIC Evaluation found that WIC infants
were significantly more likely to be fed infant formula than controls.
They were also significantly less likely to be fed whole cow's milk in
the first year of life. More recent data from the 1988 National
Maternal and Infant Health Survey also found that WIC infants were less
likely to be fed cow's milk than eligible non participants. The WIC
Infant Feeding Practices Study (1997) found that early introduction of
cow's milk is not a common problem among WIC mothers. It also found
that women who received infant feeding advice from WIC were less likely
than others to introduce cereal into their infants' diets
inappropriately early.
Immunization Rates and Regular Source of Medical Care
Over the last several decades, vaccines have significantly reduced
the number of people contracting life-threatening illnesses such as
typhoid, measles, and polio. However, immunization rates are lower
among low-income individuals. A regular schedule of immunizations is
prescribed for children from birth to two years of age, which coincides
with the period in which many low-income children participate in WIC.
The National WIC Evaluation found significantly improved rates of
childhood immunization and of having a regular source of medical care
associated with WIC participation. Since then, emphasis on immunization
status assessment, education, and referral have increased.
Cognitive Development
Cognitive development influences school achievement and behavior.
The National WIC Evaluation found that by ages 4 to 5 years,
children enrolled in WIC prenatally had better vocabulary scores, and
children enrolled in WIC after the first year of life had significantly
better memory for numbers.
In summary, the evidence indicates that WIC facilitates the receipt
of timely and appropriate immunizations and prenatal care, assists in
the development of healthy eating habits for pregnancy and for life,
prevents poor birth outcomes, and reduces anemia and other dietary
problems. In doing so, WIC prevents problems that are known to hinder
early learning and long-term educational outcomes. It may also play an
early role in the prevention and management of debilitating conditions
such as cancer and heart disease that often strike adults in later
years, and which have been increasingly linked to diet.
food stamp program--effects of welfare reform
Question. We see in USDA's budget materials that Food Stamp
participation is falling while requests for the WIC program continue to
climb. How do you account for the fall in one program and an increase
in the other?
Answer. The Food Stamp Program is an entitlement program designed
to respond to changing needs during times of economic expansion and
contraction. Legislative changes in eligibility criteria affect
participation levels from one year to another, and people who are
eligible for food stamps must also choose to apply for them.
Food stamp participation has fallen dramatically, by 9.7 million
persons between March 1994, the peak, and February 1999, the latest
data we have. Part of this drop can be explained by the strength of the
economy and the success of welfare reform, which has helped to move
families from welfare to work. Part of the drop is due to new
restrictions on the participation of legal immigrants and able-bodied
unemployed adults without dependent children.
But other factors may also be at work. Between 1995 and 1997, food
stamp participation fell five times as fast as poverty, a sign that the
nutritional needs of some low-income people may be going unmet. The
number of people in poverty fell by 850,000 over this period while the
number of food stamp participants fell by 4.4 million, suggesting that
many poor families have left the program despite their continuing
eligibility.
Unlike the Food Stamp Program, participation in the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
increased from 6.5 million in fiscal year 1994 to 7.4 million in fiscal
year 1998. WIC serves a different population, with families with
incomes of up to 185 percent of the poverty line eligible.
As the economy has improved in recent years, the number of persons
estimated to be eligible for WIC has declined somewhat. Yet, there are
still many unserved eligible mothers, infants and children. Our best
estimates indicate that current participation is more than 1 million
persons below the number eligible to participate.
Question. To what extent are these changes results of Welfare
Reform?
Answer. From 1994 to 1997, over 800,000 legal permanent residents
and 500,000 ABAWDS left the food stamp roles. The numbers, however, do
not reflect the impact of immigrant restorations and new Employment and
Training funds in Agriculture Research. To the best of our knowledge,
no one has yet been able to determine what percent of the drop in food
stamp participation is attributable directly to the success of welfare
reform in moving people from welfare to work. In January 1998, the
Congressional Budget Office observed that the rapid decline in food
stamp caseload was something of a mystery. The same can be said today.
While several contributing factors are easily identified, including the
success of welfare-to-work efforts, the relative importance of these
factors has so far resisted quantification.
Question. What special management and/or budgetary problems is USDA
experiencing in the administration of the Food Stamp, WIC, and other
programs as a result of Welfare Reform?
Answer. In addition to the direct impact of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA)
on the Food Stamp Program (FSP), there are a number of management
issues that resulted from the Act's elimination of the Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, and the creation of the
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program:
--Ensuring FSP Access.--Since passage of PRWORA, Food Stamp caseloads
have fallen more quickly than can be explained fully by the
changes in eligibility rules, the strength of the economy and
the success of welfare reform. The drop in FSP participation,
which significantly exceeds the decline in the poverty rate,
suggests that many poor families have left the program despite
their continuing eligibility. Problems related to the
transition to TANF may be a factor; the TANF emphasis on moving
people off cash assistance may have inadvertently reduced Food
Stamp Program participation. Some families who leave TANF for
work may not be aware that they still may be eligible for food
stamps; however, we did detect limited instances of local
departments implementing restrictive procedures in two urban
areas. In each such instance, USDA worked closely with the
State and local agencies involved to review the situation and
to assure that corrective measures were implemented.
--Administrative Cost Offset.--Soon after passage of PRWORA, Congress
recognized that States might charge the FSP for administrative
costs that were previously paid by AFDC and grandfathered into
the TANF grant amount. As a result, Congress enacted an
administrative offset provision to prevent ``double payment''
of these costs by the Federal government. For fiscal years 1999
through 2002, FNS will reduce Federal amounts otherwise paid to
States for administrative costs of the FSP by amounts HHS
determined were grandfathered into the TANF grant. The agency
began implementing this provision on April 1,1999.
--FSP/TANF Conformity.--FNS finds increasing interest from States to
make FSP rules conform to TANF rules--which vary from State to
State--or to make FSP rules support TANF work philosophy. In
certain cases, States have been given the opportunity to do so.
For example, States can conform some of their sanction policies
to match TANF sanctions; 7 States have decided to reduce FSP
benefits for non-compliance with TANF rules. While this option
gives States additional flexibility, it also adds to
administrative complexity and burden at the Federal level. Many
conforming changes proposed by States increase Federal costs,
or adversely effect household eligibility.
--Quality Control.--One important FSP/TANF conformity issue is
quality control. Under TANF, States are no longer required to
administer a quality control system to measure benefit
accuracy; in addition, TANF requires new measures of State
performance. States have expressed concerns about operating
quality control for the food stamps alone, and have suggested
that FNS consider new performance measures that are integrated
with the TANF requirements for new measurement systems.
--Public Charge Issues.--Implementation of welfare reform legislation
has raised questions about whether non-citizens who participate
in Food Stamps, Child Nutrition and WIC programs are ``public
charges''--non-citizens who must rely on the U.S. government
for support. Public charge status potentially can result in
deportation, denial of entry into the United States, or denial
of changes in alien status.
Working with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), FNS
has determined and communicated to State program cooperators that
participation in Food Stamps, Child Nutrition and WIC programs does not
render a non-citizen a public charge. This FNS policy is based on
interim guidance from the INS, which is in the process of issuing more
formal guidance. However, it is evident that Federal and State
governments must continue to work to communicate and educate at local
grassroots levels to assure that civil law groups, program operators,
advocates, universities, and participants themselves all fully
understand that alien status has no bearing on eligibility for Food
Stamps, Child Nutrition or WIC programs, and that such participation
does not constitute a public charge issue.
--Indian Tribal Issues.--TANF permits Indian tribes to directly
administer TANF. Tribes are beginning to administer TANF and as
a result FNS is seeing more interest from tribes in the
administration of the FSP as well. FNS is considering how to
respond to this interest, given that the Food Stamp Act allows
tribal administration of the FSP only if States cannot
administer the program.
Question. Currently, the State of Wisconsin is requesting you to
exercise waiver authority provided by Welfare Reform that would allow
the state to privatize certain elements of the Food Stamp program? What
is the status of this request?
Answer. The State of Wisconsin submitted its waiver on August 5,
1998. On October 5, 1998, FNS requested clarification from the State
about a number of program, finance, and technology issues. Our letter
also requested clarification about how the State would evaluate the
demonstration project. The State's initial request did not include a
research design describing how the demonstration would be evaluated. At
the State's request, we have participated in several conference calls
to assist the State in its development of a research design. The State
submitted its research design on March 1, 1999. We are in the final
stages of reviewing the waiver and will be providing the State with a
final answer soon.
Question. Have similar waivers for other states been granted? Why
or why not?
Answer. FNS has not approved any waiver allowing a State to
privatize the Food Stamp Program's certification and eligibility
determination process. One demonstration waiver request from the State
of Arizona was denied December, 1998, because FNS determined the
State's request did not ensure program access for food stamp applicants
and recipients. More specifically, the request did not provide adequate
justification to waive the requirement for the use of merit employees
(public) in the certification process that results in the final
determination of program eligibility. FNS can waive Food Stamp Act
requirements to test alternative methods that would further improve
administration and meet the nutrition assistance goals of the Food
Stamp Program.
To date, FNS has denied one waiver request (Arizona) and is in the
process of reviewing a demonstration waiver request from the State of
Wisconsin. The State of Florida submitted a demonstration waiver
request to FNS January, 1998. FNS is waiting for a response to our
request for clarification on a number of issues. Finally, the State of
Texas sought to privatize the Food Stamp Program's certification
process Statewide. The State of Texas was not seeking a demonstration
waiver request. The Administration advised the State that the Food
Stamp (and Medicaid) certification process must, by law, be conducted
by public employees. Question. The Washington Post reported last month
that welfare reform has resulted in a certain ``chilling effect'' among
certain parts of our population, especially immigrants who are eligible
for benefits, as a reason for the decline in program utilization.
Question. Is that the case with the Food Stamp Program?
Answer. Restrictions on participation by legal immigrants may have
deterred participation by their children, many of whom retained
eligibility for food stamps. Between September 1996 and September 1997,
participation among U.S.-born children living with their legal
immigrant parents fell significantly faster than participation among
children living with native-born parents. During this period, the
number of participating U.S.-born children living with legal immigrants
fell by 37 percent, versus 15 percent of children living with native-
born parents. The source of data for this is the Food Stamp Program
Quality Control data.
studies and evaluations
Question. For the past couple of years, the Studies and Evaluation
functions of the Food and Nutrition Service have been placed with the
Economic Research Service. Is there proper coordination between the
nutrition programs and other USDA agencies regarding information?
Answer. The Food and Nutrition Service and the Economic Research
Service (ERS) have made a good faith effort to create a practical study
agenda that responds to the operational needs of the Nutrition
Assistance Programs. This effort helped shape some of ERS' funding
decisions and resulted in an agreement between the two agencies that
allows FNS to pursue some of our operational study priorities with ERS
funding support. However, because the agencies have fundamentally
different research goals and methods, the agency firmly believes that
effective program management can best be supported by locating the
studies and evaluation functions within FNS. This will ensure tat
important policy issues in FNS programs are addressed in the agenda.
Effective program management requires a strong study and evaluation
function that is sensitive and responsive to emerging policy issues and
the needs of program operators. This is best achieved by maintaining
such a function within the agency responsible for Federal Nutrition
Assistance Programs. While both FNS and ERS have important roles to
play in developing research that supports the FNCS mission, managing
the right kind of applied studies and evaluations requires the program
expertise, sensitivity to evolving policy issues, and relationships
with multiple stakeholders that can only be developed and sustained
within FNS.
Question. Secretary Watkins, would you like to comment on reasons
for which these activities should be returned to the Food and Nutrition
Service?
Answer. In a nutshell, I firmly believe that effective program
management requires a strong study and evaluation function that is
sensitive and responsive to emerging policy issues and the needs of
program operators. This is best achieved by maintaining the study and
evaluation function within the agency responsible for critical
Nutrition Assistance Programs.
Restoration of FNS study and evaluation funding is critical to the
effective management, administration, and oversight of Federal
Nutrition Assistance Programs. Lawmakers, Federal and State
policymakers and program operators need access to high-quality,
practical research findings grounded in the experience of program
operators. Managing the right kind of applied studies and evaluations
requires the program expertise, sensitivity to evolving policy issues,
and relationships with multiple stakeholders that can only be developed
and sustained within FNS.
The ability to establish and carry-out the study agenda is an
essential tool in managing the nutrition programs under my
jurisdiction. The importance of effective strategic planning for
results requires timely data and analysis. Under the current
arrangements, the research foundation for strategic planning, problem
definition, policy change and innovation rests in another mission area
within USDA. This division between research and program operations has
made management of program improvements and ongoing operations
significantly more difficult.
nutrition, education and training program (net)
Question. One of the things that the Child Nutrition Act
reauthorization did not do last year was to return the Nutrition,
Education, and Training (NET) program as a mandatory item.
Consequently, no funding was provided for NET in fiscal year 1999.
Please describe the effect this lack of funding has had on the
administration of feeding programs this year.
Answer. Because there has generally been no funding for NET
activities this year, the traditional support that NET has provided to
the programs has been unavailable. While we do not have conclusive
data, the information available to us suggests that training and
technical assistance efforts have been greatly diminished due to the
lack of funding, and if funding is not restored as soon as possible,
the positive impact of NET will cease to exist and the infrastructure
that has taken years to build will dissipate. For these reasons, it is
vitally important that the program receive the minimal funding
requested in the President's budget and that a solution to permanent
funding for NET be found.
Question. Please explain the primary reasons this funding should be
restored.
Answer. NET performs an extremely valuable service to the Child
Nutrition Programs by providing a link at the State level for Federal
training and technical assistance efforts. Moreover, NET enables States
to tailor materials and assistance specifically to the needs of their
local operators. Finally, by making grants available to local
operators, NET is able to support creative initiatives at the local
level for a modest investment. In short, NET provides a significant
complement to other programs, such as Team Nutrition, which are
intended to help local professionals plan and prepare meals which are
both nutritious and appealing.
Question. I have noted from time to time, public announcements in
various locations that up to 25 percent of the areas children go to bed
hungry every night. These announcements are usually associated with
appeals for contributions to food banks or some other form of food
assistance outlet. Still, given the level of assistance provided
through USDA and other federal, state, local, and charitable
organizations. I am struck by what seems a very high percentage of
children in the United States living in this condition. Please provide
information relating to the status of hunger in the United States,
especially among the young, elderly, and other vulnerable populations
and the level to which USDA programs are meeting those needs.
Answer. Despite America's ability to produce more food than it can
consume, food insecurity and hunger still exists. In September 1997, on
the occasion of the first National Summit on Food Recovery and
Gleaning, we released the results of USDA's comprehensive effort to
measure the extent of hunger as commonly understood by most Americans.
Our estimates are based on the pattern of responses among about 45,000
households in a supplement to the Current Population Survey (a
Nationally representative sample selected and interviewed by the Bureau
of the Census).
The results tell us that hunger existed among persons in 4.2
million households, about 4.1 percent of all households, at some time
during the year ending in April 1995. Not all households are equally
likely to experience hunger. A larger proportion of households with
children (5.3 percent) and a smaller proportion of households with
elderly (1.9 percent) experienced hunger. Black and Hispanic households
with children were about twice as likely to experience hunger as their
White counterparts. Households headed by single women were four times
more likely to experience hunger than households headed by married
couples. And the chance of experiencing hunger increased as income
fell.
The Nation's Nutrition Assistance Programs--food stamps, school
meals, WIC--are in the front lines of the fight to end hunger and
improve nutrition. More than 18 million people receive food stamps,
over 26 million receive a school lunch, and over 7 million women,
infants, and children receive supplemental foods. But everyone can and
should play a role. Earlier this year, Secretary Glickman unveiled his
Community Food Security Initiative to create partnerships that will
help communities help themselves, to work at the grass roots to weed
out hunger.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
STATEMENT OF JANE E. HENNEY, M.D., COMMISSIONER
ACCOMPANIED BY:
MICHAEL A. FRIEDMAN, M.D., DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR OPERATIONS
ROBERT J. BYRD, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR MANAGEMENT AND SYSTEMS,
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
DENNIS P. WILLIAMS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
OPENING REMARKS
Senator Cochran. Our next panel this morning is from the
Food and Drug Administration. We're pleased to welcome the
Commissioner, Dr. Jane Henney. Also with the Commissioner, we
have Dennis Williams, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget of
the Department of Health and Human Services; Dr. Michael A.
Friedman, Deputy Commissioner for Operations; and Robert J.
Byrd, Deputy Commissioner for Management and Systems, and FDA's
Chief Financial Officer.
Earlier this year, the committee held a food safety hearing
at which Dr. Henney and others appeared to help us consider the
budget request as it related to food safety initiatives and our
effort to make sure that a healthy wholesome food supply
continues to be available to America's consumers.
FDA has a very important role to play in that, and
important statutory responsibilities, along with the Department
of Agriculture and other agencies. So, we had that hearing
already. Today's hearing will look at other obligations and
activities of the FDA that are funded in this budget request.
We're aware of a lot of the initiatives of this agency. Its
responsibility extends from medical devices to animal drugs to
blood products. Not only does it regulate these domestic
products, but it also has the responsibility of monitoring
imports of these same products to ensure their safety and
effectiveness for the public's use and consumption.
Dr. Henney, welcome. We ask you to make whatever comments
and description of the budget request that you think will be
helpful to our committee. Thank you very much.
Dr. Henney. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am
truly honored to address you as the Commissioner of Food and
Drugs. It's a privilege today to present the agency's plans and
expectations as reflected in the administration's proposed
budget for fiscal year 2000.
I would also like to take this opportunity to share with
you my thoughts on where I hope to lead the Food and Drug
Administration, both the tasks that I believe are most urgently
demanding the agency's attention and perhaps as important, my
approach to these tasks which emphasizes a commitment to
heighten effectiveness and an openness to our constituencies.
Many of the things that I remembered about FDA's dedication
to the health and safety of Americans have not changed since I
left the agency several years ago but I am reminded on nearly a
daily basis how much has changed since I was last here.
The FDA Modernization Act, the administration's reinventing
government initiatives and the Prescription Drug User Fee Act
have triggered significant changes in many of the agency's
processes and outcomes.
One of the most important changes that has followed the FDA
Modernization Act is a renewed commitment to listen and learn
from those affected by FDA regulations--consumers, patients and
the industry. I firmly believe that we must seek out and listen
to the views of all.
My early focus has also been on an issue within the agency.
As I promised in my confirmation testimony, I have conducted a
reorganization study of the office of the commissioner. And, as
a result, I have realigned certain functions within the
commissioner's office and moved other functions to the centers.
The steps I am taking will reduce the size of the office of
commissioner by approximately 12 percent while moving those
resources closer to where the programmatic work of the agency
is most appropriately conducted.
However, I am here today to request your support for a
substantial increase in FDA's budget, indeed, the largest
requested increase in the agency's history.
This request is intended to allow us to begin to rebuild
our capabilities, to strengthen our science base, the
foundation of sound regulatory decisions, and to continue
several long-range high priority programs that are vital for
the protection of the public health.
As large as this budget request is, it provides only the
first steps toward rebuilding an effective agency able to carry
out its basic responsibilities and to respond to emerging
public health problems.
Among those priorities, number one, is the full
implementation of the FDA Modernization Act. I am committed to
the full and effective implementation of this law both in its
letter and spirit. Recognizing the priority that Congress gave
to enactment of the FDA Modernization Act, the FDA has devoted
unprecedented resources to implementing the new statute within
the timeframe set forth in the Act.
The agency has completed over 80 FDA modernization actions
and has met nearly all of its statutory deadlines at the same
time continuing to perform the other important tasks that the
American people have come to expect from us.
As directed by the Act, FDA has undertaken a comprehensive
analysis of what needs to be done to meet the agency's
statutory obligation. FDA has identified three programmatic
areas that must be addressed beginning with the fiscal year
2000 budget in order to meet statutory obligations and to
provide the level of public health protection expected by
American consumers.
These three areas are injury reporting, product safety
assurance and pre-market application review.
With respect to injury reporting, at present no integrated
system for the reporting, monitoring and evaluation of all FDA
regulated product related injuries currently exists. Therefore,
the administration is requesting a total of $15.3 million to
begin critically needed improvements to the FDA injury
reporting system.
With respect to product safety assurance, FDA is
responsible for monitoring the safety and quality of a rapidly
growing number of increasingly complex products from domestic
and foreign sources.
FDA's ability to meet this responsibility through
inspections and enforcement actions even in conjunction with
its state partners has significantly declined. The agency is,
therefore, requesting $52.2 million in fiscal year 2000 to
increase its inspectional and enforcement capabilities.
Third, pre-market application review. Although FDA product
review times in programs benefiting from user fees have shown
dramatic improvements, other categories of product reviews for
which we did not receive user fees continue to suffer from
unacceptably long review times.
While we will continue to undertake management initiatives
to attempt to meet these deadlines, the administration is
asking for $28 million in both new appropriated funds and new
added user fees to improve review times for food additive
petition reviews, food contact substantive reviews and the more
complex of the medical device reviews.
A second area of major priority for the agency is to
strengthen the science base of the agency. I believe this is an
urgent issue. The increasing investments made in both basic and
applied research by the National Institutes of Health and the
pharmaceutical, biotech and medical device industries will
result in a burgeoning growth of new products.
FDA must have the scientific sophistication necessary to
understand and adequately and properly evaluate these products.
With respect to a third area of high priority, as you have
already mentioned, Mr. Chairman, I did appear before this
committee on March 16th to address food safety issues.
The agency did receive additional appropriations for food
safety in fiscal year 1998 and 1999 and it has used these funds
to lay a solid foundation for improving our food safety
programs. Our fiscal year 2000 budget request includes $30
million for food safety activities.
A fourth area is the safety of the blood supply. Each year
more than 3.5 million Americans receive blood from volunteer
donors. While blood and blood derivatives can be life saving,
blood products can pose risk to patients. At the same time,
shortages of blood can be life-threatening.
The administration is requesting $6.2 million for FDA's
blood safety initiative as part of the overall increase of
$52.2 million which as I mentioned before is requested for
product safety assurance.
A fifth area is tobacco. The administration recently has
renewed its commitment to reducing young people's use of
tobacco products. We are pleased that the Supreme Court has
agreed to hear the case regarding FDA's regulation of tobacco.
Our budget request before you includes a $34 million increase
in funding for our tobacco program.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee,
FDA is an agency that has prided itself on being a can-do
agency. But it is clear that the agency can't do everything
without additional resources. The funds that we are asking you
to appropriate in this budget will make great strides towards
moving us toward these goals.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I make a public commitment to you today that if we are
given these funds we will spend them wisely and well.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jane E. Henney
introduction
Mr. Chairman, members of Congress, ladies and gentlemen, my name is
Jane Henney. I am honored to address you as the Commissioner of Food
and Drugs. It is my privilege today to present the Agency's plans and
expectations as reflected in the Administration's proposed budget for
fiscal year 2000. I also would like to take this opportunity to share
with you my thoughts on where I hope to lead the Food and Drug
Administration in the coming months: both the tasks that I believe most
urgently demand the Agency's attention, and perhaps as important, my
approach to those tasks, which emphasizes a commitment to heightened
effectiveness and an openness to our constituencies.
Let me begin by offering a few reflections on my first five months
as Commissioner. Fortunately, many of the things that I remembered
about FDA's dedication to the health and safety of Americans have not
changed since I left the Agency several years ago. The FDA is filled
with energetic, hardworking, talented people. There are strong
traditions throughout the Agency of protecting and promoting the public
health. These are traditions that I will seek to preserve. I also am
reminded, on a daily basis, of how much has changed since I was last
here. The FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA or the Act), the
Administration's Reinventing Government initiatives, the Animal Drug
Availability Act, and the Prescription Drug User Fee Act have triggered
significant changes in many of the Agency's processes and outcomes.
One of the most important changes that has followed FDAMA is a
renewed commitment to listening to those affected by FDA regulation:
consumers, patients, and the industry. FDAMA directs the Agency to be
in touch with all of its constituencies. I firmly believe that we must
seek out and listen to the views of all. This is critical to the
continued effectiveness of the Agency. As an old English proverb says,
``Only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches.''
As I will explain in more detail later, the Agency has formally
undertaken its statutory obligation to consult with stakeholders. In
the same spirit, I, too, have undertaken in my first months in office
to meet with members of the regulated industry, consumers, and the
academic community. I have visited seven FDA field offices and have
plans to visit nearly all of our districts throughout the country
during the coming year. These visits have allowed me not only to meet
and hear directly from FDA's field staff, but to meet with important
constituencies in each district, as well. For example, when visiting
our district office in Denver, I met with the Southwest Medical Device
Grassroots Coalition, a group of device manufacturers. While in
Chicago, I held an open forum to listen to the concerns of drug,
device, and food manufacturers, State officials, academics, and
consumer representatives. And, while visiting our district offices in
Cincinnati and Miami, I met with a wide range of consumer groups,
including groups representing the elderly, persons with HIV, and
minority communities.
I also am committed to fostering our co-operation with other
federal and State agencies. In Philadelphia and Chicago, I met with
local transportation officials and Customs representatives to tour
shipping and airport cargo terminals that serve as major ports of entry
for such products as fresh fruits and vegetables, and saw first-hand
where and how FDA investigators and our State and federal partners
examine incoming products. And I met with the heads of the Departments
of Agriculture and Health of Ohio, Kentucky, and Florida to discuss our
partnership with the States on many important issues, including
mammography and food safety.
I also have used my travels to the District Offices to meet with
representatives from the academic community with whom I intend the
Agency to form stronger alliances. I am particularly interested in
harnessing the intellectual capabilities of the academic community and
other science-based agencies. For example, on my trip to the Cincinnati
District Office, I asked the Dean of the University of Cincinnati
Medical School to tour our laboratory facilities with me. Exchange is a
two way street--opportunities for health professionals, students, and
faculty members alike exist and our facilities and likewise our
scientists will benefit from access to the great educational research
institutions in this country. I also visited Chicago's National Center
for Food Safety and Technology (NCFST) at the Moffett campus, a major
food safety research and education center established in 1987 by FDA
and the Illinois Institute of Technology, with participation from the
food industry and the University of Illinois. The NCFST, which is
currently working on a wide range of projects relevant to FDA's food
safety initiative, serves as an outstanding model of collaboration
between industry, academia, and government.
In my first five months, my focus also has been on an issue closer
to home. I know that the Subcommittee is concerned about the size and
structure of the Office of the Commissioner. I have undertaken a formal
review of the Office with the goal of creating a more streamlined,
efficient office that will provide leadership without compromising
programmatic functions. I can assure the Subcommittee that I will keep
you informed as I make decisions about specific changes in the Office
of the Commissioner.
That is a thumbnail sketch of the last five months. Today, the
Administration is asking for a substantial increase in FDA's budget,
indeed, the largest requested increase in the Agency's history. This
budget request is intended to allow us to begin to rebuild our
capabilities, to strengthen our science base, the foundation of sound
regulatory decisions, and to continue several long-range, high priority
programs that are vital for the protection of the public health. As
large as this budget request is, it provides only the first steps
toward rebuilding an effective Agency able to carry out its basic
responsibilities and to respond to emerging public health problems.
priorities
Implementation of FDAMA
I will now discuss the substantive issues that I intend to make
priorities during my term as Commissioner. First, and most important to
me, is the implementation of FDAMA. The passage of FDAMA was the
culmination of several years of work by Members and staff from both the
House and the Senate and from both sides of the aisle. The Act's final
text represented countless hours of negotiation involving Congressional
staff, the Administration, the regulated industry, and representatives
from consumer, patient, and health professional organizations. The
result of this process was sweeping legislation that touches on nearly
every facet of the Agency's mission and thus impacts nearly every
citizen in the country.
Let me emphasize, as I did in my confirmation testimony, that I am
committed to the full and effective implementation of FDAMA--both the
letter and spirit of the law. I embrace the principle that the best
organizations find ways to constantly improve themselves. Such
organizations re-examine their processes, tasks, and goals, and use
their daily experiences to refine their efforts in approaching the next
task. FDAMA provides the Agency with valuable opportunities to conduct
such a re-examination and challenges us to change. Making continual
changes based on past performance with an eye on the goal of
improvement is essential to FDA's effectiveness. As someone once said,
``Every time history repeats itself, the price goes up.'' While FDA has
many great traditions, it can never afford to stop evolving in response
to the diverse and changing needs of those it serves.
Recognizing the priority the Congress gave to enactment of FDAMA,
FDA in turn has devoted unprecedented resources to implementing the new
statute within the time frames set forth in the Act. As you know, the
passage of FDAMA imposed a daunting array of challenges on the Agency.
FDAMA explicitly required that the Agency complete over 60 regulations,
guidance documents, notices, reports, and other tasks, including
studies or lists. Many of the statutory requirements had specific
deadlines for completion. In addition, in order to have full and proper
implementation that was consistent with the letter and spirit of the
law, FDA needed to make numerous conforming changes to existing
regulations, and to issue guidance to clarify new provisions. The
Agency has already completed over 80 FDAMA-related actions. In
completing this impressive amount of work, the Agency met nearly all of
its statutory deadlines--while continuing to perform all of the other
important tasks that the American people have come to expect.
These implementation tasks were not simply numerous, but important.
The Act addresses everything from the evidentiary standard for devices
to the review process for health claims on food. Some of these
provisions clarify longstanding Agency practices or procedures, others
codify important practices to assure their full and consistent
application, and still others establish important new programs for the
Agency to administer.
Some of the high profile initiatives completed within this past
year include:
--Guidance to industry on the streamlined development and approval
process for new therapies for serious and life-threatening
conditions;
--Publication of a final rule on the information that manufacturers
can offer about the uses of medicines that are not approved.
--Implementation of a process to obtain financial incentives for
conducting studies on the use of drugs in children;
--Development of exemptions from pre-market notification for certain
low-risk medical devices;
--Clarification of the procedures for administrative appeals of
decisions made by the Agency; and
--Guidance to industry on ``health claims'' that can be made for
foods based on authoritative statements from scientific bodies.
Aside from the completion of the tasks listed above, the Agency has
worked to ensure that those affected by FDAMA, both inside and outside
the Agency, have received appropriate information about the new law.
FDA has held internal training sessions, as well as a series of public
meetings to discuss specific provisions in the law. We also have
received many suggestions from our stakeholders on implementation.
As I mentioned earlier, section 406(b) of FDAMA required FDA to
consult with our stakeholders prior to submitting the Agency's plan for
statutory compliance with the Act to Congress last November. In order
to comply with this requirement, FDA reached out to the general public
and to those segments of society most directly affected by FDA to
solicit their views on how the Agency can best meet its public health
mission. FDA held eight public meetings to hear the views of our
stakeholders on how we could do our job better. The Agency heard from
more than 75 different speakers at meetings attended by more than 600
people.
We heard several consistent messages from those who participated,
including the following:
--FDA should assure that its processes are equitable, open, and
transparent;
--FDA should collaborate with other government agencies, academia,
and international organizations to better coordinate the
protection of the public health; and
--FDA should be commended for reengineering its processes to make
them even more efficient and effective, and should continue
these activities, as well as efforts to reduce the burdens of
complying with regulatory procedures.
This is good advice. But, to paraphrase La Rochefoucauld, it is not
enough to receive good advice; we must also have the wisdom to profit
from it. In this case, the Agency not only listened carefully to the
advice it received, but took that advice seriously in developing a
realistic plan for complying with our statutory obligations. The
completed plan was published in the Federal Register last November.
I would like to highlight briefly one of the statutory obligations
that we have not been successful in meeting, however, and that we are
unlikely to be able to meet without additional resources. The statute
requires FDA to conduct inspections every two years of establishments
that make prescription drugs and higher risk medical devices. FDA's
ability to conduct these inspections has fallen considerably over the
past few years, even as consumer expectations concerning the safety of
the products they use continues to rise. As a result of the healthy
economy, many new businesses have been formed in the past five years,
increasing dramatically the number of establishments to be inspected.
Between 1990 and 1998, the number of firms to be inspected rose from
89,000 to 114,000, an increase of 26 percent. To raise the frequency of
inspections of all product areas, and to improve the quality of FDA's
laboratory capabilities, bringing FDA closer to conformance with its
statutory obligations, the Administration is requesting $52.2 million.
FDAMA also included the reauthorization of the Prescription Drug
User Fee Act of 1992 (PDUFA). PDUFA is among the most successful Agency
programs in history. Within its first five years of implementation, the
increased resources provided by PDUFA to hire additional review staff
has resulted in cutting the average review times for new drugs in half,
without compromising the high standard that FDA has traditionally
applied in weighing the risks and benefits of drugs and thereby in
determining their safety and effectiveness. PDUFA is widely regarded by
Congress, industry and patient groups as an example of how to achieve
success through funding increases tied to ambitious performance goals.
I will work to make sure that the Agency continues this performance
under PDUFA for the next five years.
I would like to take a moment to update you on the improvements
made in product review times in fiscal year 1998. The Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (CDER) increased the speed of its review in all
user fee drug categories. The median total time to approval for new
original drugs was 12 months, compared with 14.4 months in 1997. For
priority drugs, that is, those drugs considered to be of potentially
exceptional public health value, the median approval time was 6.4
months. Several important drugs were approved in 6 months or less,
including efavirenz for treatment of HIV and AIDS (just over 3 months),
and fomivirsen for treatment of CMV retinitis (4\1/2\ months).
Approval times also decreased for the most important categories of
biological products. For products containing a substance or combination
of substances never before approved for the U.S. market, the median
approval time dropped from 12 months in 1997 to 11.5 months in 1998.
Moreover, the median approval time for priority products dropped to 6.9
months, from 8.9 months in 1997. Among the important new products
approved under the new Fast Track program were Trastuzumab, a new
breast cancer therapy, and Etanercept, a new treatment for severe
rheumatoid arthritis. These two therapies are also among a growing
number of bioengineered products that are approved each year,
demonstrating how the investment in biotechnology is fulfilling its
promise.
Although FDA product review times in programs benefitting from user
fee expenditures have shown dramatic improvements, other categories of
product reviews for which we do not receive user fees have seen some
improvement, but continue to suffer from unacceptably long review
times. Programs for which we do not receive user fees include blood and
blood components, animal drugs, generic drugs, medical devices, and
food additives. Section 406(b) of FDAMA directs the Agency to find ways
to meet the statutory deadlines for review of all product categories.
While we will continue to undertake management initiatives to attempt
to meet these deadlines, we believe that prospects for significant
improvement in review times for these product areas are dim without
additional resources, especially as technology yields more complex
products, developed at a much faster pace. The Administration is
therefore asking for $28 million in both new appropriated funds and new
additive user fees to improve review times in areas of particular
concern: food additive petition reviews, food contact substance
reviews, and medical device reviews.
The increases in the speed of review for products covered by PDUFA,
of which FDA is justifiably proud, raise an important question. In the
quest for more rapid reviews, has the Agency compromised the standards
that govern the approval of new products? The answer is no. FDA has a
critical obligation to the American public to ensure not only that
life-saving drugs and devices are available in a timely way but that
they are safe and effective. Several well-publicized market withdrawals
of new prescription drugs in 1997 and 1998 have led some people to
conclude that faster drug reviews are resulting in the approval of
unsafe products. The products in question were two diet drugs,
dexfenfluramine and fenfluramine (the ``fen'' component of ``fen-
phen,'' a combination fenfluramine and phentermine that was widely used
off-label), terfenadine (Seldane) for treatment of allergies,
mibefradil (Posicor) for treatment of hypertension and chronic stable
angina, and bromfenac (Duract), a painkiller.
Let me assure you that the agency has carefully reviewed these
withdrawals with this question in mind, and has concluded that there is
no relationship between the speed of approval of these products and the
reasons for their withdrawal. Some of these drugs were approved years
ago: fenfluramine in 1973, and terfenadine in 1986. Moreover, FDA's
review shows that, since the advent of PDUFA and more rapid review
times, the percentage of drugs withdrawn from the market has actually
decreased. One important finding of FDA's review of the product
withdrawals was that drug approvals are necessarily made on the basis
of limited information about a few thousand patients given the drug
during clinical trials. Inevitably, a more complete picture of a drug's
toxicity is developed as a drug is administered to a much larger group
of patients after it reaches the market. For this reason, Injury
Reporting is an increasingly crucial component of drug safety
assurance, especially with respect to relatively rare or unpredictable
problems that may not have evidenced themselves completely in the
initial more limited and more rigorous setting of the clinical trials.
The importance of Injury Reporting is also great for products, like
foods and dietary supplements, for which there is no premarket review.
Although product-related injuries are a significant cause of injury and
death in the U.S., no integrated system for the reporting, monitoring,
and evaluation of all FDA regulated product-related injuries currently
exists. Therefore, to reduce the incidence of deaths and disability
resulting from injuries with FDA-regulated products, the Administration
is requesting a total of $15.3 million to begin critically needed
improvements to FDA's Injury Reporting system.
This initial investment will begin to build the foundation for a
modern, integrated system for spontaneous reports. Spontaneous
reporting systems are used to find rare or unexpected types of
injuries. Additional investments will be needed in subsequent years to
make a comprehensive system a reality. To gain a better understanding
of the whole range of injuries from FDA-regulated products, active
surveillance systems based in large health care systems will be needed.
The Agency is not requesting the resources required to develop active
surveillance systems adequate to study the epidemiology of all product-
related injuries, but plans in the future to build a more comprehensive
system upon the groundwork provided by this budget. Funds for limited
implementation of a sentinel site program for medical devices are also
included in the budget request.
As I have already stated, I believe that FDA has accumulated a very
impressive record on implementing FDAMA, especially considering the
ambitious timeframes that had to be met in the first year. You have my
assurance that these efforts will continue as we fully implement of
FDAMA.
Strengthening the Agency's Science Base
My second priority is to strengthen the science base of the Agency.
Sound scientific principles must underpin our decisionmaking and guide
the critical policy decisions that we make. FDA's investigators must
have adequate scientific training to make good decisions in the field.
Our product review teams sit in judgment of applications resulting from
work done by the nation's leading scientists and the review teams must
apply sound, often cutting-edge science to product reviews. This is an
urgent issue. The increasing investments made in both basic and applied
research by the National Institutes of Health and the pharmaceutical,
biotech and medical device industries will inevitably result in a
burgeoning growth of new products that must be reviewed by FDA before
they come to the marketplace. FDA must have the scientific
sophistication necessary to understand and adequately evaluate these
products. I am committed to seeing that our scientific expertise
matches the complexity of the new products moving toward the market,
for our decisions will be only as strong as our expertise.
There is a compelling need for an adequate scientific foundation in
almost all of FDA's activities and for a strong, scientifically-skilled
workforce. First and foremost FDA is a science-based regulatory agency.
It is therefore critical that we invest wisely in those that we recruit
for these tasks. It is also imperative that we have mechanisms and
resources available to see that we maintain a presence in the world of
science. We can ill afford to have our staff become stagnant, for if
this were to occur, our decisions would become inappropriately risk-
averse--or worse--wrong. We will need to pay particular attention to
improving our recruitment and retention of our best scientists and to
leveraging the intellectual power of other science-based governmental
agencies and academia.
The results of a strong science base can have wide-ranging benefits
for the public health. Let me offer a few experiences that illustrate
the importance of ensuring that FDA's scientific capabilities are of
the highest order.
In several cases, scientists at FDA's Center for Devices and
Radiological Health (CDRH) have been able to pinpoint the cause of
reported injuries from medical devices, and in at least one instance,
help correct a product defect, when even the manufacturers were unable
to do so. In the first case, when new small bore catheters were used to
administer continuous spinal anesthetics, patients began to suffer
nerve damage and even paralysis. The cause of these injuries was
unknown until FDA scientists discovered the source of the problem
through laboratory testing and analysis: the slow flow rate through the
small bore catheters decreased mixing of anesthetic with spinal fluid,
causing nerves to be bathed in nerve-damaging concentrations of
anesthetics.
In the second case, a new device used to close holes in the heart
by means of a spring-loaded umbrella inserted into the heart by a
catheter began to cause severe complications when used in children.
Several children required emergency surgery after developing tears in
the structure of their hearts. FDA scientists were able to identify the
role of the device in these complications, and helped the manufacturer
to redesign a safer device by changing the shape of the springs used to
open the umbrella.
In the third case, FDA had been receiving reports of sporadic
implantable cardiodefibrillator and pacemaker failures resulting in
hundreds of problems and three deaths. No one understood the pattern of
the failures in these devices until FDA scientists identified a common
cause: helium was leaking from the body of the pacemaker into the
electronic clock, destroying the vacuum in the clock's timing crystal.
The damage to the clock in turn caused the pacemaker to fail.
Well-qualified and trained scientists can also identify dangerous
products even before they reach the market. Scientists in the Center
for Drug Evaluation and Research were able to prevent a potentially
dangerous drug from entering the U.S. market, because they recognized
that seemingly innocuous laboratory results signaled a high likelihood
that the drug would cause serious liver injury. A new drug application
(NDA) was submitted for Dilevalol, a drug in the usually safe class of
blood pressure drugs known as beta blockers. FDA scientists saw that
the drug had caused several cases of increased liver enzymes associated
with modestly elevated bilirubin. Although these effects were not in
and of themselves harmful, the scientists knew from their training and
experience that such effects predict serious liver injury, which had
not been recognized by the drug's manufacturer. When the manufacturer
reviewed the post-marketing experience with the drug in Portugal,
serious injuries were in fact found, and the drug was withdrawn
worldwide.
Highly trained scientists at CBER familiar with, and able to
improve upon, the latest test methods, also were able to avert the
withdrawal of an important childhood vaccine by demonstrating that an
apparent threat to the safety of the vaccine did not in fact exist. In
the summer of 1995, scientists at the Swiss National Center for
Retroviruses, using a new and highly sensitive assay, detected the
presence of retroviruses in the vaccine for mumps, measles, and rubella
(MMR). Because retroviruses can be highly infectious, the Swiss
government informed the World Health Organization that it was
considering withdrawing the MMR vaccine. This proposed action required
FDA to consider whether to withdraw the MMR vaccine from the American
market. CBER scientists quickly undertook research which showed that
the assay used by the Swiss had detected a form of retrovirus which was
not infectious, thus establishing that the vaccine did not pose a risk
of infection to children. In addition, our scientists have been able to
modify the assay to make it more precise in its ability to discriminate
between true infectious retroviruses and normal cellular enzymatic
activity in a vaccine.
This example also illustrates the global nature of the public
health issues that FDA must address and underscores the importance of
working with our international partners, including the World Health
Organization, to ensure that global standards for marketing new
products and for addressing emerging infectious diseases are as high as
possible.
Other significant scientific contributions that FDA is often alone
in providing, and that must be supported and strengthened, include:
--development of rapid and sensitive methods to analyze foods for
microbial contaminants;
--swift identification of pathogens in the food supply by our field
laboratories, preventing widespread illness;
--development of methods to ensure identity, purity, and potency of
vaccines;
--examination of adverse interactions between drugs that may be
prescribed at the same time,
--evaluation of degradation and molecular changes in implantable
device materials;
--development of risk assessment and risk management models, and
--development of test systems to improve the review of new products
for safety and efficacy.
These examples underscore our need to support the scientific skills
of those entrusted with carrying out FDA's many responsibilities. We
must invest in maintaining and enhancing those skills to ensure that
our decisions and actions continue to be grounded in the best science
and continue to command respect in this country and around the world.
Indeed, we cannot afford to do otherwise.
Food Safety
Another area that I have identified as a high priority is the
safety of our food supply. Last month, I appeared before this
subcommittee to address that portion of our budget. At that hearing,
members of the subcommittee raised several issues to which I would like
to respond briefly today.
The subcommittee questioned the success of our Hazard Analysis and
Critical Control Point (HACCP) system for seafood. We believe that this
program has been a great success despite the fact that some problems
were identified for a majority of the seafood firms in the first year
of implementation. Only 4\1/2\ percent of those inspections were
serious enough to require official action. The seafood industry is a
uniquely complex one, consisting of more than 4,000 domestic seafood
producers--mostly small businesses--processing more than 300 varieties
of seafood from numerous different habitats. Consequently, instant
compliance was never expected. Rather, gradual and steady progress was
the goal. In this respect, the program is on track:
--FDA dramatically increased its inspection frequency of the seafood
industry to at least once a year to provide steady, consistent
feedback to industry regarding HACCP.
--FDA created a seafood HACCP guidance document for the industry that
essentially contains all the agency's knowledge on hazards and
controls. This document is being adopted by other countries.
--FDA has focused on educating firms to understand how to identify
and fix problems in order to accomplish a fundamental cultural
change in the industry.
--The HACCP program has served as a catalyst for the formation of the
Seafood HACCP Alliance, a consortium of Federal and State
agencies, academia, and industry, to develop low cost training
for industry in basic hazards and controls.
The subcommittee also questioned our actions in the area of produce
safety. FDA believes the steps we have taken in this area have
successfully helped to prevent foodborne illness. As with seafood,
improving the safety of produce is extremely complex. The agency must
consider the differing cultivation, harvesting, packaging, and shipping
practices for a wide variety of fruits and vegetables with differing
physiological characteristics to determine what preventative
interventions are appropriate. Unfortunately, our scientific knowledge
in this area is limited. While we are using our food safety dollars to
increase research in this area, we believe that educational activities
will be most productive in preventing foodborne illness at this time.
The agency has taken numerous steps toward our goal of minimizing
foodborne illness associated with fresh produce:
--FDA has developed a guidance document on Good Agricultural
Practices and Good Manufacturing Practices to minimize
microbial hazards in fresh fruits and vegetables. This document
is in the process of being adopted by the CODEX Food Hygiene
Committee as the international standard for produce production.
--FDA has initiated educational programs on production and processing
for domestic and international producers.
--FDA and USDA have jointly undertaken an ambitious research program
for both post- and pre-harvest production of produce.
--FDA and USDA have jointly undertaken a survey of the agricultural
community to better understand current agricultural practices
in order to determine how to maximize public health impact
while minimizing economic impact on the agricultural community.
We have come before this committee for three years in a row asking
for additional funding to protect the public from foodborne illness.
While the diversity of products we regulate make our job a difficult
one, we believe that we have done the best job possible in improving
the safety of the food supply. With the additional funding we have
requested for fiscal year 2000, we will be able to move that much
closer to our goal of putting a strong, science-based food safety
system in place that maximizes public health.
Blood Safety
Each year more than 3\1/2\ million Americans receive blood from
volunteer donors. While blood and blood-derivatives can be life-saving,
blood products can pose risks to patients. Among the most serious of
these risks is the possibility of transmission of undetected infectious
diseases. At the same time, shortages of blood can be life-threatening.
The safety and adequacy of the blood supply and blood products is one
of the highest priorities of the FDA and the Department of Health and
Human Services, and is one of my priorities as well.
FDA already has taken many steps to address this issue. The Agency
has developed a Blood Action Plan to increase the effectiveness of our
scientific and regulatory actions and to ensure greater coordination
with our PHS partners. The Action Plan addresses such issues as (1)
evaluation, scientific investigation, and management of emerging
infections that may pose a threat to the blood supply, (2) reinventing
blood regulations with the goal of simplifying paperwork and moving to
a standards-based approach to blood safety, and (3) the ability to
notify product users in the event of recalls or other situations in
which particular blood products may pose a risk to patients.
FDA also has significantly increased its oversight of the blood
industry. The Agency now inspects all blood facilities at least every
two years, and problem facilities are inspected more often. FDA also
provides the industry with detailed and updated guidance on how to
ensure blood safety, and holds regular workshops for the blood
industry, the academic community, and health care providers.
Several key issues in blood safety still must be addressed. The
technology associated with disease detection in blood donors is
continually improving, but risks to those who receive donated blood and
blood products remain. For a number of serious and life-threatening
infections, including HIV infection, there is a limited period after a
would-be blood donor has been infected in which the infection is not
detectable by available methods. Blood donated during this period can
transmit infection. We must therefore find ways to further reduce the
window period during which infection with HIV and Hepatitis A, B, and C
is undetectable. We also must reduce the risk to patients from
bacterial contamination of blood and from blood bank errors.
One of the greatest threats to the blood supply is posed by unknown
or emerging agents that are not inactivated or removed during
processing. This is an ever-present threat because new infectious
agents that may endanger the blood supply may emerge at any time. FDA
must have a strategy for managing, and the resources to address, each
new infectious agent as it is identified.
Finally, the Agency and the industry must find ways to manage blood
and blood product shortages. Many shortages arise when FDA discovers
violations of quality control procedures or other hazards that result
in manufacturing plant closures or require the removal of products from
the marketplace. The goal of ensuring safe blood and blood products
thus competes with the goal of providing an adequate supply of blood
and blood products, and achieving an appropriate balance is a constant
challenge. The Administration is requesting $6.2 million for FDA's
blood safety initiative, as part of the overall increase of $52.2
million requested for product safety assurance.
Tobacco
The Administration recently has renewed its commitment to reducing
young people's use of tobacco products. Every year over 400,000
Americans die from tobacco-related illnesses, almost all of whom began
use of tobacco as children. A program that successfully keeps tobacco
from children has the potential for unprecedented improvements in
public health. FDA's budget request includes an increase in funding for
its tobacco program to assure progress in all states towards the
President's goal.
The first two provisions of FDA's tobacco rule, a federal minimum
age of purchase and a requirement that retailers check photo
identification, went into effect in 1997. In fiscal year 1997, the FDA
initiated a $4.9 million pilot enforcement program in 10 states,
contracting with state and local governments to conduct compliance
checks of retail outlets that sell tobacco.
In fiscal year 1998, with a new $34 million appropriation for the
tobacco program, FDA built upon the success of the pilot program and
expanded its enforcement and outreach programs to 41 states, plus the
District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. By fiscal year 2000, the
Agency plans to contract with or have an enforcement presence in all 50
states and most territories.
The preliminary results from our enforcement and outreach efforts
are encouraging. In fiscal year 1998, FDA's State partners conducted
over 39,000 compliance checks, including reinspection of those
retailers found to have violated the rule. FDA expects to conduct
approximately 189,000 compliance checks during fiscal year 1999, as new
states begin enforcement efforts. The preliminary violation rate from
over 69,000 checks conducted through March has been approximately 25
percent, ranging from a low of approximately 11 percent to a high of 43
percent. States with low violation rates typically have had their own
very active enforcement efforts in addition to FDA activity. We
anticipate that these rates will vary widely as more states begin
conducting compliance checks for the Agency. Also in fiscal year 1998,
FDA began seeking civil money penalties from those retailers found to
have sold tobacco to minors at least twice.
To assist its enforcement efforts, the Agency launched a multi-
media advertising campaign, including radio, print, and billboard
advertising. A free retailer kit using humorous illustrations and a
folksy approach was created to make it easier for retailers to comply
with the new regulations. The campaign reminds retailers and clerks to
check young people's photo identification and tries to defuse some
customers' resentment towards the new rules and urges them to cooperate
with retailers.
Litigation concerning FDA's assertion of jurisdiction over tobacco
continues in federal court. Following the District Court's 1997
decision upholding FDA's assertion of jurisdiction and the access
provisions of the regulations, the Fourth Circuit issued a decision in
1998 finding both FDA's assertion of jurisdiction and issuance of
regulations invalid. January 19, 1999, the government filed a petition
for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. Under the rules of the
Fourth Circuit and the Supreme Court, the age and ID provisions of the
rule continue in effect, pending Supreme Court review.
For fiscal year 2000, the Administration is seeking a $34 million
increase in the tobacco program. With this increased funding, the
Agency plans to inspect an increased number of retail outlets that sell
tobacco and will intensify its efforts in certain targeted-
demonstration areas. Outreach efforts are planned to be expanded to
include the creation of new billboard material, print, radio and in-
store advertising and the expansion into two new and important media--
television and news weeklies.
Bioterrorism
In an era of global instability, there is growing concern about the
possible deployment of biological and chemical agents by certain third
world countries. FDA has been called upon by the President to help
respond to the threat of bioterrorism. The Agency is in a unique
position to assist in this effort by reviewing products that may be
used to treat illnesses caused by biological and chemical agents, as
well as to assist in the rapid development of diagnostic tools and
treatments for disease outbreaks that could be caused by such weapons.
In fiscal year 2000, FDA is requesting a total of $13.4 million for
this Presidential initiative as part of the Public Health and Social
Services Emergency Fund. Additionally, in fiscal year 1999, there is a
supplemental request to provide FDA $3.3 million in funding to engage
in anti-bioterrorism activities. While this request is not before you,
it is very important to us.
the budget
The President's budget includes an increase of $95.5 million for
injury reporting, product safety assurance, and application review
activities, many of which respond to goals laid out in FDAMA. At the
same time, because of the absorption of pay raise and other
inflationary costs for the past several years, FDA has had to reduce
its staffing substantially, and the increases requested will enable us
to sustain our core public health responsibilities and to add staffing
in key areas where FDA's science base must be strengthened.
This $95.5 million increase includes a request for $20 million for
design and for the first phase of construction of a new District Office
and Laboratory in Irvine, California. This facility not only will
enable us to bring our Los Angeles laboratories up to date, it will
eliminate severe security problems at our present Los Angeles office.
In addition, we are requesting increases totaling $77 million for
the Presidential initiatives on food safety, tobacco, and countering
bioterrorism.
Our total request for fiscal year 2000 is for total spending
authority of $1.35 billion, of which $1.16 billion is for budget
authority, with the remaining $196 million derived from user fees and
other sources. I would like to emphasize that the only new user fees we
are proposing, $17 million for the review of new medical devices, food
additives, and food contact substances, would expand our programs in
these areas, rather than fund current activities. As we know from our
past experience with PDUFA, user fees work best when several principles
are adhered to: 1) Consensus of need by the Congress, industry, and
Administration, 2) The fees are applied to the timely review of
products, and 3) Aggressive but realistic performance goals are set.
The legislation to authorize these fees will be submitted shortly by
the Administration to the Congress. I also would note that there is a
proposed increase of $13.1 million for PDUFA activities under our
current five-year plan for continued improvement in the review of new
drugs. Lastly, we are requesting $3 million in transition costs and
projecting $12.7 million in user fees for the voluntary seafood
inspection program currently operated by the Department of Commerce.
This program is proposed to be transferred to FDA in fiscal year 2000.
A legislative proposal will be submitted to make this a Performance
Based Organization under the Vice President's program for reinventing
government.
I am also pleased to be able to report to you that there is $56
million in the General Services Administration's fiscal year 2000
budget request for design and initial construction of new consolidated
laboratories for FDA at the former Naval facility in White Oak,
Maryland. While facilities are now under construction at College Park,
Maryland, for our headquarters Foods program, FDA's other headquarters
laboratory programs are widely dispersed and in need of state-of-the-
art facilities. The initial phase of construction at White Oak will
provide new laboratories and animal holding space for several of our
human drug laboratories. As additional facilities are constructed in
future years, more of our scientists will be able to utilize the most
up-to-date laboratory technology, and will be able to work together,
permitting the most productive use of the Agency's scientific
resources. Coordination among all of FDA's headquarters programs will
be improved, as will operational efficiency.
conclusion
I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today. It is often said, Mr. Chairman, that FDA is America's most
important consumer protection agency, because it regulates a quarter of
all consumer spending. The products that comprise that trillion dollars
in annual sales are ones we rely on every day--over-the-counter and
prescription drugs, contact lenses, microwave ovens, most of the food
we eat--the list goes on and on. Americans have high expectations for
the safety and reliability of these goods. The industries that make
these products and the scientific advances that fuel their innovations
are vigorous and growing. FDA needs the resources and scientific
expertise to keep up with that growth, or both consumers and industry
will suffer.
FDA is an Agency that has prided itself on being a can do agency.
But it is clear that the Agency can't do everything without additional
resources. We must make sure we can capture and analyze and take
appropriate action on the adverse events that occur each year from
products we regulate. We must be able to inspect the companies that
make those products as the Congress has directed us to do. And all
important new products must get to the market as quickly as possible,
consistent with our mandate to assure safety and effectiveness. The
funds that we are asking you to appropriate in this budget will make
great strides toward moving us toward these goals. I make a public
commitment to you today that, if we are given these funds, we will
spend them wisely and well.
TOBACCO
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Dr. Henney. I had a
group in my office the other day from Mississippi complaining
about the FDA sting operations that are designed to enforce the
rules against selling tobacco to teenagers.
The point they were making to me was in our State of
Mississippi, the attorney general has his own enforcement
program which involves city and county law enforcement
officials. They also have a training program.
Mississippi is one of the states that filed one of the
first suits, maybe the first suit or settled the first suit. So
funds are available for trying to do a better job of curtailing
teenage tobacco use.
And then they tell me there is now an FDA sting operation
or enforcement operation in Mississippi. The first fine is
$250. Subsequent fines can go as high as $15,000. These are
fines that are imposed on store owners, convenience stores, and
service stations that sell gasoline and liquor.
My question is it seems like we're spending a lot of money
and this group is convinced this is a duplicative and wasteful
use of federal funds when there is a state program.
They also tell me the state enforcement officers promptly
advise the store owner of any violation of the rules. The
officer explains to the clerk who was involved what they did
wrong, what they should have done, what the penalties are. If
they do it again, they write a letter to the store owner.
In the case of the FDA operations, they do not notify the
store owners promptly. I am told sometimes it's months that go
by or weeks before the store owner is advised that there has
been a violation. Then the citation is received. There's an
appeals process. They tell me that no one to their knowledge
has had any successful appeal of an FDA citation.
They don't see the point in having the feds down there as
well as the state involving local enforcement officials.
And so I'm passing this on because I asked them to put all
of this in a letter to me so I would understand all of the
complaints that have been submitted to this group. And I pass
that on and ask for your comments.
Dr. Henney. Senator Cochran,
Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate hearing from the group
directly and hope that you will also send along their letter to
me so that we can get a full picture of the extent of their
concerns.
I think that there certainly are differences about the
program. I think that I would be remiss if I did not mention
that our work with the state coordinator in Mississippi
together with the state attorney general has been one of the
most positive relationships that we have had with states.
We rely on state law enforcement officials through
contracts with the state to carry out our compliance checks.
But as we continue to improve our own program, I am most
receptive to the kind of feedback you are receiving.
With respect to the fines or penalties associated, I think
it would be important for you and others to know that if the
convenience store or 7-Eleven store does not meet our standard
on the first review, they are simply given a warning. There is
not a fine associated with that. It is only on subsequent times
of noncompliance that the fine process starts kicking in.
I think we do need some clarification around the specific
issues and hopefully we can work together as we all try to
solve, and get our arms around, this issue of teenage smoking.
REORGANIZATION OF THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
Senator Cochran. I appreciate that very much. And I will
pass on to you the specific information that I have received.
I was interested in hearing your proposal to reorganize the
Office of Commissioner with the goal of streamlining and making
it more efficient.
Have you completed the formal review to the extent that you
can tell us some of the specific things that you have in mind
about the current size and functions of the office?
Dr. Henney. Mr. Chairman, I asked a group to undertake this
study for me very early on as I came into the agency. I think
that they worked very diligently conducting a number of
interviews, analyzing functions, resources and the like and
made recommendations to me.
I announced to the staff of the FDA this week the extent of
those reorganizations, the kind of programmatic endeavors that
had been in the office of the commissioner that would now be
transferred to the centers and other activities. We want to get
more of the real resources down into the centers where they can
be appropriately applied to our day-to-day and programmatic
work.
But I will be glad to provide you for the record a copy of
the memo that fully outlines the changes and the extent of the
changes involved.
[The information follows:]
Memorandum From Jane E. Henney, M.D.
Date: April 22, 1999
From: Commissioner of Food & Drugs
Subject: Restructuring of the Office of the Commissioner
To: FDA Staff
My first four months as FDA Commissioner have been interesting and
challenging. I feel fortunate to have the opportunity to work with such
dedicated and talented staff. I have thoroughly enjoyed being
reacquainted with the people of FDA both here in the Washington area
and in the field offices. I have learned a great deal about our
innovative programs across the Agency in these last few months.
At every opportunity I have reiterated my five priorities for my
tenure as FDA Commissioner: full and complete implementation of the FDA
Modernization Act of 1997; restoring and enhancing FDA's science base;
and fund the Administration's initiatives of food safety, blood safety
and tobacco.
During my confirmation hearing in addition to stating my
priorities, I also committed to reviewing the size and structure of the
Office of the Commissioner (OC) with an overall goal of creating a more
streamlined, efficient office that will provide leadership without
compromising programmatic effectiveness. At my request, a four-person
task force made up of staff from the Centers and from the Office of the
Commissioner reviewed and analyzed the OC structure and functions as
they currently exist and made recommendations to me for improvement. My
specific goals were:
To create an Office of the Commissioner for which the principal
focus was to provide leadership in building effective, two-way
communication between the Agency and all of our stakeholders including:
patients, consumers, Congress, the Administration, Agency employees,
the regulated industry, health care professionals, and other scientific
advisors.
To enable us to implement the Agency's priorities and to develop
Agency policy with primary input from the Center Directors, the
Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs, and with legal advice
from the Chief Counsel.
To streamline the OC to make the overall Agency more effective and
efficient with roles and responsibilities clearly delineated.
To retain in OC only those staff functions which cannot be
reasonably and more effectively performed in the Centers or the Office
of Regulatory Affairs (ORA).
Using the basic recommendations from the task force, the major
changes that will occur with the reorganization are as follows: The
Office of the Commissioner will return to using a single deputy
managerial model. Dr. Michael Friedman will assume this important role.
The Center Directors and the Associate Commissioner for Regulatory
Affairs will report directly to the Commissioner.
Within the immediate office of the Commissioner, a new position
will be established, the Senior Associate Commissioner. I have asked
Dr. Linda Suydam, currently the Associate Commissioner for Strategic
Management, to assume this role. Her responsibilities will include
coordinating all activities within the Office of the Commissioner, as
well as directly supervising the following offices: Chief Mediator and
Ombudsman staff, Office of the Executive Secretariat, Office of Public
Affairs, Office of Orphan Products Development, the Internal Affairs
staff, Advisory Committee Oversight, and the Office of Tobacco
Programs.
Several other functions within the Office of the Commissioner will
be realigned. The former position of Deputy Commissioner for Policy
will be converted to Senior Associate Commissioner for Legislation,
Policy and Program Planning. I have asked Mr. William Hubbard to assume
the duties of this position. He will oversee the functions of policy
coordination, legislative affairs, and planning and evaluation.
As a result of the growing importance of international policy and
activities, Deputy Commissioner Sharon Smith Holston has been asked to
lead the consolidation of all of these activities under a new Office of
International and Constituent Relations. The Offices of Consumer
Affairs, Women's Health and Special Health Issues will continue to
report to Ms. Holston.
The Office of Management and Systems will continue to be led by
Deputy Commissioner Robert J. Byrd. This Office will be relatively
unchanged in function except that many of the transactional functions
of management will be decentralized to the Centers, and as previously
mentioned, the Office of Planning and Evaluation will move to the
policy grouping.
Ms. Holston and Mr. Byrd will carry the title of Deputy
Commissioner for International and Constitutent Relations and
Management and Systems respectively. In keeping with my intention to
move to a single deputy model; however, these titles will remain with
the current incumbents as long as they are in these jobs and convert to
Senior Associate Commissioner thereafter.
The Office of Equal Employment and Civil Rights will report
directly to the Commissioner with Ms. Rosamelia Lecea continuing as its
Director. Ms. Lecea has been requested to reassess how her Office is
leading the complaint management process and to assume the diversity
program functions previously carried out in the immediate Office of the
Commissioner.
The Office of Chief Counsel led by Ms. Margaret Jane Porter will
remain unchanged.
The reorganization will specifically move some functions now
residing in the Office of the Commissioner to the Centers or ORA. Other
functions will remain in OC but will be regrouped. A limited number of
functions will be abolished altogether, and I have requested that, in
those few instances where functions are being abolished, a special
Placement Committee be established to assist employees in locating
suitable reassignments in one of the Centers or ORA.
Please be assured that no employee will lose his or her job and
that all employee rights will be protected, and every effort will be
made to accommodate individual employees. I am also fully committed to
working with those bargaining unit employees who are represented by the
National Treasury Employees' Union (NTEU) and to fully comply with our
collective bargaining requirements to assure that our specific
obligations are met.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all FDA employees
for your hard work and continued commitment to the public health,
especially the employees in the Office of the Commissioner. Each of you
works to make the programs of the Food and Drug Administration
excellent. Your individual and collective contributions are pivotal to
our success. I know that change is never easy, but I ask for your
support as we implement this reorganization and work together in the
days ahead.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
SCIENCE BASE
We also understand from your statement your emphasis on the
strengthening of the science base of FDA and your commitment to
seeing that scientific expertise in the agency matches the
complexity of the new products that are coming into the
marketplace and the complexity of the marketplace itself.
There are some interesting challenges that we know the
agency faces. Would you please tell us what your specific goals
are for improving the science base? How you plan to go about
improving the recruitment and retention of the best scientists
available to you?
Dr. Henney. Mr. Chairman, the goal of maintaining and
strengthening the science base is to make sure that the
scientists that work at the agency or the expertise from
outside that the agency draws on is always at the top of its
game in terms of scientific credibility, scientific currency,
scientific analysis and ability to review very complex issues
that come into the agency.
How to achieve that goal will take a number of initiatives
on our part. Clearly there are issues around recruitment and
retention and making sure that we have ongoing opportunities
for continuing education, be they didactic or be they of a
practical nature for our own scientists.
Certainly they will involve how we better leverage the
intellectual capital from across this country, be it in other
federal agencies or be it in academia or even the regulated
industry. And we are working together to develop a plan for how
we achieve this.
I think, as you might see, our budget next year will be a
bit more transparent in terms of what we want to do ultimately
in terms of this issue of strengthening the science base and
that is how we are now constructing our discussions for next
year's budget planning process.
I would, also, say that in addition to having top-notch
scientists, they need a top notched and first-rate facility to
work in. And currently in the Washington, D.C., area we are
spread around in many, many different facilities. It limits our
capability and capacity for having strong comprehensive reviews
because there is just the time delay, the geographic diversity
has challenges all of its own.
And so this year in GSA's budget, there is a proposal to
finally develop the full plan for the consolidation of FDA's
headquarters here in the Washington area and to build construct
one building on that site, the first of multiple buildings that
would come on line.
I would hope that the Senate and the full Congress would
look upon that request favorably because it will under-gird and
strengthen our efforts to maintain a strong scientific base for
the agency.
AQUACULTURE
Senator Cochran. Thank you. I have other questions and I
will submit most of them for you to respond to for the record.
But let me point out one other parochial concern and that
is in my state, we have a big new aquaculture industry and it
requires drugs that are approved by FDA and other efforts to
control disease.
There has come to my attention the fact that aquaculture
drug data packages recently submitted to the FDA Center for
Veterinary Medicine are not being reviewed in a timely fashion.
I'm told that the Center is more than six months behind in
completing reviews of these submissions. I want to bring this
to the attention of the agency leadership and ask that you look
into it and try to ensure that a more timely review of
aquaculture drug data submissions takes place, if possible.
Dr. Henney. Mr. Chairman, I clearly don't know the
specifics of the case but will be glad to look into it for you
and get back to you promptly.
[The information follows:]
The situation that you asked about regarding an, aquaculture drug
submission from Mississippi is an example of the pressures FDA must
deal with as new industries emerge. In 1991, CVM developed a program to
educate the aquaculture industry about the animal drug approval
process. CVM hired a specialist in aquaculture who spoke frequently
before industry groups in order to help there understand the steps
necessary to get new aquaculture drugs approved, CVM also developed
several written documents to provide guidance to the aquaculture
industry. As a result, this aquaculture industry responded to the new
challenge and developed numerous coalitions that generated a
significant amount of new data necessary for drug approvals.
The aquaculture drug development program created a burgeoning
workload for CVM. At the same time, FDA faced reduced budgets and
significant staffing shortages. In the face of staffing shortages, FDA
has been unable to direct adequate resources to many critical areas,
including aquaculture drug review, illustrating why FDA is asking for
additional review resources for fiscal year 2000.
Senator Cochran. Thank you. The Senator from Wisconsin.
COST OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Henney, people all across the country talk about the
continuing rise in the cost of prescription drugs. In fact, I
believe that it is more serious in this country than perhaps
anywhere else in the world.
I'd like to ask you what the FDA is doing about this
problem and I would also like you to comment on the extent to
which the long delays in the approval of generic drugs makes
the problem more serious than it might be otherwise.
Dr. Henney. Senator Kohl, I think the first and foremost
responsibility of the agency to pharmaceutical development in
this country is making sure that those products that do come to
market are safe and effective.
We have little control and have been given little
responsibility for drug pricing or drug pricing issues. I think
that our colleagues within the industry would speak to you
about their own investments and trying to recoup that in terms
of their research and development.
But as we review products, we have little ability to look
at issues related to drug costs except in the area which you
raise and that is the review, the timely review of generic
products.
And while I think that I have alluded to, in my testimony,
areas that have not benefited from the user fee program, some
have longer review times than the areas that have benefited
from user fees.
Let me give you a flavor of the difference. Currently our
average review time for prescription drugs is approximately
twelve months. For generic drugs, it's approximately 18 months.
But to get a flavor of how often reviews of generic drugs
occur, there is nearly a new generic drug approved every single
day. In fact, I think last year there was some 354 generic
approvals given. So it is not as if generics are not coming to
market. Could they be done in a more timely fashion with
additional resources? The answer to that is probably yes.
But I think that this particular group of people that work
on generic drugs, have, through a series of management
initiatives, really cut down review times in very significant
ways in the past few years from a time in which these reviews
took over 30 months to now taking 18.
Is there a way to go? The answer is probably yes. Are there
the resources in the program to review them within the same
time as prescription drugs? Not quite yet.
Senator Kohl. I thank you very much. I thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Cochran. The Senator from Illinois.
SINGLE USE MEDICAL DEVICES
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Dr.
Henney, for joining us today. I'm glad that you're head of the
FDA. I recall working with you in years gone by and I've always
respected the fact that you brought extraordinary expertise to
the agency then and extraordinary leadership now. And I'm happy
to have you here before us.
I'd like to ask you about several specific areas of
concern. One of them relates to an article which appeared in
Forbes Magazine sometime earlier this year. I don't have the
exact date on it. But it relates to single use medical devices.
As it turns out, many medical devices used in hospitals
today are purchased with the understanding that they are
disposable or single use devices. In fact, they are being
reprocessed and used over again without the knowledge of the
patients in most instances.
There has been a growing concern that these reprocessed
disposable devices may be dangerous to the patients. There have
been stories about tips of catheters breaking off and
contamination of these devices when they're being reused.
I notice that France has banned the use of disposable
medical devices and other countries are starting to look at
this more carefully. There is a competing interest here. The
company that makes the devices would surely like to sell more
and not see their devices reused to the detriment of their
profit margin.
And then, of course, hospitals are hoping to cut costs by
using reprocessed disposable devices. I'm basically going to
ask you from the consumer and patient's point of view, what do
you think our policy should be and what is the FDA doing to
address it?
Dr. Henney. Senator Durbin, first of all, it is great to be
back and to have the opportunity to work with you and all of
the members.
I appreciate your compliment on my expertise. But on the
issue that you raise, I think I'm going to ask the real expert
on this who is Dr. Jacobson, the current acting director for
the Center on Devices.
Dr. Jacobson. First of all, let me compliment you for
asking a really tough question. This is one that we've been
very concerned about as well. Up until now we've taken the
approach that in the absence of data that there was a problem,
we've been taking a conservative approach to what we should do
because, as you said, there are a number of things to be
considered here not the least of which is that the hospitals
themselves are doing a lot of reprocessing. And we're not
getting a lot of adverse reaction reports.
All that being said, we are concerned about the safety of
some of the higher risk devices. It used to be that only things
like surgical instruments were reprocessed routinely. But now
much more complicated devices are being reprocessed--devices
that may pose a higher risk if they're not reprocessed
carefully both from the materials aspects, that is can the
materials stand up to the reprocessing, as well as from an
infection control aspect. Are reused devices being adequately
cleaned, disinfected, and sterilized prior to use?
In May FDA is co-sponsoring a meeting on re-use with the
American Association for the Advancement of Medical
Instrumentation, and number of other co-sponsors. We are
bringing together all of the experts we can find to sit down
and talk about this issue. What needs to be done. What action
should FDA be taking. We have really put a lot of work into it.
Senator Durbin. Is there any requirement if a reprocessed
disposable device is used that there be an entry in the medical
record of the patient of that fact?
Dr. Henney. Pardon me?
Senator Durbin. If a hospital decides to reprocess a single
use device, a catheter for example, and use it in the treatment
of a patient, are they required to put in the medical record of
that patient that they used a reprocessed catheter?
Dr. Henney. Senator Durbin, I do not believe that they are
required to do that.
Senator Durbin. Would it not be difficult to really track
the incidents or problems without that information?
Dr. Jacobson. Yes. That is one of the issues.
Senator Durbin. I'm glad to hear that you're addressing it
and it's something of concern, I'm sure, not only to me but to
anyone, if you go in the hospital to know whether or not you're
receiving the best treatment with the best possible medical
devices.
Thank you, Dr. Jacobson.
OFF-LABEL PROMOTIONS
Let me ask you about off-label promotions. This is
something that has come up over the years where people have
said that drugs originally approved for specific use turn out
to have value in other applications. Many drug companies cannot
justify in their own minds going through the process, again,
for those off-label applications. Doctors know that they have
some value. And the question remains as to whether or not these
off-label applications are being sufficiently monitored to
protect consumers and patients.
I'd like to ask how much the review of off-label promotions
is presently costing the FDA and whether or not the company is
benefiting from these off-label promotions should share in the
agency's cost of reviewing their promotional literature.
Dr. Henney. Senator Durbin, the issue of off-label use was
addressed, in part, in the FDA Modernization Act which tried to
strike a balance between providing non-misleading information
and the tension that had always been there for the real life
situation of drug promotion. At the time of review of a drug
and the appropriate labeling of that drug, what is considered
is what is in the application; what population was this drug or
product studied on; and that defines what's on the label.
As the drug moves into the marketplace and further study of
the drug is done or further trials of how the drug is used for
other purposes, physicians have found other uses far beyond the
labeled indications.
Oftentimes these are written up in the medical literature
and now through the Modernization Act, those kinds of materials
can be appropriately provided to other physicians.
The caveat also in the Modernization Act is that within a
reasonable period of time--I believe the time period is some
two to three years--the company must come in with data so that
the agency is in a position to analyze that off-label use as to
whether it can now go on the label. So that is part of the
solution to the question you pose.
I think that we still have concern, in part, at times when
off-label use has created real safety issues. Probably the most
recent episode of that where it led to the agency having to
recall product and remove product from market was the case of
the diet drug combination Phen/Fen.
Those were drugs that were used together in a way never
provided for on the label. It was clearly an off-label use and
the result of that meant an absolute removal of the products
from the market.
Senator Durbin. What I'd like to zero in on is that safety
is paramount. There's nothing more important. I'm trying to get
down to the bottom line of the resources of the FDA to deal
with it.
If a drug company is coming in for approval of a new drug
and they, of course, want to sell it for on-label applications
and indications, then it's my understanding that they defray
some of the costs of the FDA in reviewing that drug. But when
it comes to the off-label application, it's my understanding
that the FDA bears the full brunt of the cost. Is that correct?
Dr. Henney. Senator Durbin, no, I do not believe that is
correct because the proposal would come in as a supplement. And
those supplements are covered under the user fee program if
we're talking about a prescription drug. So we would receive
resources in order to conduct the review of that supplement.
Senator Durbin. How about the promotions, the money to
review off-label promotions. Do you receive any compensation
from the drug companies for that purpose?
Dr. Henney. Senator Durbin, no, we do not.
Senator Durbin. Do you know what that costs the FDA to do?
Dr. Henney. I would be more than glad to provide you that
for the record. And we could provide you what we do in terms of
promotion in general and any monitoring we've done of the off-
label area.
[The information follows:]
FDA does not have positions devoted solely to the review of off-
label promotions. The specific cost to the FDA of reviewing all off-
label promotions is not tracked and the following description is meant
to provide a rough estimate of FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research contribution.
Staff in the Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and
Communications (DDMAC) check for the inclusion of off-label uses of a
drug in their routine review of promotional materials. Last year, ten
regulatory reviewers monitored submissions by drug companies, as
required under the postmarketing reporting requirements (21 CFR
314.81). These submissions consisted of promotional materials that
included reprints, sales aids, journal ads, monographs, videos,
broadcast ads, etc. Reviewers checked these materials for compliance
with the regulations, consulted with others in CDER when necessary, and
took enforcement actions on materials that contain violative claims or
issues. Violative claims or issues include, for example, misleading
presentations, lack of risk information, and off-label uses. FDA
receives no money from drug companies for enforcement actions.
Regarding other off-label submissions, on November 20, 1998, 21 CFR
Part 99 was published entitled, ``Dissemination of Information on
Unapproved/New Uses for Marketed Drugs, Biologics, and Devices.'' This
rule is intended to implement section 401 of FDAMA which amended the
act to permit drug, biologic, and device manufacturers to disseminate
certain written information concerning the safety, effectiveness, or
benefits of a use that is not described in the product's approved
labeling. This information can be disseminated to health care
practitioners, pharmacy benefit managers, health insurance issuers,
group health plans, and Federal and State Government agencies. The
information to be disseminated must be about a drug or device that is
being legally marketed; it must be in the form of an unabridged reprint
or copy of a peer-reviewed journal article or reference publication;
and it must not be derived from another manufacturers clinical
research, unless that other manufacturer has given its permission for
dissemination. Sixty days prior to the dissemination, the manufacturer
must submit to FDA a copy of the information to be disseminated and any
other clinical trial information that the manufacturer has relating to
the safety or effectiveness of the new use. The manufacturer must
include a copy of a protocol to support the new use and agree to submit
a supplemental application (covered under the user fee program) for
that use within a specified period of time, unless a supplemental
application already has been submitted or FDA has exempted the
manufacturer from that requirement.
For drugs, the review of FDAMA section 401 submissions involves
personnel from DDMAC and elsewhere within CDER. Accurate estimates for
the amount of time this involves are not available. However, we can
roughly estimate that this activity involves 100 percent time for 1.2
FTE per year for DDMAC personnel and 100 percent time for 1.0 FTE for
other CDER staff. This costs the Agency approximately $250,000 per year
on off-label promotion activities.
Senator Durbin. Thank you.
ORPHAN DRUG PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
I included a colloquy on the floor last year about another
area, the orphan drug product development. It appeared to me
that the Food and Drug Administration was using some of the
funds which we appropriated for that purpose for other
purposes. And in the colloquy I tried to make it clear that we
wanted the orphan drug product development money to be spent
for that purpose.
Are you familiar with the agency procedure and whether it
is using these funds for another purpose?
Dr. Henney. Senator Durbin, I am very aware of your
interest and concern about the orphan drug program. It has been
highly successful in moving products to the marketplace where
there is a small population, if you will, to use these drugs.
I think it has been a real success story of the agency. It
has been a program that in nearly all of the budget
restrictions and reductions that the agency has had to undergo
in the past few years--was protected from those kind of cuts.
This past year when we had to absorb additional cuts, we
did ask the orphan drug program to take a proportional share to
meet the increases needed for payroll. I do not think that it
will significantly impair their ability to do a good job this
year. But we cannot stand for it to happen another year in a
row.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, I have two or three more
questions. But if you would like to ask, I can come back on a
second round.
Senator Cochran. No. Why don't you go ahead and finish.
I've just got a couple more questions I want to ask and then I
will submit the rest so we get over to the military
supplemental hearing.
PRESCRIPTION DRUG ADVERTISING
Senator Durbin. One of the real revolutions in terms of
prescription drugs in modern times has been the advertising and
promotion of these drugs to the general public.
There was a time when the promotion of a prescription drug
was confined to medical journals and direct contact by drug
representatives with doctors, for example. Now we find drugs
like Claritin and others, prescription drugs that are being
promoted in general television and magazine and newspaper
advertising.
They usually--I think they're required to make some record
of the contraindications and warnings associated with the drug
in magazines that borders on ridiculous, to turn the page and
see on the other side of a full colored ad for a prescription
drug, something that looks like the fine print from the old
days of Pravda where you're supposed to try to work your way
through it and figure out what the dangers of this drug might
be.
I'm concerned. I understand what the drug companies are up
to. They clearly want patients to say to doctors. I just heard
about a new drug. Didn't I read in The Washington Post this
morning there's a drug that's going to help me lose some
weight. What about it, doctor, can I have that. That's the
natural feeling on this.
There seems to be an interest by the FDA to make sure that
the consumers are well informed about the dangers of certain
drugs even beyond what their doctors might tell them with the
development of the so-called MedGuides that were to be
distributed by the pharmacies to the consumers directly.
We got embroiled in that controversy last year as to
whether we should restrict the distribution of these MedGuides.
And I think we ended up with half a loaf when it was all over.
Could you tell me what the FDA policy is in terms of these
MedGuides, not only the mandatory MedGuides for the most
dangerous drugs but the voluntary distribution of these
MedGuides to these consumers?
Dr. Henney. Senator Durbin, you raise several different
issues within the context of your question.
With respect to the MedGuides, they are restricted, if you
will, to the most significant or dangerous products.
With respect to the issue of direct to consumer
advertising, like most issues that the agency deals with there
are at least two very strongly held opinions.
One is that there is not enough information provided to
patients to make an informed choice and the other that even if
this does cause a patient to query their health professional
about a product that they have read about, it provides an
opportunity for an encounter of that patient and that health
professional discuss their health condition and why or why not
they are suited to that product or others.
So there is real debate on the issue of the direct to
consumer advertising. I think from the agency's point of view,
our strongest emphasis has to be on seeing that the information
provided is balanced and not misleading. And I think that we
are trying with the increased use of this direct to consumer
advertising and to see that this proper balance is struck.
Senator Durbin. I hope that the Congress will support you
in that. I think as it is legal for these companies to
advertise direct to consumers, we have an obligation at the
governmental level to make certain that consumers are well
informed about the adverse effects that a drug might have on
them personally.
SEAFOOD INSPECTION
I have a couple of other questions about seafood
inspection. But I'm going to send you a direct letter on that.
I'd just like to ask you one other final question before
making an observation and that is I am an advocate for a single
food safety inspection agency. We have so many different
agencies. The federal government, including yours, that have a
responsibility here and so many different standards between,
for example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food
and Drug Administration.
What is the frequency of inspection by the FDA of the food
processing agencies that are under your jurisdiction?
Dr. Henney. Senator Durbin, I would ask Mr. Levitt if he
could give you that precise information but as my memory serves
me it is close to once every ten years in terms of many of the
processing plants that we can inspect.
This issue is one that I tried to raise within the context
of that part of the budget that looks at our post marketing
surveillance capabilities; where we have not been able, because
of limited resources, to meet our food inspection goals within
the context of our current budget.
Joe, could you be more precise about the answer.
Mr. Levitt. Thank you.
Number one, seafood--let me take it in tiers--seafood
inspection is now once every year. That is thanks to the
appropriations that are provided by the Congress.
Senator Durbin. And I might say just for the record. In
context, meat and poultry inspection is on a daily basis.
Seafood inspection is on an annual basis.
Proceed.
Mr. Levitt. Okay. Thank you.
It is our goal to be able to do an annual inspection--in
all of the, what we consider, high risk establishments, that is
establishments that process products that are at high risk of
microbiological contamination.
There are about 6200 such firms. The money that we have
requested in this year's budget submission would allow us to do
that. We have raised the frequency of those and we're now doing
those every two to four years but we would like to get that
down to one year.
The remaining firms are then food processors which would be
regular food companies. And then we also have food warehouses
which are also food establishments. We try to titrate overall--
if you include all the food warehouses, the federal government
is inspecting on the order of seven to ten years.
If you include states which also have a presence in a
number of these areas, that the time comes down significantly.
One of our goals is to increase our cooperation and
collaboration not just with other federal agencies, as you've
mentioned, but also with the states so that together we can
provide the kind of food inspection presence that I think the
consumer wants.
INTERNATIONAL INSPECTIONS
Senator Durbin. In terms of international inspections, do
you do any overseas inspections of food exporters to the United
States?
Mr. Levitt. We have a relatively small program that is
growing. This year we are doing 100 overseas inspections. In
our proposal in the budget before you; we would be able to more
than double that to about 250 inspections.
Senator Durbin. Out of a universe of how many plants that
are subject to our jurisdiction?
Mr. Levitt. Certainly, you know, many more than that. We
are also----
Senator Durbin. In the hundreds? In the thousands?
Mr. Levitt. It is certainly in the thousands.
We are, I might add, complementing our overseas inspection
effort, recognizing the magnitude that we're working with,
complementing direct inspections with both technical assistance
and foreign assessments.
In fact, yesterday and today at the University of Maryland,
we're conducting a conference in conjunction with USDA on
imported fresh fruits and vegetables. There are representatives
of over 100 countries participating.
When I was at the Conference there was a lot of interest in
providing for many of our trading partners the kind of food
standard practices that we want to see here. It was good to see
the enthusiasm that those people brought.
Senator Durbin. Thank you. I think most Americans would be
stunned to hear this. They believe that the level of inspection
is going along at a much more frequent rate. That is not to
take away anything from your agency.
I happen to think that the billion dollars that is
appropriated for the Food and Drug Administration is one of our
best investments at the federal level. But I think that,
frankly, consumers across America are asking for us to do a
better job and we need to provide you with the resources to
accomplish that.
Mr. Levitt. Thank you. That is why each year we are asking
for increments at each stage.
Senator Durbin. I'll close by saying that I believe there's
a request for an increase of some 19 percent in your
appropriation, if I'm not mistaken, for fiscal year 2000. And
among the purposes is food safety, product safety, pre-market
review and the like.
I'm afraid that under the budget resolution which we've
enacted you may see a cut in your budget as opposed to a 19
percent increase. I hope that's just not the case. I just
believe that we are shortchanging the safety of consumers
across America if we do that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
PHYSICIANS PAY COMPENSATION
Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Durbin.
I notice in the budget submission this statement about
physicians pay compensation: ``The fiscal year 2000 request
reflects the administration's proposed cap on the increase of
physician compensation at 6 percent. FDA's prorated share of
the resulting reduction is $2.3 million which was taken from
each of the affected program areas.''
My question is what is that about? Is that an
administration edict? Is this sort of budget gamesmanship? Does
this really mean that physicians are going to get their
compensation increased at something higher than 6 percent if
there's not a cap ordered or included in the budget? Do we have
to legislate this cap? Is this a previously legislated cap and
it's just recited in here?
Dr. Henney. Mr. Chairman, I am glad you raised the issue
but I am equally glad that Mr. Williams has volunteered to
answer your question.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, this does not require
legislation but it does--it is an increase. It's a limit on how
much can be spent. It's not a reduction but a limit on the
increase. And it arises from a concern by OMB about the level
of physician compensation in the department and they've asked
us to review our situation and to report back to them.
And it is obviously also in the context of a balanced
budget. The Office of Management and Budget is seeking
opportunities to economize where possible.
So we are to examine the effect of this limit and we expect
to have further dialogue with the OMB. As far as we know, we
are the only agency subject to this limit.
There are other agencies that employ physicians and have
physician compensation systems similar to ours. But as far as
we know, we're the only agency subject to this limit.
BIOTERRORISM
Senator Cochran. The budget proposes also a $13.4 million
transfer to the FDA for anti-bioterrorism activities as part of
the public health and social services emergency fund.
Specifically, my question is what is the FDA's role in this
presidential initiative and what FDA activities will be
supported with the $13.4 million transfer?
Dr. Henney. Mr. Chairman, the major thrust of the agency's
effort with respect to the bioterrorism initiative is around
the whole issue of vaccine development and the review of those
products; an area where we have considerable expertise that we
can bring to this issue.
A small portion of the amount requested is for the issue of
food as it might be used in the event of bioterrorism or a
bioterrorist attack. But it is a very small portion of this
particular budget.
Senator Cochran. Let me thank you, Dr. Henney and your
colleagues for your assistance to our committee.
We appreciate your presence and the fact that we had to
reschedule this hearing and then had the full committee
schedule another hearing on top of our schedule. So we had to
speed this along a little faster than we would have liked. We
appreciate your understanding and your patience with us the
morning.
SUBMITTED QUESTIONS
Senator Cochran. We have additional questions that we will
submit to you in writing to be answered for the record.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
injury reporting
Question. For fiscal year 2000, FDA is requesting a $15.3 million
increase to begin to improve FDA's Injury Reporting system. Dr. Henney,
you indicate in your testimony that ``no integrated system for the
reporting, monitoring, and evaluation of all FDA regulated product-
related injuries currently exists.'' FDA currently has several programs
to gather information on adverse events/injuries associated with the
misuse or failure of FDA-regulated medical products and foods,
including MedWatch, the Adverse Events Reporting System, FoodNet, the
National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System, and the Vaccine
Adverse Events Reporting System. Is your plan to integrate these
systems or to replace them with an entirely new Injury Reporting
System?
Answer. Our intention is to have an integrated ``system'' for the
reporting, monitoring and evaluation of adverse events and product
defects associated with FDA-regulated products. Such a system is not
merely defined by electronic/computerized hardware and software but an
entire program of implementing effective interventions, a comprehensive
system for effectively communicating risk information to health care
providers and consumers who need it, as well as effective processes to
continuously evaluate and improve all of our risk-associated
activities. We believe that some components of this overall system do
not currently exist in the Agency and that other areas need enhancement
and integration, such as many of the reporting systems listed in your
question. There is no plan to replace existing reporting systems with a
new system.
Question. Please describe how the Injury Reporting System FDA
envisions will operate.
Answer. FDA's strategic goal is to minimize injuries, illness and
deaths occurring from the use of FDA-regulated products, and improve
the quality of available health care. The true risks associated with
products become apparent only after they are in widespread use. Ongoing
accurate identification and measurement of risks associated with all
medical products, foods and cosmetics is the first step in an overall
risk management strategy. Minimization of injuries also involves
implementation of effective interventions, a comprehensive system for
effectively communicating risk information to health care providers and
consumers who need it, as well as effective processes to continuously
evaluate and improve all of our risk-associated activities.
The ``ultimate system'' would begin with an integrated science-
based mechanism for reporting, monitoring and evaluating adverse events
and product defects associated with FDA-regulated products. In
addition, full funding would provide FDA the resources to hire the
necessary professionals trained to manage and track the flow of reports
and to conduct the essential epidemiological, statistical and medical
and scientific evaluations quickly enough for early intervention when
significant problems arise. Current information systems are inadequate
and are not systematically linked with any ability to share data
electronically. Additionally, lack of connections with health care
facilities, academia, and broad-based health information databases make
it difficult to quickly explore potentially serious problems or conduct
thorough investigations, e.g., FDA rarely has any denominator data
available to evaluate the significance of specific reported problems.
One of FDA's primary objectives is to develop and implement a
system which will improve the quality of information on adverse events
and product defects associated with FDA-regulated products. Prompt
identification of new, previously unrecognized problems with FDA-
regulated products has the potential to decrease morbidity and
mortality associated with those products and maximize their safe use.
Thousands of deaths and injuries could be avoided, or their
consequences reduced, through a comprehensive strategy aimed at finding
out why incidents occur and implementing strategies to prevent them
from happening again. A full understanding of the causes of product-
related deaths and injuries is necessary to ensure that causes
attributable to product labeling, design, or composition are addressed
in the premarket review programs, where required. For products for
which premarket review programs do not exist, such as dietary
supplements and cosmetics, FDA needs information about the safety and
usage patterns of such products in order to develop appropriate
responses.
Accurate, complete, and efficient operation of adverse event
reporting systems is only the first step in the management of product
injury. Reported events must be analyzed, and other sources of data
must be accessed to make sense of the reports and to determine what
action, if any, is needed. All FDA safety programs need access to
various medical databases. Successful use of these databases requires
investment of time by FDA project managers, programmers, and
epidemiologists, as well as investment in computing equipment. Modest
funding increases for both staff and access to databases through
contract vehicles are included in the proposal. In addition, funding
for initiation of a sentinel site program for medical device adverse
event reporting required by FDAMA is included. This active surveillance
concept, if successful, may offer another mechanism by which FDA could
acquire additional information regarding the nature, extent, and
frequency of injuries due to FDA-regulated products.
Finally, the request includes funding for risk communication
activities, particularly for professional and consumer outreach and
education . These are intended to both improve the quality and scope of
adverse event reporting by the health care community, and to
communicate safety issues. Broader communications with health care
professionals will be essential in ensuring that improved knowledge
about product injuries actually improves people's health.
Question. Dr. Henney, you indicate that $15.3 million is the
initial investment to implement an injury reporting system and that
additional investments will be required in subsequent years to make a
comprehensive system a reality. What is the estimated cost of the
system FDA is planning?
Answer. The Agency performed an analysis and determined that $64.5
million in funding would be required for a comprehensive system. The
fiscal year 2000 request includes $15.3 million to begin to address
this. Such a system would include construction of an Agency-wide
reporting system for product injuries, linkage with external databases
to provide baseline data on the rate and characteristics of injuries,
strengthening of FDA's scientific research efforts in the area of
epidemiology, and developing effective outreach and educational
programs to facilitate better reporting and improve overall product-
related risk management throughout the health care system.
Question. Dr. Henney, you indicate in your prepared statement that
funds for the ``limited implementation of a sentinel site program for
medical devices are also included in the budget request''. Would you
please explain this program. Is this included in the $15.3 million
increase requested to initiate an Injury Reporting System?
Answer. Yes, funding for this project is included in the $15.3
million increase requested for FDA's overall plan for injury reporting
systems. FDA has substantial evidence of gross under reporting of
adverse events from device users. In response to this concern, FDA
initiated the Sentinel Surveillance pilot program to identify barriers
to reporting and explore methods to improve both the quality and
quantity of data from the clinical community. Sec. 213 of the 1997 FDA
Modernization Act provides the Agency with the opportunity to implement
a national Medical Device Surveillance Network, the design of which is
based on extensive research from the pilot program, other surveillance
systems, and safety experts. The system would provide more timely and
better quality data and allow FDA clinicians and analysts to more
accurately identify and assess medical device-related problems.
Mandatory universal user facility adverse event reporting would be
phased out. The Medical Device Surveillance Network will consist of a
random sample of eligible health care facilities, stratified by type
and perhaps several other variables. The sample would consist primarily
of hospitals with additions of other types of care and/or specialty
facilities e.g. maternity, children's etc. as needed. Facilities
recruited into the Network would be encouraged to report all device-
related problems, whether or not the problem resulted in a patient
injury. As demonstrated in the pilot program, being alerted to
potential problems prior to patient injury will allow FDA to focus on
prevention. The availability of population exposure and denominator
data from the Surveillance Network will allow FDA to quickly and
reliably evaluate the extent of a problem and its impact on the public
health. In addition, the Agency would have options for reducing or
eliminating unnecessary user facility reporting costs. The Agency
expects that industry will save approximately $19 million in reporting
costs.
Question. How much is requested for this medical device sentinel
site program?
Answer. FDA requested an overall increase of $15.3 million in the
fiscal year 2000 budget for injury reporting and of this amount, the
device program was allocated $3.2 million to implement phase one of a
national Medical Device Surveillance Network.
Question. What level of funding is now being spent on these
existing programs to collect information on adverse events, product
defects, and product defects associated with FDA-regulated products?
Answer. We estimated our fiscal year 1998 base spending for these
activities to be approximately $28 million, including approximately $11
million for information management systems.
transfer of the commerce seafood inspection program to fda
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes the transfer of the
voluntary Seafood Inspection Program from the Department of Commerce to
FDA. Why is the transfer of this program being proposed?
Answer. Transfer of the Seafood Inspection Program from the
Department of Commerce to FDA will improve the safety of seafood in
several ways. Establishing a Performance Based Organization or PBO at
FDA will establish FDA as the sole seafood agency with one federal
HACCP standard, thereby promoting efficiency, effectiveness, and
consistency of seafood regulation. This centralization will help both
domestically and internationally. In addition, the PBO will provide the
potential of additional trained inspectors to implement the HACCP
regulations, resulting in increased frequency of inspection. Consumers
will benefit by improved food safety from an increased federal
regulatory presence and a single HACCP standard established by FDA.
Question. The budget proposes that the Seafood Inspection Program
be transferred from Commerce to FDA through appropriations language.
Why isn't the Administration seeking legislative authority through the
appropriate authorizing committees of the Congress for this transfer?
Answer. While the Administration has requested appropriations
language to transfer the program as is, without establishing it as a
Performance Based Organization or PBO, the longer term solution is
authorizing legislation that would establish the Seafood Inspection
Program as a PBO with the Department of Health and Human Services.
Department of Health and Human Services is currently working with the
Department of Commerce and other parts of the Administration to
finalize a draft proposal that would accomplish such a PBO. We are
eager to work with Congress to achieve this goal.
Question. The current costs of the Seafood Inspection Program are
covered by user fee collections from industry. The budget proposes that
the program continue to be financed through user fee collections
derived from the seafood industry. Why will the transfer of this
program result in an additional $3 million cost to the American
taxpayer?
Answer. Of the one time transfer cost of $3 million in budget
authority requested, $1.5 million is requested for training. The
Agency, in conjunction with the National Marine Fisheries Service,
plans to provide FDA HACCP training for Seafood Inspection Program
inspectors . This training will enhance and ensure uniformity in
inspection approaches and the application of inspection techniques and
safety standards at the federal level. In addition these resources may
provide for some general training similar to the basic training
provided to newly hired investigators and inspectors, which includes
food and drug law, evidence development, interviewing techniques, and
quality auditing. The balance of the requested funds will be used to
educate the industry regarding the PBO, provide for other
administrative or transitional costs and establish an operating
reserve.
Question. What are the ``transition costs'' to FDA related to the
proposed transfer of this program?
Answer. The budget request also includes $200,000 in anticipated
start-up costs to facilitate the transfer and establishment of the PBO.
These costs include information technology and other administrative
costs associated with the transfer of the PBO.
Question. The budget indicates that the Administration will submit
a legislative proposal to the Congress to make the Seafood Inspection
Program a Performance-Based Organization under the auspices of FDA.
Would you please explain this proposal more fully.
Answer. FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services are
currently working with the Department of Commerce and other parts of
the Administration to finalize a draft proposal that would transfer the
Seafood Inspection Program of the National Marine Fisheries Service in
the Department of Commerce to FDA in the form of a Performance Based
Organization or PBO. A PBO is a quasi-public organization that is
located in a federal agency but operated like a business in that it is
to be financially self-sustaining. Although the federal agency oversees
the PBO, the PBO is given a great deal of autonomy to run day-to-day
operations, particularly in the areas of personnel and procurement, in
order to respond quickly to customers' needs and marketing conditions.
The seafood inspection PBO would continue to perform the voluntary,
fee-for-service inspection, grading, certification, and training
services for the seafood industry and other customers currently
performed by the Seafood Inspection Program in the Department of
Commerce. In addition, FDA would be able to utilize these trained
inspectors to perform regulatory HACCP inspections under one Federal
HACCP standard.
Question. Would this legislative proposal be submitted if the
program remains within the Department of Commerce?
Answer. We assume, if Congress rejects the $3 million requested in
budget authority, that the proposed transfer and establishment of a PBO
would be delayed, and that the Seafood Inspection Program currently
authorized would continue to operate as it has for many years within
the Department of Commerce. The legislation will be transmitted before
the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bills are enacted
Question. Will the transfer of the seafood inspection program from
Commerce to FDA improve food safety? If so, how?
Answer. Yes, the transfer of the Seafood Inspection Program
currently located at the Department of Commerce to a PBO within FDA
would improve food safety. First, such transfer would establish FDA's
HACCP standard as the single safety standard at the federal level.
Because the FDA standard would be employed uniformly in both voluntary
and regulatory inspections, increased compliance with the seafood HACCP
regulations will result. Second, the transfer would increase the
federal regulatory presence throughout the seafood industry. The
legislation would authorize FDA to commission PBO inspectors to perform
regulatory inspections and would also allow FDA to rely on the results
of the voluntary inspections to fulfill its regulatory obligation,
perhaps eliminating the need for FDA to perform an additional
regulatory inspection of a facility participating in the voluntary
program.
product safety assurance
The budget requests an increase of $31.8 million in FDA's salaries
and expenses appropriation to achieve statutory time frames for
inspections. The justification indicates that this additional funding
will, among other things: (1) allow FDA to leverage the Agency's
enforcement capability internationally by working toward regulatory
agreements with the European Community and other nations so that
imports meet quality and safety standards, (2) increase the frequency
of inspections for domestic products across-the-board, and (3) provide
for targeted inspections on those areas with the most potential for
serious injuries.
Question. What level of funding is now being devoted to FDA's
enforcement of imports?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, FDA is devoting $83.3 million and 941
FTE to the enforcement of imports. 15. ORA, OEA
Question. What regulatory agreements are currently in effect with
other nations to assure that imports meet quality and safety standards?
Answer. We would be happy to provide for the record a table which
shows what regulatory agreements are currently in effect with other
nations.
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country FDA Sponsor Title Effective Date Termination Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Australia....................... CFSAN............. Dry Milk Products. 11/28/79.......... Indefinite
Australia....................... CFSAN............. Shellfish 9/12/86........... Indefinite
Certification.
Australia....................... CDRH.............. Inspect. Info on 2/17/93........... Indefinite
Medical Device
GMP (EOLs).
Australia....................... FDA............... Orphan Products... 8/13/97........... Indefinite
Belarus......................... CDER CBER......... Info Exchange on 3/27/96........... 3/25/99
Drugs/Biologics.
Belgium......................... CFSAN............. Dry Milk Products. 11/6/74........... Indefinite
Canada.......................... CDER.............. GMPs Exchange of 10/1/73........... Indefinite
Drug Plan
Inspection
Information.
Canada.......................... CDRH.............. Exchange 12/16/74.......... Indefinite
Information on
Compliance
Program Efforts.
Canada.......................... CFSAN............. Shellfish Sanitary 4/30/48........... Indefinite
Controls.
Canada.......................... CFSAN............. Monitoring Food, 7/26/88........... 7/26/98
Beverage &
Sanitary Srvs. on
Common Carriers.
Canada.......................... ORA............... GLPs Phase I/Non- 5/10/79........... Indefinite
Clinical Labs.
Canada.......................... CVM............... Agricultural Trade 12/4/98........... Indefinite
Canada & Mexico................. FDA............... Scientific and 10/30/95.......... Indefinite
Regulatory Fields
of Health.
Chile........................... CFSAN............. Exported Oyster, 5/18/89........... 5/18/99
Clams, & Mussels.
Chile........................... ORA............... Safety of Imported 10/27/89.......... 10/27/99
Fresh Fruit.
Chile........................... CFSAN............. Fish & Fishery 5/13/96........... 5/13/01
Products.
China........................... CFSAN............. Certification of 12/26/88.......... Indefinite
Ceramic Ware.
Denmark......................... CFSAN............. Dry Milk Products. 1/19/79........... Indefinite
European Union.................. CDRH & CDER....... Mutual Acceptance 5/18/98........... Indefinite
of device, drug
and biological
inspection
reports.
Finland CFSAN............. Certification of 3/4/84............ Indefinite
Imported Food
Products..
France.......................... ORA............... GLPs Phase II 3/18/86........... Indefinite
Info. Exchange of
Toxicological
Labs.
France.......................... CFSAN............. Caseins........... 1/15/74 & 1/15/87. Indefinite
France.......................... CFSAN............. Cert Program for 1/21/87........... Indefinite
Listeria in
Cheese.
Germany......................... ORA............... GLPs Phase II 12/23/88.......... Indefinite
(Joint with EPA).
Iceland......................... CFSAN............. Safety of Fresh/ 12/28/78.......... Indefinite
Frozen Shellfish.
Ireland......................... CFSAN............. Certification 11/5/96........... 11/5/01
Requirements for
Caseins.
Italy........................... ORA............... GLPs Phase II..... 12/19/89.......... Indefinite
Japan........................... CFSAN............. Shellfish 10/24/62.......... Indefinite
Improving &
Standardizing
Sanitation
Practices.
Japan........................... ORA............... GLPs.............. 4/15/83........... Indefinite
Japan........................... CFSAN............. Puffer Fish....... 10/24/88.......... Indefinite
Korea........................... CFSAN............. Shellfish 4/8/87............ 4/7/97
Certification.
Korea........................... CFSAN............. Conservation & 11/24/72.......... Indefinite
Rational
Exploitation of
Fishery Resources.
Mexico.......................... CFSAN............. Control of Fresh/ 11/12/88.......... 11/12/98
Frozen Bivalve
Mollusca for
Exportation.
Mexico.......................... ORA............... Regulation of Raw 11/28/88.......... 11/28/98
Agricultural
Products.
Netherland s.................... CFSAN............. Dry Milk Products 1/8/79............ Indefinite
Examined for
Salmonellae.
Netherland s.................... ORA............... GLPs Phase II..... 12/20/88.......... Indefinite
New Zealand..................... CFSAN............. Shellfish 10/30/80.......... Indefinite
Sanitation.
New Zealand..................... CFSAN............. Fish & Fishery 12/20/95.......... 12/20/00
Products.
New Zealand CFSAN............. Dry Milk Products 11/11/75.......... Indefinite
Facilitate &
Improve
Importation
Procedures for.
New Zealand..................... CFSAN............. Horticultural 3/13/95........... Indefinite
Produce
Pesticides.
Norway.......................... CFSAN............. Importation of 2/26/82........... Indefinite
Rennet Casein.
Norway.......................... CFSAN............. Listeria Program 10/15/96.......... Indefinite
for Smoked Salmon.
Philippines..................... CFSAN............. Certification of 9/18/86........... Indefinite
Food Products.
Russia.......................... CFSAN............. Food Products..... 3/29/96........... Indefinite
Russia.......................... CDER.............. Drugs & Biological 2/2/94............ 2/4/2000
Products.
Russia.......................... CDER.............. Drugs & Biological 1/30/96........... Indefinite
Products Annexes.
Russia.......................... CDRH.............. Medical Devices 1/30/96........... Indefinite
Info.
Sweden.......................... CFSAN............. Dry Milk Products. 11/7/77........... Indefinite
Sweden.......................... ORA............... GLPs Phase I /Non- 5/25/79........... Indefinite
clinical Labs.
Sweden.......................... CDER.............. Upgrade Quality of 10/17/72.......... Indefinite
Drugs in
International
Commerce.
Switzerland..................... ORA............... Inspection of 10/28/68.......... Indefinite
Production of
Swiss Drugs.
Switzerland..................... ORA............... GLPs Phase II 4/29/85........... Indefinite
Exchange
Information.
Taiwan.......................... CDRH.............. Info Exchange on 1/9/98............ Indefinite
Medical Devices.
United Kingdom.................. CFSAN............. Processing & 9/7/82............ Indefinite
Labeling of Fresh
& Frozen Clams.
United Kingdom.................. CDRH.............. Mutual Recognition 6/6/86............ Indefinite
of Medical Device
Inspections.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
product safety assurance
Question. What additional agreements is FDA working towards?
Answer. We would be happy to provide for the record a table which
shows what proposed regulatory agreements FDA is currently working to
implement. [The information follows:]
PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AUSTRALIA/Drug GMPs.................... Agreement on drug GMPs and pre-
approval program.
AUSTRALIA/CVM EOLs..................... Exchange information on animal
pharmaceuticals.
CANADA & MEXICO Scientific & Regulatory Cooperation in scientific and
Areas. regulatory fields of health
CANADA/MEXICO/Emergency Info........... Agreement to enhance
cooperation and to continue to
exchange timely information in
emergency situations.
CANADA/Seafood MRA..................... Mutual acceptance of seafood
inspection results.
CHILE/Fresh Fruits & Vegetables MOC.... Exchange of information and
technical cooperation with
regard to food safety control
practices to protect public
health and to facilitate trade
of selected fresh fruit and
vegetables.
CHINA/Ceramicware...................... Covers ceramicware intended for
use in the preparation,
serving, or storage of food or
drink.
EU/Veterinary Products................. Focus on developing a framework
for working towards
equivalence of systems. USDA
and USTR are also parties to
the agreement.
KOREA/Shellfish Extension.............. Assure that imported fresh
frozen molluscan shellfish are
safe and wholesome and meet
NSSP sanitation principles.
UKRAINE/Drugs and Biological Products.. Importation of drugs and
biologics into Ukraine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
domestic inspections
Question. You indicate that the goal is to increase the frequency
of inspections for domestic products (except for foods) to once every
two years, as mandated by statute, through FDA inspections and
additional state contracts. For drugs, biologics (registered blood
banks), animal drugs, and medical devices, this would be inspecting the
manufacturer every two years.
What is the current inspection level for each of these areas?
Answer. The current inspection level in fiscal year 1999 for a two-
year statutory interval, by category, is drugs 22 percent, biologics 43
percent, animal drugs and feed 27 percent, and medical devices 26
percent. Successful biennial inspections would mean that inspections
for each area should be at the 50 percent level. Although there is no
statutory interval for food manufacturers, high risk food inspection
levels are currently at 33 percent.
Question. What inspections are now being performed through state
contracts and what additional contracts are being sought?
Answer. Currently, FDA has contracts with states to conduct
inspections under the following areas: 40 food contracts; 19 medicated
feed contracts; 49 MQSA contracts; and, 17 tissue residue contracts. We
are planning to conduct a feasibility study to see how best to expand
this program with the funds requested in the fiscal year 2000 budget.
Question. What is the inspection goal for foods? How frequently are
inspections being performed now?
Answer. FDA established three primary inspection goals for foods in
fiscal year 2000. The goals reflect the Agency's strategy in addressing
risk with regard to both domestic and imported foods. These goals are
for FDA to increase the frequency of high-risk domestic food
establishment inspections to once every one to two years, and annually
beginning in fiscal year 2001, achieve adoption of the Food Code by at
least 35 percent of the states, and increase the number of inspections/
evaluations of foreign food establishments from 100 to 250.
FDA is currently inspecting the 54,000 establishments in its
inventory every 7 to 10 years. However, the Agency also has contracts
with states to conduct inspections. This has increased the frequency of
inspections to once every 4 to 5 years.
Question. What is the current domestic inspection funding and
staffing levels and what increases are being sought?
Answer. The current domestic inspection funding is $87.7M and
staffing level is 984 FTE. The increase sought for domestic inspections
is $15.4M and 80 FTE. We would be happy to provide a table that
displays a breakout of these totals by program area.
RESOURCES FOR DOMESTIC INSPECTIONS
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current FDA
domestic Current FDA
inspection domestic
staffing level inspection
(FTE) funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL FDA............................... 984 $87,730
FOODS................................... 368 33,541
BIOLOGICS............................... 185 15,649
HUMAN DRUGS............................. 203 16,720
ANIMAL DRUGS............................ 53 4,276
DEVICES/RAD HEALTH...................... 175 17,544
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The increase sought for domestic inspections is $15.4M and 80 FTE.
The increases will be used to improve the frequency of inspections for
domestic products through increased inspections and state contracts.
These efforts will not fully meet the statutory requirement of once
every two years for biologics, human/animal drugs, and medical devices,
as mandated by statute, but will improve product safety and quality
systems conformance. The inspectional emphasis will be on high-risk
product areas, i.e., for Medical Devices, Class II and III Manufactures
only. We would be happy to provide a table that displays a breakout of
these totals by program area.
FDA--INCREASES IN PRODUCT SAFETY ASSURANCE DOMESTIC INSPECTIONS ONLY
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increase of
staffing level Funding
(FTE) increase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL FDA............................... 80 $15,400
FOODS................................... 27 4,000
BIOLOGICS............................... 13 3,200
HUMAN DRUGS............................. 15 1,900
ANIMAL DRUGS & FEEDS.................... 9 1,500
DEVICES/RAD HEALTH...................... 16 4,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tables include Postmarket inspections only.
Tables do not include domestic sample collections and analyses,
research, and Premarket inspections.
Tables do not include Tobacco and Other activities.
Question. What level of resources will be targeted on areas with
the most potential for serious injuries?
Answer. We would be happy to provide a table that displays a
breakout of these totals by program area.
FISCAL YEAR 2000 DOMESTIC INSPECTION FUNDING BY PROGRAM
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Staffing level
(FTE) Funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL FDA............................... 1,655 $199,600
FOODS................................... 399 37,900
BIOLOGICS............................... 236 22,900
HUMAN DRUGS............................. 489 45,600
ANIMAL DRUGS & FEEDS.................... 91 8,300
TOBACCO................................. 28 42,000
OTHER ACTIVITIES........................ 163 15,000
DEVICES................................. 249 27,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------
domestic inspections--high risk areas
Question. What high-risk areas have been identified?
Answer. The high risk areas in the medical devices program that
have been identified are those products that are intended for surgical
implant into the body or to support or sustain life and whose failure
to perform, when properly used in accordance with instructions for use
provided in the labeling, can be reasonably expected to result in a
significant injury to the user.
A limited example of those products include: cardiovascular
devices, pacemakers, stents, intra-aortic balloon and control systems,
cardio-electrodes, defibrillators, implantable orthopedic devices,
infusion pumps, anesthesiology devices, ventilators, condoms, surgical
gloves, intra lens, peritoneal dialysis systems, surgical lasers,
electro-surgical products, and many others.
High risk areas in the human drugs program include adverse drug
event investigation and follow-up, nontraditional drugs, drug products
with microbiological contamination issues, controlled release dosage
forms, stability problems, process validation issues, medical gas
manufacture and delivery, and Y2K readiness
It is important to consider that a prolonged priority-based program
will cause us to not inspect for very long periods important numbers of
drug firms in the lower priority levels. This lack of contact causes
broad scope drift to out of compliance situations. The biennial
inspection allows us to interact with companies and provide the kind of
direction which may keep many firms from going out of compliance, while
also finding those with the violative conditions and practices
requiring full compliance attention. Over the long run biennial
inspections keep many companies, especially he smaller ones from being
involved in serious compliance problems.
The biologics program high-risk areas that have been identified are
registered blood banks; source plasma operations; and biological
product manufacturing establishments. The Food and Drug Modernization
Act of 1997 or FDAMA requires FDA to perform biennial good
manufacturing practice, or GMP inspections of registered biologic
firms.
The high risk areas in the animal drugs and feed program include
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy or BSE--an immediate health hazard;
illegal drug residues in Meat and Poultry; National Milk Monitoring, a
chronic public health risk; feed contaminants, an acute public health
risk involving mycotoxins, pesticides, dioxins, microbials,
contamination response issues, etc.; and Drug Process and New Animal
Drug and Medicated Feed Inspection where experience has shown reduced
coverage causes increased lack of statutory compliance, thus an
increased public health risk.
The Foods high risk areas include ready to eat products which will
undergo no or minimal processing, such as heating, freezing, washing,
that would eliminate a pathogenic organism on the food. These products
include fresh fruits and vegetables, bakery goods, cheeses, cooked
pasta dishes, etc.; heat and serve products which normally receive a
heat treatment prior to final consumption by the consumer; all low acid
canned and acidified foods which if not properly processed may present
a potential hazard to health in the form of botulism; seafood products
particularly those that are scrombotoxic e.g. mahi mahi, pompano, tuna,
salmon, swordfish, those susceptible to ciguetera, e.g. grouper,
snapper, Spanish mackerel and those susceptible to other natural toxins
including paralytic fish poison, amnesic shellfish poison,
gemphlotoxin, etc.; and infant formula.
spending priorities
Question. In its plan for Statutory Compliance, FDA indicates that
``significant additional resources, as well as prioritization of FDA
activities, are essential if FDA is to meet its statutory requirements
on a sustained basis and to meet public expectations''. It is unlikely
that significant additional resources will be available to this
Committee given that spending must be brought below the fiscal year
1999 levels to comply with the statutory caps on discretionary
appropriations. Given this, what can you tell us about FDA's plans to
prioritize its activities and redesign its internal operations and
processes to better utilize its existing resources to meet its
statutory obligations and to meet newly emerging challenges?
Answer. In an effort to meet its statutory obligations and emerging
public health challenges, FDA must continuously and carefully examine
its priorities. Our focus on risk-based decision making , the use of
third parties in the regulatory process, technologic enhancements, and
systems reengineering will all contribute to a better, more efficient
use of resources. Involving our external stakeholders, as well as state
and federal government collaborators becomes increasingly important in
an environment of diminished resources. These constituents help the
Agency in understanding emergent issues, and they contribute ideas to
improve our systems.
Within this scenario of funding limits, FDA's overall strategic
directions that are outlined in the FDA Modernization Act ``Plan for
Statutory Compliance'' remain as viable approaches to a fiscally
uncertain future.
FDA's six strategic directions mentioned here include establishing
risk-based priorities, strengthening the scientific and analytical
basis for regulatory decisions, working more closely with external
stakeholders, continuing to re-engineer FDA processes, adopting a
systems approach to Agency regulation, and capitalizing on information
technology. We believe that these six strategic directions constitute a
framework for managing environmental changes of many different sorts--
fiscal, scientific, human resource, consumer preferences, and so forth.
Even with this strategic framework, however, the outcomes become a
matter of degree in relation to the resources available to address
those statutory or public health priorities.
Question. Given the likelihood that this Committee will not have
additional resources available to it above the fiscal year 1999 level,
what priority would you place on the increases FDA requests for fiscal
year 2000?
Answer. FDA has requested an increase of $216 million in
appropriated funding for fiscal year 2000. This increase request
resulted from a comprehensive analysis of our current performance
levels and those levels needed to achieve our statutory obligations.
Our experience tells us that without additional resources, progress
toward many very important outcomes cannot be achieved.
For example, $95.5 million of the increase request is intended to
boost the public health infrastructure. That includes reducing injuries
from the improper use of FDA regulated medical products, protecting
consumers and industry from unsafe products by enhancing inspectional
coverage of domestic and imported products, and reducing delays in
getting important new products on the market. Without additional
funding, FDA cannot meet its statutory obligations in the short-term or
the long-term. Even with system-wide improvements in setting priorities
and increasing efficiencies, the diminishing resources cannot be
overcome because the future cost of rebuilding the public health
infrastructure will be considerably higher than the incremental
maintenance of the existing system.
Other components of the increase request include the Presidential
Initiatives for addressing bioterrorism, preventing tobacco use among
youth, and food safety, as well as mammography quality standards.
Without increased resources, FDA will be ill-equipped to respond to
those priorities.
premarket application review
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget requests an increase of $11
million for premarket application review to improve FDA review times
for premarket approvals to meet statutory requirements, supplemented by
$17 million in collections from proposed new ``additive'' user fees.
The budget justification submitted to this Committee indicates that
premarket review of food and color additive petitions ``is one
particular area where FDA recognizes the need to improve performance.''
How has the agency worked over the past several years to improve its
level of performance in this area within existing resources?
Answer. In April 1995 and May 1996 FDA reported to a Congressional
oversight committee regarding the premarket review of food and color
additive petitions. At the time of the 1995 hearings FDA had an
inventory of 295 petitions of all types.
FDA has implemented several activities to improve the level of its
performance. In late 1995, and again in late 1996 FDA's Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition or CFSAN, reallocated resources within the
Center to transfer 23 employees from other programs to the premarket
review program for food and color additives. In addition, FDA provided
an influx of 7 million dollars for infrastructure improvements and for
third party reviews to provide scientific input into premarket reviews
to help reduce the number of overdue petitions and speed the review of
newer petitions. By the end of fiscal year 1996, FDA had reduced the
1995 petition inventory of 295 by more than 100 petitions. Since the
1995 hearing FDA has received over 220 food and color additive
petitions, including over an increase of more than 50 percent in the
number of petitions submitted from fiscal year 1997 to fiscal year
1998, and has successfully completed the review of over 100 of those
approximately 220. The current inventory is approximately 220
petitions.
Since April 1995, CFSAN also has codified a threshold of regulation
process for exempting low-risk food additives migrating from food
packaging from the requirement of a food additive petition. FDA
estimates that this process has thus far eliminated the need for over
200 petitions to be submitted to the agency.
Question. The FDA plan for statutory compliance issued in November
of 1998 indicates that FDA has successfully adopted a number of
innovations and re-engineering approaches to improve review
performance, but has now reached the point where additional
improvements in performance for non-PDUFA statutory requirements cannot
be met without additional resources. What innovations and re-
engineering approaches has FDA adopted to improve review performance
times?
Answer. PDUFA is a successful model both in terms of reduced review
times and terms of facilitating the development of needed products. In
other areas, however, this is a problem because there is a mismatch
between the enormous societal investment in new product development and
the resources available to FDA to fulfill its expanded role of
facilitating the development of these new therapies. The consequence is
evident in FDA's performance plan. In Medical Devices, it is estimated
that the percentage of Premarket Applications reviewed within 180 days
will drop from 83 percent to 70 percent between fiscal year 1998 and
fiscal year 1999. In Veterinary Medicine, the percentage of New Animal
Drug Applications and Abbreviated New Animal Drug Applications reviewed
within 180 days is projected to decrease from 75 percent in fiscal year
1998 to 65 percent in fiscal year 1999. Even if review times are
maintained, this will be achieved by devoting increasing proportions of
the science base resources to application review. But, with resources
that keep pace with America's R&D investments, FDA can hope to keep up
with industry's scientific and technological advances, and not only
reduce review times in all areas of product review, but also play the
vital role in shaping a more efficient and productive product
development process in accordance with the new FDAMA mission statement.
Question. How have review times been improved through these
innovations and approaches?
Answer. I would be happy to provide a detailed report of how review
times have been improved for each of FDA's review activities.
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
FDA continued with its major reengineering effort, initiated in
1997, to improve the device review program and make it more responsive
to stakeholders. FDA also made substantial progress in implementing the
device provisions of the FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA). FDA anticipates
that improvements and changes that arise from reengineering and FDAMA
activities, when fully implemented, will enhance performance levels
beyond fiscal year 1999. The table below shows that for fiscal year
1998, FDA met its goal in reviewing 510(k) first actions within the
statutory time limit but a lot improvement is still needed in the
review program for 510(k) final actions, PMAs, and PMA supplements.
[In Percent]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance in
FDA fiscal year Performance in
Goal Statement Performance in 1997 fiscal year Statutory
fiscal year (reengineering 1998 Performance
1996 Initiated)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete review of PMA first actions within 180 51 74 79 100
days and HDE actions within 75 days............
Review final actions for PMA Supplements within 69 65 89 100
180 days.......................................
510(k) firstactions within 90 days.............. 94 98 99.6 100
Complete 510(k) final actions within 90 days.... 65 70 75 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
These initiatives are directed at reducing the total time to
approval of generic drugs (ANDA's), not specifically to reduce review
times. (As background, approval times include agency review times as
well as time with firms to address any deficiencies identified by
agency reviewers. Average review times for original ANDA and major
amendments has not changed by much in several years, i.e., we review
about 50 percent of the ANDA's within 180 days.)
However, as a result of these initiatives, total time to approval
of generic drugs has decreased as shown:
Median approval time
Fiscal year in months
1995.............................................................. 28.2
1996.............................................................. 4.7
1997.............................................................. 9.6
1998.............................................................. 8.7
Center for Veterinary Medicine
Review times for the Animal Drugs and Feeds Program have not yet
improved. FDA's move away from the traditional review process for New
Animal Drug Applications toward the phased review process has added a
small amount of work to the review of applications. However, this
change is expected to increase animal drug availability, reduce the
overall animal drug development time, and reduce the time and costs to
sponsors for developing new animal drugs.
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
The Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) has resulted in more and
better applications that can be filed immediately, and reviewed and
approved more quickly. New products get on the market faster, and the
American consumer and the pharmaceutical industry benefit. The
cumulative effects of additional human and financial resources; the use
of project management methodology to guide the review process and
monitor the increasing workload; the elimination of overdue
applications; and the increased emphasis on timeliness as a performance
measure, have significantly improved Agency and industry performance,
predictability, and accountability.
The median approval time (from application receipt to approval) for
PDUFA product license applications (PLAs) and biologic license
applications (BLAs) at CBER has declined dramatically from 31.3 months
in fiscal year 1993, to 12.0 months in fiscal year 1997. (CBER's
performance against the fiscal year 1998 12-month review performance
goals will not be available until the end of fiscal year 1999, 12-
months after the end of the fiscal year.) In fiscal year 1993, the year
before PDUFA became effective, CBER's median PLA/BLA approval time was
31.3 months for PDUFA-type applications.
FDA's review performance with non-PDUFA license applications has
also improved, however, not as dramatically as with the PDUFA
applications. In fiscal year 1997, CBER's median approval time for non-
PDUFA PLAs/BLAs was 8.3 months compared to 23.3 months in fiscal year
1993.
Question. And, why has the agency now reached the conclusion that
no further improvements can be made without additional resources?
Answer. For the past several years, the Agency has made concerted
effort to re-engineer its application review process. However, we do
not foresee any additional improvements on the immediate horizon that
will have a substantial impact Improvements at this point are likely to
have only minor savings for the review process. This is a serious
concern if the rate of submissions of new applications continues to
increase as it has over the past few years. With reengineering efforts
and implementation of FDAMA activities, FDA has made substantial
progress in many aspects of its application and review program. For
example, review times for certain applications have decreased
significantly and backlogs have been eliminated. However, improvements
in other areas are still needed and prospects for these improvements
are dim without additional resources. The Agency has been asked to take
reductions each year to streamline operations, while expending
substantial reviewer and other resources to implement other
initiatives. Just as was the case for PDUFA applications, with
additional resources to hire more reviewers and improve the information
technology infrastructure, the Agency can achieve the levels of
performance the American people deserve.
new user fees
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget indicates that user fee
legislation will be submitted to the Congress to enable FDA to expand
its programs for the review of new medical devices, food additives, and
food contact substances.
When will these legislative proposals be transmitted to the
Congress?
Answer. Proposed legislation to authorize new fees to enhance the
quality and timeliness of premarket review for both direct and indirect
food and color additives, and for medical devices is in clearance
within the administration. The legislation is anticipated to be
completed shortly and submitted to the appropriate committees in
Congress.
Question. What fee schedules were assumed as the basis of the
budget estimate that an additional $17 million can be collected and
available to the FDA in fiscal year 2000 from these proposed new user
fees, if enacted into law?
Answer. The budget proposes FDA be authorized to charge fees
totaling $17.0 million in fiscal year 2000 to improve performance in
review of medical device applications and food and color additive
petitions. It also requests a premarket notification program for food
contact substances established under the FDA Modernization Act. FDA
proposes a device user fee program that will generate approximately $7
million in premarket review fees associated with high-risk devices and
device registration fees each year of its existence. The Agency also
proposes a foods premarket review fee program that will generate
approximately $10 million in fees, $4 million for food additive
petitions and $6 million for a premarket notification program for food
contact substances. The exact amounts of the individual fees will be
forthcoming with the transmittal of the Administration's legislative
proposal.
The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 amends
section 409 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to establish a process
whereby the manufacturer or a supplier of a food contact substance can
notify the FDA of the intent to market certain food contact substances
and, unless FDA objects to the notification within 120 days, the
manufacturer may proceed to market the product. This premarket
notification program for food contact substances is a replacement for
the food additive petition, or FAP, process for the majority of food
additives that are food contact substances. It also is an alternative
to the Agency's threshold of regulation or TOR process for exempting
food additives from the requirement of an approval regulation.
The Agency expects that this notification process will be very
attractive to industry because a notification will require information
comparable to that in an FAP or TOR submission, but will automatically
become effective after a 120-day review period if FDA does not object
to the marketing of the substance for the proposed use. Unlike food
additive approvals, premarket notifications will be proprietary since
such notifications will authorize the marketing of substances only for
the substance identified in the notification and not similar or
identical substances prepared by someone other than the manufacturer
listed in the PMN. Based upon these two factors, the Agency expects to
receive a larger number of notifications than it presently receives as
FAPs and TOR submissions for food contact substances.
As amended, section 409 requires that the Agency object to a
premarket notification within 120 days of its filing in order to
prevent a food contact substance from being marketed. While food
contact substances are used such that they typically enter the diet
only at relatively low levels, they also may be or contain toxic
chemicals. Therefore, it is essential that the Agency have the
necessary resources to complete the review of PMNs within the allotted
time and identify those substances that have not been shown to be safe.
Likewise, it is important to ensure that existing resources in the FAP
and TOR programs are not redirected prematurely.
Food Additive Petitions will still be required for certain food
contact substances of greatest public health concern and for food
additives added directly to food. These required petitions are
typically the most resource intensive to review. FDA's program for
premarket review of food additive petitions needs adequate support to
meet goals established under the Government Performance and Results
Act, to reduce the current petition inventory, and to make progress
towards meeting statutory time frames, as mandated by Section 903 of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by FDAMA. Thus, if
the resource demands of the PMN program are not adequately provided
for, resources from the related food additives program may need to be
redirected to PMN, with the result that goals of the food additives
program would be undermined.
Legislation would authorize collections of additive user fees to
support costs of review of food and color additive petitions and would
conform the current additive user fee authorization to the fee
authorization for food additives. Fees would be assessed on each person
who submits a food or color additive petition and on food ingredient
manufacturing establishments as defined in the bill. Revenue from the
fees would be used to increase resources available for the review of
food additive and color additive petitions and related activities, with
the goal of significantly expediting these reviews and supporting more
prefiling discussions and consultations with petitioners.
Regarding device user fees, as indicated by FDAMA requirements,
Congress and Agency stakeholders expect more timely and interactive PMA
reviews. Accordingly, FDA will use these additive device user fees to
significantly increase the effort devoted to PMA and PDP reviews,
including enhancing the timeliness and quality of the review process as
well as increasing interactions and consultations with industry. In
addition, the user fee revenue will enable FDA to stay current with
increasingly complex new technologies, update review standards and
provide high quality, timely guidance to industry and reviewers. The
medical device strategy is to concentrate resources on high risk, high
impact products or work areas where they are likely to have the
greatest impact on public health. With the proposed user fees, the
percentage of reviews completed within established time frames will
increase, average review times will go down, and the FDA will be able
to support increased interaction with industry.
Question. Has the FDA consulted with the affected industries in the
development of these user fee proposals?
Answer. In the area of food additives, review fees are proposed for
increasing support for the review of food and color additive petitions,
and funding the program, established in FDAMA, of premarket
notification for food contact substances, or so-called indirect food
additives such as food packaging materials.
With regard to food contact substance premarket notification, it is
our understanding that this program is generally supported by the
affected industry. Further, the program as incorporated in the Senate
version of the FDAMA legislation included a user fee provision that we
understand was supported by industry.
With regard to fees to support the review of food and color
additive petitions, we understand a group of the larger companies that
produce food additives directly added to food and several major trade
groups of the food industry have endorsed the concept of user fees, as
long as those fees are additive to the base budget, are targeted
explicitly to improving the timeliness of petition review, and are
accompanied by clear, publicly articulated performance goals. The
industry is also concerned that any fee program include legislative and
management changes to the review process. We certainly agree with the
principles expressed, and believe we can work with the industry and
consumer groups on process changes that we can all endorse.
FDA is requesting a total of $7.0 million in medical device fees to
improve the quality and timeliness of its medical device review
process. Growth in the size of the device industry and in the
complexity of new medical devices will continue to challenge the FDA
unless additional resources for device reviews are available. The
proposed user fee funding will enable the FDA to expedite review of
PMA/PDP applications and achieve statutorily established performance
goals by 2002. In 1997 during FDAMA discussions, the device industry
made it clear they wanted substantive review and decisions in 90-180
days from submission.
Question. Will the Administration's proposals affect small
businesses or will small companies be exempt?
Answer. The vast majority of the device industry are small
businesses, 96 percent have fewer than 100 employees and 98 percent
have fewer than 500 employees. Therefore, fees are being focused on PMA
applications, which tend to be submitted by larger firms, and some
waivers for small businesses are being considered. Administration
officials are in the process of discussing this proposal with industry.
generic drugs
Dr. Henney, this Subcommittee for the past two years has directed
additional funding to the Office of Generic Drugs. An increase of $1
million was provided for each of fiscal years 1998 and for fiscal year
1999.
Question. Please provide the total funding level and full-time
equivalent staffing level for the Office of Generic Drugs in each of
fiscal years 1997, 1998 and 1999.
Answer. I would be happy to provide a table that displays that
information.
OFFICE OF GENERIC DRUGS RESOURCES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding Level/
Fiscal Year Operating FTE Ceiling
Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997.................................... $8,991,000 127
1998.................................... 9,693,000 132
1999.................................... 10,693,000 132
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please indicate how the full-time equivalent staffing
positions for the Office of Generic Drugs were allocated in each of
fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999.
Answer. We do not calculate staffing allocations based on ceiling
levels. However, I will provide a chart with information about the on-
board staff by discipline.
OGD ON-BOARD STAFF BY DISCIPLINE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
Discipline 1997 1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemistry Reviewers............................................. 47 48 44
Bioequivalence Reviewers........................................ 24 22 25
Consumer Safety Officers/Project Managers/Techs................. 17 17 15
Clerical (Secretaries/Clerks, TIA's)............................ 10 11 11
Labeling Reviewers.............................................. 9 11 11
Legal, Administrative, Management............................... 8 9 7
Microbiologists................................................. 2 2 4
Application Examiners........................................... 2 2 2
Medical Officer................................................. 1 1 1
Computer Specialists............................................ .............. 1 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What is the fiscal year 2000 total funding request and
full-time equivalent staffing level for the Office of Generic Drugs?
Answer. The total funding request for the Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research's Generic Drug Evaluation program for fiscal
year 2000 is 366 full-time equivalents, and a total request of
$38,298,000. This total includes a $1.9 million proposed increase in
funding for the Office of Generic Drugs, which would include funds for
11 additional FTE.
Question. For fiscal year 2000, the President's budget proposes to
add 11 more full-time equivalent positions to the Office of Generic
Drugs and to increase funding by $1.9 million. If this Subcommittee
ultimately approves that increase, what assurances can you provide the
Subcommittee that the funds will go towards the hiring of more generic
reviewers and not be diverted to other areas of the Center for Drug
Evaluation Reviews (CDER) or the Office of Regulatory Affairs?
Answer. The requested resources will be directed toward the review
of generic drugs to provide additional review staff as well as
infrastructure support and improvement for the Office of Generic Drugs.
As in years past, if concurrent cuts in resources are mandated in the
Agency, the Center will not be able to protect the generic drugs
program from such cuts. Therefore, the additional resources would have
to, at least in part, offset any mandated reductions. If approved, this
increase for the Office of Generic Drugs will provide improved general
information technology infrastructure environment which currently
results in delays in approvals of generic products; expedite the
transition toward electronic review; allow the Office to recruit hire,
and train new generic drug reviewers; maintain the system for
electronic reviews and the database for use by reviewers, or archival
submissions for the Entry Validation Application program introduced by
CDER's Office of Pharmaceutical Science in 1997 for electronic
structured submissions of bioequivalence data that accompanies generic
drug applications; enhance systems to include electronic microbiology
and labeling data and other related initiatives e.g., online copies of
labeling.
Question. While the Office of Generic Drugs has made some positive
improvements in its approval times for drug applications, it still
falls short of meeting its statutory obligation to approve applications
within a 6-month period. According to FDA's own figures, the average
approval time in 1998 was 18 months, three times more than the
statutory period. Equally troubling is the fact that since 1994, the
number of generic applications pending over the 6-month period has
grown from 54 to 127 in 1998. What amount of resources does FDA need to
meet the 6-month approval time required by law?
Answer. The increase of $1.9 million, including 11 FTE, will not
allow FDA to meet the statutory requirement to review abbreviated new
drug applications (ANDA's) within a 6-month period.
As background regarding ANDAs, the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
states in Section 505(b)(4)(A), ``Within one hundred and eighty days of
the initial receipt of an application under paragraph (2)... the
Secretary shall approve or disapprove the application.'' Therefore,
either an approval or disapproval is considered by FDA to be a final
action. The agency makes every attempt to meet this requirement;
however, for a number of reasons it is not always possible to do so.
After receiving a disapproval action, manufacturers frequently resubmit
applications that address the deficiencies indicated in the disapproval
action.
Neither the Center nor the Office of Generic Drugs has conducted a
study on the budgetary needs to review the majority of applications
within 180 days given the current review environment. However, we
believe the needs are substantial and would have to include the needs
of other Agency components that play a supporting but critical role in
the generic drug review process.
At this time, we believe that the key to addressing current review
backlog and improving action times is increasing the number of
chemistry, microbiology, and labeling reviewers within OGD. In
addition, funding is needed for research to support the development of
scientifically rigorous bioequivalence testing methodologies for
nonsytemically absorbed drug products. The review and approval of such
products are often subject to challenge by innovator firms. The
stronger the scientific support of these approvals, the more likely it
will be the Office can successfully meet innovator challenges.
relocation costs
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget requests an increase of $4.64
million for one-time costs associated with the relocation of the Center
for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition to its new College Park, MD,
facility.
Will the $4.64 million fully satisfy the costs of installation of
the building's telecommunications system and security equipment costs?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget request included funds for one-
time costs to cover those items that must be purchased early to prepare
the building for occupancy. The $4.64 million will satisfy the major
portion of the building's telecommunications system, as well as most of
the security equipment costs.
Question. You indicate that occupancy of the new facility is
scheduled for early 2001. Will this move result in an increase in GSA
rental of space costs or relocation costs in fiscal year 2001?
Answer. Preliminary discussions with GSA have indicated that the
addition of the College Park rental payment along with the elimination
of the FB-8, Switzer Building, and Vermont Avenue rental payments will
result in a relatively similar or slightly lower annual rental costs.
Until final rental costs are received from GSA, FDA is unable to
determine the exact amount, if any, of the change in rental costs.
There will be one time expenses to move the existing laboratory and
office equipment and furnishings from Washington to the College Park
location in fiscal year 2001.
Question. What additional costs are anticipated?
Answer. Additional costs are anticipated for a number of expenses
including new laboratory equipment needed due to laboratory design,
audio-visual equipment for the auditorium, training and conference
rooms, some furniture, special computer requirements, an electronic
database and microfilming to compensate for smaller library size and
other items. Funding for these additional costs will be requested in
the fiscal year 2001 budget.
tobacco
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes to double funding
for FDA's youth tobacco prevention activities to $68 million from $34
million in fiscal year 1999. Would you please tell us how FDA is
spending its current resources (1) on State contracts for inspection of
retail outlets that sell tobacco, (2) on its multi-media advertising
campaign, and (3) on product regulation, etc.
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 budget is divided into two active
components: enforcement and outreach. Twenty-two million dollars is
budgeted for contracts with states and territories to enforce the age
and ID provisions of the regulations. Ten million dollars is budgeted
for outreach efforts. Two million dollars is budgeted for salaries and
overhead. The Agency did not budget money for product regulation while
the Supreme Court considers the case. However, certain limited
activities are ongoing in the regulation area for example, the agency,
in conjunction with other agencies within DHHS, is conducting an 18
month research project into the efficacy of the FTC tar and nicotine
testing procedure at the request of the FTC.
Question. How effective have we been in each of these areas to
date, and will the fiscal year 2000 requested funding enhance these
efforts?
Answer. In 1997, over a 3 month pilot period, the program completed
1,400 compliance checks. In fiscal year 1998, the Agency completed
30,095 checks, and in fiscal year 1999 the Agency has contracted to
perform approximately 200,000 checks. 48,778 compliance checks have
been completed so far in fiscal year 1999. With the enhanced funding
requested, FDA could inspect 400,000 facilities and could ensure that
many retailers in America were visited at least once a year.
In order to determine the effectiveness of these activities, FDA is
working with other agencies within DHHS to coordinate data and
surveillance needs. These needs include monitoring tobacco use by
youth, retailer compliance rates etc. FDA itself has established a
computerized tobacco database to gather the results from its compliance
checks, including the number of violations, the amount of civil money
penalties, etc. The database will allow FDA to measure the
effectiveness of its own enforcement efforts. Finally, the Agency
conducted the first of many tracking studies to evaluate the
effectiveness of its outreach efforts. Findings from the first ten
media markets indicate that awareness of salient provisions of the
tobacco regulation rose following FDA outreach campaign.
Question. Please provide a table providing a breakdown of the FDA
tobacco budget for the past three fiscal years, indicating the
available funding and obligations by fiscal year for each aspect of the
program, advertising, compliance, enforcement, product regulation, etc.
Answer. I would be happy to provide a table which shows a breakdown
of the FDA tobacco budget.
TOBACCO BUDGET
[In millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
Category 1997 1998 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enforcement \1\................................................. $2.0 $16.4 $22.0
Outreach \2\.................................................... 1.0 12.8 10.0
Salary & Overhead............................................... 1.9 2.0 2.0
Information Technology.......................................... .............. 2.8 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Enforcement includes enforcement, compliance, state contracts etc.
\2\ Outreach includes national advertising, retailer education, maintenance of a hot line, etc.
Question. Dr. Henney, you indicate in the prepared statement that
in fiscal year 1998, FDA began seeking civil money penalties from
retailers found to have sold tobacco to minors at least twice. What
were the collections from these civil penalties in fiscal year 1998 and
in fiscal year 1999 to date?
Answer. So far, the civil money penalties that have been assessed
and paid have amounted to over $223,000. These amounts were collected
from retailers found to have violated the rule twice and in a few cases
three times. First violations result in a warning and second violations
result in a complaint seeking $250 fine. Mitigating circumstances in
some cases can justify a reduction in the fine below $250. The program
has just started processing civil money penalty complaints for third
violations. The fine for a third violation by the same retailer is
$1500. All civil money penalty fines are payable to the U. S. Treasury.
In fiscal year 1998, the program collected $42,625 in civil money
penalties from second time violators. In fiscal year 1999, the program
has collected, to date, $181,000 in civil money penalties from second
and third time violators.
Question. Are these receipts available to the FDA or are they
deposited in a Department of Treasury receipt account?
Answer. The checks are made out to the US Treasury and are not
credited to FDA's use.
Question. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMHSA) has been conducting enforcement efforts for
years. Why should the FDA duplicate their efforts by conducting their
own training for their enforcement and their own sting operations?
Answer. The FDA and SAMHSA efforts are not duplicative. Under the
Synar program, SAMHSA oversees a program that conditions the states'
receipt of substance abuse block grants on certain tobacco control
activities. The Synar program is built around statistical sampling of
youth access to tobacco products. The FDA program currently consists of
direct enforcement of two provisions of the Agency's final tobacco
rule. These provisions establish 18 as the minimum age of sale of
cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products, and require retailers to
verify age by demanding photographic identification from customers
under the age of 27 seeking to purchase cigarettes or smokeless tobacco
products. The FDA rule contains many other access and advertising
restrictions that are not in effect. FDA and SAMHSA closely coordinate
their efforts. In fact, states are permitted to include their Synar
compliance checks in the checks that are being conducted under contract
to FDA.
Question. Many retailers have complained that notifications of
violations are taking too long, sometime up to four months, and due to
the high turnover rate of employees, the information provided comes too
late to use for secondary training of clerks. What has the FDA done to
address this problem?
Answer. Retailers are entitled to timely notification of violations
of the FDA tobacco rule. We have made significant progress in providing
more timely notification. Today, 90 percent of the letters informing
retailers of a first violation of the tobacco rule are mailed within 2
weeks of the date of the inspection. In addition, FDA allows inspectors
to return at the end of the day or the end of the shift to notify a
retailer of a violation of a comparable state law prohibiting the sale
of tobacco products to minors. We are also piloting a program in which
investigators immediately notify a retailer of a violation of the FDA
tobacco rule or a comparable state law.
prescription drug user fee act
Question. What are the fiscal year 1998 and current fiscal year
1999 base appropriation levels for prescription drug review and
approval activities which are enhanced by collections from the
Prescription Drug User Fee Act user fees?
Answer. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act specifies certain
conditions that must be met each fiscal year based on the FDA's
Salaries and Expenses appropriation before the FDA can collect any
fees. One of these conditions is that the amount of FDA's Salaries and
Expenses appropriation are equal to or greater than the amount of
appropriations for the salaries and expenses of the Food and Drug
Administration for fiscal year 1997 multiplied by the adjustment factor
applicable to the fiscal year involved. For making this comparison,
FDA's 1997 Salaries and Expenses appropriation must be adjusted each
year by an adjustment factor, which is defined in section 735(8) of the
Act. The term `adjustment factor' applicable to a fiscal year is the
lower of the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers, representing
the United States city average, for April of the preceding fiscal year
divided by such Index for April, 1997, or the total of discretionary
budget authority provided for programs in the domestic category for the
immediately preceding fiscal year, divided by such budget authority for
fiscal year 1997. Over the period of time since 1997, due to low
inflation, the Consumer Price Index has been the lower of these two
factors, and thus determines the adjustment.
For fiscal year 1998 only, the fiscal year 1997 Amendments to PDUFA
specified that the base required appropriation be the same as that for
fiscal year 1997. For fiscal year 1999, the consumer price index of
April 1998 (162.5) divided by the Consumer Price Index of April 1997
(160.2) gives an adjustment factor of 1.0144. This factor is applied to
the fiscal year 1998 base Salaries and Expenses appropriation that was
$819,871,000. For fiscal year 1999, the FDA appropriation minimum is
$831,743,368.
For fiscal year 1998, FDA's total Salaries and Expenses
appropriation, excluding user fees, was $857, 501,000. For fiscal year
1999, FDA's total Salaries and Expenses appropriation, excluding user
fees and $82,866,000 in GSA rent, was $888,001,000.
Since the fiscal year 1998 amount exceeds the fiscal year 1997
amount, and the fiscal year 1999 amount exceeds the fiscal year 1997
amount, as adjusted, the conditions of the Prescription Drug User Fee
Act have been met.
The other appropriations requirement specified in PDUFA is that the
amount FDA spends on the process for the review of human drug
applications be as much as in Fiscal 1997, adjusted in Fiscal 1999 and
following years in a similar manner as the adjustment factor for the
salaries and expenses appropriation. In Fiscal 1997, FDA spent
$147,959,689 within its Salaries and Expenses Appropriation on the
process for review of human drug applications. In Fiscal 1998, FDA was
required to spend the same amount, but actually spent $151,836,635. In
Fiscal 1999, FDA will be required to spend, exclusive of fees,
$150,083,965 on the drug application review process. FDA expects to
spend at least that much.
fiscal year 2000 appropriation base for pdufa
Question. What is the base level assumed in the fiscal year 2000
budget request?
Answer. For Fiscal 2000, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is the
lower of the two possible adjustments. Based on the CPI-U for April of
1999 (166.2 versus 160.2 in April 1997), the required base
appropriation for FDA's Salaries and Expenses, excluding user fees and
GSA Rent, will be $850,681,524. If this amount were not appropriated,
the FDA would be unable to continue to collect fees under PDUFA. In
addition, FDA will be required to spend $153,501,250 within its
Salaries and Expenses appropriation for the process for the review of
new human drug applications.
These calculations do not include the amounts of FDA's Salaries and
Expenses Appropriation that is for payment of GSA Rent for fiscal year
1999 and fiscal year 2000. Prior to fiscal year 1998, FDA's rent
payments to GSA were appropriated in a separate appropriation for the
purpose of limiting those costs to FDA. These GSA rent payment were
capped at $46.5 million. For fiscal year 1999, the Administration
proposed including GSA Rent within FDA's Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation at a level of $82.9 million, and Congress appropriated
the funds in that fashion.
This substantial increase in FDA's GSA Rent costs would distort the
purpose of the base appropriation requirements in PDUFA if the current
GSA Rent costs are included in the calculation, while for comparability
the fiscal year 1997 costs are adjusted to include what was then a
separate appropriation for these costs. Since the changes to PDUFA
passed by Congress in 1997 specify fiscal year 1997 as the new base
year for this calculation, we believe that FDA's Salaries and Expenses
appropriation should be the basis for calculating whether FDA's
appropriations for its operating budget have increased as required by
PDUFA, and this requires adjusting fiscal year 1999 and subsequent
years to exclude GSA Rent costs.
pdufa fee collections
Question. Please provide a summary of PDUFA collections over the
past five fiscal years, indicating how much has been spent in each year
and the balance, if any, carried over into subsequent fiscal years.
Answer. Under PDUFA, any fees collected and not spent by the end of
a fiscal year continue to remain available to the Agency in future
fiscal years. These revenues are referred to as carryover balances. The
net result of operations in fiscal year 1998 provided a carryover
balance of $67,518,297. This balance is a result of a one-time spike in
fiscal year 1998 collections, attributable to collection of the second
half of application fees for many prior fiscal year submissions,
receipt of full application fees for all fiscal year 1998 submissions
under the amended PDUFA procedures passed in 1997, and constraints on
spending because of concerns regarding the shortfall in fee revenues in
fiscal year 1999. I will be happy to provide a table reflecting the
carryover balances with explanation for the record.
[The information follows:]
SUMMARY OF PDUFA COLLECTIONS, OBLIGATIONS AND CARRYOVER BALANCES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning Year-End
Fiscal year ---------------------------------------------------------------
Carryover Collections Obligations Carryover
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994............................................ $19,582,996 $53,730,244 $39,951,020 $33,362,220
1995............................................ 33,362,220 70,953,500 74,064,015 30,251,705
1996............................................ 30,251,705 82,318,400 85,053,030 27,517,075
1997............................................ 27,517,075 93,234,125 84,289,046 36,462,154
1998............................................ 36,462,154 132,671,143 101,615,000 67,518,297
1999............................................ 67,518,297 .............. .............. ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The carryover balances do not include estimated receivables from
fiscal year 1998 and prior years, which total $13,759,458.
While the carryover balance grew substantially in fiscal year 1998,
there are also a number of claims on these funds. These claims are as
follows: (1)
--Collection ceiling: PDUFA imposes a collection ceiling which
prohibits the Agency from keeping fees in excess of the amount
specified in appropriations for each fiscal year through fiscal
year 1997. Amounts collected that exceed the collection
ceilings will be refunded. Under FDAMA, balances collected in
excess of amounts specified in appropriations after fiscal year
1997 may be kept, and used to reduce fee charges that would
otherwise be made in a later fiscal year.
--Operating funds: FDA must ensure adequate operating funds in the
first 4 months of each new fiscal year. Each year, two-thirds
of the PDUFA fees, including product and establishment fees,
are not paid until January 31. The FDA needs to carry forward
some operating costs into each new fiscal year to cover
expenses until the fees are received.
--Perfommancegoals: Approximately $25 million from the carryover
balance has been allocated to FDA components in fiscal year
1999 to assure that perfommance goals for fiscal year 1999 will
be met.
buildings and facilities
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes a $20.4 million
increase in FDA Buildings and Facilities account to fund a portion of
the construction of the Los Angeles Laboratory and Office project.
Given the limitations on discretionary appropriations, what is the
urgency of initiating construction of this project?
Answer. The original lease for the Pico Boulevard facility in Los
Angeles expired in 1992. The agency negotiated a six-year extension
with two additional one-year options, and funded several necessary
renovations to the aging and obsolete facility. The final lease option
for the existing Los Angeles laboratory expires on March 31, 2000. The
facility has aged far beyond its useful life. The lab cannot
efficiently handle necessary increases in staff to support the expanded
import work, and at this point the infrastructure of the existing 30
plus year old facility will no longer accommodate renovations
desperately needed to bring the building up to current laboratory
standards. If funding is not received to begin construction of the
replacement facility, the agency will have no other option but to
consider closing the laboratory, and moving the functions elsewhere.
The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes a funding of $20.4
million to begin construction. The replacement laboratory will serve to
consolidate three Los Angeles district sites, the laboratory on Pico
Boulevard, the current district office in Irvine, and the San Pedro
resident post, into one location, replacing three existing leases
currently costing $2 million annually.
Expected benefits from the construction of the new Los Angeles
laboratory include providing a much safer location and a vastly
improved working environment for FDA and state laboratory personnel. A
concentration of scientific talent will be available which will permit
better management of the analytical workload and provide significant
improvement in operational efficiency. Also, better analytical coverage
will be provided during emergencies. Additional benefits include a more
efficient use of costly analytical equipment and better equipped
laboratories in a state-of-the-art facility.
Question. What is the total cost of the project and what phase of
the project will be funded with the $20.4 million requested?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget requests $20.4 million for
Phase I. This phase includes the construction of the core and shell for
the entire building with major mechanical and electrical infrastructure
systems. Phase II completes the mechanical and electrical
infrastructure and completely fits-out both the laboratory and the
office at an estimated cost of $20.0 million. The total estimated
construction cost of $40.4 million is based upon receiving total
project funding in fiscal year 2000. This cost includes laboratory
casework, fume hoods, construction management and escalation costs to a
midpoint of construction. The estimated construction cost does not
include funding for furniture, telecommunication systems, or security
systems. Funding for furniture and the telephone system will come from
the FDA appropriations in the year in which they are needed. The
security system is estimated to cost approximately $310,000 and the
telephone infrastructure is estimated to cost approximately $300,000.
The request for funding to cover these costs will be included in our
fiscal year 2001 budget request.
Should Phase II funding be provided in fiscal year 2001, the
construction cost will need to be adjusted for inflation. Based upon
receiving funds for Phase I in fiscal year 2000 the construction
contract for Phase I would be awarded in late 1999 and would take
approximately one year to complete. If the remaining funds for Phase II
are appropriated in fiscal year 2001, the construction contract would
be awarded in late 2000 and would take approximately one year to
complete. This construction schedule would result in a projected move-
in of early to mid 2002.
Question. Funding of $9.8 million was provided in fiscal year 1995
to purchase land and begin engineering and design work for replacement
of the Los Angeles Laboratory and Office. Is the land purchase and
engineering and design work for this project complete?
Answer. Yes. The site, a 10 acre land parcel located at the corner
of MacArthur Boulevard and Fairchild Road adjacent to the campus of the
University of California at Irvine, California was purchased by FDA in
September 1996. The balance of funds was used to design the new
laboratory and office facility. The architectural firm in joint venture
with a consulting engineer firm is in the process of completing the
design for the new facility. The design is expected to be complete in
mid 1999. The solicitation for construction proposals will be
advertised shortly thereafter to be able to award a construction
contract in November 1999 should fiscal year 2000 funds be
appropriated.
Question. Funds have been provided over the past four fiscal years
to continue the modernization of the Arkansas Regional Laboratory at
Jefferson, Arkansas. Would you please give us an update on this
project.
Answer. The construction of the Arkansas Regional Laboratory or ARL
project was separated into three phases to best utilize the available
funding. Phase I includes the foundation, substructure, superstructure,
exterior enclosure, and the roofing for the laboratory building as well
as major building systems, such as fire protection, heating/
ventilation/air conditioning, and electrical. Phase II continues the
construction of the laboratory building by completing the building
systems and providing some office and laboratory fit-out. Phase III
provides the renovation of the existing Building 50 in its entirety and
completes the common ORA/NCTR administrative and support area.
In October 1997, White Construction Company of Clarksdale,
Mississippi, was given notice to proceed on Phase I of the project.
Since that time White Construction has also been given notice to
proceed on Phase II and a portion of the Phase III work. The projected
completion date for Phases I & II is December 1999. The laboratory
building project is currently approximately 60 percent complete.
Current work includes finishing the building enclosure and installation
of the building systems. The fiscal year 1999 appropriation included $3
million to begin the construction on a portion of Phase III that
includes exterior demolition, structural, and masonry work as well as
some roofing repairs. The Phase III portion of the awarded work is
approximately 15 percent complete. Current Phase III activity involves
demolition of the existing Building 50 exterior masonry.
FDA requested $3.0 million in fiscal year 2000 towards completing
Phase III. Approximately $7.0 million in additional funding will be
needed in subsequent fiscal years to complete Phase III. The
construction contract FDA awarded included as an option, the
construction of Phase III. When FDA awarded just a portion of the Phase
III work in December 1998, the contractor escalated the remaining
costs, which are currently fixed until November 1999. In order to
exercise this option at the current cost estimates, the balance of ARL
funding would need to occur in fiscal year 2000. Should this not be
forthcoming all costs for the project are expected to increase.
Therefore, any request in fiscal year 2001 or beyond would include an
escalation increase in construction, construction management, and A/E
post design services costs for completion of the project.
office of cosmetics and color and related field activities
Question. What is the total funding and staffing levels for the
Office of Cosmetics and Color and its related field activities in each
of fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999?
Answer. I will be happy to provide the total funding and staffing
levels for the Office of Cosmetics and Color and its related field
activities in each of fiscal years 1997, 1998 and 1999. to the
Committee.
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollars FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1997:
Headquarters........................ 4,389 46
Field............................... 1,795 26
Fiscal year 1998:
Headquarters........................ 2,825 29
Field............................... 405 5
Fiscal year 1999:
Headquarters........................ 4,405 43
Field............................... 1,795 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What funding and staffing levels are proposed for fiscal
year 2000?
Answer. I will be happy to provide that information to the
Committee.
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollars FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000:
Headquarters........................ 4,405 43
Field............................... 1,795 15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
clinical pharmacology program
Question. The conference agreement on the fiscal year 1999
appropriations act makes $700,000 available for Clinical Pharmacology
program competitive grants. The justification indicates that the FDA
will make available $500,000 to continue the operation of the four
previously-competed grantees in this program throughout fiscal year
1999. Please provide for the record the amount of the grant award
provided to each of the four previously-competed program grantees for
fiscal year 1999, and how the remaining $200,000 provided for the
program is being allocated.
Answer. The Agency has had to absorb pay raise and other
inflationary costs, forcing the Agency to reduce operating funding in
all parts of the Agency. In particular, the Agency has had to
substantially reduce its extramural research contracts, including the
Clinical Pharmacology program. For fiscal year 1999, the FDA asked the
current grantees what they would need to continue through the end of
the fiscal year. $500,000 is the amount the grantees determined they
would need collectively to continue through the end of the fiscal year.
Those programs that do not receive new funds will receive no-cost
extensions to enable them to use previously-awarded funds to cover this
time period. If it turns out that one or more of the grantees requires
more funding than presently anticipated through the end of the fiscal
year, then funding up to the full amount of $700,000 specified will be
awarded.
FDA will grant a six-month extension in the amount of $369,129 to
the University of Illinois at Peoria, and a three-month extension in
the amount of $130,871 to Meharry Medical College. Both Peoria and
Meharry have concurred with FDA's proposal for a low cost extension
based upon their fiscal year 1998 expenditure rates to continue their
projects through the end of the fiscal year. Mayo has requested, but
not demanded, additional fiscal year 1999 funds. SUNY has agreed to a
no-cost extension, if FDA confirmed in writing our long standing
promise that they will continue to be given no-cost extension so long
as they have unobligated federal funds. 58. OFM
Question. Are funds included in the fiscal year 2000 request for
the Clinical Pharmacology Program?
Answer. No, funds are not included for the Clinical Pharmacology
Program in fiscal year 2000.
Question. What level of funding is included in the request for this
program?
Answer. There is no funding request for this program.
Question. Please describe the Clinical Pharmacology Program and its
purpose.
Answer. The Clinical Pharmacology Program is a program to support a
grant for establishment of a clinical pharmacology training program
since there is currently a nationwide shortage. The purpose of the
grant is to: (1) increase the number of trained biomedical scientific
personnel in clinical pharmacology, and (2) establish a clinical
pharmacology training program at a medical school currently without
such a program.
Question. Please provide for the record the total funding provided
for the Clinical Pharmacology Program in each year since the program's
inception. Indicate how the funds were awarded in each fiscal year,
showing the recipients of the funds and the amount awarded to each.
Answer. I will be happy to provide that information to the
Committee.
CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY PROGRAM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meharry State
Mayo Medical University of University of
Foundation College Illinois New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1993................................ $201,532 $536,558 $749,998 $411,912
Fiscal year 1994................................ 247,000 538,976 748,084 516,000
Fiscal year 1995................................ 201,532 536,558 749,998 411,912
Fiscal year 1996................................ 201,532 536,558 749,998 411,912
Fiscal year 1997................................ 181,379 482,902 674,998 370,721
Fiscal year 1998................................ 60,460 .............. 224,999 ..............
Fiscal year 1999................................ .............. 130,871 369,129 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
review of aquaculture drug submissions
Question. The growth of the United States Aquaculture industry
requires legally safe and effective drugs to control disease. The
industry in my State of Mississippi has formed a variety of
partnerships and has developed many Aquaculture drug data packages that
recently have been submitted to the FDA's Center for Veterinary
Medicine for review. I am told, however, that the Center is unable to
complete reviews of these Aquaculture drug data packages in a timely
manner, and they are over 200 days overdue.
Is the Center aware of this problem and what is being done to
ensure the timely review of Aquaculture drug data submissions?
Answer. Yes, the Center for Veterinary Medicine, CVM is aware of
the problem and is doing what is can to ensure timely review of
aquaculture drug submissions as well as submissions for all other
animal drug products.
The situation in is an example of the pressure FDA must deal with
as new industries emerge. In 1991, CVM developed a program to educate
the aquaculture industry about the animal drug approval process. CVM
hired a specialist in aquaculture who spoke frequently before industry
groups in order to help them understand the steps necessary to get new
aquaculture drugs approved. CVM also developed several written
documents to provide guidance to the aquaculture industry. As a result,
the aquaculture industry responded to the new challenge and developed
numerous coalitions that generated a significant amount of new data
necessary for drug approvals.
The aquaculture drug development program created a burgeoning
workload for CVM. At the same time, FDA faced reduced budgets and
significant staffing shortages. In the face of staffing shortages, FDA
has been unable to direct adequate resources to many critical areas,
including aquaculture drug review, illustrating why FDA is asking for
additional review resources in fiscal year 2000.
rule on cfcs
Question. The appropriations justification indicates that FDA plans
to comply with the fiscal year 1999 conference report directive and
publish a proposed rule on CFCs by September 1, 1999. Could you please
give us a better idea of where FDA is in the process of preparing this
proposed rule, what the FDA timetable is for issuing the final rule?
Answer. The FDA has completed its assessment of all the submitted
public commentary on the ANPR related to the use of CFCs in metered-
dose-inhalers. While the FDA has no explicit timetable, nor are all
aspects of the publication of the NPR within FDA control, the FDA takes
the conference report directive seriously, and is working to meet that
directive for the publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
orphan drug research grant program
Question. I note from the budget justification that FDA has reduced
the funding for Orphan Product Grants from the $11,542,000 level
provided by the conference committee on the fiscal year 1999
Appropriations Act to $11,150,000. Why?
Answer. FDA has reduced staffing and cut operating costs across the
board to absorb pay raise and other inflationary costs. For fiscal year
1999, we thought it was appropriate for the orphan product grant
program, even though it is an important program to us, to absorb a
small reduction in funding, from the prior budgeted level of $11.5
million to $11.1 million.
Question. How much of the funding provided for Orphan Drug Research
Grant Program is taken to cover overhead and administrative costs?
Please provide an accounting of these costs for fiscal year 1999.
Answer. In fiscal year 1998 FDA's cost to administer the Orphan
Product Drugs program was $1.6 million for payroll and $.2 million in
operating expenses. In fiscal year 1999 the cost to administer the
Orphan Drugs program is estimated at $1.8 million for payroll and $.1
million for operating expenses. For fiscal year 2000 the estimated
expenses to administer the Orphan Drugs program for payroll will cost
FDA an estimated amount of $1.6 million and an estimated amount of $.1
million in operating expenses.
over-the-counter sunscreen monograph
Question. Last year, the FDA indicated to the Committee that the
final rule for over-the-counter (OTC) sunscreen drug products was to be
published no later than May 21, 1999, the date set by the FDAMA. Please
update the Committee on the schedule for publishing this final rule.
Answer. The Agency remains committed to meeting the requirements of
the FDA Modernization Act, FDAMA, regarding the issuance of regulations
for OTC sunscreen drug products not later than May 21, 1999.
office of seafood inspection
Question. How much is included in the fiscal year 2000 budget
request for the Office of Seafood Inspection?
Answer. FDA's request for increased funding for the Office of
Seafood Inspection activities in fiscal year 1999 was $27 million. If
received, the Office of Seafood Inspections will remain at the $27
million level in fiscal year 2000.
Question. Does the fiscal year 2000 budget request include
continued funding for a grant to the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation
Commission?
Answer. Yes, The Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission, or
ISSC, grant will be funded jointly by way of an Interagency Agreement
between the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, or
CFSAN, and the National Marine Fishery Service, Department of Commerce.
The cost of the ISSC grant is $275,000. FDA funds $200,000 of the
grant.
Question. Please give us a summary report on the work being carried
out by the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission.
Answer. The Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Commission (ISSC) is a
consortium of State shellfish control officials, representing both
environmental and public health agencies; including the FDA, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Commerce's
National Marine Fisheries Services. The major goal of the ISSC is to
improve information exchange and transfer among States, Federal
agencies, industry and the consumer, and to strengthen State activities
by providing them with procedural and policy guidance, technical
training, research and materials for consumer education.
In the improvement of information exchange and transfer among
States, federal agencies, industry, and consumers, the ISSC has been
involved in at least fifteen activities to facilitate this aim. For
example, the ISSC participated in various fora supporting international
shellfish restoration, the regional shellfish sanitation as well as
CFSAN's priorities. Furthermore, relevant information regarding illness
outbreak, recalls of shellfish and Biotoxin methodology research and
the Food Code has been provided to States, consumers and ISSC
membership.
The ISSC also has reported important procedures and policy
statements to guide States in executing the NSSP in areas such as
Vibrio parahaemolyticus outbreaks, Vibrio vulnificus controls and
regulations for implementation of HACCP in State shellfish programs.
Important undertakings of the ISSC include interaction with States
in resolving problems between States or between FDA and a State
regarding conformity to the NSSP; communicating procedures and policy
statements to guide States in executing the NSSP, and interacting with
States and FDA in the development of uniform and effective state
program evaluation criteria; providing program auxiliary support in
facilitating State involvement in technical training, research and
consumer education; and coordinating the collection and maintenance of
information relating to U.S. coastal waters classified for shellfish
harvesting and coordinate the development of a digitized mapping
network (SIMS).
Significant accomplishments include providing World Health
organizations (WHO) with information explaining ISSC integration of
HACCP into the NSSP; reviewed and commented on a FDA Shellfish Program
Review Workshop Report; utilized the ISSC unresolved issue process to
resolve State of Florida non-compliance with the NSSP; coordinated and
provided third party involvement for FDA shellfish plant inspections in
the State of Florida; utilized the ISSC unresolved issue process to
address Gulf Oyster Industry Council complaints regarding the Texas
Department of Health response to the 1998 Vibrio parahaemolyticus
outbreak in Galveston Bay.
The ISSC will continue to interact with States to implement Vibrio
vulnificus consumer educational programs, develop risk reduction
controls for Vibrio vulnificus, and develop criteria for assessing
Vibrio vulnificus risk reduction controls while at the same time,
obtain information from States and industry to provide consistent and
coordinated input to FDA in implementing a Model Shellfish Ordinance.
government performance and results act
Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within your agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. For the past several years, FDA's Office of Planning and
Evaluation, OPE, has coordinated performance-based management systems
across the Agency in order to meet the intent of the Government
Performance and Results Act, GPRA. We have used a multi-level approach
that promotes the use of performance management practices. This has
included intensive training for senior and mid-level managers,
participation in internal and external performance management
conferences and workshops, development of a GPRA-focused web site,
development of a liaison network between planning and budgeting staff
within our Centers, and periodic Agency-wide planning meetings to
discuss performance planning and improvement.
The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act, FDAMA, of 1997
has become a top priority for the Agency. FDAMA established a new
mission and specific performance targets that impact not only what the
agency does but how it goes about achieving those goals. I would be
happy to provide you with further information.
New Mission and Specific Performance Targets
GPRA and FDAMA together emphasize performance management. As a
result of the legislative mandates, FDA has been able to focus its
energies on ways to achieve long range results through strategic, year-
to-year performance planning. This process has resulted in six
strategic directions for the future:
--Establish risk-based priorities
--Strengthen the scientific and analytical basis for regulatory
decisions
--Work more closely with external stakeholders
--Continue to re-engineer FDA processes
--Adopt a systems approach to Agency regulation
--Capitalize on information technology
Question. How are your agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. FDA's senior executives and key managers play a primary
role in setting the Agency's strategic and performance goals. For both
the GPRA annual performance plan and the FDA Modernization Act's Plan
for Statutory Compliance, senior executive and key managers worked
together to define performance levels that emphasize public health and
safety results within the context of available resources. Assessing
progress toward achieving the performance levels set forth in the GPRA
and FDAMA plans is of growing importance at multiple levels within the
Agency.
A second accountability issue relates to the capability of Agency
managers to understand the changing context of FDA's responsibilities
and to set priorities within that evolving context. For FDAMA and GPRA,
FDA's senior leadership identified agency-wide strategic directions in
order to focus energies on those areas of critical public health and
safety importance. This ability to see the changing shape of the
environment speaks directly to the question of accountability for
achieving results.
Question. How is performance information being used to manage the
agency?
Answer. FDA has used performance information for many years to
communicate its mission in protecting public health and safety. For
example, performance relating to new product evaluation, product safety
assurance, food safety, and injury reporting systems are reflected in
the wide array of communications from FDA. In addition, those data
become the basis for continuously improving the quality and efficiency
of Agency activities from year to year.
Of growing importance is the use of performance information to help
identify funding needs. FDA's 1998 analysis helped us to forecast the
resources needed to achieve full statutory compliance based on past
performance information. This type of analysis lends itself well to
building strong cases for changes in funding levels. GPRA and the FDA
Modernization Act require more intensive and sophisticated performance
tracking, which in turn translates into more meaningful knowledge for
fiscal decision making.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding requests for fiscal year 2000? Please provide examples.
Answer. FDA has a good understanding of the resource requirements
needed to achieve most of its performance goals. Inspectional coverage
of food establishments, review time for new drug applications,
assessment of mammography facility quality, and tobacco enforcement are
a few examples of areas in which good performance data are available or
will be available soon. With that information, we can demonstrate how
resources impact program performance. For example, our 1998 analysis of
the ``gap'' between available resources and the necessary resources to
achieve the highest performance possible helped illustrate FDA's
continuing need to set risk-based priorities.
As we gain experience in implementing GPRA, we continue to improve
our ability to evaluate the impact of changes in funding level on our
programs and our ability to achieve the performance commitments
outlined in the Annual Performance Plan. In some instances, changes in
funding level may require an increase or decrease in program efforts
and target level of performance. It may require development of new
performance goals.
Over the past few years, FDA has practiced several strategies for
operating with reduced resources in spite of an increasing workload.
These strategies have included reducing program efforts, refocusing
program efforts to target the highest priority health risks, re-
examining the role we play in protecting public health relative to
other government agencies, third parties, industry; and so forth. Some
of those strategic changes have caused us to change our activity
measures. In some instances, for example, the number of inspections
conducted is not as appropriate a measure as the percentage of products
approved by third-party sources. However, changes in approach will not
change the agency's desire to improve health outcomes.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the strategic
and annual plans?
Answer. FDA's performance planning coupled with statutory
commitments found in FDAMA have laid a groundwork for systematic
program enhancements. Across the Agency a series of themes reflects
this commitment to performance improvement. I would like to provide
this information for the record.
Systematic Program Enhancements
--Establish Risk-Based Priorities.--as evidenced by ``fast track''
processes to address the most urgent therapeutic needs so that
these therapies can enter the marketplace rapidly but safely.
--Adopt A Systems Approach.--as evidenced by the Food Safety
Initiative, the integrated adverse event reporting initiative,
and the import monitoring systems that build upon the knowledge
and capabilities of other governmental and independent sources.
--Work More Closely with External Stakeholders.--as evidenced by
progressively sooner and more frequent dialogue between FDA
officials and regulated industry representatives on matters
such as electronic submissions of applications, drug labeling
improvements, standards, third-party reviews, and training
needs.
--Re-engineer FDA Processes.--as evidenced by various regulatory
simplification strategies including a new phased review process
for animal drugs that enables the Agency to provide periodic
feedback to product sponsors throughout the drug review
process.
--Strengthen the Science Base for Regulatory Decisions.--as
represented by cooperative research agreements with FDA,
professional societies, and industry in order to provide a
venue to organize and conduct research on critical questions
about pharmaceutical manufacturing that can help to inform
regulatory decision makers in such areas as supplement
submission requirements or bioequivalence studies after there
are manufacturing changes.
--Capitalize on Information Technology.--as exemplified by automation
of portions of the drug review process, posting new drug
therapy information on the Internet for access by consumers and
patients, and expanding the use of electronic communications
not only to disseminate information of particular importance to
stakeholders but also to receive their comments and
suggestions, all of which help to reduce the for communicating
adverse effect information.
FDA has found that by promoting Agency-wide, systematic strategies
for enhancing performance that the intent of GPRA and other statutory
requirements can be appreciated. The effect is, that instead of being
isolated within those components of the Agency that understand
performance planning best, the best ideas relating to program results
are shared openly and cooperatively.
Question. How does the agency budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. The performance goals in the annual performance plan link
directly to the budget. Each individual performance goal supports a
somewhat broader program strategic goal, which in turn supports a major
FDA program. In the performance plan, budgeted amounts, both dollars
and FTE, are aggregated at the program strategic goal level. So, for
each major program area, the total budget request represents the total
of the program strategic goal amounts. I will provide this information
for the record.
Number of Program
Major Program Area Strategic Goals
Foods............................................................. 4
Human Drugs....................................................... 3
Biologics......................................................... 3
Animal Drugs and Feeds............................................ 3
Medical Devices and Radiological Health........................... 6
National Center for Toxicological Research........................ 3
Tobacco........................................................... 3
The process used to link performance goals to budget activities
involved program managers, planners and budget representatives from
each major program area, their field counterparts, and analysts in the
Office of Planning and Evaluation and the Office of Financial
Management in the Office of the Commissioner. It involved several
steps, the most significant of which was the gap analysis. This
activity brought agency decision-makers together to look carefully at
the difference between current agency performance and specific
performance targets established by statute, such as FDAMA. In this way
we could focus on resources needed to close the gap between actual and
intended performance.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. At this time, we believe the budget justification and the
annual performance plan structures work well as complementary
documents. While we continue to look for ways to incrementally improve
these documents and the manner in which they are used within the
Agency, we have no plans to make major changes to their structure.
In FDA's annual performance plan, budget amounts are set at the
program strategic goal level, which is one level above the performance
goal. For each program strategic goal, between one and twelve related
performance goals have been developed. Therefore, while budget amounts
are not assigned to each individual performance goal, budget amounts
are specified for these clusters of related performance goals.
In both the budget justification and the annual performance plan,
dollar amounts are identical at the program level as well as the Agency
level. When viewed from the performance goal perspective, the aggregate
of FDA's individual performance goals equals the Agency's
appropriation.
Integration of the budget and the annual performance plan is a
continuous learning process. We continue to look for meaningful ways to
relate Agency outcomes with resource allocation decisions. With no
single answer on the horizon, we continue to emphasize Agency results
as a key driver for fiscal decisions.
Question. Does the agency fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance
plan include performance measures for which reliable data are not
likely to be available in time for the first performance report in
March 2000? If so, what steps are planned to improve the reliability of
these measures?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance plan includes
the final goal statements for the Agency's fiscal year 1999 performance
plan. FDA will report on the fiscal year 1999 final goal statements by
the March 2000 deadline.
We expect to have reliable data for each performance goal.
Depending on the nature of the goal statement, either metric,
milestone, or system improvement, the data will be presented either
numerically or descriptively. Strengths, weaknesses, or other
qualifying statements will provide additional information about the
Agency's performance toward that goal.
FDA's Office of Planning and Evaluation, OPE, produces guidance
documents and training programs, as well as arranges individual
consultations with program managers to promote good performance
planning practices. An important aspect of that guidance has been
information about data reliability, verification and validation. Since
this will be the first time that results will be reported, we
anticipate a considerable amount of discussion during calendar year
1999 on strategies to assure data reliability. By the time we report on
the fiscal year 2000 performance goals in 2001, we expect to be more
proficient at managing and reporting performance information.
Question. How will future funding requests take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance?
Answer. FDA has developed the capacity to measure performance in
most areas. This is prerequisite to any discussion about basing funding
requests on performance.
Baseline data exist for the vast majority of our performance goals.
In areas such as regulatory compliance, product evaluation, both pre-
and post-market, and standards development the Agency has a history
that enables us to compare performance with fiscal resources. However,
many of these past year performance measures have been output-oriented.
Similarly, many FDAMA objectives are output-oriented. This means that
while they may be relatively easy to measure, they may not fully
capture the important public health and safety outcomes with which FDA
is charged.
To address our commitment to health and safety outcomes, we have
aggregated the performance goals into program strategic goals. These
program strategic goal statements and their associated resources are
scrutinized and carefully worded to see that they emphasize outcomes.
We anticipate that the majority of program strategic goals will be
stable from year-to-year, although modifications may be necessary.
Equipped with data showing prior years' performance, we can justify
requested increases or decreases in funding.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
agency performance goals reflect the full costs of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. FDA's annual performance plan includes its highest
priority, mission-critical performance goals. Various associated
activities that support or relate to these goals may not be fully
articulated in the performance plan even though they may be important
to the Agency's accomplishing that goal. Nevertheless, we have taken
into account these activities such that the aggregated costs shown at
the program strategic goal level reflects the estimated full cost of
the individual performance goals and their associated activities.
Base amounts and proposed increase amounts include full costs,
including overhead, associated with those goal statements and
associated activities.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Bond
regulatory review
Question. In light of your past remarks highlighting an increased
focus on the science-based nature of the Food and Drug Administration,
what is the agency doing to ensure that regulatory considerations
reflect a 1999 level of scientific understanding?
Answer. The Science Board Subcommittee on FDA Research was
established in March 1996, to provide preliminary recommendations to
the parent advisory committee, the Science Board to the Food and Drug
Administration, on appropriate criteria for determining the quality and
mission relevance of FDA-sponsored laboratory investigation. The
subcommittee unanimously and emphatically affirmed that, `` the
presence in the FDA of a vigorous, high quality, intramural program of
scientific research provides the essential foundation of sound
regulatory policy and performance, and ensures that the FDA is, and
will continue to be, best positioned to carry out its statutory
responsibilities to protect, promote and enhance the health of the
American people.''
To this end, the Agency has placed renewed emphasis on improving
its science base, in support of making sound regulatory decisions. All
Centers are actively reviewing their science programs and developing
approaches, both internal and collaborative with other parts of the
scientific community, to build on its existing scientific expertise.
Each Center's research program is being reviewed by committees of
external, world class scientists. The role of these committees is to
develop a better understanding of the scope and needs of each Center's
research program and to make recommendations on how to better target
research towards FDA's regulatory responsibilities and on how to
improve and modernize its infrastructure to meet the challenges of the
future.
I have asked the Deputy Commissioner, Dr. Michael Friedman, to take
the lead role in working with the Centers and the rest of the
scientific community to develop strategies for fostering an environment
that assures that regulatory decisions are based on the best science
available.
Maintaining an expert science base requires a significant amount of
resources to hire and train scientific experts and to build and equip
laboratories that make use of the most modern and efficient technology.
Therefore, the Agency is requesting additional resources in the fiscal
year 2000 budget to strengthen its science base, including research,
necessary to ensure that its regulatory decisions reflect the state-of-
the-art science.
Question. Specifically with respect to autologous tumor vaccines
and the workshop FDA conducted in conjunction with the National Cancer
Institute on December 10-11, 1998, has FDA reached any conclusions
about how to deal with the unique challenges presented by these
therapies so that potentially valuable research in this area can
proceed? (I am still awaiting a response to my March 22 letter to Dr.
Henney on this issue.)
Answer. The Agency shares your interest in the development of
potential new cancer therapies, and is providing the following
information regarding actions taken since the workshop on Tumor
Vaccines. An internal Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
Tumor Vaccine working group met to discuss critical issues pertaining
to dendritic cells as tumor vaccines. This group is working with
sponsors to characterize products for phenotype and functional activity
to ensure lot-to-lot consistency. FDA is also encouraging sponsors to
develop potency assays and as a result, several sponsors have already
initiated the development of potency assays for autologous and
allogenic tumor cell vaccines. In addition, CBER is setting up a
scientific program to develop potency assays for autologous tumor cells
as tumor vaccines and to determine the identity and potency of
dendritic cells, to help sponsors develop a scientifically sound test
for product development.
CBER is collaborating with the National Cancer Institute, NCI
regarding tumor vaccine research and standards. CBER and NCI scientists
met to discuss the issues regarding the critical supply of interleukin-
4, a key cytokine necessary for the activation of dendritic cells for
autologous tumor vaccines. As a result of joint efforts by CBER and
NCI, the sponsor has agreed to supply this critical biological reagent
to investigators for development of autologous dendritic cell based
tumor vaccines.
On April 10, 1999, CBER scientists participated in the National
Tumor Vaccine and Cell Therapy working group meeting organized as a
satellite meeting of American Association of Cancer Research. This
group discussed various aspects of immunotherapeutic approaches for
cancer. One of the sessions, chaired by a CBER scientist, focused on
autologous vaccines. Discussion with several hundred scientists at the
meeting led to the conclusion that characterization of potency for
autologous tumor cells is necessary to ensure lot-to-lot consistency.
CBER scientists provide extensive consult on a daily basis to
numerous investigators and sponsors on tumor vaccines including
autologous tumor vaccines product development. FDA will continue to
work with all sponsors on the development of tumor vaccine products, as
well as other promising therapies for cancer and other life-threatening
diseases, so that patients can benefit from safe and effective new
therapies as quickly as possible.
Question. What is being done to make sure that current evaluation
of biologics is done pursuant to a science-based approach?
Answer. To provide effective regulatory review of biological
products, which include vaccines, blood products, allergenic extracts,
certain diagnostic products, and biotechnology-derived products, FDA's
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, CBER conducts active,
mission-related regulatory research to maintain and expand its
knowledge of fundamental biological processes. Regulatory research
projects are prioritized based on CBER's knowledge of the type of
cutting edge technology being employed by the scientific community,
Government, academia and industry that is most likely to result in
innovative products or may pose unknown health threats.
To ensure scientific expertise in biological product application
review, CBER uses what is referred to as the ``research/reviewer
model.'' In this model, the application review personnel spend a
portion of their time in research-related activities. CBER researchers
are fully integrated into the application review process. CBER
researchers participate in the following regulatory procedures: review
of initial new drug applications, and biologic license applications;
development of policy and guidance documents; meetings with sponsors
and advisory committees; participation in pre-license and biennial
inspections; and evaluation of adverse drug reactions and risk
assessment.
CBER also collaborates with the NIH, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, the Health Resources and Services
Administration and the Health Care Financing Administration on public
health issues.
reuse of single use medical devices
Question. A recent Forbes magazine article (March 22, 1999)
explored the reuse of single-use medical devices and whether this
practice poses a threat the patients. I understand the Office of
Science and Technology (OST) at FDA has done a study on the issue with
results expected soon. What is FDA's position on this issue?
Answer. A FDA research team is evaluating the effect of cleaning
procedures and sterilization procedures on the material and mechanical
properties of materials likely to be in devices that are designated for
single use but are known to be candidates for reuse by physicians and
user facilities. The study initially focused on generic materials and
then was extended to specific cardiac catheters such as balloon
angioplasty catheters, electrophysiology catheters, and cardiac
ablation catheters. These are devices that come in contact with blood.
These catheters presented special problems in terms of complexity, e.g.
many channels, narrow lumens, lumens closed at one end, and delicate
materials and design. Data obtained to date indicate or suggest that
cleaning and sterilization of these devices can be very difficult. The
material properties and device performance can be affected by re-
sterilization. Changes in device performance that may result from
resterilization are model specific and a general statement cannot be
made for all of the device models in a given category. It has been
noted that minor changes in a given model have been observed to have
potentially substantial effects on the ability to reprocess. This
information will be presented at the FDA/AAMI Conference on Reuse of
Single Use Devices on May 5-6, 1999 in Crystal City, Virginia. These
data will be considered carefully when FDA makes its decision on how to
address the issue of reuse of single use devices.
Question. Does reuse of these supposedly single-use medical devices
put patients at risk?
Answer. FDA is concerned that if a single use device is going to be
reused, it must be done safely. FDA published a Compliance Policy
Guide, CPG 300.500, several years ago that focused on hospital
operations. That CPG stated that there is a lack of data to support the
general reuse of single use devices. If an institution chooses to
engage in this practice, the CPG stated that the hospital should
demonstrate that the device can be adequately cleaned and sterilized;
that the physical characteristics or quality of the device will not be
adversely affected; and that the device remains safe and effective for
its intended use. This CPG is still in effect. FDA is also conducting
research to try to obtain data to answer the public health questions
associated with reuse of single use devices.
Question. What, if anything, do you intend to do about this issue?
Answer. FDA is and will continue to use its mandatory and voluntary
Medical Device Reporting Program to keep track of infections, injuries,
and other adverse events reported by manufacturers and device users
involving the reuse of single use devices. FDA is enlisting the
cooperation of other organizations to obtain reuse experience data. FDA
is currently working with the Health Care Financing Administration to
include questions about device reuse during HFCA inspections of user
facilities.
Although FDA does not have specific information regarding the
efficacy of these processes, it is evaluating reuse literature and
information from equipment manufacturers and conducting research to
gain additional knowledge of the effects of reprocessing on device
materials.
FDA is also assessing whether additional regulation or other
attention to reprocessing is needed. At the May 5-6, 1999 FDA/AAMI
conference, attention will be focused on regulatory and public health
considerations regarding this practice. FDA will continue to work with
groups represented at that conference to resolve outstanding issues and
concerns and consider new regulatory approaches. One factor that needs
to be carefully thought through are the costs and benefits of
reprocessing on device users and patients.
Question. Could you provide me with information about how the FDA
sets its criteria for certain foods (such as breads, pastas, and cereal
products) to be called ``enriched''?
Answer. Historically, the addition of nutrients to foods has been
undertaken as a public health measure to promote nutritional public
health goals. The enrichment of white flour and bread, and other cereal
grain products, has been an effective safeguard in improving the
nutrient intake of the U.S. population and, therefore, preventing
nutrient insufficiencies.
Under Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Sec. 104.20 FDA
sets forth its fortification policy and principles for the rational
addition of nutrients to foods. FDA will provide for the record the
criteria in these fortification guidelines that apply to ``enriched
foods''.
[The information follows:]
enriched foods
(1) A nutrient(s) may be added to a food to correct a dietary
insufficiency recognized by the scientific community to exist and known
to result in nutritional deficiency disease.
(2) A nutrient(s) may appropriately \1\ be added to a food to
restore such nutrient(s) to a level(s) representative of the food prior
to storage, handling, and processing (including milling and refining).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A nutritient added to a food is appropriate only when the
nutrient: a) is stable in the food under customery conditions of
storage, distribution, and use, b) is physiologically available from
the food, c) is present at a level at which there is a reasonable
assurance that consumption of the food containing the added nutritient
will not result in an excessive intake of the nutrient, considering
cumulative amounts from other sources in the diet, and d) is suitable
for its intended purpose and is in compliance with applicable
provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and regulations
governing the safety of substances in food.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) A nutrient(s) may be added to a food in proportion to the total
caloric content of the food, to balance the vitamin, mineral, and
protein content.
(4) A nutrient(s) may appropriately be added to a food that
replaces traditional food in the diet to avoid nutritional inferiority.
(5) A nutrient(s) may be added to foods as permitted or required by
applicable regulations established elsewhere in Chapter I of Title 21.
Question. As you may know, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention recommends that women of childbearing age consume 400
micrograms of folic acid daily to help prevent birth defects, yet I
understand the FDA criteria for ``enriched'' foods only requires a
substantially lower amount of folic acid to be present. Has FDA
considered changing it's criteria for ``enriched'' foods to require
more folic acid in these products?
Answer. In establishing the levels of folic acid for the
fortification program, FDA had to balance the competing factors of
increasing the intakes of women of child-bearing age to a significant
degree while not increasing the intakes of all gender and age groups to
levels that could cause adverse effects. In dealing with these
competing issues, FDA sought input from many sources. For example, FDA
consulted frequently with other agencies in the Public Health Service,
CDC and NIH, and held three public meetings with its Food Advisory
Committee and an ad hoc Working Group. Also, the fortification
regulations went through notice and comment rulemaking procedures. FDA
considered all comments to the docket in finalizing this rulemaking.
The fortification regulations became fully effective in January,
1998. At this point, FDA is actively collaborating with other federal
government agencies to monitor both the safety and effectiveness of the
current folic acid fortification program. As new data become available
and as the evidence supports the need for change, FDA, in consultations
with other PHS agencies, will consider adjustments in its folic acid
fortification program as supported by such evidence.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator McConnell
tobacco rule
Question In papers filed with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals,
the FDA indicated that it would limit its activities to enforcing the
minimum age restriction and identification requirement, pending review
by the Supreme Court.
In addition, you stated in your confirmation hearing that you would
not expand on the youth access activities that were ongoing before the
court's ruling. You also assured the House Agriculture Appropriations
subcommittee that the FDA is not spending any money for any purpose
beyond enforcing the minimum age and identification requirements.
However, your budget justification indicates that in fiscal year
2000, the FDA will begin to conduct activities related to product
regulation.
Your budget justification also indicates that the FDA plans to
begin studying how to enforce the advertising and marketing provisions
of the FDA rule that the Fourth Circuit and the District Court have
invalidated. In fact, the FDA just published a Federal Register notice
soliciting comment on the paperwork requirements that would be imposed
by its advertising regulations.
Question. A spending money beyond the enforcement of its minimum
age regulations, despite your assurances to the Congress and to the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that the FDA would limit its activities
to minimum age enforcement pending further court decisions or
congressional action?
Answer. The budget justification describes activities related to
product regulation that are all within FDA's current legal authority.
For example, the agency would allocate a limited amount of funds to
begin to develop a scientific and regulatory framework to properly
analyze issues posed by current and new tobacco products as well as by
existing products for the treatment of nicotine dependence. This would
include pursuing research issues raised by new or so called ``less
hazardous'' nicotine delivery devices. It would also include continued
assistance with other DHHS agencies to the Federal Trade Commission in
the analysis of the public health issues raised by the testing and
reporting of the tar and nicotine content of cigarette smoke.
The recent Federal Register notice on agency information collection
activities was a request for an extension, pursuant to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, of the collection approved by the Office of
Management and Budget, OMB in 1996. The 1996 OMB approval covered
several reporting and recordkeeping provisions of the 1996 tobacco
rule. Due to litigation, these provisions were not made effective,
although the district court upheld some of the provisions. However, the
litigation has not affected or suspended the expiration date for the
OMB approval. Consequently, FDA requested an extension of the OMB
approval because, in the event the regulations become effective, a
valid OMB approval of the rule's information collection provisions is
necessary for those provisions to be enforceable. If OMB approval
expired and the regulations became effective, persons subject to the
rule would not be required to respond to the information collection
provisions, and those provisions would have no legal force and effect
until the agency requested and received a new OMB approval. The request
to renew OMB approval places no new burdens on the industry, and
maintains the status quo for the regulations until the litigation is
resolved. In addition, it is much less resource-demanding for the
agency to request an extension of OMB approval than to let the approval
expire and seek a new OMB approval after the litigation is resolved.
Question. Do the FDA's contracts with the states regarding
enforcement of the FDA's minimum age regulations permit the states to
use such funds to enforce the states' own minimum age requirements?
Answer. Under our contracts, states are permitted to use the
results of FDA compliance checks as a basis for separately proceeding
with enforcement action under comparable state laws. FDA funds cannot
be used to enforce state law. Using their own funds, the states can use
the results of our inspections to proceed under state law.
Question. If not, what will happen to these funds if the Supreme
Court affirms the Fourth Circuit's decision?
Answer. It is premature to speculate about how the Supreme Court
might rule in this case.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Burns
codex alimentarius
Question. Since the WTO now uses Codex Alimentarius standards in
the dispute resolution process, are the US. Government's efforts
sufficiently funded to ensure that U.S. policies are adopted by Codex?
Answer. While the FDA cannot respond on behalf of other U.S.
Government agencies, FDA believes that increased funding for Codex
activities would enhance U.S. efforts to ensure both public health and
fair trade.
The Codex mandate is to protect the health of consumers while
ensuring fair trade practices. As the importance of Codex in setting
standards that are recognized by the WTO grows, FDA must use a greater
percentage of its base resources each year to prepare for and represent
U.S. interests at critical Codex meetings. Further, as the number and
complexity of Codex issues increase so also must FDA resources be
expended on Codex increase. Today's efforts extend far beyond the
presence at Codex Committee meetings. They involve substantial
preparation for the increasingly complex technical issues, e.g., risk
assessment and risk management, interagency discussions, attendance at
many key Codex working group meetings, a very important increased
involvement with non-governmental organizations, and an enhanced
advocacy effort to obtain foreign government agreement with U.S.
positions. These additional or enhanced responsibilities require
adequate funding if they are to be done successfully. The current
resources expended on Codex, in our judgement, are insufficient to
adequately fulfill the needs that the U.S. Government now has with
respect to Codex.
Question. Does FDA currently have sufficient resources to fully
participate in Codex meetings and proceedings?
Answer. FDA does not have a defined budget for Codex activities.
While the U.S. Codex Office, which has oversight over U.S. Codex
activities, resides in the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service,
most of the Codex activities are decentralized throughout government
agencies, including FDA. Since the beginnings of the Codex Alimentarius
Commission in 1962, FDA has devoted considerable resources to ensuring
that Codex international food standards reflect the level of safety and
quality expected by the U.S. consumer. Currently FDA provides the U.S.
Delegate or the Alternate Delegate to 13 of 16 Codex Committees; a
portion of 39 individuals time approximately 11 FTE plus staff support,
is involved with the work of Codex. Recognizing both the responsibility
of FDA under the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of
1997, FDAMA, and the increased importance and level and type of
activities with Codex mentioned in Question 91, additional resources
for Codex related activities would be beneficial. The new
responsibilities with Codex, increased number and technical complexity
of the Codex issues, the increased frequency of working group meetings,
the need for increased communications with other U.S. governmental
agencies and with non-governmental organizations on Codex issues, and
the need to assist in advocacy efforts to help assure U.S. success on
Codex issue, are all added responsibilities since the recent 1995
advent of the WTO Trade Agreement with only a minimal addition of
resources. Additional resources are needed to better enable FDA to
properly carry out its Codex responsibilities.
statutory review times--medical devices
Question. Meeting statutory review times is a key element of the
statute and one that I believe should be the agency's highest priority.
Given the fact that user fees are not likely, what other ways do you
intend to meet this statutory obligation?
Answer. Meeting statutory review times is certainly among our
highest priorities in promoting the public health. However, without
additional resources, FDA is unlikely to be able to meet the statutory
review times for non-user fee programs such as the device review
program. While FDA will continue with its reengineering initiatives and
the implementation of FDAMA, significant additional improvements in
review times for the complex 510(k) applications and PMA applications
are unlikely without additional funding. FDA will continue to redirect
resources to high-risk, high-impact product areas where direct
intervention helps consumers and health care professionals the most.
FDA's direct involvement in some low-risk product areas will continue
to be examined and acceptable alternatives to direct FDA involvement
will be considered while ensuring that adequate consumer protection is
maintained. In addition, FDA will continue to work with industry to
encourage broader use of regulatory options like third party review for
510(k)s, special and abbreviated 510(k)s, and product development
protocols, PDPs.
Question. Assuming that user fees are not enacted, how would you
reallocate the $19 million, which has been requested in appropriations,
to ensure that device reviews do not fall further behind?
Answer. FDA's plans, as reflected in the Administration's proposed
budget for fiscal year 2000, are to focus increased appropriated
funding on injury reporting and product safety assurance activities.
The appropriated increase requested in fiscal year 2000 reflects the
Administration priority of restoring the balance between postmarket
activities and review activities. Since the postmarket surveillance
resources had been redirected to device review for the past several
fiscal years, the fiscal year 2000 increase will be used to rebuild the
postmarket portion of the program. In addition, the core budget for the
medical device program has been relatively unchanged since fiscal year
1995 despite increases in Federal pay and inflation. This has
effectively decreased the purchasing power of the annual appropriations
received by the device program by about 4--5 percent per year.
FDA and the Administration believe that the requested budget
increase for this program is necessary for the promotion and protection
of the public health. FDA estimates that there may be as many as
300,000 injuries and deaths per year associated with device use. FDA is
requesting $3.2 million to implement the first phase of a National
Sentinel Reporting Network that will keep FDA and the medical community
better informed about device problems involving device misuse or user
error. In addition, as devices become more complex and the device
industry continues to grow domestically and internationally, it becomes
increasingly critical for FDA to work towards achieving statutory
timeframes for inspections and be in a position to enforce new
standards for various products. Although with the requested increase of
$15.8 million for product safety assurance for devices, FDA will
improve product safety and quality systems conformance, the Agency
still will not meet its inspectional statutory requirements. Since FDA
has already reallocated declining resources from postmarket to review
over the past several years, we cannot afford to do so in the future.
FDA has estimated that it would take an additional $12.8 million to
fully meet its statutory review obligations for 510(k)s, PMAs, and PMA
supplements. Without the enactment of user fees, FDA will maintain
fiscal year 1999 performance levels by continuing with its
reengineering initiatives as well as continuing to redirect resources
to high-risk, high-impact product areas where direct FDA intervention
helps consumers and health care professionals the most.
Question. You have announced that your number one priority is
implementation of the letter and spirit of FDAMA. How do you justify a
budget with no additional appropriated funds for one of FDA's most
important functions medical device reviews?
Answer. Through FDAMA, Congress and Agency stakeholders expect more
timely and interactive PMA reviews. Accordingly, FDA's fiscal year 2000
budget proposes to use these additive device user fees to significantly
increase the effort devoted to PMA and PDP reviews, including enhancing
the timeliness and quality of the review process as well as increasing
interactions and consultations with industry. In addition, the user fee
revenue will enable FDA to stay current with increasingly complex new
technologies, update review standards and provide high quality, timely
guidance to industry and reviewers. The medical device strategy is to
concentrate resources on high risk, high impact products or work areas
where they are likely to have the greatest impact on public health.
With the proposed user fees, the percentage of reviews completed within
established time frames will increase, average review times will go
down, and the FDA will be able to support increased interaction with
industry.
user fee legislation
Question. You have stated that a consensus is needed among
Congress, FDA, the industry and consumers before a user fee program
will work. Yet, you have proposed a program with little detail and no
proposed legislation. Why not go through more appropriate processes to
open up this dialogue?
Answer. Proposed legislation to authorize new user fees to enhance
the quality and timeliness of premarket review of both direct and
indirect food and color additives, and for medical devices is currently
in clearance within the administration. The legislation is anticipated
to be completed shortly and submitted to the appropriate committees in
Congress. While we have not had any specific discussions with the
authorizing committees about the proposed new fees in the fiscal year
2000 budget, the Administration intends to initiate such discussions
following submission of the requisite legislative proposals. These
proposals will take into consideration the discussions held regarding
previous proposals.
collaboration and fdama
Question. Working with the regulated industry can often produce
better products in a more efficient way. Since you have pledged to
improve agency-industry relations, will you commit to reversing the
FDAMA noncollaboration policy and encourage the use of agency-industry
working groups to address key FDAMA implementation issues?
Answer. FDA has no noncollaboration policy. In fact, the Agency has
recognized the value of receiving input from its constituents before
issuing guidance documents or regulations to implement FDAMA. Because
of the very demanding statutory deadlines placed on the Agency, in the
interest of time, the Agency has generally relied on the processes that
it has in place, namely notice and comment rulemaking and Good Guidance
Practices. At the same time, it has also recognized that there are
times when it would be important to meet with outside groups to hear
their views on implementation issues and to discuss drafts of FDAMA
documents that were made available to the public at large. The Agency
also has established public dockets for written comments related to
specific FDAMA provisions and has specifically invited such comment. In
addition, the Agency already has held a number of public meetings to
discuss FDAMA implementation. These practices will continue to be
available in the future.
Question. Enactment of FDAMA was the first step in a process
intended to change the culture at FDA. Essentially, the vision was to
provide life-saving, life-enhancing products to patients quickly,
efficiently and safely. Yet there are reports that front-line staffers
have yet to be fully informed or fully trained in the full requirements
of FDAMA. What steps do you intend to take to make the full promise of
FDAMA a reality at your agency, especially with those staffers who deal
most immediately with manufacturers?
Answer. The Agency is fully committed to implementing FDAMA. Part
of implementation includes ensuring that staff are adequately trained
regarding the new law, and that provisions are being implemented
consistently across the Agency. One of the most effective ways to do
this is to develop guidance on different provisions that can be given
to those both inside and outside the Agency. As you know, the Agency
has already completed dozens of guidance documents, and will continue
to do so. In addition, the Agency often holds training sessions with
its staff in order to ensure consistent application of its regulations.
For example, our Center for Devices has quarterly meetings to review
past IDE decisions so that each division can hear from each other and
work harder to develop a more consistent approach. Companies are
allowed to ask for reconsideration of their IDEs at these meetings, in
order to make this process very open and accommodating. We feel that
these sort of training exercises are very helpful to increase the
quality and consistency of our product reviews, and will continue them
in the future. In addition, each Center has held training sessions
specifically on FDAMA and its related issues.
Question. The agency has not yet issued any guidance documents as
promised in the November 18, 1998 final regulation implementing section
404 of FDAMA. When will those guidance documents be issued?
Answer. The FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, CBER,
and the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, CDER, published in
accordance with the Good Guidance Practices, a Draft Guidance for
Industry: Formal Dispute Resolution: Appeals Above the Division Level
on March 19, 1999. This is presently a draft for comment. The Center
for Veterinary Medicine, CVM, is in the process of issuing dispute
resolution draft guidance that will contain a new procedure for
resolving a scientific dispute. The CVM has had in place for some time,
a procedure for the handling of an internal review of an appeal. This
draft guidance will be issued for comment and finalized in a separate
action following consideration of the comments. FDA's Center for
Devices and Radiological Health, CDRH, is establishing new procedures
for resolving scientific disputes which were published April 17, 1999,
in a Federal Register notice announcing the availability of a draft
guidance document, Resolving Scientific Disputes Concerning the
Regulation of Medical Devices--An Administrative Procedures Guide to
Use of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel (64 F.R. 22617).
Comments on this proposed guidance are being accepted through July 26,
1999. These documents can be accessed from FDA's home page at
www.fda.gov. I would be happy to provide a list of the topics currently
on that website by FDA center.
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
General:
--Guidance for Staff, Industry, and Third Parties Implementation of
Third Party Programs Under the FDA Modernization Act of 1997
(Issued 10/30/98)
--List of Devices for Third Party Review Under the FDA Modernization
Act of 1997 (Updated 2/8/99)
--List of Accredited Persons for 510(k) Review under the FDA
Modernization Act of 1997 (Updated 4/14/99)
IDE/PMA/510(k) Related Documents:
--Guidance for Industry General/Specific Intended Use (Issued 11/4/
98)
--Guidance to Industry Supplements to Approved Applications for Class
III Medical Devices: Use of Published Literature, Use of
Previously Submitted Materials, and Priority Review (Issued 5/
20/98)
--PMA/510(k) Expedited Review--Guidance for Industry and CDRH Staff
(Issued 3/20/98)
--30-Day Notices and 135-Day PMA Supplements for Manufacturing Method
or Process Changes, Guidance for Industry and CDRH (Issued 2/
19/98)
--Determination of Intended Use for 510(k) Devices--Guidance for
Industry and CDRH Staff (Issued 1/30/98)
--Procedures for Class II Device Exemptions from Premarket
Notification, Guidance for Industry and CDRH Staff (Issued 2/
19/98)
--New Section 513(f)(2)--Evaluation of Automatic Class III
Designation, Guidance for Industry and CDRH Staff (Issued 2/19/
98)
--Guidance on PMA Interactive Procedures for Day-100 Meetings and
Subsequent Deficiencies--for Use by CDRH and Industry (Issued
2/19/98)
--Guidance on Amended Procedures for Advisory Panel Meetings (Issued
1/26/99)
--Guidance on IDE Policies and Procedures (Issued 1/20/98)
--Early Collaboration Meetings Under the FDA Modernization Act
(FDAMA), Guidance for Industry and CDRH Staff (Issued 2/19/98)
Postmarket Surveillance /Device Tracking:
--Guidance on Criteria and Approaches for Postmarket Surveillance
(Issued 11/2/98)
--SMDA to FDAMA: Guidance on FDAs Transition Plan for Existing
Postmarket Surveillance Protocols (Issued 11/2/98)
--Guidance On Procedures to Determine Application of Postmarket
Surveillance Strategies (Issued 2/19/98)
--Guidance on Procedures for Review of Postmarket Surveillance
Submissions (Issued 2/19/98)
--Guidance on Medical Device Tracking (Issued 2/99)
Standards:
--Guidance on the Recognition and Use of Consensus Standards (Issued
2/19/98)
--FDA Recognized Consensus Standards Appendix A (Updated 9/98)[text]
--Guidance on Frequently Asked Questions on Recognition of Consensus
Standards (Issued 12/21/98)
--Opportunity to Recommend Standards for CDRH Recognition
Other Documents:
--Draft Guidance on Resolving Scientific Disputes Concerning the
Regulation of Medical Devices; Administrative Procedures on Use
of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel (Issued 4/27/
99)
--Related Document: Final Rule: Administrative Practices and
Procedures; Internal Review of Decisions (issued 11/18/98)
--Medical Device Appeals and Complaints--Guidance on Dispute
Resolution (Issued 2/98)
--FDA Modernization Act of 1997 Guidance for the Device Industry on
Implementation of Highest Priority Provisions (Issued 2/6/98)
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
General:
--Classifying Resubmissions in Response to Action Letters (Issued 5/
14/1998, Posted 5/14/1998)
--Enforcement Policy During Implementation of Section 503A of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Issued 11/1998, Posted
11/20/1998)
--Fast Track Drug Development Programs--Designation, Development, and
Application Review (Issued 11/17/1998, Posted 11/17/1998)
--Formal Dispute Resolution: Appeals Above the Division Level (Issued
3/1999, Posted 3/18/1999)
--Formal Meetings With Sponsors and Applicants for PDUFA Products
(Issued 3/1999, Posted 3/18/1999)
--Implementation of Section 120 of the Food and Drug Administration
Modernization Act of 1997-Advisory Committees (Issued 10/1998,
Posted 11/02/98)
--Implementation of Section 126 of the Food and Drug Administration
Modernization Act of 1997--Elimination of Certain Labeling
Requirements (Revised 7/1998, Posted 7/20/98)
--National Uniformity for Nonpresciption Drugs--Ingredient Listing
for OTC Drugs (Issued 4/1998, Posted 5/5/1998)
--Providing Clinical Evidence of Effectiveness for Human Drug and
Biological Products (Issued 5/14/1998, Posted 5/14/1998)
--Qualifying for Pediatric Exclusivity Under Section 505A of the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (Issued 6/29/1998, Posted
6/29/1998)
--Repeal of Section 507 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
(Revised 5/1998, Posted 6/12/1998)
--Standards for Prompt Review of Efficacy Supplements (Issued 5/15/
1998, Posted 5/15/1998)
--Submission of Abbreviated Reports and Synopses in Support of
Marketing Applications (Issued 8/1998, Posted 9/15/98)
--Submitting and Reviewing Complete Responses to Clinical Holds
(Issued 5/14/1998, Posted 5/14/1998)
--Women and Minorities Guidance Requirements (Issued 7/20/1998,
Posted 11/25/1998)
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
General:
--Federal Register Notice: List of Documents Issued by the Food and
Drug Adminstration That Apply to Medical Devices Regulated by
CBER--4/26/99
--Draft Guidance for Industry: Formal Dispute Resolution: Appeals
Above the Division Level--3/19/99
--Draft Guidance for Industry: Formal Meetings With Sponsors and
Applicants for PDUFA Products--3/19/99
--Guidance for Industry: Fast Track Drug Development Programs--
Designation, Development, and Application Review--11/18/98
--Guidance for Industry; Advisory Committees: Implementing Section
120 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of
1997--10/30/98
--Draft Guidance for Industry: Developing Medical Imaging Drugs and
Biologics--10/14/98
--Federal Register: Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of
1997; Allergenic Patch Test Kits; Request for Comments or
Data--10/1/98
--FEDERAL REGISTER Biological Products Regulated Under Section 351 of
the Public Health Service Act; Implementation of Biologics
License; Elimination of Establishment License and Product
License; Proposed Rule--7/31/98
--Guidance for Industry: Implementation of Section 126, Elimination
of Certain Labeling Requirements of the Food and Drug
Administration Modernization Act of 1997--7/21/98
--Guidance for Industry: Qualifying for Pediatric Exclusivity Under
Section 505A of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act--6/98
--FEDERAL REGISTER--Dissemination of Information on Unapproved/New
Uses for Marketed Drugs, Biologics and Devices; Proposed Rule--
6/8/98
--FEDERAL REGISTER Regulations for In Vivo Radiopharmaceuticals Used
for Diagnosis and Monitoring; Proposed Rule--5/22/98
--Guidance for Industry: Providing Clinical Evidence of Effectiveness
for Human Drugs and Biological Products--5/15/98
--Guidance for Industry: Standards for the Prompt Review of Efficacy
Supplements, Including Priority Efficacy Supplements--5/15/98
--Guidance for Industry: Classifying Resubmissions in Response to
Action Letters--5/14/98
--Guidance for Industry: Submitting and Reviewing Complete Responses
to Clinical Holds--5/14/98
Question. What is the agency's legal reasoning for not using notice
and comment rulemaking to establish these procedures?
Answer. The Agency has taken the position that the current appeals
procedures in place are adequate, and that is would be helpful to
clarify that certain decisions may be taken to an advisory committee,
at FDA's discretion. It was recommended that additional guidance would
be helpful for industry, which is why the Agency agreed to issue
guidance clarifying its current regulations.
Question. Will they contain any new procedures for resolving
scientific disputes?
Answer. There have been several developments in this area that I
would like to address more specifically in a document for the record:
Resolving Scientific Disputes
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER )and the
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) have published, in
accordance with the Good Guidance Practices, a Draft Guidance for
Industry: Formal Dispute Resolution: Appeals Above the Division Level
on 3/19/99. This is presently a draft for comment. The URL for this
document is www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/disputedft.pdf . This lays out the
procedures that sponsors or applicants may use to request resolution of
a dispute. It includes the procedures for requesting a review by an
Advisory Committee under revised 21 CFR 10.75.
CBER has also written and posted a Standard Operating Procedure for
dispute resolution. It contains the internal procedures for CBER staff
to follow. It is SOPP #8005--Major Dispute Resolution Process
<8005.htm> and can be found on the internet atwww.fda.gov/cber/regsopp/
8005.htm .
All of CBER's recent guidance documents explain the options for
dispute resolution, including scientific disputes, usually by referring
to the guidance document mentioned above.
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
There is draft guidance document entitled, ``Guidance for Industry:
Formal Dispute Resolution: Appeals Above the Division Level'' available
on the internet at www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm. This guidance
document is intended to provide guidance for industry on procedures
adopted by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) for resolving
scientific disputes that cannot be resolved at the Division level.
In addition, CDER's manual of policies and procedures includes a
document entitled, ``Resolution of Disputes: Roles of Reviewers,
Supervisors, and Management; Documenting Views and Findings and
Resolving Differences.'' This document is also available on the
internet (www.fda.gov/cder/mapp.htm). This document provides a general
description of the roles of the reviewer, supervisors and team leaders,
and management in arriving at institutional decisions in the drug
application review process; guidance on how each individual involved in
the scientific review process is to document his or her views or
findings; and a procedure for resolving differences.
Center for Veterinary Medicine
The Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) is in the process of
issuing dispute resolution draft guidance that will contain a new
procedure for resolving scientific disputes. The Center has had in
place for some time, a procedure for the handling of internal review of
appeals. The dispute resolution draft guidance will be issued for
comment and finalized in a separate action following consideration of
the comments. The draft guidance simplifies the existing procedures for
the handling of a request for an internal review and describes the new
procedure for a review of a scientific controversy by the advisory
committee. These appeal procedures apply to a decision that affects
animal drugs and other products regulated by the CVM.
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) is
establishing new procedures for resolving scientific disputes. On April
17, 1999, CDRH published a Federal Register notice announcing the
availability of a draft guidance document, Resolving Scientific
Disputes Concerning the Regulation of Medical Devices--An
Administrative Procedures Guide to Use of the Medical Devices Dispute
Resolution Panel (64 F.R. 22617). Comments on this proposed guidance
are being accepted through July 26, 1999.
To implement section 404 of FDAMA and to comply with 21 CFR 10.75,
the center is proposing to establish a new Medical Devices Dispute
Resolution Panel, which will operate under FDA's Medical Devices
Advisory Committee. In addition to serving as a useful forum in which
scientific disputes in general can be aired, the Dispute Resolution
Panel would implement four provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act:
--Section 514(b)(5)(B) of the act requires the establishment of an
advisory committee to take referrals of any matter concerning
the establishment, amendment, or revocation of a performance
standard which requires the exercise of scientific judgment.
--Section 515(g)(2)(B) of the act requires the establishment of an
advisory committee to take referrals of petitions for review
of: (a) the approval, denial, or withdrawal of approval of a
premarket approval application, or (b) the revocation of an
approved product development protocol (PDP), a declaration that
an approved PDP has not been completed, or a revocation of an
approved Notice of Completion that permitted marketing of a
device developed under a PDP.
--Section 522(b) of the act, which was added by section 212 of FDAMA,
requires a process to resolve any disputes concerning the need
for FDA to order a manufacturer to conduct postmarket
surveillance for more than 36 months.
--Section 562 of the act requires FDA to provide a procedure for
review of all scientific disputes regarding the regulation of
medical devices, including review by an appropriate scientific
advisory panel, but only to the extent that other provisions of
the act or FDA regulations do not already provide a right of
review.
FDA believes its current procedures already provide methods to
obtain review of most, if not all, scientific disputes. The
establishment of the Dispute Resolution Panel provides an additional,
more focused, procedure for the timely review of scientific disputes.
This draft guidance document sets forth guidelines that will govern the
operation of the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel. Those
guidelines include the appointment of a CDRH Ombudsman, who will be
designated to receive, review, and make recommendations with respect to
requests for review by the resolution panel. CDRH intends to ensure
that a center ombudsman is in place before the final guidance goes into
effect.
Question. Why did the agency chose not to establish a stand-alone
dispute resolution mechanism?
Answer. The Agency felt that there were adequate dispute resolution
mechanisms already in place, but that it would be helpful to clarify
our regulations concerning the availability of advisory committees for
certain types of appeals. This change has been finalized, and the
Agency has issued guidance on this regulation. Therefore, a stand-alone
mechanism was not necessary.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Kohl
cost of prescription drugs
Question. I hear from many constituents about the continuing
increase in the cost of prescription drugs. In fact, I understand the
problem of rising drug costs in the U.S. is among the most serious in
the world.
What is FDA doing to help control the rising price of prescription
drugs.
Answer. FDA plays an important, but indirect, role in helping
control the price of prescription drugs. The agency carries out this
role through the operation of a highly efficient and effective generic
drug review process. As generic drugs are approved and enter the market
place they reduce the cost of medication to the U.S. public.
Question. To what extent is the approval of generic drugs slowing
these rising costs and if it is significant, why is FDA not doing more
to encourage the availability of generic drugs?
Answer. Generic drugs reduce the cost of medication to the U.S.
public when they enter the market place. If there are delays in the
approval of the generic drugs beyond the patent and/or exclusivity
period, then the U.S. public will not receive the full benefit of
generic approvals.
We believe that the key to encouraging the availability of generic
drugs is increasing the number of chemistry, microbiology,
bioequivalence, and labeling reviewers, as well as support staff within
the Office of Generic Drugs. In addition, funding is needed for
research to support the development of scientifically rigorous
bioequivalence testing methodologies for nonsystemically absorbed drug
products. The review and approval of such products are often subject to
challenge by innovator firms. The stronger the scientific support of
these approvals, the more likely it will be the Office can successfully
meet innovator challenges. Additionally, increasing the quality of
industry submissions--abbreviated new drug applications; accelerating
implementation of the electronic submission initiative on an industry-
wide level; and increasing the level of training and professional
development received by reviewers and review support staff would also
help improve the availability of generic drugs.
fdama
Question. Please describe the progress at FDA in meeting the
challenges of the recent FDA reform legislation.
Answer. Published in November 1998, the FDA Plan for Statutory
Compliance addresses requirements set forth in Section 406 of the FDA
Modernization Act, FDAMA. This plan outlines the actions necessary to
bridge the gap between what FDA is required to do by statute and what
it is able to accomplish with current resource levels. The first
official progress report will be issued in late 1999. However, the
Agency is able to report on several accomplishments toward meeting the
letter and intent of the legislation.
As the first year anniversary of the enactment of FDAMA, the Agency
had met nearly all of the deadlines for implementing the many varied
provisions of the law. In many cases the agency was able to complete
these initiatives well ahead of schedule. In April 1999 FDA convened a
live, national teleconference for the purpose of discussing the
Agency's progress in implementing FDAMA and to seek additional input on
specific performance targets. Highlights showing FDA's progress in
meeting challenges of the reform legislation are being posted on the
FDA web site at http://www.fda.gov/opacom/7modact.html. We will provide
selected examples for the record.
--Biologics--FDA has issued over 50 guidance documents which will
assist industry in getting products to market more quickly
while continuing to ensure the same high level of safety and
efficacy.
--Drugs--FDA has finalized the industry guidance for submission of
New Drug Applications in electronic form and posted it on FDA's
web site.
--Devices and Radiologic Health--FDA has shifted resources from low-
risk to high-risk products, and involved stakeholders earlier
during application review process.
--Food Safety--FDA held public meetings on health claims and nutrient
content claims on foods based on authoritative statements,
including proposal to permit such health claims on dietary
supplements.
--Veterinary Medicine--FDA is conducting research to determine if the
Agency can require fewer animal studies or reduce the number of
animals needed in studies to support certain new animal drug
applications.
Question. How is it affecting the budget?
Answer. The FDA reform legislation has drawn attention to the fact
that current levels of funding are insufficient to meet the Agency's
statutory obligations. Successful implementation of the FDA
Modernization Act, FDAMA, depends on a commitment of resources focused
on the Agency's overall public health and safety responsibilities. In
light of the increasingly complex public health challenges facing the
Agency in the 21st century, success will depend on innovative
approaches by FDA, creative collaboration with stakeholders,
prioritization of activities, and an adequate long-term resource
investment to implement the necessary changes.
The affect of this legislation on FDA's budget is somewhat unclear.
Inflation has reduced the real resources available for certain FDA
responsibilities delineated in FDAMA. These include inspections to
ensure product safety; review of devices, food additives, blood
products, animal drugs, and generic drugs; and adverse event reporting
and follow-up. Statutory requirements for new product review times and
for inspectional coverage are not being met in all areas, due in part
to budgetary limitations. Preparing and executing the budget,
therefore, challenges the Agency to applying its strategic decision
framework that focuses on the highest priority commitments.
Question. In what ways does FDA plan to restructure the agency to
meet these challenges?
Answer. The FDA Modernization Act, FDAMA, defines the Agency's new
mission. In that mission, Congress indicates not only the regulatory
and public health responsibilities of FDA, but also the manner in which
those roles are carried out. One key statement in the mission is that
the Agency shall carry out its responsibilities, ``in consultation with
experts in science, medicine, and public health, and in cooperation
with consumers, users, manufacturers, importers, packers, distributors,
and retailers of regulated products.''
With this in mind, several changes have been planned. The newly
reorganized Office of the Commissioner, OC, will have as its principal
focus to provide leadership in building effective, two-way
communication between FDA and all stakeholders including: patients,
consumers, Congress, the Administration, Agency employees, the
regulated industry, health care professionals, and other scientific
advisors. The OC will retain only those staff functions which cannot be
reasonably and more effectively performed in those centers or offices
that interface most directly with stakeholders. Other short-term
changes will address a growing emphasis on international policy and
activities, women's health, consumer issues, and systems improvement.
The emphasis of FDAMA on the involvement of stakeholders is
changing the manner in which restructuring decisions can be made. As we
compile the suggestions of our constituents, strategies for enhancing
FDA's effectiveness as a scientific, regulatory agency will become more
evident. Subsequent decisions regarding organizational structure will
be made as appropriate for the Agency within the context of the rapidly
changing national and global environment.
Question. Would you please comment on these reports and the obvious
challenges of moving quickly, but not too quickly?
Answer. Although the FDA process is faster, every application is
reviewed thoroughly and completely. In addition, the FDA standards for
approval, which include how many patients must be studied in clinical
trials and what benefits must be demonstrated, have not changed.
Available evidence shows that shortened review times under the
Prescription Drug User Fee Act Program have not led to less safe
products being approved for marketing.
None of the U.S. safety withdrawals over the last 18 years, 13 of
which were drugs, involved drugs that underwent particularly fast
reviews. In fact, the fastest of these reviews was for the drug
mibefradil which took 15 months--well above the current average review
time under user fee performance goals. Many drugs are reviewed faster.
A forthcoming article in a peer reviewed medical journal will provide a
thorough analysis of new drug safety withdrawals showing them to be
unrelated to approval time or approval year.
bioterrorism
Question. Please explain FDA's role in the administration's Anti-
Bio Terrorism policies.
Answer. FDA has a primary role in creating and maintaining a
stockpile of pharmaceuticals and biological products and furthering
research, design, development and approval of diagnostics, antibiotics,
therapeutics and vaccines to be used to prevent and treat the exposure
to deadly chemical and biological agents. This is an integral component
of the Department of Health and Human Services' overall responsibility
is to meet the Nation's public health and medical needs associated with
terrorist events. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget for DHHS
contains a request for $230 million for these purposes. The FDA, CDC,
NIH, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and
Office of Emergency Preparedness, working closely with the Department
of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs have developed a
four-pronged approach to prepare for and respond to a biological or
chemical attack. The four priorities include revamping the public
health surveillance system; strengthening our medical response
capability; creating and maintaining a stockpile of pharmaceuticals and
biological products; and enhancing research, design, development and
approval of diagnostics, antibiotics, therapeutics and vaccines. FDA' s
counter-bioterrorism initiative focuses on the priorities for creating
and maintaining a stockpile of pharmaceuticals and biological products,
and furthering research, design, development and approval of
diagnostics, antibiotics, therapeutics and vaccines. I would like to
provide additional information for the record.
bioterrorism initiative
FDA's Stockpile Responsibility
FDA is responsible for ensuring the safety, purity, and potency of
biological products intended for use in the diagnosis, treatment,
prevention, or cure of diseases or conditions resulting from exposure
of the American people to these deadly biological and chemical agents
in this country or on foreign. FDA must evaluate the safety and
effectiveness of these products prior to their release to the public.
In addition, FDA must continue to ensure the safety and efficacy of
these products through the inspection of manufacturing facilities for
compliance with regulations, verification that product lots conform to
preapproval standards and product consistency prior to their release
into distribution, and evaluation of surveillance reports, such as
adverse experience reports.
The release of a biological weapon, producing mass civilian or
military casualties, will create a public health crisis in the United
States requiring extraordinarily large amounts of antibiotics,
antivirals and vaccines for treating those who become ill or for
protecting those who may have been exposed. If such products are
unapproved, FDA must be prepared to review them quickly and efficiently
to assure their safety and efficacy. In addition, FDA will play a role
in establishing any needed requirements for critical pharmaceutical
supplies to be available to these biowarfare victims in less than 24
hours. This requires FDA to identify the biological or chemical agents
that present the greatest threats, estimate the potential size of the
population that may be affected, determine the best prophylaxis or
treatment options, and then decide how best to assure immediate access
to sufficient quantities.
The proposed stockpile would assure an immediately available
quantity of appropriate pharmaceutical and biological products that
would meet the needs of the affected population in the event of the
release of a chemical or biological weapon. The need for a stockpile at
several strategic locations around the United States is based on the
fact that some pharmaceutical products, required exclusively during a
biological or chemical weapon attack, would not otherwise be available
on a timely basis and in sufficient quantity. Normally these products
are not found in the marketplace in adequate amounts to meet a mass
casualty need and production lead times may be too long if there is a
bioterrorism incident. The products in this type of stockpile, however,
require careful monitoring for potency and sterility and will have to
be replaced from time to time.
Research and Development
FDA is actively working on the interagency group to identify the
agents that pose the greatest threat, to outline the current
capabilities to deal with these agents, and to identify the goals and
research needs necessary to respond to a potential bioterrorist attack
using these agents.
In order to facilitate the development, approval, and continued
safety and efficacy of the products, FDA scientists must plan and
conduct research on the methods of testing safety, purity, potency, and
efficacy of these products. The public health of the United States
cannot risk the wide distribution of products that are unsafe. Based on
their research, FDA scientists will be able to develop industry-wide
testing techniques, standards and methods; to improve existing
products; and promote the development of new products. FDA needs to
conduct research regarding the agents that bioterrorists may use in
order to further understand the agents and the effect they will have on
humans who are exposed to them and to have a better understanding of
the proposed treatments when FDA reviews applications.
Terrorist events involving biological agents will be very different
in character from those employing chemical agents. Moreover,
preparedness for and response to an attack involving biological agents
are complicated by the large number of potential agents, most of which
are rarely encountered naturally, their sometimes long incubation
periods and consequent delayed onset of disease, and the potential for
secondary transmission. In addition to naturally occurring pathogens,
agents used by bioterrorists may be genetically engineered to resist
current therapies and evade vaccine-induced immunity.
A research program to counter bioterrorism must address disease
priorities, with initial emphasis on microbes such as smallpox and
anthrax. For the longer term, research must target agents and diseases
such as Ebola virus, brucellosis, plague, turalemia, viral
encephalitides, viral hemorrhagic fevers and botulism. While current
research programs are understandably focused on a few microbes that
have the greatest potential for use as a weapon of mass destruction, in
the future, additional research programs must address other potential
microbial agents of bioterrorism.
A research program to produce vaccines and therapeutics for
biological weapons faces the challenge of not being able to proceed
with human Phase III efficacy clinical trials. Given ethical and safety
concerns that would rule out infecting human subjects with a deadly
organism in order to test a vaccine or therapeutic, trials with humans
cannot be undertaken. Therefore, the regulatory process for approval of
treatments or preventative medicines and diagnostics may need to be
modified to permit the emergency use of antibiotics/therapeutics and
vaccines that have been shown to be safe and efficacious in animal
models. FDA has drafted a proposed rule to allow animal data to be
used.
Since it is likely that an intentional release of a bioweapon will
become apparent in the form of a disease outbreak, emphasis must also
be placed on the development, evaluation and approval of rapid
diagnostics. The ability to rapidly identify and characterize a
suspected biological agent will permit speedy treatment and/or
prophylaxis. The rapid diagnostic technologies to be developed should
be capable of detecting known biological agents as well as genetically
engineered organisms.
FDA's proposed activities and corresponding outcomes include:
Activities:
--Research and review activities related to expeditious development
and licensure of new vaccines and therapeutics;
--Timely application reviews of new drugs and biological products and
new uses of existing products;
--Participation in the planning and coordination of public health and
medical response to a terrorist attack involving a biological
or chemical agent;
--Participation in the development of rapid detection and
decontamination tests for agents of bioterrorism such as C.
botulinum, E. coli, B. Anthracis;
--Assuring the safety of regulated foods, drugs, medical devices and
biological products; and arranging for seizure and disposal of
affected products;
--Development of techniques to detect genetic modifications of micro-
organisms which make them more toxic or resistant to
antibiotics or vaccines;
--Rapid determination of a microbes sensitivity to drug therapy;
--Rapid determination of the mechanism of replication and
pathogenicity/virulence of organisms, including those elements
which can be transferred to other organisms in order to
circumvent detection, prevention or treatment;
--Enhanced ADR surveillance capabilities.
Outcomes:
--Safe and efficient products to prevent, either prior to or
subsequent to exposure, and treat toxicity of biological and
chemical agents;
--Methods to rapidly detect, identify and decontaminate hazardous
organisms;
--Increased ability to ensure the safety of the food supply;
--Increased ability to provide appropriate medical care and a public
health response.
field consolidation
Question. Please explain the status of FDA field consolidation and
the budgetary impact of those actions.
Answer. FDA began this initiative in 1994 with approval from the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to proceed with streamlining
field laboratories. The Agency was unable to maintain eighteen field
laboratories due to rising rent and maintenance costs, overcrowding,
and inadequate and obsolete laboratory space. Many leases for
facilities built to FDA specifications in the 1960's were expiring.
Faced with the prospect of acquiring new and more expensive replacement
leases for special purpose laboratory space, the plan to focus and
consolidate shrinking resources evolved. Nine of eighteen field
laboratories will be closed, with staff and functions consolidated.
Five large multi-purpose laboratories in New York; Atlanta; Jefferson,
Arkansas; Seattle; and Los Angeles; and four smaller specialty
laboratories in San Juan; Winchester, Massachusetts; Cincinnati; and
Philadelphia will house the FDA field analytical science activities.
Savings in estimated rent, maintenance and utilities from the start of
the project in 1994 through 2014 are estimated to be in excess of $90
million. FDA will maintain its inspection, investigation, and
compliance presence in all locations where laboratories are closed.
In 1997, laboratories were closed in Chicago, Buffalo and
Cincinnati. In 1998 the laboratory in New Orleans was closed. The
Baltimore laboratory will close in 1999; and, Dallas, Detroit and
Minneapolis laboratories will close in 2000.
The new FDA field multi-purpose laboratory at NCTR in Jefferson,
Arkansas is under construction with occupancy expected in December
1999. With a partial appropriation of $3 million in fiscal year 1999,
FDA has recently awarded a contract to begin the third and final phase
of the project, the renovation of Building 50 at NCTR, which will house
joint ORA and NCTR administrative and support staff and services. $10.3
million will complete phase III; $3 million is requested in fiscal year
2000.
In 1995, $9.8 million was appropriated to FDA for land acquisition
and design for the new laboratory and district office facility in Los
Angeles. Land was purchased on the campus of the University of
California at Irvine, and design is virtually complete. The fiscal year
2000 request includes $20.4 million, which is approximately one-half of
the $40.4 million needed to complete construction of this much needed
multi-purpose laboratory facility.
A new laboratory annex to the existing facility in Atlanta came on
line last spring, and the facility is fully operational. The multi-
purpose laboratory in Atlanta is complete and has been accepting
additional staff from closing laboratories.
A new multi-purpose laboratory and office facility in Jamaica,
Queens, New York, to be leased through GSA, is well underway with an
expected occupancy in January 2000.
FDA has recently renovated the drug specialty laboratory in San
Juan; expanded the drug specialty laboratory in Philadelphia; and,
moved into a new facility in Cincinnati which houses the district
office and the National Forensic Chemistry Center.
Question. As you are aware, I am concerned about the rising cost of
drugs. I am also supportive of the goals of the Orphan Drug Act and the
benefits it provides for people with rare disorders. However, concerns
have been raised that implementation of the Act, in some instances, has
had the effect of stifling competition and, ultimately, raising drug
costs to consumers. Specifically, these concerns focus on those cases
in which the exclusivity of one drug has expired, yet competition is
still not allowed if there is another similar drug for which
exclusivity is still in effect.
Commissioner Henney, please review and report to me on the
implementation of the Orphan Drug Act in terms of the exclusivity rule
and the effect it is having on competition in the market place and the
ultimate cost to consumers.
Answer. The 7-year exclusive marketing period after approval for a
designated orphan product is one of the most meaningful incentives of
the Orphan Drug Act. As of May 1, 1999, 189 orphan products have been
marketed over the last 16 years. This exclusivity, like patent terms,
restricts competition intentionally. Orphan drug exclusivity provides
an additional economic incentive for sponsors to invest in the research
and development for what are generally limited patient groups and
markets. Many orphan products have no other source or basis for
intellectual property protection. The exclusivity bar does not preclude
products which show either greater efficacy or safety from being
approved by FDA. FDA does not maintain nor have access to economic,
pricing, or other financial data for these or any other regulated
products. A premise of the orphan products program is that the most
costly product is one that is neither known nor available when needed.
FDA believes that consumers are served best when a proven safe and
efficacious treatment is marketed and available when needed. In many
cases, an orphan product displaces other restrictive and more costly
care and improves the quality of life for the patient and affected
family.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Harkin
otc sunscreen monograph
Question. ``Skin cancer is a serious public health problem in the
United States, and regular use of sunscreen is considered an important
element of sun protection. The FDA Modernization Act requires that FDA
publish regulations for OTC sunscreens. In addition, Congress
specifically directed FDA to address the review of foreign sunscreen
ingredients as part of the OTC sunscreen monograph.
``Would you discuss how FDA is proceeding with this monograph, and
what sort of timeline you foresee for its publication?''
Answer. A final sunscreen monograph published was in the Federal
Register on May 21, 1999, (64 FR 2766). The Agency addressed the
process for including sunscreen active ingredients based solely on
foreign data and marketing experience in Comment 13 of the preamble to
the final rule.
tobacco funding
Question. Would you please describe in more detail what share of
the money appropriated for the FDA initiative against youth smoking
goes out to state authorities for their use in carrying out compliance
checks and any other smoking prevention activity?
Answer. In 1997, $2 million (out of $4.9 million) went to state
contracts to enforce the rule. In 1998, $16.4 million went to state
contracts. In 1999, the Agency has allocated $22 million towards state
contracts.
Question. Please describe in a more detailed breakdown just how the
funding for this initiative is used, that is, the types of activities
that are supported, how the money is distributed among these
activities, and how the money is apportioned between federal and state
level activities.
Answer. In fiscal year 1997, FDA designed a pilot program and
infrastructure to enforce the rule. The Agency, consistent with its
practices in other areas, determined that it would commission state and
local officials to enforce the federal rule--specifically to conduct
unannounced visits to retailers using adolescents younger than 18, who
would attempt to purchase cigarettes or smokeless tobacco. Initially,
the Agency contracted for enforcement in 10 states. In fiscal year
1997, contracts were awarded to Florida, Illinois, Washington, Texas,
Massachusetts, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Arkansas, and
California. These states were required to conduct approximately 200 to
400 inspections per month. Compliance checks began in the first state
in August 1997. These contracts resulted in approximately 20,000
compliance checks during the 10 month pilot program.
In fiscal year 1998, the Agency expanded its enforcement efforts
and solicited bids from all 57 states and territories to contract with
FDA to do compliance checks. By the close of fiscal year 1998, FDA had
signed contracts with 43 states and territories totaling $16,382,912.
Under these contracts, the states will conduct approximately 186,500
compliance checks by September 30, 1999. The average contract is
approximately $390,000. With the signing of each new contract, FDA's
headquarters or regional staff trains the designated state and local
officials. Headquarter staff has also spent countless hours answering
questions from tobacco retailers and providing technical assistance to
the states.
All 10 states who participated in the pilot program, renegotiated
contracts to continue doing compliance checks in their states. In at
least two states, the programs had been so successful that the states
chose to expand the initial limited coverage provided by the first
contract. In Arkansas, for example, the pilot contract provided for
compliance checks to be conducted only in and around Little Rock.
Similarly, in Colorado, only a few counties were included in the
original contract. In both cases, the subsequent contracts
substantially increased the areas of the state that would be included
in the investigations.
The existing contracts resulted in 39,439 attempted and completed
compliance checks during fiscal year 1998, including reinspection of
retailers found to have violated the rule. The Agency's legal staff
devised and established the framework for the imposition of civil money
penalties, sent out complaints, and negotiated or litigated contested
cases. In fiscal year 1998, FDA began seeking civil money penalties
from those found to have violated the rule's restrictions on sales to
minors for a second time. In fiscal year 1999, FDA began investigations
of retailers who have been found to have already violated the rule two
times. The agency anticipates seeking civil money penalties for third
violations within the first quarter of fiscal year 1999. A penalty
schedule for violations of other portions of the regulation will be
developed when these provisions go into effect.
In the second half of fiscal year 1998, the Agency contracted with
Battelle Memorial Institute to study the tobacco program's business
processes, outline the program's work flow and conduct a requirements
analysis. From this requirements analysis, Battelle proposed a system
design to automate the program's processes. In addition, Battelle
presented a proposed plan to obtain and maintain a list of retailers
selling tobacco in each state that would be more complete, accurate and
user friendly than the lists constructed by the Agency during its first
full year of operation.
Based on the design, Battelle has launched a multi-year effort to
provide reliable retailer lists and an infrastructure designed to
maintain the list and make it user friendly for FDA and for all
contracting states. Battelle will also design and implement an
information technology system which will automate all the program's
various functions, including contracting, outreach, enforcement,
compliance checks, litigation, collection of civil money penalties,
etc. The new system will increase the efficiency of the program and
will improve communications internally as well as with state
contractors and with other stakeholders. The various system design
components will be implemented incrementally as they are developed
beginning in early 1999. The entire system should be operational by
2001. The amount dedicated to this multi-year project in fiscal year
1998 is $2.8 million.
In fiscal year 1998, the Agency designed a comprehensive outreach
program designed to inform retailers and ensure compliance. This multi-
faceted program consisted of advertising, direct mail, press events and
materials, exhibits and speeches, and dissemination of materials
requested via a hotline or mail order.
In fiscal year 1998, the Agency designed a multi-media advertising
campaign, including radio, print, and billboard advertising. A free
retailer kit using humorous illustrations and a folksy approach also
was created to make it easier for retailers to comply with the new
regulation. A series of focus group discussions were held with
retailers, sales clerks, young people between 18 and 27, children ages
12 to 18, and the general public to test the advertising campaign and
retailer kits. During fiscal year 1998, approximately 500,000 retailers
kits were produced and sent to stores across the country.
The FDA conducted a tracking study in 10 media markets to evaluate
the effectiveness of the campaign. Findings indicate that awareness of
the photo identification age provision rose dramatically from
approximately one-third of retailers to more than one-half of all
retailers. In addition, there was a three-fold increase in recall of
the fine for repeat violations in the test markets. Further, in test
markets, twice as many clerks used 27 as the cut-off age after the
campaign compared to before the campaign. Importantly, retailers
reported that minors were somewhat less likely to try to buy tobacco
and retailers said that customers were less likely to be irritated when
asked to show photo identification as a result of the advertising
campaign. By the close of fiscal year 1998, the Agency had obligated
approximately $12.5 million for outreach activities. This covers the
costs of the paid advertising campaign as well as the printing and
dissemination of nearly a half million retailer kits.
In 1997, $2 million (out of $4.9 million) went to state contracts
to enforce the rule. In 1998, $16.4 million went to state contracts. In
1999, the Agency has allocated $22 million towards state contracts.
supreme court and tobacco
Question. What is FDA's response to the Supreme Court's granting of
certiorari to review the Fourth Circuit case?
Answer. The Administration stated on the day of the Supreme Court
announcement that it was pleased that the Court has agreed to hear this
important public health case.
Question. It is my understanding that FDA retains full authority
pending the Supreme Court decision to carry out the photo I.D. and
minimum age rules, in cooperation with its state partners. Is that
correct?
Answer. Yes, pending the outcome of the Supreme Court's
consideration of this case on the merits, FDA continues to have the
authority to enforce the age and photo ID provisions of the tobacco
rule.
Question. Given the history of the tobacco industry in marketing
tobacco products to young people, and frankly in not being truthful
about so many of its activities, does it not make sense that the
industry should provide at least some of the resources needed to carry
out the efforts of FDA and its state partners to prevent kids from
taking up smoking? For example, under the Prescription Drug User Fee
Act, an industry regulated by FDA provides some of the resources for
FDA activities.
Answer. Funding via industry user fees is not contained in the
Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request for FDA's tobacco
program.
Question. Now, the situation regarding tobacco is not exactly the
same, of course, but it seems there is an even stronger case in many
respects for having the tobacco industry support FDA activities than
there is for prescription drug user fees. What is FDA's position on
obtaining resources from the tobacco industry to support FDA smoking
prevention efforts?
Answer. Funding via industry user fees is not contained in the
administration's fiscal year 2000 budget request for FDA's tobacco
program.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dorgan
prescription drugs
Question. As the FDA Commissioner knows, U.S. consumers pay on
average 30-60 percent more for the exact same medications than
consumers in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Sweden. Part of the reason
for this is that federal law and regulation have essentially created a
closed market for prescription drug manufacturers.
What are the statutory barriers to allowing free trade of
prescription drugs?
Answer. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Food
and Drug Administration must approve all new drugs, including
prescription drugs, before they may be commercially distributed in the
United States. This review function performed by FDA provides an
essential protection to the health of the American people by helping
ensure that the drug products that are available are safe and effective
for their intended use. To obtain approval, the sponsor of a drug,
usually the manufacturer, must submit sufficient information to the
agency in the form of either a new drug application for innovator drugs
that are not generic equivalents of currently marketed drugs or an
abbreviated new drug application for generic equivalents of currently
marketed drugs. Information that must be included in the application
includes the chemical composition of the active chemical entity, the
identity and composition of excipients and other inactive ingredients,
and information concerning the place and methods of manufacture. On the
basis of that application, as well as information obtained through
inspections, FDA reviewers determine whether the drug is safe and
effective for a particular use. If a sponsor does not file a new drug
application with FDA, FDA cannot approve the drug, and the drug cannot
be commercially distributed in the United States. A limited exception
to the prohibition on distribution of unapproved new drugs exists to
permit non-commercial distributions of unapproved new drugs intended
solely for investigational use by experts qualified by scientific
training and experience to investigate the safety and effectiveness of
drugs.
One provision of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, Public Law
100-293 Sec. 2(4), which was incorporated into the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act, may also affect the importation of approved drugs.
Congress enacted this provision pursuant to its finding that, ``Large
amounts of drugs are being reimported to the United States as American
goods returned. These imports are a health and safety risk to American
consumers because they may have become subpotent or adulterated during
foreign handling and shipping.'' Accordingly, Congress passed 21 U.S.C.
Sec. 381(d)(1), which prohibits the reimportation of a prescription
drug or insulin that was manufactured in the United States, and
exported, unless the drug is reimported by the manufacturer of the drug
or FDA authorizes reimportation of the drug for emergency medical care.
Finally, other provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act which prohibit the distribution of adulterated or misbranded drugs,
could act to deny admission to certain entries of prescription drugs,
depending on the condition of the drugs.
Question. What barriers exist in FDA's statute to prohibit
pharmacies from purchasing pharmaceuticals in other countries when
those products are approved for sale in the U.S. and produced at FDA-
certified facilities?
Answer. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not prohibit
the purchase of approved prescription drugs in other countries.
However, one provision of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act, which
was incorporated into the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, may
affect the subsequent importation of approved prescription drugs, if
those drugs were originally manufactured in the United States. This
provision, 21 U.S.C. Sec. 381(d)(1), prohibits the reimportation of a
prescription drug or insulin that was manufactured in the United States
and exported, unless the drug is reimported by the manufacturer of the
drug or FDA authorizes reimportation of the drug for emergency medical
care.
importation prescription drugs
Question. During a recent meeting with Deputy Commissioner Michael
Friedman, he identified 3 barriers that prevent consumers and
pharmacists from importing prescription drugs from other countries to
take advantage of lower prices: 1) GATT, which prevents the U.S. from
treating its trading partners differently; 2) the Prescription Drug
Marketing Act, which permits only pharmaceutical manufacturers to re-
import their drugs into the U.S.; and 3) the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act, which requires the FDA to ensure that drugs are made
using good manufacturing practices.
Can the FDA Commissioner recommend what changes could be made in
the law to facilitate the importation of FDA-approved prescription
drugs without undermining the public's safety?
Answer. The first and third items discussed above might act as
barriers to the importation of prescription drugs that are not
manufactured pursuant to an FDA-approved new drug application and,
therefore, not in compliance with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act. However, they are not likely to have an impact on the importation
of prescription drugs manufactured pursuant to an FDA-approved new drug
application.
With regard to item 1, GATT and other United States trade
agreements limit the United States' ability to distinguish arbitrarily
among its trading partners. For example, if the United States were to
put to the side all other legal concerns, including concern with
compliance with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and decided
to allow the importation of unapproved drugs manufactured in Country A,
but to disallow the importation of unapproved drugs manufactured in
Country B, the United States might be accused of making an arbitrary
distinction between Country A and Country B. This concern is not
relevant when the United States decides to allow the importation of
approved drugs from Country A, but to disallow the importation of
unapproved drugs from Country B. That distinction is on its face a
reasonable one, based on the laws of this country designed to assure
public health and safety.
With regard to item 3, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
requires all manufacturers, processors, packers and holders of drugs to
conduct their operations in conformity with current good manufacturing
practice. All United States manufacturers, and all foreign
manufacturers who manufacture drugs pursuant to approved new drug
applications, are required to adhere to current good manufacturing
practice. Neither the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, nor the
regulations promulgated thereunder, attribute to approved prescription
drugs that have traveled outside the United States a presumption that
the drugs were, or were not, handled in accordance with current good
manufacturing practices. All such determinations would be based on the
individual circumstances surrounding the handling of the drugs.
However, when drugs are handled outside the United States, we have very
little information regarding handling conditions. A concern about poor
handling during extended foreign shipments of drugs manufactured in the
United States led to the passage of a provision of the Prescription
Drug Marketing Act, PDMA. The PDMA provision, 21 U.S.C. Sec.
381(d)(1), could impede the importation by a consumer of FDA-approved
prescription drugs because it prohibits the reimportation of a
prescription drug or insulin that was manufactured in the United
States, and exported, unless the drug is reimported by the manufacturer
of the drug or FDA authorizes reimportation of the drug for emergency
medical care. In passing this legislation, Congress expressly found,
``Large amounts of drugs are being reimported to the United States as
American goods returned. These imports are a health and safety risk to
American consumers because they may have become subpotent or
adulterated during foreign handling and shipping.'' Public Law 100-293
Sec. 2(4). FDA has also concluded that this provision provides greater
assurance that recalls of prescription drug products will be conducted
effectively. For example, if a manufacturer's records indicate that a
drug has been distributed in Asia, not the United States, the
manufacturer will provide all recall notifications to entities in Asia.
United States consumers may hear nothing about the recall.
You have asked FDA to recommend changes to this provision that
would facilitate the importation of FDA-approved prescription drugs
without undermining the public's safety. However, FDA believes that
this provision affords the public an important safeguard. As part of
the FDA Modernization Act of 1997, Congress recently amended section
381(d)(1) to include insulin, a non-prescription drug, within the
prohibition on reimportation. FDA supported that extension because
insulin is temperature sensitive and requires refrigeration. Adverse
storage conditions during international transport could cause the drug
to become subpotent, could compromise the stability of the drug, or
could cause physical changes in the drug, such as precipitation and
clumping. Any of these changes could affect the effectiveness of the
insulin dose administered to a diabetic patient.
These concerns apply also to prescription drugs, since handling and
storage conditions can affect the effectiveness of all drugs
encompassed by 21 U.S.C. Sec. 381(d)(1).
Question. The Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987 prohibits the
re-importation of drugs produced in the United States to this country
by anyone other than its manufacturer. I understand that the policy
goals of this law were to prevent the counterfeiting, mislabeling, or
adulteration of drugs sold to American consumers.
Are there other ways to achieve these same goals without curtailing
competition?
Answer. The agency lacks the economic expertise to analyze the
effect on competition of this law, or alternative formulations.
Moreover, the agency does not have data on the volume of prescription
drugs that are manufactured in the United States in accordance with an
approved new drug application, but distributed outside the United
States.
fsi funding
Question. The budget request includes funding for the Food Safety
Initiative in the amount of $79 million, including an increase of $30
million and 156 FTEs. Can you describe in more detail how funds will be
used to develop a food safety net?
Answer. The $79 million is a total for the Food Safety Initiative
and includes the $24 million increase in fiscal year 1998, the $25
million increase in fiscal year 1999, and the $30 million request for
fiscal year 2000. I would be happy to proved additional information for
the record.
Performance Goals for the Food Safety Program
Funding for the Food Safety Initiative will be used to develop a
food safety net based on the following:
--The performance goals for the Food Safety Program represent major
milestones in FDA's efforts to achieve significant improvements
in the safety of the Nation's food supply.
--Each of the performance goals is tied to one or more of the six
elements identified in the President's Food Safety Initiative
as being critical to efforts to improve the safety of the
Nation's food supply. These six elements are improved foodborne
disease surveillance, improved interagency coordination on
responses to foodborne illness outbreaks, increased food safety
education, improved compliance monitoring, effective risk
assessment techniques for microbial pathogens, and improved
techniques for pathogen detection, control and prevention.
Moreover, the activities reflected in the performance goals are
designed to help the Agency improve its ability to address food
safety issues that currently pose significant threats to the
health and well being of American consumers. These threats
include emerging pathogens, bacterial toxins contamination,
poor food handling practices in the home and retail
establishments, and uninspected imported foods, especially
fresh fruits and vegetables. By the year 2001 it is expected
that data generated by foodborne disease surveillance will be
adequate to establish baselines against which FDA and other
federal agencies can begin to assess the impact that their
programs are having on reducing the number of foodborne
illnesses that occur annually.
--Additionally, benefits gained in terms of improving the safety of
the food supply from NARMS in the past are multiple: NARMS has
made contributions to food safety when CDC provided information
to public health departments on the presence, in specific areas
of the country, of Salmonella typhimurium DT104, a multi-drug
resistant pathogen identified by NARMS; the NARMS report has
been utilized by food animal producers to identify problems
associated with drug resistance in some food animal
populations; NARMS has also been a source of well characterized
isolates from food animals for researchers developing rapid
assays to identify human pathogens in food, such as the
Salmonella typhimurium DT104 rapid assay announced by the
Secretary of the Department of Agriculture. Benefits to be
gained in the future in terms of improving the safety of the
food supply from increasing the numbers of isolates tested in
NARMS are: 1) an increased ability to detect outbreaks of food-
borne disease early in an outbreak and earlier recall of
adulterated products preventing exposure of larger proportions
of the population, 2) improved ability to identify the source
of resistant human food-borne pathogens, 3) improved
characterization of the magnitude and type of resistance in
food animal populations to be used in policy development and
risk assessments and 4) improved capability to determine the
magnitude of resistance transfer in food-borne pathogens.
--The research conducted will facilitate our ability to determine the
contribution of animal feeds to the development of antibiotic
resistance in food-producing animals. Information strategies
can be developed to reduce the level of pathogens in animals
feeds, thereby reducing the exposure of food-producing animals
to pathogens and will provide the basis for the development of
strategies to reduce the pathogen load in food-producing
animals, which contributes to the persistence of resistance
pathogens.
Question. How does this program compliment and support the
recommendations of the President's Council on Food Safety/National
Academy of Sciences Report to develop a comprehensive national food
safety plan?
Answer. I would be happy to describe this compliment for the
record.
In the May 1997 report--``Food Safety From Farm to Table: A
National Food Safety Initiative'', the food safety agencies made a
commitment to prepare a 5-year comprehensive strategic plan, with the
participation of all concerned parties. On August 24, 1998, President
Clinton signed an Executive Order to create the President's Council on
Food Safety, giving the responsibility for the development of a
comprehensive strategic plan for federal food safety activities to the
Council. The Council will develop a comprehensive plan to improve the
safety of the nation's food supply by establishing a science-based food
safety system. The plan will address the steps necessary to achieve
this improved system, focusing on key public health, resources, and
management issues that include measurable outcome goals.
The National Academy of Sciences report, ``Ensuring Safe Food From
Production to Consumption,'' made the following recommendations.
Following each recommendation is a statement indicating how FDA is
already involved in addressing these concerns.
--Recommendation One: The food safety system should be based on
science. FDA provides numerous examples where this is already
the case, including the development and implementation of the
FoodNet and PulseNet systems for surveillance and
identification of foodborne pathogens and the implementation of
new science-based inspections of seafood. FDA has also
identified areas that should be strengthened such as improving
the ability to assess health risks from pathogens in food.
--Recommendation Two: Federal statutes should be based on
scientifically supportable risks to public health. The
President's Council on Food Safety, of which FDA is a part of,
will call on Congress to work with it to create scientifically-
based statutes to promote food safety. The Council will conduct
a thorough review of existing statutes and determine what can
be accomplished with existing regulatory flexibility and what
improvements will require statutory changes.
--Recommendation Three: A comprehensive national food safety plan
should be developed. The first steps to lay the groundwork have
already been taken, the food safety agencies have participated
in interagency strategic planning sessions and drafted a vision
statement encompassing the agencies' vision for the U.S. food
safety system and the roles of all those involved in food
safety.
--Recommendation Four: A new statute should be enacted that
establishes a unified framework for food safety programs with a
single official with control over all federal food safety
resources. The Council supports the goal of a unified framework
for food safety programs and will conduct an assessment of
structural models and other mechanisms to strengthen the
federal food safety system through better coordination,
planning, and resource allocation.
--Recommendation Five: Agencies should work more effectively with
partners in state and local governments.
The Council, of which FDA is a part, held four public meetings
(October--December 1998) to engage consumers, producers, industry, food
service providers, retailers, health professionals, State and Local
governments, Tribes, academia, and the public in the strategic planning
process.
The base of the Food Safety Program encompasses Surveillance,
Research, Risk Assessment and Education. This base lays and strengthens
a strong scientific foundation for a nationally integrated food safety
system. The system begins with identifying pathogenic microorganisms in
animals, conducting HACCP surveillance activities at slaughter
facilities, and monitoring activities to prevent or contain outbreaks
of food-borne illness. Antimicrobial resistance fits into all aspects
of the foundation--surveillance, research, risk assessment and
education due to the use of antibiotics in food-producing animals for
therapy and growth promotion purposes. The Animal Drugs and Feeds
portion of FSI focuses on developing and expanding the National
Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) as a surveillance
tool that will enable us to detect emerging resistance and take
appropriate public health action in response. This will allow us to
target education on proper use of antimicrobials, conduct research to
develop a better understanding of the mechanisms of the transfer of
antibiotic resistance among bacteria, and carry out risk assessment to
identify the level of antibiotic resistance that poses public health
risk and to direct resources to minimize those risks.
The Food and Drug Administration is in constant communication with
other federal food safety agencies to ensure that proper surveillance
and research activities are being undertaken and to reduce the level of
duplication to a minimum. NARMS, which was established in January 1996,
is a collaborative effort among the FDA, USDA, and CDC which was
initiated in response to public health issues associated with the
approval of fluoroquinolone products for use in poultry. We also work
very closely with USDA on research related activities. Scientists from
USDA were actively involved with the development of our research plans,
in large measure to avoid duplication of effort. In addition,
scientists from FDA participated in the planning activities of these
same agencies. This process has continued to keep the other agencies
apprised of our ongoing activities as well as their activities, explore
areas for collaborative research efforts, and be able to respond to
changing research needs and priorities.
Question. Explain in detail your partnerships with Federal and
state departments of agriculture and health on food safety.
Answer. A national, rapid, effective response to foodborne illness
outbreaks requires a coordinated effort that crosses agency lines,
while recognizing the unique statutory responsibilities of each
federal, state, and local agency involved. This requires agreement
about roles and responsibilities of public health officials at all
levels and the most expeditious manner of operating within those
parameters in responding to outbreaks, collecting epidemiologic data,
and quickly initiating traceback investigations.
From the outset of the President's Food Safety Initiative, the
Administration has recognized the need for strengthening partnerships
between Federal agencies and State and local public health agencies. In
the first two years of the Food Safety Initiative, additional funds
were provided to improve coordination between all agencies involved in
the food safety system. Within the framework of the initiative,
additional funds helped establish the successful working relationships
for implementing FoodNet, PulseNet, NARMS, Foodborne Outbreak Response
Coordinating Group-FORC-G-, the Risk Assessment Consortium, and the
Partnership for Food Safety Education. In addition, Food Safety
Initiative funds have enabled food safety agencies to provide training
and materials to State and local agencies for expanding and improving
their on-going inspection and compliance capabilities, food safety
education efforts, and foodborne illness surveillance capabilities.
Great progress has also been made by cooperative Federal agencies
in implementing HACCP systems for seafood, meat, and poultry and a
comprehensive initiative for ensuring the safety of fruits and
vegetables. Other efforts include the coordination of activities for
ensuring the safety of food during transportation and at the retail
level. These are complex issues involving numerous Federal, State, and
local officials. The partnerships established and strengthened under
the President's Food Safety Initiative have contributed to the ability
of Federal food safety agencies to leverage resources, avoid
duplication, and provide the basis for an integrated and seamless food
safety system. Additional partnerships will be formed with the states
to increase the number of high risk, non-meat and poultry, food
inspections and to enhance the capabilities of states to improve food
safety at the retail level.
In September, 1998, representatives of food safety agencies from
all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia met with HHS
and USDA in Kansas City to discuss how federal, state, and local food
safety activities could be better integrated to provide a more
effective and efficient food safety system. The State representatives
strongly support the concept of a nationally integrated food safety
system building on the current Federal-State partnerships. The 2000
budget proposal includes funds for HHS, with USDA, to accelerate their
planning with the states, including opportunities for public input, so
as to be fully prepared to begin implementing such a system. To further
foster progress toward a seamless, science-based food safety system,
the 2000 budget includes funds to enable USDA and HHS to develop
stronger ties with State food safety agencies.
USDA is currently providing the training and equipment necessary
for State personnel in the 25 State meat and poultry inspection
programs to assure that State programs implement meat and poultry HACCP
requirements that are `at least equal to' the Federal program of
continuous inspection. Providing the 25 State meat and poultry
inspection programs access to Federal computer networks will facilitate
the coordination of inspection coverage between the two programs and
ensure a consistent approach to inspection and an efficient allocation
of resources. In addition, legislation will be proposed to authorize
the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into Federal-State cooperative
agreements that provide for State meat and poultry inspection programs
to enforce Federal meat and poultry inspection laws and regulations
with their State as part of a seamless national inspection program.
Products shipped under such new Federal-State cooperative agreements
would be permitted to enter interstate commerce.
Another major aspect of the 2000 budget proposal is to
significantly increase HHS efforts to coordinate its Federal inspection
responsibilities with State and local agencies. Through grants,
contracts, and other mechanisms, FDA will utilize State-conducted
inspections to increase the frequency of coverage for domestic firms.
With the additional resources, HHS estimates that a combination of
Federal and State inspectors will be able to reduce the existing
inspection cycle from once seven years for any particular establishment
to a risk-based approach that enable highest risk operation to be
inspected once a year.
Encouraging the use of preventive control measures, such as HACCP
and the Food Code, by the retail food industry will be the third major
focus of cooperative federal-state activity. HHS and USDA, have worked,
through the Conference for Food Protection, a forum for all
stakeholders to have input into the code development process, with the
states to promote use of safe practices in retail food operations and
adoption of Food Code provisions, including HACCP. The Food Code is a
model that provides scientifically sound technical and legal basis for
regulating the retail segment of the food industry. It is the Federal
government's best advice on a comprehensive system of regulation to
ensure food in restaurants, retail food stores and institutional
establishments is safe.
The target audience of the Food Code is the 75 State and
territorial agencies and over 3,000 local agencies directly regulating
over one million retail operations. In fiscal year 2000, the agencies
will continue to work with and provide training, assistance, and
resources to improve the safety of food products at retail.
DHHS, with the assistance of USDA, will also work cooperatively
with foreign governments to evaluate foreign food production and
inspection systems. Under the initiative, DHHS and USDA will increase
the number of international arrangements for assuring food safety to
facilitate the mutual understanding of the risks associated with
foreign products, exclusive of meat and poultry, and the control
measures necessary to reduce those risks. FDA will also follow-up on
foodborne illness outbreaks associated with imported products and work
toward equivalence determinations for other countries.
FDA in collaboration with CDC and USDA established and is expanding
the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System, NARMS, to
detect potential hazards through systematic collection, analysis and
interpretation of antimicrobial susceptibility surveillance data.
Seventeen state and local health departments, including CA, CO, CT, FL,
GA, KS, Los Angeles County, MA, MD, MN, NJ, New York City, NY, OR, TN,
WA, and WV, submit human clinical isolates of non-typhoid Salmonella
and E. coli and began submitting human S. typhi and Shigella isolates
in January 1999. Campylobacter isolates are submitted by eight health
departments and, in addition, MN, GA, MD and OR are submitting
Campylobacter isolates from poultry retail samples. A pilot study
involving these four states to monitor the resistance of human and
poultry Enterococcus isolates to 27 antimicrobials began in 1998. Three
veterinary sentinel sties were recently added to NARMS in the states of
CA, WA, and NY. In addition, our Office of Research serves as a
PULSENET laboratory, collaborating with the USDA laboratory at Athens,
GA on Campylobacter samples and collaborating with USDA on molecular
identification of Salmonella samples.
FDA provided USDA with a list of priorities for research funding by
USDA. This is based on the fiscal year 1999 Appropriation directive
that directs the USDA to consult with FDA regarding food safety
research objectives of that agency and recommends that $5M of the funds
provided for the food safety component of the National Research
Initiative, USDA, be used to meet those needs.
FDA plans to develop an international database with WHO for food-
borne organisms and susceptibility patterns, if funding will allow, to
share information globally that will improve our ability to detect
emerging pathogens and their resistance patterns.
Question. Part of the increase requested is to expand educational
activities in preventing food borne illness for fruits and vegetables
and seafood. In addition, FDA admits scientific knowledge in this area
is lagging.
How will the requested increase be used to minimize food borne
illness associated with fresh produce including seafood? How will the
requested increase be used to minimize food borne illness associated
with fresh produce including seafood?
Answer. Regarding fresh produce, we have determined that the most
effective mechanism to promote use of the voluntary guidance is through
education and outreach efforts by FDA and USDA. Efforts will be
directed to growers and producers who supply produce to the U.S. market
and be developed in cooperation with industry groups, state and foreign
governments and trade organizations.
While we are not always able to identify the specific cause of
contamination in many cases of foodborne illness, in most cases we know
the potential sources of pathogens and can take steps to protect public
health with regard to those sources. The guidance is based on current
sound science and knowledge of the common pathways for pathogens on
fresh produce, which include manure, water, workers, field sanitation,
packinghouses, and transport operations. The guidance recommends well-
accepted methods to minimize the potential for microbial contamination
of fresh produce.
In addition, FDA and USDA are jointly accelerating the research
outlined in the fiscal year 1998 President's Food Safety Initiative, to
develop new technologies to more rapidly identify and eliminate or
reduce levels of pathogens; developing research-based educational
programs targeting producers, processors, handlers, and consumers; and
assisting in providing guidance and procedures to reduce or eliminate
contaminants; and with FAS, providing technical assistance to foreign
countries, where appropriate, to improve the safety of their products.
Question. How does FDA propose to implement educational programs on
production and processing for domestic and international producers to
protect the public from food borne illness?
Answer. In order to develop credible and useful education programs,
FDA is meeting with both domestic and foreign growers and producers of
fresh fruits and vegetables to begin the process for determining how to
develop an education and outreach program to address the Good
Agricultural Practices ``Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety
Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables.'' A National Food Safety
Science and Education Conference was called for in the February 1998
``Initiative to Ensure the Safety of Imported and Domestic Fruits and
Vegetables: Status Report to the President.'' In April 1999, two
workshops were held. The first was geared toward growers and producers
of fresh fruits and vegetables grown in the United States. The goals of
the workshop were to enhance the coalition building process for those
involved in implementing the ``Guide''; determine education and
outreach needs of growers and producers and the most effective and
efficient methods of meeting those needs; identify research needs in
support of implementation of the ``Guide.''
Attendees included extension specialists, growers, producers,
buyers, processors, distributors, trade organizations, state and
federal regulators, and educators who are involved in growing,
harvesting, processing and transporting fresh fruits and vegetables.
The focus of the second conference, designed to harmonize with the
domestic conference, began the process of determining how to develop an
education and outreach program for growers and producers of fresh fruit
and vegetables imported into the United States. Foreign and domestic
scientific experts, foreign government agriculture and health
officials, and industry representatives discussed applications of the
guide. Representatives from donor organizations addressed
infrastructure improvements needed to enhance food safety. Participants
addressing goals similar to the domestic workshop, also identified key
elements for a base training model on good agricultural practices for
fresh produce and called for an alliance of government, industry and
academia to address these training needs. An analysis of information
gleaned from both conferences is currently underway and ``next steps''
are being determined.
On another front, a grant has been provided for development of a
domestic curriculum covering the ``Guide,'' which will serve as a basic
core component course. Efforts are also underway to begin a database of
available courses to be housed at the FDA/USDA Foodborne Illness
Education Information Center at the National Agricultural Library.
Question. How many outbreaks of food borne illness have occurred to
date this year as compared to last year?
Answer. We will provide a chart for the record with the information
we have been able to obtain.
[The information follows:]
OUTBREAKS OF FOOD BORNE ILLNESS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. ill/ Number lab
State Onset date range hospitalized confirmed Vehicle Agent Source comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salmonella Anatum in Orange FL............... Mid Jan--early 4/? 4 Fresh Squeezed Salmonella Anatum Nokomis Groves
Juice. Mar. Unpasteurized (retail) No IS.
Orange Juice.
Salmonella Thompson........... CA............... Late Feb--Late >60/? ( \1\ ) Unknown.......... Salmonella Possible Mexican
Mar. Thompson. Restaurant
connection.
WIC program Infant Formula- FL............... Feb-present...... ?/? 0 Infant Formula... Unknown Samples Nestle Carnation
Vomiting, projectile being analyzed Many lots
vomiting, and diarrhea. for B. cereus suspect.
and Staph toxin,
& Chemical
Screen.
Chinese Restaurant-Salmonella CA............... Jan 99........... ?/? ? Suspect Eggs..... Salmonella Isolate(s)
Enteriditis. Enteriditis. confirmed as PT
4 and sent to
CDC.
Party in Maryland-Salmonella.. MD (party)....... Apr 17........... 25/? 12 Chicken salad.... Salmonella....... Same caterer in
Delaware for all
3 events.
MD (church)...... Apr 16........... 2+/? 2 ................. Group D.......... .................
Group D....................... DE............... Apr 17........... 1/? 1 ................. (not confirmed Same caterer in
Enteriditis yet). Delaware for all
3 events.
Infant Formula-Enterobacte r FL............... Apr/May?......... 1/1 ? Similac with Iron Enteroba cter Unknown where
Sakazaki.. Sakazaki. organism
isolated from
(patient, pro-
duct), FDA
sample to be
collected.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unknown.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Feinstein
microbial resistance
Question. What is the FDA's position on the proposal to ban or
phase out the use antibiotics in animals if the same drugs are used by
humans?
Answer. FDA is engaged in discussions to resolve questions about
appropriate uses of antibiotics, and the Agency is very concerned about
the ever-expanding antibiotic resistance in organisms that cause
illness in humans. Our draft framework document, ``Proposed Framework
for Evaluating and Assuring the Human Safety of the Microbial Effects
of Antimicrobial New Animal Drugs Intended for Use in Food-Producing
Animals'', sets out a conceptual risk-based process for evaluating the
microbial safety of antimicrobial drugs intended for use in food-
producing animals. This document has been released to the public and
has been the subject of a great deal of appropriate public debate.
FDA has the authority under Section 512 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act to withdraw approval of applications of new animal
drug products, including antimicrobials, when certain conditions are
met such as drugs shown to be unsafe under approved conditions of use.
Sponsors of applications for such products must be given an opportunity
for a hearing on the proposed withdrawal. Section 512 also gives FDA
the authority to suspend an approval if the Secretary finds the drug
poses an imminent hazard to the health of man or animals. In such
cases, sponsors must be given an opportunity for an expedited hearing
on the suspension. That section also gives FDA the authority to
withdraw an approval through a notice-and-comment rulemaking process.
If FDA suspends or withdraws an approval, any product covered by
the suspension or withdrawal that is subsequently offered for sale is
considered adulterated and subject to seizure or other remedies.
Question. If the U.S. were to ban the animal use of antibiotics,
what would be the impact on the price and quality of meat and poultry
available for consumption?
Answer. For FDA to ban growth promoting antibiotics by withdrawing
all current approvals would require the Notice of Opportunity of
Hearing process. This process could take 3-5 years, if the process
proceeds on a similar timeframe for previous withdrawals, hopefully
giving the industry time to develop alternatives. A definitive answer
would require a market analysis. In the absence of such an analysis,
however, we estimate that the impact on price and quality would be
minimal because of the time available for industry to develop
alternatives.
Question. This proposal forces companies to prove that there is no
risk to human health before new antibiotics are approved for animal
usage. What steps is the FDA taking to address human resistance to
existing antibiotics being used in livestock feed?
Answer. FDA's proposed framework document specifies that currently
approved antimicrobials for food-producing animals will be addressed on
a risk prioritized basis. Thus, if the framework is implemented FDA
would place highest priority on evaluating those currently approved
drugs that are classified Category I, those that are the same as or
closely related to human antimicrobial drugs that are essential for
treating a life-threatening disease or important for treating a food
borne illness.
FDA has the authority under Section 512 of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act to withdraw approval of applications of new animal
drug products, including antimicrobials, when certain conditions are
met, such as drugs shown to be unsafe under approved conditions of use.
Sponsors of applications for such products must be given an opportunity
for a hearing on the proposed withdrawal. Section 512 also gives FDA
the authority to suspend an approval if the Secretary finds the drug
poses an imminent hazard to the health of man or animals. In such
cases, sponsors must be given an opportunity for an expedited hearing
on the suspension. That section also gives FDA the authority to
withdraw an approval through a notice-and-comment rulemaking process.
Question. The proposal is currently in the ``discussion'' phase.
What is your time frame to formally propose these guidelines and when
do believe it can be implemented?
Answer. Based upon the increasing evidence that therapeutic and
non-feed uses of antimicrobials in food-producing animals may select
for resistant bacteria of public health concern, in November 1998, the
Agency announced new guidance, number 78 in this area. The Agency
stated that FDA now believes it is necessary to evaluate the human
health impact of the antimicrobial effects associated with all uses of
all classes of antimicrobial new animal drugs intended for use in food-
producing animals. Following the publication of this guidance, the
Agency developed another document entitled, ``A Proposed Framework for
Evaluating and Assuring the Human Safety of the Microbial Effects of
Antimicrobial New Animal Drugs Intended for Use in Food-Producing
Animals''. This document outlines proposed microbiological safety
assessments for all food animal uses of antimicrobials but categorizes
requirements based upon public health risks associated with the product
use. It is imperative that FDA institute the principles outlined in the
framework document as soon as possible to control the public health
hazard from development of resistance in food-borne pathogens and their
transfer to humans. Based on the comments received to the framework
document, the Agency intends to revise guidance number 78 as soon as
possible. FDA intends to provide the industry with guidance on how to
conduct pre-approval studies which can be used to predict the
development of resistance in food-borne pathogens.
The key component of FDA's overall strategy on antimicrobial
resistance is a national surveillance program that monitors resistance
among enteric pathogens in both animals and humans. This has already
been implemented. In 1996, the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and the U.S. Department of Agriculture established the
National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System: Enteric Bacteria,
NARMS, to prospectively monitor changes in antimicrobial
susceptibilities of zoonotic enteric pathogens from human and animal
clinical specimens, from healthy farm animals, and from carcasses of
food-producing animals at slaughter.
electronic submissions
Question. It is my understanding that the FDA is considering
allowing applicants to electronically submit for approval drug labeling
information. This would appear to significantly accelerate the approval
process.
Is that true? If so, what is the status?
Answer. The initiative to enable electronic submission of New Drug
Applications, or NDAs, began in August 1997--the effective date of the
FDA's Electronic Records; Electronic Signatures rule, 21 CFR Part 11.
In September 1997, CDER published the first edition of guidance
enabling applicants to submit electronic patient Case Report
Tabulations, CRTs and Case Report Forms, CRFs CRTs and CRFs represent 2
of 18 sections of an application and normally comprise 60-75 percent of
the entire volume of a paper NDA. In January 1999, CDER published a
second edition of ``Guidance for Industry--Providing Regulatory
Submissions in Electronic Format--NDAs'' which enabled applicants to
submit almost the entire NDA, including product labeling, in electronic
format.
Since the inception of the electronic NDA program in September
1997, CDER has received the equivalent of over 10 million pages of NDA
information in electronic format.
The electronic NDA program is the initial phase of a larger
initiative within FDA called ``Electronic Regulatory Submissions and
Review'', ERSR. The goal of the ERSR initiative is to develop processes
to enable the electronic submission and review of all regulatory
documents submitted to CDER by 2002. In addition to NDAs, it is
expected that the electronic submission of many other types of
regulatory filings will be enabled including Post Marketing Adverse
Experience Reports, Investigational New Drug Applications, and Drug
Master Files.
Question. If such a program were implemented, how much time and
personnel could be saved and moved to other operations?
Answer. At the present time, the submission of electronic NDA
information instead of paper filing, including product labeling, is
voluntary. Our experience thus far shows us that electronic submissions
have been favorably accepted by the drug industry. The number of
electronic submissions versus paper submissions continues to rise and
we expect this trend to continue as we continue to expand the program
to include additional submission types.
It is tempting to focus on the potential for electronic NDAs to
create cost savings and the opportunity to reprogram resources to other
operations. But while we do expect cost savings, at this time the
primary driving force behind the Electronic Regulatory Submissions and
Review or ERSR program is to contain the historically growing costs to
manage and store the volume of paper we receive, and, more importantly,
to help reduce review time for important new drugs and make them
available to the public without lowering the high standards of safety
and effectiveness the public expects. CDER has been very successful in
reducing review times over the past few years to meet performance goals
established by the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, PDUFA, and now PDUFA
II. ERSR will contribute to this by helping to reduce the time
consuming administrative tasks during a review such as search time for
reference information, eliminating manual creation of data sets for
analysis, quicker navigation through an application, and eliminating
re-typing of text from applications.
reuse of single use medical devices
Question. FDA approves some devices for one-time or single use only
such as endoscopes and catheters used in non-invasive surgery. These
are difficult to clean and were never intended for reuse. But according
to a March 22 article in Forbes magazines, some hospitals may be
reusing some devices intended by the manufacturer and the FDA for one-
time use. In my view, this practice, if it is occurring, raises
questions of cleanliness and patient safety. The article cites a
burgeoning reprocessing industry to serve hospitals.
What action is FDA taking?
Answer. FDA is carefully evaluating this practice and plans to
increase our presence in this area. FDA and AAMI will co-sponsor a 2
day conference on May 5-6, 1999 in Crystal City, Virginia to look at a
number of issues that exist regarding this practice including, ethical
issues such as informed consent; regulatory or legal issues such as
even handed regulation of manufacturers and reprocessors; scientific
issues such as whether a device intended for a single use only can be
safely reprocessed and reused; and economic issues such as whether
manufacturers are labeling devices as ``single use'' for economic
reasons only or whether there other reasons that they can not be
reused. FDA is committed to working with the groups represented at the
conference to resolve these types of issues and to ensure improved
public health protection relative to this practice.
A FDA research team is evaluating the effect of cleaning procedures
and sterilization procedures on the material and mechanical properties
of materials likely to be in devices that are designated for single use
but are known to be candidates for reuse by physicians and user
facilities. The study initially focused on generic materials and then
was extended to specific cardiac catheters such as balloon angioplasty
catheters, electrophysiology catheters, and cardiac ablation catheters.
These are devices that come in contact with blood. These catheters
presented special problems in terms of complexity, e.g. many channels,
narrow lumens, lumens closed at one end, and delicate materials and
design. Data obtained to date suggest that cleaning and sterilization
of these devices could be very difficult. The material properties and
device performance can be affected by re-sterilization. Changes in
device performance that may result from resterilization are model
specific and a general statement cannot be made for all of the device
models in a given category. It has been noted that minor changes in a
given model have been observed to have potentially substantial effects
on the ability to reprocess. These data will be considered carefully
when CDRH makes its decision on how to address the issue of reuse of
single use devices.
Question. Do you agree that this is in fact happening?
Answer. Yes, reprocessing of single use devices is occurring within
both hospitals and clinics and in third party reprocessing facilities,
who perform these activities at the request of the hospitals and
clinics. The main reason that some hospitals state they have made the
decision to reuse single use or disposable products is to cut hospital-
operating costs. Capitation has reportedly had a significant impact on
the need for hospitals to reduce costs whenever possible.
Question. Are you trying to determine if it is occurring?
Answer. FDA is aware that reprocessing and reuse of single use
devices is occurring in hospitals and clinics. FDA inspects third party
reprocessors and has been actively involved in evaluating an monitoring
this practice for some time.
Question. What assurances can you give me that devices approved for
one-time use will not be reused?
Answer. Some single-use medical devices are being reprocessed and
reused. FDA's concern is and has been the safety and effectiveness of
the reprocessed devices. FDA published a Compliance Policy Guide, CPG
300.500, several years ago that focused on hospital operations. That
CPG stated that there is a lack of data to support the general reuse of
single use devices. If an institution chooses to engage in this
practice, the CPG stated that the hospital should demonstrate the
device can be adequately cleaned and sterilized; the physical
characteristics or quality of the device will not be adversely
affected; and that the device remains safe and effective for its
intended use. This CPG is still in effect.
training of resources
Question. Some drug, device and biotech industry representatives
have indicated that FDA personnel have difficulty getting and
maintaining appropriate expertise to review applications. This is
understandable , particularly in the drug and biotech areas, where
advances can be very rapid and complex.
What steps is FDA taking to ensure that FDA staff are knowledgeable
so that they can adequately review applications?
Answer. We will be happy to provide the answer for the record.
FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, CDER, has a long
established scientific education program, dedicated to ensuring that
CDER reviewers stay abreast of their scientific fields. The science
education program for CDER reviewers has been revitalized to include
the following activities available on an on-going basis for all CDER
reviewers:
--Committee for Advanced Scientific Education (CASE), focused on
identifying and evaluating scientific education programs for
CDER reviewers
--Weekly Scientific Seminars and Scientific Rounds, dedicated time
each week for CDER reviewers to learn from invited guests,
experts in their fields (in the seminars), as well as each
other (Scientific Rounds) on topics specifically relevant to
the Drug review process
--Development of CDER and reviewers/discipline core competencies. a
program that has identified the critical tasks, knowledge, and
skills required to do the job of a reviewer. We are now in the
process of preparing learning paths with the information
collected. These learning paths will be used to develop
specific training programs for reviewers in areas critical to
the drug review process
--Special seminars and workshops, such as the recent ``Drugs and the
Liver: What they do to each other'' two-day workshop,
especially relevant to the recent liver toxicity issues related
to CDER work; as well as the ``Genetics'' workshop, a program
co-sponsored with Pharma and BIO to introduce many new
scientific concepts to CDER staff
--Targeted policy training programs designed to ensure that CDER
staff understand and can apply the guidances and regulations
for industry before they become final, such as the recent
Pediatric Exclusivity training program where almost 500 CDER
reviewers were trained in less than a month on a critical area.
We are also in the process of developing two additional programs
for CDER: one dedicated to bringing academicians on sabbatical to CDER
for a two to four week period to develop and deliver specific
scientific courses, while working directly with CDER reviewers; the
second dedicated to providing time for CDER reviewers to develop their
expertise in a specific area and time to develop a course for their
colleagues in that area.
In addition, many of our programs are videotaped, so that staff who
are unable to attend the live program may review the video tape.
The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, CBER, developed a
reviewer training program in 1993 with the advent of user fees, and
hiring of large numbers of reviewers. The purpose of the training was
to provide consistent information across the Center, in a forum where
staff could hear the same information at the same time. The program was
designed to provide the basic information required to perform a review
of a biologics application. Over time, the program has gone through
many iterations to include changes in processes, new regulations and
guidances, and new ways of doing business.
The reviewer training program was developed by a curriculum
committee comprised of office representatives who were involved in the
review process. It included 9 major modules on the phases of review,
including the overview of the regulation of biologics, investigational
new drug applications INDs, product license applications, PLAs,
establishment license applications ELAs, clinical aspects and good
manufacturing practices GMPs. Over time, the GMP sessions were moved
into the inspection training program as prerequisites to the inspection
workshops.
In early 1998, based on requests from Center staff a new curriculum
committee was established to develop the research/review model that was
more specific in nature, and which impacted on the actual review. These
programs included not only the basic regulatory issues but also the
research issues that supported the regulatory review. Topics such as
lot-release and surrogate endpoints have been delivered, as have been
programs on the International Conference on Harmonization, ICH. In
development are programs dealing with process validation, assay
validation, and other manufacturing issues.
To ensure scientific expertise in biological product application
review, CBER uses what is referred to as the ``research/reviewer
model.'' In this model, the application review personnel spend a
portion of their time in research-related activities. CBER researchers
are fully integrated into the application review process. CBER
researchers participate in the following regulatory procedures: review
of initial new drug applications, and product license applications;
development of policy and guidance documents; meetings with sponsors
and advisory committees; participation in pre-license and biennial
inspections; and evaluation of adverse drug reactions and risk
assessment.
In addition to formal reviewer training, computer-applications
training is provided in order to receive and review submissions
electronically. This includes the Agency standard Microsoft suite
applications as well as JMP for statistical reviews, and Adobe Acrobat
to read the electronic submissions.
CBER coordinates with the other Centers on programs of joint
interest such as the Center for Devices and Radiological Health's FDAMA
training for device reviewers and the Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research's packaging guidance.
Regarding professional development, many of CBER's physicians
participate in this program by working in clinics, labs and other
health-care settings for a specified number of hours each year. The
purpose of this participation is to both enhance their current skills,
and to maintain state of the art knowledge of medicine.
tamoxifen
Question. I have been told that tamoxifen may be listed as a
carcinogen in the National Toxicology Program, in their 9th report, and
that FDA has made a recommendation that it be listed in another
pharmaceutical category which would create less alarm and could better
convey the risks and benefits of tamoxifen. Some breast cancer
advocates are concerned that listing tamoxifen in the carcinogen report
could create great confusion.
Will the drug be listed in the carcinogen report? If so, why?
Answer. We agree with the concern that you raise. Whether or not
tamoxifen will be listed in the Ninth NTP Report on Carcinogens is not
the decision of the FDA. That decision will be made by Secretary of
DHHS in consultation with the Director of the National Toxicology
Program, NTP. We have appealed to NTP that if it needs to be listed,
tamoxifen and other pharmaceutical agents be listed in a category by
that name separate from other substances listed as carcinogens in the
Report for the very reason that you state.
Question. Has FDA made a recommendation? If so, what was your
recommendation? If not, are you planning to make a recommendation.
Answer. The FDA made a recommendation to NTP in a conference
telephone call with myself and Dr. Friedman on April 20, 1999. The
recommendation was that if tamoxifen is going to be listed in the NTP
Report on Carcinogens, it should be listed along with other
pharmaceutical agents in a category separate from non-pharmaceutical
chemicals. This would emphasize the need to consider the benefits of
drugs and the fact that substances listed under this heading have all
undergone extensive review by the FDA prior to approval of their use as
drugs. The pharmaceutical category should clearly and fully convey the
potential benefits of the drugs. In the case of tamoxifen, for example,
its use decreases the overall incidence of cancer in the indicated
high-risk population.
tobacco activities
Question. Unfortunately, last year, Congress did not pass a tobacco
bill and affirm FDA's jurisdiction over tobacco products. In my view,
FDA should regulate tobacco products and discourage the use of tobacco.
What activities are you currently conducting?
Answer. In fiscal year 1997, FDA designed a pilot program and
infrastructure to enforce the rule. The Agency, consistent with its
practices in other areas, determined that it would commission state and
local officials to enforce the federal rule--specifically to conduct
unannounced visits to retailers using adolescents younger than 18, who
would attempt to purchase cigarettes or smokeless tobacco. Initially,
the Agency contracted for enforcement in 10 states. In fiscal year
1997, contracts were awarded to Florida, Illinois, Washington, Texas,
Massachusetts, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Arkansas, and
California. These states were required to conduct approximately 200 to
400 inspections per month. Compliance checks began in the first state
in August 1997. These contracts resulted in approximately 20,000
compliance checks during the 10 month pilot program.
In fiscal year 1998, the Agency expanded its enforcement efforts
and solicited bids from all 57 states and territories to contract with
FDA to do compliance checks. By the close of fiscal year 1998, FDA had
signed contracts with 43 states and territories totaling $16,382,912.
Under these contracts, the states will conduct approximately 186,500
compliance checks by September 30, 1999. The average contract is
approximately $390,000. With the signing of each new contract, FDA's
headquarters or regional staff trains the designated state and local
officials. Headquarter staff has also spent countless hours answering
questions from tobacco retailers and providing technical assistance to
the states.
All 10 states who participated in the pilot program, renegotiated
contracts to continue doing compliance checks in their states. In at
least two states, the programs had been so successful that the states
chose to expand the initial limited coverage provided by the first
contract. In Arkansas, for example, the pilot contract provided for
compliance checks to be conducted only in and around Little Rock.
Similarly, in Colorado, only a few counties were included in the
original contract. In both cases, the subsequent contracts
substantially increased the areas of the state that would be included
in the investigations.
The existing contracts resulted in 39,439 attempted and completed
compliance checks during fiscal year 1998, including reinspection of
retailers found to have violated the rule. The Agency's legal staff
devised and established the framework for the imposition of civil money
penalties, sent out complaints, and negotiated or litigated contested
cases. In fiscal year 1998, FDA began seeking civil money penalties
from those found to have violated the rule's restrictions on sales to
minors for a second time. In fiscal year 1999, FDA began investigations
of retailers who have been found to have already violated the rule two
times. The agency anticipates seeking civil money penalties for third
violations within the first quarter of fiscal year 1999. A penalty
schedule for violations of other portions of the regulation will be
developed when these provisions go into effect.
In the second half of fiscal year 1998, the Agency contracted with
Battelle Memorial Institute to study the tobacco program's business
processes, outline the program's work flow and conduct a requirements
analysis. From this requirements analysis, Battelle proposed a system
design to automate the program's processes. In addition, Battelle
presented a proposed plan to obtain and maintain a list of retailers
selling tobacco in each state that would be more complete, accurate and
user friendly than the lists constructed by the Agency during its first
full year of operation.
Based on the design, Battelle has launched a multi-year effort to
provide reliable retailer lists and an infrastructure designed to
maintain the list and make it user friendly for FDA and for all
contracting states. Battelle will also design and implement an
information technology system which will automate all the program's
various functions, including contracting, outreach, enforcement,
compliance checks, litigation, collection of civil money penalties,
etc. The new system will increase the efficiency of the program and
will improve communications internally as well as with state
contractors and with other stakeholders. The various system design
components will be implemented incrementally as they are developed
beginning in early 1999. The entire system should be operational by
2001. The amount dedicated to this multi-year project in fiscal year
1998 is $2.8 million.
In fiscal year 1998, the Agency designed a comprehensive outreach
program designed to inform retailers and ensure compliance. This multi-
faceted program consisted of advertising, direct mail, press events/
materials, exhibits and speeches, and dissemination of materials
requested via a hotline or mail order.
In fiscal year 1998, the Agency designed a multi-media advertising
campaign, including radio, print, and billboard advertising. A free
retailer kit using humorous illustrations and a folksy approach also
was created to make it easier for retailers to comply with the new
regulation. A series of focus group discussions were held with
retailers, sales clerks, young people between 18 and 27, children ages
12 to 18, and the general public to test the advertising campaign and
retailer kits. During fiscal year 1998, approximately 500,000 retailers
kits were produced and sent to stores across the country.
FDA conducted a tracking study in 10 media markets to evaluate the
effectiveness of the campaign. Findings indicate that awareness of the
photo identification age provision rose dramatically from approximately
one-third of retailers to more than one-half of all retailers. In
addition, there was a three-fold increase in recall of the fine for
repeat violations in the test markets. Further, in test markets, twice
as many clerks used 27 as the cut-off age after the campaign compared
to before the campaign. Importantly, retailers reported that minors
were somewhat less likely to try to buy tobacco and retailers said that
customers were less likely to be irritated when asked to show photo
identification as a result of the advertising campaign. By the close of
fiscal year 1998, the Agency had obligated approximately $12.5 million
for outreach activities. This covers the costs of the paid advertising
campaign as well as the printing and dissemination of nearly a half
million retailer kits.
In 1997, $2 million (out of $4.9 million) went to state contracts
to enforce the rule. In 1998, $16.4 million went to state contracts. In
1999, the Agency has allocated $22 million towards state contracts.
tobacco activities
Question. What is the status of court challenges to FDA's
rulemaking on tobacco?
Answer. On April 25, 1997, the District Court in Greensboro, North
Carolina, ruled that FDA has jurisdiction under the Federal, Food, Drug
and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) to regulate nicotine-containing cigarettes
and smokeless tobacco as drug delivery devices. The Court upheld all
restrictions involving youth access and labeling and struck down, as
unsupported by the statutory provision relied on by the Agency, the
rules advertising restrictions. The Court stayed implementation of all
provisions, except those involving age and ID, pending appeal. Appeal
was taken and oral argument was held in August 1997 and reargued on
June 9, 1998 in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 13,
1998, the Fourth Circuit issued its decision, finding the FDA's
assertion of jurisdiction and issuance of regulations invalid.
On April 26, 1999, the Supreme Court granted FDA's Petition for a
Writ of Certiorari that requested the Supreme Court to review the
August 14, 1998 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit. The granting of the petition continues a stay of the
issuance of the Fourth Circuit's mandate while the Supreme Court
considers this case. The FDA regulations prohibiting the sale of
tobacco products to minors and requiring photographic identification
for certain sales therefore remain in effect pending the Supreme
Court's final decision.
Question. What role do you think FDA should play in assuring
product safety and discouraging tobacco use?
Answer. FDA's final tobacco rule is expressly designed to
discourage and reduce tobacco use by young people. This is the
cornerstone of our regulation. The agency is also prepared to pursue
research initiatives that address product safety issues, such as tar
and nicotine delivery, and tobacco and pharmaceutical products that
raise questions related to reducing exposure to and harm from tobacco
products.
on-line druggists
Question. The February 15, 1999 Boston Globe ran a story saying
that ``the first major Internet pharmacy, Soma.com, went on line with a
prescription service'' and has ``filled thousands of orders through a
distribution center in Ohio.'' Others such as AARP and Merck-Medco also
have online ordering.
Do you view this as a good development. Do you have any concerns
about patient records privacy?
Answer. If online pharmacies and their pharmacists are
appropriately licensed and comply with all applicable federal and state
requirements, they can provide benefits to consumers. For example, they
can provide increased competition in the retail market for prescription
drugs, OTC drugs, and other health-related products. Such competition
may result in increased services and convenience, and reduced costs to
consumers.
However, online pharmacies that do not meet federal and state
requirements that have been established to protect and promote the
public health may impose considerable risks to consumers. These risks
include questions about the authenticity, potency, and purity of the
product sold to them.
In addition, if consumers are obtaining prescription drugs online
without a prescription or are relying on the prescribing services of
the online provider, they may be incurring significant risks. They may
not be communicating complete and accurate medical information about
their condition or the drug may not be appropriate because of other
medical conditions or other drugs they are taking.
Although patient medical and prescription record privacy is an
important consumer issue, FDA has no information about whether or how
online pharmacies protect medical records. Those matters are generally
regulated by the states.
Question. Does FDA has a role in regulating these ``pharmacies''?
Should you?
Answer. FDA does not generally regulate pharmacies. FDA regulates
products and certain activities related to those products, particularly
when carried out by or on behalf of a manufacturer, packer, or
distributor. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, FDA can
take action against illegal promotion, such as labeling and
advertising, of a prescription drug; illegal labeling of an over-the-
counter drug; the importation, sale, or distribution of an adulterated
or misbranded drug; the importation, sale, or distribution of an
unapproved new drug; and the sale or dispensing of a prescription drug
without a valid prescription. The States, however, have traditionally
regulated the dispensing of drugs. Internet sites that carry out any of
the above illegal acts are subject to regulatory action by FDA or the
appropriate state agency.
drug testing
Question. Many groups charge that clinical trials for drugs have
traditionally largely used the ``white, middle class male model,'' and
have not sufficiently used women, children, the elderly or minorities.
In the case of women, I know women of childbearing age would be
especially cautious and should be. However, participation is voluntary
and on an informed consent basis. And yes, children do represent a
special case.
Don't you agree that testing drugs only on men is not sufficient?
Answer. CDER's position is that testing of drugs only in men is not
sufficient. The 1993 gender guideline entitled ``Guideline for the
Study and Evaluation of Gender Differences in the Clinical Evaluation
of Drugs'', clearly states that we expect drugs to be tested in the
full range of people who are expected to use them. In addition, in the
case of serious and life threatening diseases, the agency published a
proposed rule in 1997 entitled ``Investigational New Drug Applications;
Proposed Amendment to Clinical Hold Regulations for Products Intended
for Life-Threatening Diseases'' that would permit us to put on clinical
hold, that is, stop from proceeding, a trial that excluded either women
or men based solely on their reproductive capacity.
Question. What steps have you taken and are you taking to require
manufacturers to expand the pool of participants in clinical trials?
Answer. Two important steps have been noted above, the 1993
guideline and the proposed rule for which we are reviewing comments. In
addition, we emphasize to our review divisions the importance of
communicating and emphasizing our expectations at the critical meetings
with industry that occur during drug development, such as end of phase
2 meetings. We also have a regulation that permits us to refuse to
file, that is, not accept for review, any application that lacks
appropriate subpopulation analyses. Finally, it is worth noting that we
are nearing completion of a system that will permit us to track
compliance with these regulations.
Question. The January 28 USA Today magazine reported, ``According
to FDA, voluntary compliance with 1993 guidelines encouraging the
participation of women in trials has been insufficient.'' Why is that?
Answer. We believe, and our examination of internal data supports,
that the Gender Guideline is an effective and appropriate means of
promoting enrollment of women into clinical trials. In our response to
FDAMA, we explained that after careful examination of all our guidance
relating to enrollment of women and minorities in clinical trials our
conclusions was that additional guidance is not needed. However, in
those instances where the disease is life threatening and early access
to any therapy may be critical, we wish to have the regulatory
authority to place on clinical hold a trial that excludes either men or
women solely on the basis of their reproductive potential.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Durbin
orphan drug funding
Question. What assurances do we have that the money appropriated
for Orphan Drug Development will not be used for other purposes by the
FDA ?
Answer. FDA's history has been to fund orphan grants. This is shown
in recent budgets and committee documents in prior years, by a steady
level of funding for the grants program despite the Agency having to
absorb payroll cost increases. This steady level of funding for the
orphan drug program has been at the expense of other programs. This
past year, FDA had to absorb additional cuts and asked the orphan drug
program to take a proportional share of these reductions to meet the
increase needed for payroll. It is not expected that this will be
necessary again next fiscal year.
Question. Rare diseases have very little opportunities for
development of drugs to treat them. Therefore, the funds appropriated
for the Orphan Drug Development are very important for patients with
rare diseases who have nowhere else to turn for cures. As I stated at
the hearing, Senator Cochran and I engaged in a colloquy urging FDA not
to cut Orphan Drug Development funds. What has FDA done to address this
colloquy ?
Answer. FDA agrees that the Orphan Drug Development program is
important and is striving to maintain the orphan drug program and the
current level of appropriated dollars and FTE.
medguides
Question. Easy to understand information on correct drug usage and
inappropriate drug usage is very important to consumers. What is the
time-line for FDA's implementation of the Medguide rule for those
products that pose a significant public health risk if misused ?
Answer. The rule that will require that products posing a serious
and significant public health concern necessitating distribution of
FDA-approved patient labeling called ``Medication Guides'' was
published on December 1, 1998, and will become effective June 1, 1999.
After June 1, FDA will notify manufacturers with affected products that
they must draft and submit for FDA review, patient labeling as
specified in the rule. We expect that the vast majority of these
products will be identified at the time of initial submission for
approval, and we anticipate using the rule to require FDA-approved
Medication Guides for only a small number of products currently being
marketed. Once a product's Medication Guide is approved, it will be
required to be distributed to patients along with the product.
FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research is currently drafting
an internal process guide for reviewers to help ensure that products
that pose a ``serious and significant public health concern'' are
expeditiously identified and a draft Medication Guide is submitted. In
the meantime, an interim process has already been put in place in
recognition of the June 1, 1999, effective date of the rule.
re-use of single use medical devices
Question. The unauthorized re-use of medical devices that were
designed for a single use may pose a significant threat to public
health. Given that there is little documentation of the re-use of
products, how does the FDA propose to track infections or injuries that
may result from the inappropriate re-use of single use devices ?
Answer. FDA has an established regulation, Medical Device Reporting
under 21 CFR Part 803, for the reporting of adverse event reports for
all medical devices. FDA will continue to use this system for tracking
infections, injuries and other adverse events reported by manufacturers
and users involving the reuse of single use devices. Reports have been
received where reuse was indicated but the information obtained to date
has been insufficient to demonstrate that the reprocessing of a single
use device has caused a reported adverse event.
FDA recognizes the need to continually educate manufacturers and
users about the Agency's adverse event reporting requirements and types
of events that need to be reported. FDA will also enlist the
cooperation of other organizations to obtain reuse experience data. FDA
is currently working with the Health Care Financing Administration to
include questions about device reuse during HCFA inspections of user
facilities.
Question. Should patient consent be sought when a medical facility
seeks to use a secondhand device on that patient?
Answer. While most patients would probably choose a new device over
a reprocessed one if given the choice, physicians frequently make
choices for their patients without consulting them. These choices are
made in an effort to administer the most effective medical care for the
patient and includes decisions such as the type of device to use, the
particular application or use and duration of use of that device, the
type and amount of drug or antibiotic to administer, etc. Physicians
routinely review the patient's medical history, including allergies, to
make these decisions and oftentimes do not obtain specific informed
consent. Use of a reprocessed single use product may be safe and
appropriate depending on the specific device, how and where it will be
used, and other considerations, including cost. Although FDA does
monitor informed consent on clinical research with FDA-regulated
products, FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine.
Question. Does FDA have information on the efficacy of
sterilization or reprocessing of these devices?
Answer. FDA has access to data and information for the
resterilization and reprocessing of single use devices that are
performed by third party reprocessing firms. These firms reprocess
under contract with hospitals and clinics and they are inspected by the
FDA under the Quality System regulation, 21 CFR Part 820. The
inspections are broad-based and cover the firm's quality assurance
activities from the receipt and handling of incoming materials to the
final packaging, labeling and release of the device. The inspections
are designed to determine whether the reprocessing activities are
validated--that is to demonstrate that the processes employed do not
adversely affect device materials or functionality. When significant
deficiencies are identified, follow-up regulatory action is considered.
FDA has little data on the efficacy of resterilization and reprocessing
in hospitals because the Agency does not inspect those operations.
However, to the extent that those operations caused an adverse event in
a hospital, user facilities are required to report those event to FDA.
A FDA research team is presently evaluating the effect of cleaning
procedures and sterilization procedures on the material and mechanical
properties of materials likely to be in devices that are designated for
single use but are known to be candidates for reuse by physicians and
user facilities. The study initially focused on generic materials and
was later extended to specific cardiac catheters such as balloon
angioplasty catheters, electrophysiology catheters, and cardiac
ablation catheters. These are devices that come in contact with blood.
These catheters presented special problems in terms of complexity, e.g.
many channels, narrow lumens, lumens closed at one end, and delicate
materials and design. Data obtained to date indicate or suggest that
cleaning and sterilization of these devices can be very difficult. The
material properties and device performance can be affected by re-
sterilization. Changes in device performance that may result from
resterilization are model specific and a general statement cannot be
made for all of the device models in a given category. It has been
noted that minor changes in a given model have been observed to have
potentially substantial effects on the ability to reprocess. These data
will be considered carefully when CDRH makes its decision on how to
address the issue of reuse of single use devices.
Question. What does FDA view as their role in regulating
reprocessors?
Answer. FDA is currently reviewing whether additional regulation or
other oversight of reprocessing is needed. FDA will continue to work
with groups represented at the FDA/AAMI Conference on Reuse of Single
Use Devices to resolve outstanding issues and concerns and consider new
regulatory approaches. One factor that needs to be carefully thought
through are the costs and benefits of reprocessing on device users and
patients.
Reprocessors are divided into two categories, in-hospital
reprocessing and third party reprocessing. FDA has jurisdiction over
both types of reprocessors. For in-hospital reprocessing, FDA currently
provides no routine direct oversight; however, if a serious adverse
event occurred in a hospital involving a device, FDA would typically
conduct an investigation. Additionally, FDA does receive and monitor
adverse event reports and may initiate follow-up activities at a
hospital, distributor, manufacturer, or other facility, as needed. The
user facilities doing the reprocessing are liable for adverse outcomes.
Third party reprocessing is currently regulated by FDA in the
following way. Firms that reprocess single use devices are required to
register their establishment with FDA, list the devices they reprocess,
comply with the FDA Quality System regulation for the design,
manufacture, testing, packaging, and release of those devices, report
adverse events under the Medical Device Reporting regulation, and label
their products appropriately as outlined in 21 CFR Part 801, Labeling.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byrd
generic drug applications backlog
Question. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the responsible
federal agency for implementing policies designed to protect the health
of the nation against impure and unsafe foods, drugs, and cosmetics, as
well as other potential hazards. Today, I have several questions
regarding the Office of Generic Drugs, and the pre-market Food Contact
Notification program.
The generic drug industry, including Mylan Laboratories, Inc.,
headquartered in West Virginia, has alerted me that consumers and all
purchasers of pharmaceutical products, including the federal
government, could realize substantial savings if the FDA adhered to its
statutory deadline for the Office of Generic Drugs (OGD) to review
generic drug applications, known as Abbreviated New Drug Applications
(ANDA), within 180 days.
Please provide me with a report on the backlog of pending generic
drug applications in the OGD, and what actions are being taken to meet
the statutory deadlines and reduce backlog?
Answer. The backlog of original applications under the old counting
system, was 714 on March 31, 1999. Of the 714 applications, 154 had
been pending with the agency longer than 180 days. We have now reduced
the total time to approval. Many, but not all, of those initiatives do
help the agency meet the statutory deadlines and reduce backlog.
Question. Please estimate the cost of the backlog to consumers and
the federal government.
Answer. The Agency does not have the information to measure or
estimate the cost of the backlog of pending generic drug applications
to the consumer. FDA estimates that it would need approximately 105
additional FTE to review the generic drug applications within 180 days,
thus alleviating the majority of the backlog.
With regard to the pre-market Food Contact Notification (FCN)
program, the FCN provisions of the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 are
intended to expedite introduction of advanced food packaging materials
while assuring the protection of public health. FCN has a significant
impact on the Kanawha Valley Union Carbide plant in West Virginia that
develops food contact materials, and I have the following questions:
Question. The FDA reform legislation that Congress enacted in 1997
included a streamlined regulatory process for approving food contact
materials. What is the status of the implementation of the new FCN
program?
Answer. FDA was allocated $500,000 to develop guidance,
regulations, and procedures necessary to implement the notification
program for food contact substances should that program be funded in
fiscal year 2000.
On March 12, 1999 FDA held a public meeting at which the agency
shared its tentative plans for guidance and regulations and for the
administration of the notification procedure. The agency requested
comments at this meeting on the agency's tentative plans and on the
draft documents that the agency will use as the basis for completing
guidance materials for the notification program. FDA is currently
reviewing the comments.
FDA expects to publish Federal Register documents in mid-summer
1999. The first will announce the availability of guidance for
preparing notifications and guidance on the administration of the
process. The second, to be published simultaneously, will propose
regulations for the implementation of the process. The Agency is
currently hiring critical personnel for the implementation of the
notification process.
FDA has and is acquiring a capability to incorporate cutting edge
science and technology into the review process that will facilitate the
review of notifications for food contact substances, while concurrently
developing an electronic workflow tracking system to track the progress
of the review for notifications for food contact substances.
Question. The FDA Modernization Act authorized $3 million for the
FCN program. In today's dollars, is this amount adequate to implement
the FCN program as envisioned?
Answer. Secretary of DHHS submitted a cost estimate for the fiscal
year 2000 Premarket Notification, PMN, program for food contact
substances on April 22, 1999 to the Senate Appropriations and Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions Committees. FDA calculated a cost of
$6.04 million to fully operate the premarket notification program.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Cochran. This is the final hearing in our
committee's review of the fiscal year 2000 budget request for
activities and programs that are funded under the jurisdiction
of this committee.
We appreciate all Senators and staff who have helped in
this effort to review the budget and to understand the request
from the administration and to make sure that we provide the
funds that are needed to carry out the statutory obligations of
these agencies and this department.
We thank you all for your cooperation. The committee stands
in recess.
[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., Tuesday, April 27, the hearings
were concluded and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY AGENCIES NOT APPEARING FOR FORMAL HEARINGS
[Clerk's note.--The following agencies of the Department of
Agriculture did not appear before the subcommittee this year.
Chairman Cochran requested these agencies to submit testimony
in support of their fiscal year 2000 budget request. Those
statements follow:]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization Corporation
(AARCC)
Prepared Statement of Robert E. Armstrong, Executive Director
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased to
testify today on the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request of $10
million for the Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization
Corporation (AARCC). It is a pleasure to provide you with an update on
the Corporation's investment successes and the effect the AARC
Corporation is having on the economy of rural America.
I would like to offer the subcommittee a short background on how we
got to where we are today. Congress created the AARC Center in the
Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, and
reauthorized it in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act
of 1996 as a wholly-owned corporation of the Federal Government within
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). AARCC's creation followed a
1987 report of the New Farm and Forest Products Task Force. The Task
Force met for 2\1/2\ years and recommended developing and
commercializing a wide array of new farm and forest products using the
excess production capacity of American agriculture as a way to
revitalize ailing segments of rural America. The Chairman of AARCC's
Board of Directors, Jeff Gain, served on that Task Force.
The idea of using agricultural materials as the raw materials for
manufacturing and commercializing the things of everyday life is not
new. In fact, the motto of USDA reads: Agriculture is the Foundation of
Manufacture and Commerce. That was written in 1862. In more recent
times, the Chemurgic Council advocated for agriculture to be the
supplier of our raw materials. The Council was established in 1935
under the leadership of Wheeler McMillen, with financial support from
Henry Ford. Other notables on the Council included Thomas Edison, Irene
du Pont, MIT President Karl Compton, Nobel Laureate and physicist
Robert Milliken, General Motors Vice President Charles Kettering, and
Sears, Roebuck & Company Board Chairman Robert E. Wood. The USDA's four
regional research laboratories grew out of this effort and were built
in 1938-1941 for the express purpose of finding new uses for farm
products.
Many historical examples exist of efforts to use agricultural
materials for the manufacture of non-food and non-feed products. George
Washington Carver devoted his life's work to this effort. Henry Ford
even built a car body from vegetable plastic and plant fibers. Today we
are beginning to see a move in Europe to a car that can be totally
recycled. Across many industrial sectors we are seeing a move toward a
bio-based economy. In fact, the head of a major oil company was
recently quoted as saying that the world is entering ``the last days of
the Age of Oil.''
The advantages of a bio-based economy are numerous, but three in
particular are worth noting. First, such an economy uses agricultural
materials that are domestically produced and annually renewable. I am
certain the geopolitical and economic advantages of such a source of
raw materials is not lost on the members of this Subcommittee. Second,
unlike petroleum--our current main source of raw materials--it is not
economical to ship bio-based raw materials long distances for
processing and manufacturing. The processing and manufacturing must
take place close to the source of the materials, and that means jobs in
rural America. Finally, using bio-based materials means that at the end
of a product's lifetime, it can be composted and used to grow the next
year's supply of raw materials. Thus, an economy based on biology,
instead of geology, takes full advantage of America's agricultural
production capacity, provides jobs for rural America, and contributes
to the well-being of the environment.
As you know, the AARC Corporation's mandate is to assist or invest
in companies that are commercializing non-food/non-feed products ,
processes, or technologies that use raw materials derived from
agriculture, forestry, or animal by-products. Through its investment
activities, AARCC is a leading force in the effort to put America at
the forefront of a global bio-based economy. Like any investment firm,
AARCC measures its success through the success of the firms in which it
has invested. AARCC also measures its success through the impact it has
in rural America. Let's examine some of the factors AARCC uses to gauge
its progress.
The return on investment (ROI) is a standard measure for any
investment firm. In AARCC's case, it is of particular interest, because
we have been entrusted with the public's money. Typically, a venture
capital firm focusing on the type of start-up and early-stage companies
that AARCC does, would not anticipate repayments beginning until 6 or 7
years after an investment was made. In AARCC's case, our business plan
projects a minimum of $100,000 and a maximum of $300,000 in repayment
by this point in time. By the end of fiscal year 1998, AARCC had
received $450,911.65 in repayments. AARCC is ahead of its ROI
projections.
Another important measure is the amount of private capital that
AARCC is able to attract into its client firms. The legislation
requires fifty cents of private money to be matched against every
dollar of AARCC investments. The actual ratio we see is approximately
$3.50 of private money for every dollar of AARCC investments. Thus,
since AARCC began its investment activities, we have attracted
approximately $130 million from the private sector into rural America.
The expanded use of agricultural land is an additional factor that
AARCC considers when making investments. Each year, about 10 percent of
America's agricultural production capacity is fallow. AARCC is helping
to put that land back into use. Since 1993, we estimate approximately
250,000 acres have been put back into production to grow the raw
materials used by AARCC companies to manfacture their various products.
The most important measure of all is job creation in rural America.
It is also the most difficult number to determine as it involves both
direct jobs in the companies, as well as indirect jobs in the broader
economy. Using various approaches to calculate the number, we estimate
that AARCC has contributed--both directly and indirectly--to the
creation of approximately 7,500 jobs in rural America.
Finally, I want to discuss AARCC's efforts with other Federal
agencies to help the government realize the promise of Executive Order
13101, Greening Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and
Federal Acquisition. Working through USDA's Bio-based Products
Coordinating Council and the Office of the Federal Environmental
Executive, AARCC helped develop language for the Executive Order that
encourages Federal purchasing agents to use set-asides and references
to procure both recycled and bio-based products. Many of the bio-based
products available to government purchasing agents today are made by
AARCC-supported companies.
In conclusion, on behalf of the members of the Board of Directors
of the AARC Corporation, I respectfully ask the Subcommittee to support
the President's budget request of $10 million. With adequate
appropriations, AARCC can continue its move towards privatization--as
directed in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of
1996--and be an engine for development in rural America.
Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer any questions you or
your colleagues may have about the AARC Corporation.
______
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Prepared Statement of Dr. Colien Hefferan, Acting Administrator
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to present the proposed fiscal year 2000 budget for the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES),
one of four agencies in the Research, Education, and Economics (REE)
mission area of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
CSREES works in partnership with the land-grant university system,
other colleges and universities, and other public and private research
and education organizations, in concert with the Secretary of
Agriculture and the intent of Congress, to initiate and develop
agricultural research, extension, and higher education programs. These
programs are carried out by land-grant universities and other partners.
This strong partnership has supported great successes that have far
reaching impacts on our Nation, the food we eat, the environment in
which we live, and the quality of life of our citizens. For example,
land-grant researchers are rapidly developing vaccines for some of the
nation's most dreaded livestock diseases. A Mississippi State
researcher has developed a single-injection, inexpensive vaccine that
is estimated to reduce poultry deaths resulting from coccidiosis by up
to 80 percent. Composting and recycling have benefitted farmers and
homeowners as well as municipalities, landfills, and other operations.
Through the coordination efforts of extension specialists, 1.2 million
tons of yard waste is kept out of California landfills annually. At the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, the Crop and Soil
Environmental Science Department experienced a tenfold student
enrollment increase and a 100 percent job placement rate in the last 10
years, demonstrating the need for agriculture college graduates. New
Mexico State University scientists have discovered a method for
controlling the Colorado potato beetle, the potato's most destructive
pest, by inserting a gene in the potato that acts as a natural beetle
repellent but does not harm humans or animals. These are just four
examples from a long list of accomplishments of our university
partners. They illustrate the success of a strong Federal/State
partnership focused on agricultural knowledge that addresses broader
issues in production, rural communities, the agricultural system, the
environment, and people.
The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes an increase of 2.6 percent in
discretionary funds. As reflected in the proposed increases, CSREES is
committed to three overarching themes in its fiscal year 2000 budget:
Targeting High Priority Programs.--CSREES' goal is to target high
priority research, education, and extension programs to meet the shared
goals of the Federal/State partnership. These priorities include
programs in food safety and programs that expand outreach to minority-
serving institutions and help producers meet requirements under the
Food Quality Protection Act.
Expanding the use of competitively-awarded Grants.--Agriculture
needs to attract the best scientists, extension agents, educators, and
other professionals to address key agricultural problems. We believe
that this is best accomplished through competitive programs that are
adequately funded. The CSREES commitment to improving the science base
for agriculture through competitive grants is reflected in the $81
million increase for the National Research Initiative (NRI). The
increase will enable the NRI to attract more of the best scientists,
including those just beginning their careers, from a large scientific
community which remains eager to seek solutions for agriculture but
which has been discouraged by funding uncertainties. The $81 million
increase will provide the resources needed to enhance and develop
scientific areas that are critical to agriculture today, such as
agricultural genomics, food safety, environment and natural resource
management, and competitiveness and profitability of agriculture.
Experience has shown that a significant portion of competitively-
awarded grants go to land-grant institutions. Providing additional
funding through the NRI, as well as mandatory programs, such as Section
401 of the 1998 research act and the Fund for Rural America, and the
new Integrated Activities programs, will result in a substantial
increase to land-grant institutions.
Integration of Research, Extension, and Education.--The CSREES
commitment to integrating research, extension, and education, is
reflected in the integrated grant authority established in the CSREES
budget in accordance with Section 406 in the Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Education Reform Act (AREERA) passed by Congress in June
1998. An increase and redirection of $72.8 million is provided in the
budget for integrated research, education, and extension activities
related to small farms, water quality, food safety, improved pest
control, and food recovery and gleaning. This integrated grant
authority allows the agency to support programs that solve problems
through multifunctional research, extension, and education activities
without the distinction resulting from separate legislative authorities
for research and extension. This approach is expected to promote a
stronger linkage between research, extension, and education to ensure
that the knowledge and technology generated by research is delivered to
the end-users, including producers, consumers, communities, and
students. The Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Grants
Program is a competitively-awarded program under which eligibility
includes all colleges and universities to ensure diversity in problem-
solving approaches.
In developing a budget around these themes, the recurring challenge
to CSREES has been to ensure that its programs are responsive to
national needs, as expressed by stakeholders and as reflected in
Department and Administration priorities.
fiscal year 2000 budget highlights
Achieving sustained long-term improvement in the competitive
position of United States agriculture relies critically on the Federal
government's assurance that producers and marketers have access to the
basic tools for success. Studies have shown that successful producers
(farmers, ranchers, and foresters) are better educated, more apt to
adopt new technology, have lower costs of production, and take better
advantage of or have more opportunities for spreading production and
marketing risk across alternative enterprises and mechanisms, than
their less successful counterparts. The fiscal year 2000 CSREES Budget
proposes $4 million for a Small Farms Initiative that will develop
research, education, and extension programs in appropriate marketing
strategies for small farms, business skills for small farmers, and help
beginning farmers establish viable farm operations and enterprises.
Food safety is dependent upon a production system that is well-
integrated into an environment that is as pathogen-free as possible, a
food processing and handling system free of pathogen contamination, and
an educated public to ensure that both producers and consumers know
their role in providing for the safe production, handling, and
consumption of food. Food security is dependent upon an efficient and
productive agricultural system based on healthy crops and livestock.
The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes $15 million for an integrated
research, extension, and education food safety program in support of
the President's Food Safety Initiative. This integrated program will
focus on research to improve the safety of food products and education
and extension programs to create a public that is more informed about
food safety issues.
Increases are proposed also to support the development and
application of new technology and management practices to replace the
traditional pest controls that are at risk of being restricted or
prohibited due to the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). The
budget proposes $10 million to support long-term development and
implementation of innovative pest management funds for major acreage
crops, fruits, and vegetables through an integrated research,
education, and extension competitive grants program. A $3 million
increase is proposed for the development of alternative pest controls
for fruit and vegetable crops to replace pesticides at risk of not
meeting the new FQPA requirements.
An additional $5 million is proposed for development of practical
management alternatives and technologies for commodities affected by
the methyl bromide phase-out now scheduled for 2005 under recent
amendments to the Clear Air Act. These programs, in conjunction with
increased funding for the Pest Management Alternatives, Minor Crop Pest
Management, the Expert IPM Decision Support System, the Pesticide
Applicator Training Program, and sustained funding for the Integrated
Pest Management research and extension programs, will ensure a more
safe and secure food and fiber system.
Establishing the scientific basis for optimal health, developing
knowledge of the eating habits of Americans, and modifying food intake
behavior are critical components to having a well-nourished population.
An increasingly important component to having a well-nourished
population is empowering our communities to build their capacities to
meet a greater share of their food needs. The fiscal year 2000 Budget
proposes a $15 million Food Recovery and Gleaning Program to improve
methods of collection, transport and storage of recovered and gleaned
food, to enhance the technical assistance and education network, to
empower local communities to establish and administer food recovery
programs, and to develop and extend knowledge about technical issues in
food recovery such as food safety and volunteer development. An
increase of $2.3 million above the 1999 level also is proposed for the
Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) to support
nutrition education programs aimed at meeting the need of
undernourished segments of the population, especially children.
As a Nation, we increasingly value the environment--clean air and
water, unique ecosystems, and pristine land. We recognize that, given
the vast amounts of land being used in agricultural or forest
production, we must ensure that our production practices, as well as
our public policies and programs affecting these practices, are
consistent with the dual objectives of promoting competitiveness while
preserving natural resources and environmental quality. To achieve
these goals, a better understanding of the complex interactions between
agricultural production and the environment is needed. Water Quality is
a serious national concern as reflected in the President's Clean Water
Action Plan. We propose an integrated research and extension water
quality program that will support projects to address such issues as
the linkage between agricultural practices and outbreaks of harmful
algal blooms, which can lead to conditions that cause massive fish-
kills, human health problems, and significant economic losses to the
seafood industry. An increase of $0.5 million is proposed in the
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program to expand the
availability of scientifically sound and practical methods for farmers
and ranchers to achieve profitability, environmental stewardship, and
quality of life for families and communities.
Americans recognize that their quality of life depends largely on
economic, physical, and institutional factors affecting their families,
businesses, and communities. The fast pace of changes in these factors,
and their increasingly complex interactions, present a growing
challenge. CSREES in partnership with the land-grant university system,
enhances the capabilities of individuals, families, and communities to
improve their quality of life. The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes an
increase of $1 million for the Children, Youth, and Families at Risk
program to enhance child care programs for those segments of the
population in greatest need, including limited resource families,
isolated farm and rural families, and families needing child care
during non-traditional hours, such as families of migrant farm
laborers.
CSREES strategies to ensure responsive and effective management of
USDA's extramural research, extension, and education programs include:
strengthening the Federal/State partnership; integrating research,
extension, and education activities as appropriate; improving
information management systems which are accessed by both internal and
external users; and participating in efforts to improve financial
management within USDA. The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes an
increase of $1 million for the Research, Education, and Economics
Information System (REEIS). Increased funding will support the broad
implementation of the system to enable CSREES and the REE mission area
to meet the reporting requirements of the Government Performance and
Results Act and facilitate implementation of the provisions of the
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998.
In response to USDA Civil Rights Action Team recommendations to
address disparities in funding and enhance the Department's cooperative
efforts with institutions of higher education that are primarily
devoted to the needs of minority students, a number of increases are
included in the CSREES budget. An increase of $0.3 million is provided
for the Hispanic Serving Institutions Education Grants program; an
increase of $3.6 million is provided for the 1890 Institutions
Facilities program; an increase of $1.4 million is provided for the
Extension Services at 1994 Institutions program; an increase of $667
thousand is provided to establish a new 1994 Institutions competitive
research program; and an increase of $3.3 million is provided for the
Extension Indian Reservations Program. Additionally, eligibility under
the new Integrated Authority programs is open to all colleges and
universities, including the 1890 and 1994 land-grant institutions.
In addition to the increase for the Hispanic Serving Institutions
Education Grants program, funding is provided for other higher
education programs to continue ongoing efforts to support graduate and
undergraduate education aimed at improving instructional capabilities
in food and agricultural sciences.
The fiscal year 2000 Budget also includes mandatory funding of $120
million for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems
under Section 401 of AREERA for competitive research, education, and
extension grants to address critical and emerging agriculture issues.
Mandatory funding also is available under the Fund for Rural America,
where approximately $30 million is to be provided for a wide range of
research, extension, and education activities. The budget also supports
funding for the Community Food Projects grants program at $2.5 million
(supported with mandatory funds provided by the Food and Nutrition
Service Food Stamp Program).
An increasing portion of Federal funds will be distributed
competitively to address the most critical needs of the agricultural
community and fund the most highly meritorious projects. The increases
proposed for competitive programs are partially offset by decreases in
formula funds and non-competitive projects slated for reductions due to
constrained budget resources. The additional flexibility provided in
the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act where a
portion of the formula funds can be used to support either research or
extension projects, allows states more authority to use Federal funds
in addressing their highest priority needs.
The advent of the 21st century finds us poised to meet the many
challenges facing the food and fiber system. The President's fiscal
year 2000 Budget Request for CSREES reflects the commitment of the
Administration to further strengthen the problem-solving capacity of
Federally-supported agricultural research, extension, and higher
education programs.
______
Departmental Administration
Prepared Statement of Sally Thompson, Acting Assistant Secretary,
Administration
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure to
present the President's budget proposal for fiscal year 2000 for USDA
Departmental Administration. I am currently filling a dual role as the
Acting Assistant Secretary for Administration and as the Chief
Financial Officer. As Acting Assistant Secretary for Administration, I
will be discussing the central administrative functions of the
Department including: human resource management, government ethics,
procurement policy and property management, facilities construction and
operations, small and disadvantaged business utilization, program and
administrative outreach, administrative law and Hazardous Waste
Management. Ms. Rosalind Gray, Director of the Office of Civil Rights,
will submit a separate statement on the civil rights progress and
activities at the Department of Agriculture. I will also provide the
Subcommittee with a separate statement covering the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer.
We appreciate the support provided by this Subcommittee in recent
years that has allowed us to continue critical administrative
operations and the additional funding to continue essential support to
the Department's civil rights effort.
Departmental Administration conducts varied and diverse oversight
and support to provide quality leadership and service to the USDA
agencies that deliver programs and services to the public. To give some
idea of the wide range of these responsibilities, here are just a few
examples of our on-going activities.
government ethics
During fiscal year 1998, the Department established the Office of
Ethics to oversee a vigorous government ethics program in USDA. With
close coordination with the Office of the General Counsel and the U.S.
Office of Government Ethics, this staff office is reviewing the ethics
programs throughout the Department to assure that an effective ethics
program is maintained within each of the Department's mission areas. An
ethics Web site which provides training information and financial
disclosure forms has already been established.
welfare to work
The Office of Human Resource Management has coordinated the
Department's implementation of the President's Welfare to Work
Initiative. As of December 1, 1998, USDA had hired 374 employees from
the welfare rolls. As a result, we have already achieved the
Department's goal for the year 2000.
workplace conflict management
During fiscal year 1998, we established a Conflict Prevention and
Resolution Center in USDA headquarters. Through this office, we are
working with the agencies to identify potential areas of employee
conflict and to train employees and management personnel to recognize
and deal with potentially dangerous situations. We are actively engaged
in the President's Interagency Working Group on Alternative Dispute
Resolution, and in December 1998 we issued the USDA Handbook on
Workplace Violence which was distributed to all employees.
bringing rural america venture opportunities--bravo
The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization has
initiated the Bringing Rural America Venture Opportunities program to
increase the participation of American Indian owned businesses with
USDA. The BRAVO initiative establishes partnerships among rural
communities, Indian nations, 1890 institutions, The Hispanic
Association of Colleges and Universities, Native American educational
institutions, small disadvantaged companies, private companies, and
government organizations. Large technology companies currently doing
business with USDA provide mentoring and support. Initial projects are
focusing on establishing businesses to provide software development,
maintenance and technical support for USDA. Employees are being
recruited/trained from Indian Reservations and economically
disadvantaged surrounding areas. Participating USDA agencies will
direct a small percentage of already budgeted and approved software
development contracts to support this initiative. The President has
endorsed this program as a way of addressing equal employment
opportunity for American Indians.
continuity of operations planning
Last year the President assigned the Cabinet officers the
responsibility for developing a comprehensive plan to assure that the
capability exists to continue essential government functions in the
event of localized or general disaster. We are developing the
Continuity of Operations Plan which includes: emergency delegations of
authority (where permissible and in accordance with law); safekeeping
of vital resources, facilities and records; emergency acquisition of
resources necessary to reestablish essential functions; and alternative
work sites.
departmental administration budget request
The fiscal year 2000 Budget request for Departmental Administration
is $36,117,000 which is $3,949,000 more than the fiscal year 1999
appropriation. The primary elements of this increase are: $931,000 to
strengthen and expand the leadership and coordination capabilities for
the Office of Outreach and expand outreach activities to minority and
limited resource customers; $1,639,000 for the Office of Civil Rights
to continue efforts to correct past weaknesses and strengthen USDA
civil rights activities; and $1,050,000 for mandatory pay cost
including the Office of Civil Rights. Absorbing these pay increases
would require cuts in the program areas put in place with the fiscal
year 1999 appropriation.
outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers
For fiscal year 2000, we are requesting $10,000,000 for grants and
contracts to community based organizations and certain educational
institutions to provide outreach and technical assistance to socially
disadvantaged farmers. This is an increase of $7,000,000 over the
amount provided in fiscal year 1999. The current program supports 27
community based organizations and land-grant colleges that provide
technical assistance and training to approximately 8,700 participants,
primarily low-income farmers and ranchers, with a service area of 394
counties in 21 states. Our outreach efforts included town-hall
meetings, workshops, and farmer field day activities that reached more
than 107,000 people. Where the program is available, it has been
successful in reducing the rate of land loss among small, limited-
resource farmers. The budget increase will allow eight additional
entities and double the number of counties to provide technical
assistance and training that will help reverse the decline in the
number of minority farmers and ranchers. This increase would also
fulfill the Civil Rights Action Team Report recommendation to fully
fund this program.
agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments
The fiscal year 2000 Budget requests $166,364,000 for Agriculture
Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments. This is an increase of
$29,180,00 including $21,000,000 for South Building modernization,
$7,485,000 for increased rental payments to GSA, and a net increase of
$695,000 for building operations and maintenance.
usda strategic space plan
In our efforts to help reduce costs associated with housing our
Washington area employees, USDA is implementing a long term plan to
consolidate USDA Headquarters into two government-owned locations which
will provide modern and safe facilities as well as enhance program
operations. The Plan includes the new USDA Office Facility at the
Beltsville Agricultural Center in Prince George's County, Maryland, and
the modernization of the South Building in downtown Washington, D.C.
Construction of the Beltsville Facility is complete and occupancy began
in January 1998. We anticipate full occupancy by the end of fiscal year
1999. The new complex is an award winning facility for energy savings.
In addition, we are pleased to note that USDA will be receiving the
1998 Government Award from the National Industries for the Severely
Handicapped, due in great part to our contract with Melwood, a
community rehabilitation program, to operate this facility. The
contract provides employment for over 60 people and is the first of its
kind. It will provide new opportunities for the disabled in non-
traditional careers such as building engineering.
The South Building is over 60 years old, eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places, and in dire need of repair
and renovation to make it safe, efficient, and functional. The required
renovation work includes fire protection systems; abatement of
hazardous materials such as asbestos, PCB light fixtures, and lead
paint; replacement of old, inefficient heating, ventilation and air
conditioning systems for improved energy conservation and air quality;
upgrade of electrical and plumbing systems; improved accommodations for
disabled persons; and accommodation of modern office telecommunications
systems. Construction of Phase 1--interior reconstruction of Wing 3--
began in September 1998. The fiscal year 2000 funds are requested for
the construction of Phase 2--interior reconstruction of Wing 4. The
design for Phase 2 has been substantially completed so that a
construction contract can be awarded as soon as funds become available.
hazardous waste management
The Department requests $22,700,000 for the Hazardous Waste
Management Program, an increase of $7,000,000 over the fiscal year 1999
level, to meet the minimum needs of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act; the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act; and related state and local laws. We must meet the
challenge of cleaning up contaminated lands under USDA's jurisdiction.
Our prior year activities generally concentrated on identifying
contaminated sites, assessing the problems, and developing cleanup
strategies. We are moving out of the investigation phase of these sites
and conducting more complex and costly response actions. We have more
than 2,000 contaminated sites remaining to clean up and restore. These
remaining sites tend to be the most costly. For example, the cost of
cleanup of problems caused by other responsible parties on facilities
and lands that we manage, including abandoned mines and landfills, is
estimated to exceed $2 billion. If we do not ensure that these sites
are cleaned up in a timely manner, the potential for fines, penalties
and law suits could rapidly exceed the cleanup.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
statement on the Departmental Administration budget for fiscal year
2000. I want to reiterate our appreciation for the strong support which
this Subcommittee has given us.
______
Economic Research Service
Prepared Statement of Susan E. Offutt, Administrator
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to present the proposed fiscal year 2000 budget for the
Economic Research Service.
mission
The Economic Research Service provides economic and other social
science research and analysis on efficiency, efficacy, and equity
issues related to agriculture, food, the environment, and rural
development to improve public and private decision making.
budget
ERS's appropriation for 1999 of $65.8 million consists of the 1997
appropriation level ($53.1 million), an increase of $12.2 million to
evaluate food stamp, child nutrition, and WIC programs, and an increase
of $.5 million to estimate the benefits of food safety. This
appropriation was adjusted to $64.9 million with the move of Office of
Energy to the Office of the Chief Economist. ERS continues
implementation of its streamlining strategy and plans to maintain staff
in 1999 at its current level of 525 full-time equivalents. ERS
continues to make full use of early-out and buy-out authorities. In the
future, ERS must manage its staff levels to maintain its non-salary
program of agricultural data purchases and cooperative university
research necessary to support its analytical program.
The agency's request for 2000 is $55.6 million, a net decrease of
$9.3 million from the adjusted 1999 appropriation. The net decrease
consists of seven parts: a $.9 million increase for enhancing commodity
market analysis; a $.7 million increase for a study on carbon
sequestration; a $.3 million increase for the U.S. Global Climate
Change National Assessment; a $.5 million increase for estimating the
benefits of food safety; a $.3 million increase to meet the analytical
information needs of small farmers, niche marketers, other casualties
of an industrializing agricultural sector; a $.2 million increase to
assess the potential impacts of electric utility deregulation; and a
$12.2 million decrease for evaluations of food stamp, child nutrition,
and WIC programs. Funding for these evaluation studies in 2000 is
included in the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) budget.
ers contributions to mission area goals
ERS shares five general goals with its fellow agencies in the
Research, Education, and Economics mission area: a highly competitive
agricultural production system, a safe and secure food supply, a
healthy and well nourished population, harmony between agriculture and
the environment, and enhanced economic opportunity and quality of life
for all Americans. These goals are fully consistent with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture mission.
Goal I: The agricultural production system is highly competitive in the
global economy.
ERS helps the U.S. food and agriculture sector effectively adapt to
changing market structure and post-GATT and post-NAFTA trade conditions
by providing analyses on the linkage between domestic and global food
and commodity markets and the implications of alternative domestic
policies and programs on competitiveness. ERS economists analyze
factors that drive change in the structure and performance of domestic
and global food and agriculture markets; provide economic assessments
of competitiveness and efficiency in the food industry; analyze how
global environmental change, international environmental treaties and
agreements, and agriculture-related trade restrictions affect U.S.
agricultural production, exports, and imports; and provide economic
analyses that determine how fundamental commodity market relationships
are adjusting to changing trade, domestic policy, and structural
conditions. ERS will continue to consider how the potential for
increased commodity price and farm income variability affects market
performance and interacts with Federal policies and programs. These
analyses will include short- and long-term projections of U.S. and
world agricultural production, consumption, and trade. ERS has
increased the frequency of reporting on commodities' outlooks, even as
it endeavors to strengthen the analysis that leads to an understanding
of reported observations. In addition, ERS will continue preparation
for the new World Trade Organization round (that will include
agriculture) by analyzing the economic effects of Uruguay Round policy
disciplines; assessing the economic effects of state trading and
tariff-rate quota allocations; and assessing regional trade
initiatives. In this latter category, ERS experts will take a more in-
depth look at China's evolving role in world agricultural markets. ERS
will conduct research on the changing structure (for example, vertical
integration, concentration, and contracting) of the food marketing
chain and will also analyze the effectiveness and use of alternative
marketing strategies and risk management tools in mitigating farm
income risk, including tools available from both private and public
sector providers.
ERS analyses can help guide and evaluate resource allocation and
management of public sector agricultural research, a key to maintaining
increases in productivity that underlie a strong competitive position
for U.S. farmers. ERS economists track and endeavor to understand the
determinants of public and private spending on agricultural R&D;
evaluate the returns from those expenditures; and consider the most
effective roles for public and private sector research entities.
Enhancing Commodity Market Analysis
The request for an increase of $854,000 in fiscal year 2000 is to
assure continued Agency strength in and sufficient capacity for
commodity outlook analysis. Principal means for obtaining this
assurance will be through the development of strategic alliances with
Land Grant universities and other public institutions performing
commodity market analysis, and improvement of the breadth, ease, and
timeliness of access to USDA commodity market data and information.
These plans preclude the development of information gaps or limited
access to private market data and analysis as barriers to efficient
production and marketing decisions by American farmers, marketers, or
traders.
Information Needs of Small Farmers
Because small, limited resource, and socially disadvantaged farmers
are particularly dependent on publicly disseminated market data and
information, it is critical for the efficient functioning of the entire
American sector (not just the largest operations) that any differences
in the nature of information most useful to strategic decision making
by small and larger, more advantaged farmers be well understood by the
public providers of commodity market analysis. The request for a one-
time increase of $350,000 will assure that ERS has this knowledge by
funding a study to discover the unique information needs of unique and
disadvantaged groups in the American agricultural sector. Increasing
the capacity to meet these unique information needs is supportive of
the small farm initiative.
Goal 2: The food production system is safe and secure.
ERS focuses on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public
policies and programs designed to protect consumers from unsafe food by
analyzing benefits of safer food and the costs of food safety policies;
efficient and cost-effective approaches to promote food safety; and how
agricultural production and processing practices affect food safety,
resource quality, and farm workers' safety. This research helps
government officials design more efficient and cost-effective
approaches to promote food safety. Specifically, the ERS research
program provides detailed and up-to-date appraisals of the benefits of
safer food, such as reducing medical costs and costs of productivity
losses from foodborne illnesses caused by microbial pathogens. In
addition, ERS has undertaken new research on the costs to industry and
consumers of alternative food safety policies, including assessment of
the distribution of costs across the food industry and across
demographic groups.
Understanding how food prices are determined is increasingly
important in responding to domestic and international market events and
opportunities that promote the security of the U.S. food supply. As the
farm share of the food dollar declines, accurate retail price forecasts
depend more heavily on understanding the marketing system beyond the
farmgate. ERS systematically examines the factors that help set retail
prices, including an assessment of the roles of the transportation,
processing, manufacturing, wholesaling and retailing sectors, the
impact of imports and exports, and linkages to the total economy.
Food Safety Risk Assessment Initiative
A project to assess the risks and benefits of pathogen control
options is proposed for fiscal year 2000 at $453,000 as part of the
President's Food Safety Initiative. A fundamental barrier to evaluating
food safety programs and policies is imperfect knowledge about the
sources of risk along the food chain and how these might be addressed
by pathogen control options. Efforts to estimate the benefits and costs
of options to reduce foodborne illnesses are hampered by lack of
knowledge about how pathogen control efforts will eventually affect
public health. Further research on risk assessment by economists, in
collaboration with other scientists, will provide decision makers with
better estimates of the benefits and costs of efforts to promote food
safety. Ensuring that our efforts to improve food safety are carefully
targeted and prioritized on the basis of cost-effectiveness is central
to our goal of providing the Nation with the safest possible food
supply. This initiative is a part of the President's food safety
initiative and the produce and imported food safety initiative.
Goal 3: The nation's population is healthy and well-nourished.
ERS helps identify efficient and effective public policies that
promote consumers' access to a wide variety of high-quality foods at
affordable prices. ERS economists analyze factors affecting dietary
changes; assess impacts of nutrition education and the implications for
the individual, society and agriculture; and provide economic
evaluations of food nutrition and assistance programs. The Agency
studies the implications for producers and consumers of movement
towards adoption of the dietary guidelines; the trends and determinants
of American's eating habits; evolution of food product trade; and the
determinants of food prices. Analysis of nutrition education efforts
considers what kinds of information motivate changes in consumer
behavior, the food cost of healthy diets, the influence of food
assistance programs on nutrition, and the implications of healthy diets
for the structure of the food system. Because trade in high valued
agricultural products, including processed food, now exceeds the value
of bulk commodity flows, ERS will spend more time to disaggregate the
components of these trade flows, understand their relationships to
international investment and strategic behavior of U.S. food firms; and
investigate the implications for U.S. consumers of a globalized food
marketplace.
Goal 4: Agriculture and the Environment are in Harmony.
In this area, ERS analysis helps support development of Federal
farm, natural resource, and rural policies and programs that promote
long-term sustainability goals, improved agricultural competitiveness,
and economic growth. This effort requires analyses on the profitability
and environmental effects of alternative production management systems
and on the cost effectiveness and equity of public sector conservation
policies and programs. ERS analysts focus on evaluating the benefits
and costs of agricultural and environmental policies and programs in
order to assess the relationship between improvements in environmental
quality and increases in agricultural competitiveness. In this vein,
ERS provides economic analyses on the linkages between biodiversity and
sustainability issues and agricultural performance, competitiveness,
and structure.
Carbon Sequestration Initiative
We request an increase of $700,000 in fiscal year 2000 to assess
the economic potential for using agricultural lands to sequester
atmospheric carbon. This will increase the use of production practices
that build organic soil carbon that enhance the quality and
productivity of affected lands. This will also be in accordance with
U.S. commitments to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto
Protocol, as well as assessing the potential to target existing USDA
conservation programs to include carbon sequestration. Possible
``carbon sinks'' include shifting marginal agricultural lands into
forests, shifting croplands into permanent grasses, and adopting
production practices that result in higher levels of soil carbon.
Expanding the quantity of U.S. farm land in forests and grasses could
complement existing USDA conservation goals of reducing soil erosion,
improving water quality, and enhancing wildlife habitat.
U.S. Global Change Program National Assessment
ERS will continue to participate in and support the U.S. Global
Change Program National Assessment. An increase of $300,000 is
requested to develop a detailed understanding of the consequences of
climate change for various economic sectors, geographic regions, and
the nation as a whole. The Administration strongly believes that
increased funding for climate change initiatives as described above
will make U.S. agriculture better prepared to reduce and respond to the
impacts of those changes in the future.
Goal 5: Enhanced economic opportunity and quality of life for rural
Americans.
The ERS contribution to improving opportunity and quality of life
in the U.S. is based on analysis that identifies how investment,
employment opportunities and job training, and demographics affect
rural America's capacity to prosper in the global marketplace. ERS
economists analyze rural financial markets and how the availability of
credit, particularly Federal credit, spending, taxes, and regulations
influence rural economic development. ERS analyzes the changing size
and characteristics of the rural and farm populations and the
implications of these changes in human capital, including skill
development, on the performance of rural economies. In addition, ERS
studies the economic structure and performance of non-farm economic
activities in rural areas, including the fairly widespread rebound in
population growth in non-metropolitan counties. The relevant analyses
will involve monitoring rural earnings and labor market trends with
emphasis on regional and other disaggregations in order to provide
insight into the determinants of variation in trends among non-metro
counties. Such work should yield a better understanding of the factors
that promote rural vitality and the opportunities for effective public
sector intervention.
Because the effects of changes in welfare programs may vary between
rural and urban residents due to differences in labor markets and other
aspects of a regional economy's structure, ERS social scientists will
track implementation of recent program changes to understand any
differential impacts. In particular, ERS analysis can help anticipate
changes in participation across assistance programs, including those
for which USDA has primary responsibility, in rural housing and in
food. Another opportunity for understanding whether rural America faces
unique circumstances will come with analysis of a recently-completed
survey of the rural manufacturing sector.
ERS continues to monitor the financial situation of the farm
sector, establishing farm business organization and performance
benchmarks. This task includes study of the financial position of
farmers who employ technological advances and innovative risk
management strategies in their businesses, compared with the financial
position of farmers who use more traditional approaches. Previous work
on the use of production and marketing contracts by farmers will be
extended to identify contractors by class to better define the role of
non-farm businesses in the industrialization of farms. Analyses of
financial performance will also measure the comparability of returns
between farm and non-farm small businesses and assess the financial
viability of commercial and non-commercial size farm operations.
Electric Utility Deregulation
In fiscal year 2000, ERS proposes a study to assess the potential
impacts of electric utility deregulation on rural America. Electric
utility deregulation began with the passage in 1992 of the Federal
Energy Policy Act and has continued as State legislatures and
regulatory agencies consider further deregulating the delivery of
electricity to industrial and residential consumers. While these steps
could result in substantial savings nationwide, the savings will not be
uniformly distributed. The resulting changes will have important
impacts on the competitiveness and well-being of agriculture, other
businesses, and communities in rural America, as well as on rural
electric cooperatives and USDA's electric utility loan programs.
Recently the agency initiated work to better understand the issues
involved in electric deregulation and to assess the impact of projected
swings in electric utility rates on regional economies. The request for
$200,000 will allow ERS and its cooperators to expand upon this early
work and assess the potential impacts of deregulation on the
Department's rural utility loan programs, on the competitiveness of
rural businesses and communities, and on rural households.
customers, partners, and stakeholders
The ultimate beneficiaries of ERS's program are the American people
whose well-being is improved by informed public and private
decisionmaking leading to more effective resource allocation. ERS
shapes its program and products principally to serve key decision
makers who routinely make or influence public policy and program
decisions. This clientele includes White House and USDA policy
officials and program administrators/managers, the U.S. Congress, other
Federal agencies and State and local government officials, and domestic
and international environmental, consumer, and other public groups,
including farm and industry groups interested in public policy issues.
ERS carries out its economic analysis and research in four
divisions. ERS depends heavily on working relationships with other
organizations and individuals to accomplish its mission. Key partners
include: the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) for
primary data collection; universities for research collaboration; the
media as disseminators of ERS analyses; and other government agencies
and departments for data information and services.
closing remarks
I appreciate the support that this Committee has given ERS in the
past and look forward to continue working with you and your staff to
ensure that ERS makes the most effective and appropriate use of the
public resources. Thank you.
______
National Appeals Division
Prepared Statement of Norman G. Cooper, Director
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
appear before you to discuss the fiscal year 2000 budget request for
the National Appeals Division.
introduction
The National Appeals Division (NAD) was established by the
Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to the Reorganization Act of 1994.
The Act consolidated the appellate functions and staffs of several USDA
agencies to provide for hearings on appeal of adverse agency decisions,
and review of appeal determinations by the NAD Director. NAD appeals
currently involve program decisions of the Farm Service Agency, Risk
Management Agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Rural
Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Housing Service, and Rural
Utilities Service. NAD is headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia, and
has regional offices located in Indianapolis, Indiana; Memphis,
Tennessee; and Lakewood, Colorado. NAD's staff of 133 includes 75
hearing officers Nationwide.
mission
Our mission is to conduct evidentiary administrative appeals
hearings and reviews arising out of program decisions of specific USDA
agencies. Our strategic goal is to conduct timely hearings and issue
timely and well-reasoned determinations that correctly interpret
applicable regulations. In addition, in States covered by the United
States Court of Appeals 8th Circuit, NAD Hearing Officer's adjudicate
applications for fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
NAD's mission is statutorily specific, but the administration is
dynamic and challenging, given the complexities of changing laws,
regulations and policies.
fiscal year 2000 budget request
NAD is requesting $12,699,000 in direct appropriations for fiscal
year 2000. This request represents an increase of $981,000 over the
fiscal year 1999 appropriation. The increase is comprised of $392,000
for pay costs and $589,000 for training costs.
NAD employees must possess a broad, in-depth knowledge of many
areas, including adjudication procedures as well as the laws and
regulations of subject agencies. The hearing and review officers must
stay abreast of changes in the law, regulations and agency policies, in
order to issue determinations that are legally correct. Continuous
training and development is essential to providing the public a
competent and fair administrative appeal system that recognizes the
rights of program participants and promotes the lawful operations of
agency programs. NAD's budget request for training will be used to
sustain high-quality training that is critical to accomplishing our
goal.
We are also requesting $392,000 to offset the anticipated fiscal
year 2000 federal pay raise. Our budget has remained fixed at the
current level since fiscal year 1997. We cannot continue to absorb pay
cost increases without jeopardizing our ability to provide an effective
administrative appeals system.
conclusion
NAD's administrative appeals process is a cost-effective service
for program participants to have adverse agency decisions fairly and
impartially adjudicated in a timely manner consistent with the intent
of Congress. The initiatives in the fiscal year 2000 budget will help
ensure that we accomplish our mission in a more efficient and effective
manner, making correct determinations and continuing to assure the
rights of all participants in appeals. The initiatives provide the
groundwork for accomplishing the goals and objectives outlined in NAD's
Strategic Plan and annual performance plan. More importantly, these
initiatives assure farmers, ranchers, cooperatives, agencies, and
others an avenue to a fair and equitable adjudicative process. I would
like to provide for the record a copy of the brochure that describes
these initiatives.
That concludes my statement, and I am looking forward to working
with the Committee on the fiscal year 2000 National Appeals Division
budget.
______
Office of the Chief Economist
Prepared Statement of Keith Collins, Chief Economist
This statement discusses the functions and fiscal year 2000 budget
request of the Office of the Chief Economist, or OCE.
OCE is a small staff of analysts located in Washington, D.C., plus
one weather officer field unit in Mississippi. OCE reports directly to
the Secretary of Agriculture and has four primary missions: (1) provide
economic analysis to the Executive Branch and Congressional policy
officials on alternative policies, programs and regulations; (2) serve
as a focal point for the collection and reporting of economic and
weather data, forecasts and projections related to agricultural
commodities, and the performance of the agricultural economy; (3)
provide economic and policy analysis on issues related to energy and
new uses in agriculture; and (4) conduct statutory review and oversight
responsibilities related to risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis
of major USDA regulations. OCE also coordinates several activities that
cut across USDA mission areas, which include global climate change,
sustainable development and agricultural labor.
OCE has four functional units: the Immediate Office; the World
Agricultural Outlook Board; WAOB; the Office of Risk Assessment and
Cost-Benefit Analysis, ORACBA; and the Office of Energy Policy and New
Uses, OEPNU. Some recent activities and accomplishments in each of
these four areas are briefly discussed.
immediate office of the chief economist
The immediate office, with a staff of nine, directs a wide range of
analysis related to policy, program and legislative proposals, and
regulations. The focus is on the most substantial, complex and
controversial issues, usually at the request of the Secretary, other
Administration officials, or members of Congress. The most important
products are briefings, and briefing and analysis papers prepared on
tight deadlines. These analyses generally focus on short- to medium-
term effects, involve staff from other agencies, and apply the results
of existing, basic economic research to specific policy issues. The
immediate office staff is also responsible for regulatory review. A key
role of the staff is to coordinate analyses among USDA agencies.
Examples of key activities during the past year are:
OCE works with other agencies to assess program options and guide
effective Departmental decision making with respect to key program
provisions. OCE provided numerous assessments to the Secretary and the
administration on the state of the farm economy as conditions eroded in
many areas during 1998. OCE led the development of the USDA proposal to
OMB for emergency assistance to producers in 1998. OCE worked closely
with the Marketing and Regulatory Programs mission area to address
issues in concentration. OCE helped develop program options and
analyzed proposed regulatory actions submitted by the public on ways to
deal with concentrated markets. OCE provided continual advice and
analysis to the Secretary on dairy policy, including Federal Milk
Marketing Order reform. OCE coordinated Departmental analysis of
proposed settlement between tobacco companies and State Attorneys
General and buyout proposals for tobacco producers. OCE continues to
assist the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--APHIS--in
verifying compensation claims for producers, handlers and others
affected by Karnal bunt regulations and assisted in drafting
regulations, cost-benefit analyses, and decision memoranda dealing with
Karnal bunt. OCE analyzed models of the Standard Reinsurance Agreement,
or SRA, to assist the Risk Management Agency in their 1999 SRA
negotiations with the crop insurance industry. The models were used to
analyze the budget implications and industry rates of return of various
reinsurance proposals, including reinsurance for catastrophic and
revenue products.
OCE was an active member of the U.S. interagency group on climate
change and was part of the country delegation attending meetings of the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change--FCCC--in Buenos
Aires, Argentina and Bonn, Germany. OCE was instrumental in elevating
the issue of carbon sequestration in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change and the FCCC Subsidiary Body for Scientific and
Technical Advice. OCE took the lead to coordinate an interagency group
to assess the potential of sequestering carbon through forest
management and crop land practices.
In the area of small farm issues, OCE participated in a
Departmental interagency task force established to review and provide
advice on implementation of the recommendations from the National
Commission on Small Farms. OCE participated in the Secretary's
Transportation Summit and on a special task force created to monitor
and improve the performance of the western rail system. This task force
initiated a new report, that provides an early warning of potential
railcar shortages and bottlenecks in the movement of grain and grain
products.
OCE served on the Economic Options Committee of the United Nations
Technical and Economic Assessment Panel for the Montreal Protocol. The
Committee prepared a report on economic issues pertaining to
implementation of the scheduled phase out of ozone depleting
substances. Included in the report are analyses of various alternatives
for reducing production and consumption of ozone depleting substances.
During the past year, the staff reviewed analyses supporting
Significant and Economically Significant regulations issued by the
Department. The staff provided critical review and guidance in the
Department's regulatory analyses for regulation of retained water in
poultry and meat, storage temperature for eggs and meat imports. In
addition, the staff assisted the Forest Service in developing the
supporting analyses for revisions of timber sale contracts regulations
and the proposed road construction.
OCE worked with the Department of Labor, National Economic Council,
and the Immigration and Naturalization Service to streamline and
improve for farm employers and employees the H-2A temporary
agricultural worker program. The staff helped to develop a new program
to assist farm employer's in California meet their labor needs and
prospective workers to find work under California's welfare reform act.
OCE staff maintained an Internet web page to provide the public
information on farm employment rules and regulations, farm safety, and
worker protection from pesticides.
OCE coordinates sustainable development activities within USDA.
This is done chiefly through USDA's Council on Sustainable Development,
chaired by the Director of Sustainable Development, which develops,
coordinates, and integrates the principles of sustainable development
into policies and programs across all mission areas of the Department.
During the past year, the Director served as the lead USDA member of
the U.S. delegation to the UN meetings on sustainable development. The
Director also co-chaired USDA's Council on Sustainable Development,
which implemented a Sustainable Agriculture Learning Initiative to
bring together sustainable agriculture farmers with bankers and
insurance specialists.
OCE advised Congress through testimony and staff briefings on the
effects of the developments in markets, prices and income prospects and
on global climate change.
world agricultural outlook board--waob
The WAOB prepares world agricultural and weather assessments and
coordinates USDA' work related to agricultural outlook, projections,
weather, and remote sensing. The Board issues a monthly publication
known as the World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates report and
oversees long-term USDA forecasts required for preparation of the
Federal budget. The Board also operates and manages the Joint
Agricultural Weather Facility, JAWF, in cooperation with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, and is home to the
Department's Chief Meteorologist. In addition, the Board provides
technical assistance and coordination for USDA's remote sensing
activities.
Coordinating USDA Economic Forecasts.--The WAOB plays a critical
role in assuring that the Department's commodity information system
responds to today's rapidly changing world. The Board's mission is to
ensure that USDA's intelligence on domestic and foreign agricultural
developments is timely, accurate, and objective, and to speed the flow
of that information to producers, consumers, and policy makers.
One of WAOB's primary functions is to coordinate and review all
USDA forecasts and analyses of foreign and domestic commodity supply
and demand conditions. USDA's Interagency Commodity Estimates
Committees are chaired by staff of the WAOB. The purpose of these
committees is to assure that sound information from domestic and
international sources is fully integrated into the analytical process
and that USDA's economic forecasts are objective, thorough, and
consistent. The committees, with representatives from the Economic
Research Service, Farm Service Agency, Foreign Agricultural Service,
Agricultural Marketing Service, and WAOB, are responsible for
developing official estimates of supply, utilization, and prices and
reviewing economic reports issued by USDA agencies. In fiscal year
1998, the Board reviewed and approved for release approximately 150
reports.
In addition, daily market highlights and weekly briefing reports
were prepared for the Secretary and top staff, weekly weather and
economics briefings were presented to the Under Secretary for Farm and
Foreign Agricultural Services, and international weather highlights
were published in the Weekly Weather and Crop Bulletin.
Each month, the WAOB publishes the World Agricultural Supply and
Demand Estimates [WASDE] Report, which forecasts production, trade,
utilization, prices, and stocks. Coverage includes U.S. and world
grains, oilseeds, and cotton and U.S. livestock and poultry products
and sugar. Release is simultaneous with the U.S. Crop Production
report. WASDE is internationally viewed as a benchmark for agriculture
and provides timely knowledge of world commodity markets that is
increasingly critical to our export-led farm economy. Equally
important, the WASDE report gives early warning of changing crop
production and supply prospects in the United States and in other
countries.
Oversight of Long-Term USDA Commodity Projections.--WAOB chairs the
Department's Interagency Agricultural Projections Committee that
oversees preparation of long-term projections for farm commodities, the
U.S. agricultural economy, and world agricultural trade. The Economic
Research Service has the lead role in preparation of the projections.
WAOB's role is to ensure a strong multi-agency effort and sound
analytical procedures for the projections. The projections are used for
a variety of analytic and mandated functions of the Department, such as
preparing the USDA portion of the President's budget. These
``baseline'' projections provide an objective, rigorous, and thorough
view of the likely path of the farm sector over the long term.
The most recent set of long-term projections, Agricultural Baseline
Projections to 2008, was publicly released in February 1999 at the
Department's annual Agricultural Outlook Forum. The projections reflect
the adverse impact that poor worldwide growth prospects and increasing
world supplies have on prospects for U.S. agricultural trade in the
near to medium term. Nonetheless, despite problems in the next few
years, more favorable long-term world economic growth supports gains in
exports and farm income as we pass 2000. The overall farm financial
picture shows assets accumulating faster than liabilities throughout
the projection period, a sign that the sector as a whole remains
fundamentally sound.
The annual USDA Agricultural Outlook Forum, conducted under OCE's
leadership, is a public meeting on farm, food, and trade prospects. The
Forum was planned in consultation with a large number of agencies,
making this a true USDA team effort. The Chief Economist invited, and
sessions were organized by, the Agricultural Marketing Service; Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service; Grain Inspection, Packers and
Stockyards Administration; Natural Resources Conservation Service;
Foreign Agricultural Service; Economic Research Service; Farm Service
Agency; and the Risk Management Agency. The Forum is rich with USDA's
expertise on risk management, marketing, grain inspection, plant and
animal health, and soil and water conservation.
Outlook Forum 1999, the seventy-fifth annual meeting, took place in
late February 1999. Attendance, topping 1,100, was the highest in
recent years. The program featured a spectrum of issues affecting the
future of agriculture, discussed from many vantage points. In addition
to near-term and long-range agricultural prospects, topics ranged from
new marketing strategies to the impacts of biotechnology and
environmental regulation. Speakers were drawn from farming,
agribusiness, environmental groups, government, and academia. Extensive
media coverage and posting of speeches on the Internet shortly after
the Forum ensured the timely dissemination of information presented.
Monitoring Weather Impacts on Agriculture.--USDA places a high
priority on incorporating weather-based assessments into all analyses.
The focal point for this activity is the Joint Agricultural Weather
Facility, JAWF. JAWF staff continually monitor global weather and
assess its probable impact on agricultural output. JAWF briefings,
reports, and special alerts are key inputs to the development of USDA
crop yield estimates for both competitor and customer countries. JAWF
weather assessments are made available to the public through the Weekly
Weather and Crop Bulletin, the WAOB home page, and the news media.
WAOB's Chairperson and Chief Meteorologist briefed government officials
and news media frequently on changing crop conditions.
Disseminating USDA Numbers to the Public.--As commodity prices are
affected less by Government programs and more by market forces, the
need for objective and current market information is becoming
especially critical. The WAOB recognizes the need for rapid information
dissemination and strives to place the WASDE report Weekly Weather and
Crop Bulletin in the hands of farmers and other users as quickly as
possible. The goal is to provide simultaneous access at a minimum cost
to all market participants.
WAOB improved electronic access to the monthly WASDE report. The
WASDE report is now posted instantly on the WAOB home page as well as
forwarded to the USDA ``Economics and Statistics'' web site at Cornell
University. In addition, WAOB took the lead in upgrading the usefulness
of the Cornell University site for USDA information by overseeing a
redesign and expansion of the help section.
Interagency Initiatives.--The JAWF worked closely with the National
Water and Climate Center of USDA's Natural Resources Conservation
Service and with NOAA Regional Climate Centers on a Unified Climate
Access Network to provide on-line access to weather and climate data
from a variety of sources. At the request of the World Meteorological
Organization, JAWF staff prepared and delivered a training course on
agricultural data management procedures, attended by 17 participants
from over 10 countries in Ljubljana, Slovenia. JAWF staff represented
the United States at the WMO Commission for Agricultural Meteorology in
Accra, Ghana.
Also, JAWF put updated sections of its popular handbook Major World
Crop Areas and Climatic Profiles on the Internet, and is working with
the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization to develop an expanded CD-
ROM version using geographic information system--GIS--technology.
WAOB increased cooperation and dialogue with the Office of the
Federal Coordinator for Meteorology of the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration. This interchange has renewed cooperation in
support of USDA weather needs. NOAA's National Weather Service recently
announced that the agency will adopt USDA National Agricultural Weather
Information System, NAWIS, language and accept it as the
Administration's position with respect to authorizing this activity.
Weather Data Receiver Upgraded.--WAOB established a satellite
downlink for National Weather Service, NEWS data at the USDA's Kansas
City computer center. This downlink gives access to more reliable and
comprehensive data, helping to improve crop-weather analysis in support
of USDA forecasts. It also will make it possible to share timely
weather data with other agencies such as the Forest Service and with
field offices in USDA's new agricultural weather observing network.
Remote Sensing Activities.--At WAOB's request, the Defense
Intelligence Agency--DIA--opened its archive of more than 10,000
satellite images to USDA and has agreed to provide scenes requested by
the Department at no cost. Normally, such images would cost USDA $400
to $4,400 each. DIA now provides USDA with a list of new imagery
acquisitions every two weeks. In addition, WAOB successfully negotiated
an agreement with a private vendor to provide radar imagery to the
Foreign Agricultural Service, Farm Service Agency, Forest Service, and
the Natural Resources Conservation Service at no cost. In return, USDA
will provide DIA with evaluations of the usefulness of radar imagery in
fulfilling agency missions.
1890 Institution Partnership.--For the third consecutive year, WAOB
supported an ongoing partnership with the University of Maryland
Eastern Shore, an 1890 Institution. The goal of this partnership has
been to introduce UMES faculty and students to agriculture-related
occupations.
Technical Cooperation with China.--WAOB continued an information
exchange with China that has yielded substantial analytical benefits to
the Department. The Chairperson traveled to Beijing, Guangxi Province,
and Sichuan Province with specialists from the National Agricultural
Statistics Service and the Economic Research Service. Through
participation in this project, USDA has substantially improved its
information base with respect to the present and future of China's
agricultural sector.
Information Exchange with South Africa.--WAOB continued an
initiative with South Africa to share meteorological technologies and
data, under the auspices of the United States/South Africa Bi-National
Commission. WAOB arranged for a technical exchange between the
developers of the ``Oklahoma Mesonet'' and scientists representing
South Africa's Agricultural Research Council, and is now receiving
real-time weather data collected by South African counterparts.
Understanding Grain Disease.--Support provided by the JAWF was
instrumental in helping to dispute non-tariff barriers to wheat trade
with China and Brazil. USDA used JAWF's extensive weather and climate
data base to show that neither China or Brazil have climatic conditions
which would support the growth of TCK smut or Karnal bunt. This
evidence has weakened the justification by both countries for
restricting imports of U.S. wheat.
Drought Initiative.--WAOB continued to play an active role in the
Western Drought Coordination Council activities. WAOB collaboration
will continue as the Farm Service Agency assumes leadership of a new
National Drought Policy Committee.
Grain Transportation Outlook Initiated.--WAOB assembled an
interagency committee for the purpose of reviewing and publishing the
Department's first Grain Transportation Prospects report. This report
addressed the need to provide the transportation industry with timely
information on crop supplies in an effort to avoid railcar shortages at
the expense of agriculture, and to provide farmers with information on
pressures facing the rail industry.
office of energy policy and new uses--oepnu
The Office of Energy Policy and New Uses provides leadership,
education, coordination, and evaluation for all Departmental energy and
energy-related activities. The Office develops a unified presentation
of the Department's energy activities to the Administration, Congress,
other Federal Agencies, and the public. OEPNU provides analysis and
information to support policies aimed at increasing farm income and
rural economic growth. OEPNU initiated and coordinated research in
electricity deregulation, climate change, biomass, and biodiesel
issues.
Electricity Deregulation.--Electricity deregulation that will
change power rates in rural America presents the Department with an
important policy issue and potential program concerns for the Rural
Utilities Service. OEPNU initiated preliminary analysis that enabled
the Department to include a rural ``place holder'' in the
Administration's legislation submitted to Congress.
Ethanol Analysis.--OEPNU developed a coordinated research plan with
the Department of Energy and Argonne Labs to provide analysis on the
net climate benefits of corn ethanol to environmental groups. This
research was cited as part of the Administration's successful effort to
extend the ethanol excise tax exemption. In addition, OEPNU initiated a
research program with Department of Energy and the Environmental
Protection Agency to examine opportunities to expand ethanol's market,
especially with respect to a proposed low sulfur gasoline program and
the reformulated gasoline program.
Biomass Initiative.--OEPNU coordinated and designed a biomass
research component of the Climate Change Technology Initiative. To
support the initiative, preliminary biomass economic analysis was
completed. We have since expanded this work to look at agricultural
residues with Iowa State University.
Biodiesel Research.--OEPNU's work on biodiesel has produced a
redirection of research resources, several publications, and citations
of the work in congressional hearings. Our work influenced significant
resource allocation in the joint USDA, the Department of Energy, and
the American Soybean Association/United Soybean Board's program toward
more coproduct development and the use of biodiesel as an additive.
Three publications have been produced by research we used to examine
the feasibility of biodiesel mandated under the Energy Policy Act of
1992. Results from this work were cited at Senate and House hearings to
examine the feasibility of biodiesel as an alternative fuel.
office of risk assessment and cost-benefit analyses--oracba
The Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis exercises
the responsibility for reviewing and approving risk analyses for all
major USDA regulations. The Office serves as a focal point for
Departmental activities related to risk analysis, including
interdepartmental activities, risk communication, and education and
training for improving risk analyses.
Regulatory and Program Review.--ORACBA reviewed and coordinated
interagency review of risk assessments in support of several
significant regulatory proposals, programs, and reports. For food
safety these include review of the Salmonella enteritidis in eggs risk
assessment, the irradiation of beef, and rules evaluating ingesta
contamination during processing in chickens.
In the international animal trade arena, ORACBA has been involved
in evaluating regionalization for the EU for classical swine fever;
regionalization of Mexico for importation of pork and pork products
from Yucatan and Sonora, of poultry and poultry products from Sonora
and Sinaloa, and easing the restrictions on importation of ruminants
and ruminant meat products from certain European countries.
In conservation and plant health, ORACBA reviewed the risk
assessments in support of the interim rule on solid wood packing
material, the final rule on Karnal bunt, the proposed rule for citrus
from Argentina, and the draft final ``plant pesticide'' rule, so-called
for plants containing a natural pesticide gene.
Risk Assessment Education and Training.--ORACBA, in cooperation
with the Food and Drug Administration and the USDA Graduate School, has
developed a series of courses on risk analysis. These courses are
organized into a curriculum for which the USDA Graduate School is
developing a certificate program. Courses range from a basic
introduction of risk analysis to an advanced quantitative modeling. A
course, ``Ecological and Environmental Risk Assessment'' was piloted
and final designs for permanent status of the course in the curriculum
are being developed. The courses have serviced individuals from USDA
and the Food and Drug Administration, but also from several
universities, the private sector and foreign countries.
ORACBA sponsors two work groups, Interagency Food Risk Assessment
Group and the Eco-Risk Group, which include scientists from USDA, other
government agencies, and the private sector. ORACBA brings in special
speakers to provide half-day or one-day workshops to focus on special
methodological issues of concern to the groups.
Program Guidance and Consultation.--ORACBA continues to provide
guidance and technical support to agencies responsible for USDA
conservation programs. This includes a model case-history approach for
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP, and a series of
small case-histories for the Conservation Reserve Program, or CRP. An
interagency team of environmental and ecological risk assessors led by
ORACBA has worked closely with the agencies in developing these
studies.
ORACBA has worked with the Natural Resources Conservation Service--
NRCS--and CRP to develop case-studies to supplement the risk assessment
that accompanied the original proposed rules. One case-study for NRCS
has matured into a full-fledged research project involving several
universities and the Agricultural Research Service. The team is
tracking the flow of nutrients and five microbes from dairy cattle to
manure storage and into the environment. These studies will be expanded
to include swine and poultry operations in the future. The case study
for CRP has led to proposing to include native honeybees as wildlife;
heretofore, only vertebrate species have been identified as worthy of
protection through the CRP.
ORACBA provides representation to the Risk Assessment Consortium--
RACof the Food Safety Initiative. The RAC has focused its work on
developing a web-based clearinghouse for food safety risk assessment
information as well as a risk-based strategic planning project to
provide insight in the development of the fiscal year 2001 interagency
food safety budget.
ORACBA has continued to provide guidance to the Forest Service
regarding the land donation from the Department of Defense to USDA;
this work has helped clarify both environmental and legal issues
surrounding this land. ORACBA actively provides support and guidance
for the Office of Pest Management Policy with respect to the pesticide
risk assessments being developed by EPA for the Food Quality Protection
Program.
Risk Analysis Coordination and Representation.--ORACBA, working
through its auxiliary Interagency Food Risk Assessment Group,
coordinated the development of a farm-to-table model of the E. coli
O157:H7 risk assessment subsequently being used by the Food Safety and
Inspection Service to complete the risk assessment. ORACBA serves on
the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Council for
Environment and Natural Resources Center Subcommittee on Toxics and
Risk. ORACBA organized a written summary of rules dealing with animal
manure which the Subcommittee issued as a CENR report. ORACBA staff
facilitated a planning meeting of Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service managers to develop a strategy to review the entire program of
safeguarding American plant resources from alien species.
Risk Communication.--ORACBA continues to improve communication
among USDA analysts through the monthly Risk Forum and the quarterly
ORACBA Newsletter. The Forum brings together scientists from USDA,
other government agencies, universities, and the private sector; the
Newsletter has a mailed circulation of over 800 and is available on the
USDA/OCE/ORACBA website.
1890 Institutions Partnerships.--ORACBA has worked with several
1890 institutions, providing guest lectures for their students and
faculty. ORACBA regularly invites 1890 faculty to attend education and
training courses provided through the Graduate School. The participants
do not pay any tuition. ORACBA has also facilitated a partnership
between Tuskegee University and Harvard University for the BSE Risk
Analysis. The results have been significant in the responsibility and
funding for Tuskegee.
fiscal year 2000 budget request
For fiscal year 2000, OCE is requesting $6,622,000 in direct
appropriations. This request represents a net increase of $211,000 over
the fiscal year 1999 adjusted base (which includes the transfer of the
Office of Energy from the Economic Research Service). The proposed
budget includes an increase of $45,000 for the annualization of the
fiscal year 1999 pay raise and $166,000 for the anticipated fiscal year
2000 pay raise.
OCE is a small office working under a demanding schedule with
little flexibility to absorb pay and other cost increases. Salary and
benefits plus required obligations make up 90 percent of OCE's budget
with necessary, travel, equipment and contracts making up the
remainder. Pay costs are needed to prevent a decline in weather and
market analyses, which have been increased and improved as a result of
increased appropriations the past two years. Without pay costs, the
previous deficiencies in collection and reporting of global weather and
economic information would reappear.
______
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Prepared Statement of Sally Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, when I appeared before
you last year, I had been on the job as the Department's Chief
Financial Officer for only three days. At that time, I told you that my
top three priorities were: (1) getting an integrated financial
management system up and running for all USDA agencies; (2)
streamlining reporting functions, improving performance measurements,
and increasing accountability; and (3) fulfilling other
responsibilities authorized by the CFO Act. I also pledged that all of
the systems at the National Finance Center--NFC--in New Orleans would
be Year 2000 compliant.
If I may start with the last item, I am pleased to report that the
NFC met two self-imposed deadlines, one on June 30, 1998, to make all
its systems Year 2000 compliant and another on December 31, 1998, to
ensure that all systems were certified as Y2K compliant. The NFC
provides payroll/personnel services to 435,000 employees from USDA and
100 other Federal agencies, accounting for one-fifth of the entire
Federal workforce. NFC's systems support the Federal Government's
Thrift Savings Plan--TSP, which is the $74 billion 401(k) retirement
plan with 2.3 million participants. All of us in the Office of the
Chief Financial Officer--OCFO--and across USDA are proud of this
achievement.
Mr. Chairman, during the past year, I have consulted with OCFO's
managers; its customers, both inside and outside USDA, our budget
reviewers, members of the Congress, staff from the Office of the
Inspector General, the Office of Management and Budget--OMB, and the
General Accounting Office--GAO, and our counterparts in other Federal
agencies about general and specific financial management problems
facing USDA. I have taken seriously the USDA's Inspector General's
statement that ``. . . a stronger CFO oversight process is needed to
assure . . . longstanding problems are resolved on a coordinated
department-wide basis.'' I can assure you and your colleagues that the
Secretary and the Department's senior-level management share my
commitment to improving financial management. I would like to thank
Secretary Glickman for his support and leadership. I also want to thank
you and your colleagues for placing such an emphasis on financial
management issues. This budget request reflects Congress' quest for
more efficient, effective Government.
OCFO is playing a pivotal role in enhancing the Department's fiscal
reputation. We have shouldered a lot of responsibilities in the last
few years. As we have managed the Departmentwide implementation of
Congressional mandates and executive orders, our budget continued to
shrink.
Mr. Chairman, if the Congress approves our request for an increase
of $2,005,000 over our fiscal year 1999 appropriation, it will mark the
first time since passage of the CFO Act of 1990 that the Department's
financial management office has received a program increase in
resources. We have done much to position ourselves to improve the
financial health of USDA. I ask for this Committee's support for
additional resources to fully implement the plans that we have
developed.
This budget request will be used to lead, direct, and oversee
financial management activities across USDA. This increase in our
budget will fund 14 positions to work with the agencies to improve
their business practices and to help us accomplish the following
objectives:
--Ensure that USDA's information includes accurate, complete, and
credible data that are useful and used;
--Provide the Congress and the Administration reliable information
when making decisions affecting USDA programs;
--Resolve long outstanding Inspector General's recommendations
included in the audit reports;
--Develop a USDA accountability report that complies with new
reporting requirements and streamlines existing reports, making
it easier for the public and Congress to access information
about our financial activities;
--And, perhaps most important, lead USDA to a clean unqualified audit
opinion for fiscal year 2000.
In a July 1998 report to the Vice President, we identified the
plans of action that we are implementing to correct these deficiencies,
which were outlined in the Inspector General's audit of our financial
statements. This plan reflects a Departmentwide commitment to putting
in place standard business processes that restore our credibility and
correct the problems necessary for us to achieve an unqualified audit
opinion.
An unqualified audit opinion assures everyone--policymakers,
managers, the Congress, program recipients, and the American taxpayer--
that USDA's financial management practices produce credible, reliable
information that complies with laws, regulations, and accepted
authoritative requirements.
These efforts are directly linked to the implementation over the
next five years of an integrated financial management system that
Congress mandated in the CFO Act. However, while we can get a clean
opinion using the system, the system alone, absent changes in financial
management practices, will not get USDA a clean audit opinion.
We need these budgeted resources not to do more of the same, Mr.
Chairman. We need these staff resources to assist USDA's agencies to
ensure that their business practices result in useful, reliable
information going into this system.
I place the highest priority on an integrated financial management
system for USDA, the cornerstone of which is the Foundation Financial
Information System--FFIS. FFIS is funded through the Working Capital
Fund--WCF, but I want to make clear that the different funding sources
do not separate the interdependence of these efforts. The successful
implementation of FFIS rests on good business practices, procedures and
a well-trained staff at the agency level. These additional appropriated
funds will ensure that this implementation becomes a reality.
In last year's testimony, I made a commitment to you to restructure
the FFIS management organization. I am happy to report, Mr. Chairman,
that the current FFIS project office is not the FFIS of previous years.
With the Secretary's support and guidance, I obtained a waiver in June
1998 from the Office of Personnel Management--OPM to bring an
experienced project management team from another Federal agency. This
team successfully implemented a system identical to the package that
USDA is using and led its agency to an unqualified opinion on its
administrative financial statements for fiscal year 1997.
The project director reports directly to me and submits monthly
updates to the Secretary's FFIS Executive Oversight Committee. The
team, which started July 6, 1998, is putting in place an FFIS
implementation plan that includes a schedule for full USDA
implementation of FFIS by October 1, 2002.
Since the new project structure's inception, we have conducted
numerous meetings with Congressional groups. On September 23, for
example, we joined senior-level GAO officials on a panel that briefed
staff members from four House committees and two Senate committees on
the Department's efforts to implement FFIS in our largest agency, the
Forest Service. Both GAO and OMB support this new management structure.
Implementing FFIS will enable USDA to provide useful, consistent,
timely, reliable and accurate information to management, achieve
conformance with legislative mandates, such as the Chief Financial
Officers Act, and meet other Governmentwide requirements for financial
management systems, processes and internal controls, including the U.S.
Standard General Ledger. FFIS will also provide a platform for agencies
and NFC to streamline current financial processes and systems. As part
of the FFIS effort, we are developing the financial systems
architecture and operating models necessary for the integrated
financial management information system.
As I said last year, my second priority is to fulfill
responsibilities of accountability and performance measurement
associated with implementing the Government Performance and Results
Act. The Congress gave USDA a low score on its Strategic and Annual
Performance plans because your colleagues did not consider USDA's
information to be accurate, complete, and credible. We will use these
additional resources to establish a staff dedicated to restoring
accountability at USDA. We will assist the agencies in linking
accountability with program delivery.
working capital fund
Mr. Chairman, I would like to conclude my remarks by providing you
with a brief update on our Working Capital Fund--WCF, which is entirely
funded by fees for services. This Fund supports 20 distinct activity
centers across five Department-level organizations. It also supports a
number of projects and initiatives to modernize administrative and
financial systems.
In WCF, we develop our budgets in partnership with agencies. The
Executive Committee comprised of agency representatives advises me on
its funding level and use. This arrangement ensures that the
Committee's recommendations reflect a ``customer'' voice in the
operation and oversight of WCF activities and finances. Thus, the WCF
budget reflects our partnership with our customers.
For the current and next fiscal years, WCF spending consists of
three categories: basic services, TSP, and modernization efforts.
In the first category, our customers are paying in fiscal year 1999
the same inflation-adjusted dollars for basic services, such as
accounting services, payroll, and computer processing. It is our intent
to achieve the same outcome in fiscal year 2000.
In the second category, TSP, the costs of delivering services to
TSP shareholders will increase, but the Thrift Investment Board will
absorb these costs through investment earnings. Among TSP's
enhancements is a new system scheduled to start in April 2000 that will
provide daily valuation assessments and allow participants to modify
their investments through the Internet.
In the third category, the new FFIS management team's first task
was to complete a new implementation plan and timetable for FFIS. This
plan calls for full implementation of FFIS for USDA and cross-serviced
agencies by October 1, 2002, with a post-implementation and close-out
of the current Central Accounting System occurring in fiscal year 2003.
Costs through fiscal year 2003 are expected to be $136.1 million, with
the bulk of the expenditures occurring during the height of the
implementation in fiscal year 2000 and 2001. The fiscal year 1999
budget for FFIS is $23.7 million. The fiscal year 2000 and 2001 budgets
are $32.5 million and $32.3 million, respectively. While these one-time
implementation costs are straining agencies' budgets because additional
funding has not been appropriated for this major project, the
Department must continue to implement this new system to be compliant
with Federal financial management laws.
Our fiscal year 2000 WCF budget includes $4.2 million to upgrade
our payroll/personnel system at NFC for our customers at USDA and in
other federal agencies. As I mentioned earlier, NFC provides payroll/
personnel cross-servicing to a significant portion of the Federal
sector, a practice that reduces overall user costs.
We want to improve on our successes in the payroll arena, which
will require us to upgrade or modernize existing systems to meet users'
needs and maintain low costs. We must adequately invest in
modernization efforts, so we do not jeopardize our service to existing
customers or hinder our ability to attract new clients.
This committee has recognized the cost-saving benefits associated
with NFC's cross-servicing and has encouraged the expansion of this
service at the center. To expand, however, we must produce a product
that can compete in both price and quality of services. We have been
investing in this area over the last two to three years and will have
products available to our customers this spring.
I pledge to you that, in addition to leading the effort to put
USDA's financial house in order, I will give our effort to strengthen
NFC's role in human resource systems and infrastructure a priority
level equal to that which my office gave to achieving Y2K compliance.
Mr. Chairman, Congress has given us the challenge of improving our
performance, accounting for our financial resources, and managing our
operations more effectively and efficiently. The budget that I am
presenting to you is our commitment to achieving these shared goals.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome any questions the Committee
might have.
______
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Prepared Statement of Anne F. Thomson Reed, Chief Information Officer
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I will submit my
testimony for the record and also offer a few remarks.
As I stated last year, I am honored to have the opportunity to
serve as the Chief Information Officer (CIO) of the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA). I greatly appreciate the opportunity
to serve with Secretary Dan Glickman, Deputy Secretary Richard
Rominger, my sub cabinet colleagues, and all of the employees of the
USDA as we work too more effectively and efficiently deliver USDA's
programs, which are vital to the health, safety, and economic
prosperity of the American people, as well as people the world over.
With the support and cooperation of the Congress, USDA is now stronger,
abler, leaner, and more cohesive, and better able to serve our nation.
Yet, as we all know, the Department faces significant challenges as we
work to achieve the strategic goals which are reflected in the
President's fiscal year 2000 Budget. The Department's strategic goals
are to: Expand economic and trade opportunities for agricultural
producers and other rural residents; Ensure food for the hungry, and a
safe, affordable, nutritious, and accessible food supply; and Promote
the sensible management of our natural resources.
As you are well aware, the current farm crisis made achieving some
of these strategic goals more difficult. The drop in agricultural
commodity prices, the Asian economic crisis, and stiffer global
competition for the American farmer have all resulted in increased
demands on USDA programs. In the face of these demands and another year
of tight funding, our challenge is to strategically harness new and
existing technologies across USDA to vastly improve service delivery to
our customers and help farmers weather the storm.
Implementing IT solutions are complex tasks which all Federal
Agencies--including the USDA--have historically had problems
accomplishing. However, I believe our progress this past year shows
that we are on the right path and, with your support, we can
successfully meet the challenges before us. At USDA, our agencies
demonstrate daily the cost savings, improved customer service, and
other efficiencies to be gained when information technology is
effectively utilized. For example, since I met with you last year,
three USDA agencies have received Leadership Awards for setting
examples of how government agencies get results--for taxpayers and
constituents--from technology investment.
--The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) now disseminates, via the
Internet, information on prices, volume, quality, and other
market data on domestic and international farm products within
hours of collection.
--The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) allows dairy farmers to
pass on $60 million in savings to consumers as a result of
improvements in its genetic evaluations of the U.S. milking
herd, and the creation of electronic transfer access so
breeders can quickly access the data.
--The Farm Service Agency (FSA) instituted a new Electronic Bid Entry
System so that bids for some $1.2 billion in food for farm aid
can be opened and contracts awarded in two hours. Up to the
minute market prices improve competition; the result is that
more people can be fed for each dollar in aid.
--Using the Internet, the AMS conducted the first fully electronic
rule-making for a major regulation in the history of the
federal government. More than one quarter of a million comments
for the National Organic Program proposed rule were received by
fax, e-mail, and regular mail, and placed online. The ease of
submitting comments encouraged more people to participate--you
can call it an example of electronic democracy--making the
process the most open, publicly accessible rule-making ever.
Mr. Chairman, we are proud of these accomplishments which provide a
glimpse into the way our programs and services will be delivered in the
future. Information technology today is radically transforming the way
we live and work. In our personal lives, the Internet is rapidly
changing the way we are accustomed to making transactions--everything
from buying stocks, books, cars and homes, to applying for licenses and
loans. At the USDA, it is changing the way we collect, analyze, and
deliver information, making possible efficiencies that we could not
have dreamed of just a few years ago. Yet, we have only begun to
transform the way USDA does business.
usda fiscal year 2000 information technology budget summary
The Department's overall budget request for information technology
in fiscal year 2000 totals $1.211 billion in budgetary authority. This
compares with $1.198 billion in budgetary authority for information
technology plus $37,789,000 for Year 2000 emergency supplemental
funding in fiscal year 1999. Approximately 30 percent, or $379 million,
of the fiscal year 2000 request is for development, modernization, and
enhancement of USDA information technology resources, while almost 69
percent, or $832 million, is required for maintaining current systems,
including the operation and support of existing information technology
systems.
This budget reflects our priority that USDA IT solutions are
aligned with program goals. For example:
--By creating a uniform and shared information technology
infrastructure with the Service Center Initiative Common
Computing Environment (CCE), we are laying the foundation for
implementing reengineered programs. In fiscal year 2000, we are
proposing a total program level of $90 million for this
purpose, including about $16 million from the Commodity Credit
Corporation.
--As the Forest Service continues to address changing notions of how
to use and protect our public land, Project 615 is integrating
the information necessary to manage our National Forests in a
more accessible environment. In fiscal year 2000, $102 million
is proposed for this effort.
--A significant portion of the Department's IT funding, approximately
$280 million or twenty-three percent, is distributed to states
to support the information technology resources necessary to
run the Food and Nutrition Service Food Stamp Program. This
includes $43 million to expand and maintain the use of
Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) technology.
Over the past year we have improved the Department's ability to
properly manage these significant expenditures. However, we still have
much work to do before we are managing our IT resources as envisioned
by the passage of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996.
office of the chief information officer fiscal year 2000 budget request
The USDA Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) was
established pursuant to the Clinger-Cohen Act. We have primary
responsibility for supervision and coordination of the design,
acquisition, maintenance, use, and disposal of information technology
resources by USDA agencies. Our mission is to strategically acquire and
use information technology resources to improve the quality,
timeliness, and cost effectiveness of USDA's service delivery to its
customers, and, increasingly, to ensure the security of the critical
information that we manage.
To carry out this mission, we are facilitating the alignment of our
information technology investments with USDA's mission goals. We have
developed performance measurements to monitor our progress and, more
recently, we have begun developing a tactical plan to help us better
manage our major initiatives. These initiatives include:
--Overseeing implementation of a single information technology
infrastructure and supporting organization for the Farm and
Foreign Agricultural Services, the Rural Development agencies,
and the Natural Resources Conservation Service;
--Developing policies and procedures to implement the Clinger-Cohen
Act through expanding the implementation of our enterprise-wide
architecture, strengthening our capital planning process,
implementing a formal IT project management training program,
and further developing our workforce planning strategies to
recruit and retain IT professionals;
--Developing a USDA critical infrastructure assurance plan to secure
Department information and IT systems; and protect them against
cyber-terrorism and other threats;
--Improving the Department-wide management of telecommunications; and
--Assuring that our mission-critical information systems are Year
2000 compliant; an effort that will leave a lasting imprint on
OCIO well beyond January 1, 2000.
We began our Year 2000 effort by enlisting the support of senior
executive sponsors and staff in each agency to ensure we moved forward
together, as a Department. Leveraging the USDA Information Systems
Technology Architecture (ISTA) and the Telecommunications Enterprise
Network Program, we jump-started the identification of all USDA mission
critical systems--feeding this information back into the ISTA. We then
refocused and strengthened our existing IT moratorium and capital
planning processes to ensure all IT acquisitions were centered on Year
2000 compliance. And now, we are coordinating our Year 2000 Business
Contingency Planning with similar efforts to create a USDA Critical
Infrastructure Assurance Plan.
In a moment, I will discuss the initiatives mentioned above in
greater detail. However, my office also manages the USDA National
Information Technology Center (NITC) headquartered in Kansas City,
Missouri. The NITC provides innovative, cost effective, and secure
information technology solutions to support the missions of the USDA
and its thirty-two agencies, the Federal Aviation Administration, the
National Weather Service, and other government clients.
My office oversees implementation of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 to reduce the paperwork burden for the public from the collection
of information. Also, we coordinate the Department's records management
functions to ensure that USDA's policies and transactions are
adequately documented and archived.
Fully implementing the initiatives we have begun will radically
transform the way information technology is managed at USDA. To fully
implement the Clinger-Cohen Act without unnecessary and costly delay,
the USDA Office of the Chief Information Officer requests $7,998,000
for fiscal year 2000, an increase of $2,447,000 and five staff years
over the fiscal year 1999 appropriation of $5,551,000.
pay costs
More than eighty percent of the OCIO's fiscal year 1999 obligations
are for salaries and benefits. This leaves little flexibility for
absorbing increased costs. For the past several years, we have received
no added resources for pay cost increases. As a result, critical
positions have been left vacant for extended periods. Despite our
progress, which I will discuss, the inability to fill critical staff
positions has adversely affected our ability to fully implement the
Clinger-Cohen requirements and expeditiously achieve the goals we have
identified. For these reasons, my office's budget includes a $197,000
increase for pay costs, consisting of $35,000 for annualization of
fiscal year 1999 and $162,000 for the anticipated fiscal year 2000 pay
raise.
usda service center implementation
I am also pleased to report that, even though significant
challenges remain, we are making progress in our efforts to permanently
transform the way USDA provides service to farmers and rural America
through our Service Center Modernization Initiative (SCMI). At the same
time, the current farm crisis makes it clear that we must accelerate
our efforts if we expect our reduced staff to respond to cyclical
emergency workloads of this type or natural disasters, without
disrupting all of our other program delivery.
The goal of reducing the number of county office locations from
over 3,700 to under 2,600 is close to realization and should be
complete this year. This represents the first step toward true ``one
stop service'' for our customers.
Another critical step is our progress toward creating a shared or
Common Computing Environment (CCE) to replace the archaic ``stove
pipe'' information technology systems of the past. The CCE will allow
agency computers to talk to one another, utilize the Internet to
improve service delivery, and reduce the burden on our customers. In
fiscal year 1998, USDA obligated funds for more than 16,500
workstations, at deeply discounted prices. This will allow us to
install Y2K compliant computers while also moving forward with limited
CCE investments to field already reengineered processes. These
workstations will provide a set of common office automation tools; they
will also be fully interchangeable: every new field office computer
will be loaded with business applications from all of the partner
agencies. An additional 5,500 computers will be purchased in fiscal
year 1999 to complete the Y2K replacements. The remaining work stations
will be addressed in fiscal year 2000 and 2001.
Business Process Reengineering (BPR) is being used to analyze,
streamline, and integrate like Service Center processes. The Service
Center Modernization Initiative now has 17 active BPR projects dealing
with customer management, program delivery, consolidated administrative
processes, lending programs, and other critical processes. Fully 60
percent of the Service Center business processes are in some stage of
review. An Interagency Business Integration Center has been established
at Beltsville, Maryland, to fully test the reengineered processes in a
laboratory environment before sending them to one or more of the nine
field pilot sites that were established last year. Early results
indicate that the reengineered processes, coupled with enabling
technology, are yielding significantly higher benefits than we
originally estimated on some processes; staff time savings in excess of
80 percent are being recorded.
The LAN/WAN/Voice Project, which provides integrated voice and
telecommunications networks to the Service Centers, is also nearing
completion. At the end of fiscal year 1998, nearly 85 percent of the
Service Centers were installed with the remainder to be finished in
fiscal year 1999. This infrastructure will provide a set of
``electronic railroad'' tracks for all future technology improvements
to run on.
Other technology components will also change the way these agencies
do business. The technical infrastructure that has been developed is
based on open, interoperable systems that are flexible and able to
respond to changing programs, staffing, office and organizational
structure. The infrastructure includes network servers to fully connect
agencies to the network and provide common e-mail and other support;
powerful business applications; public access servers; and Geographic
Information System (GIS) servers, which support the business activities
of these agencies that are associated with land and water
characteristics, capabilities, and ownership. The fiscal year 2000
Budget includes funds to begin acquiring these items. It is anticipated
that, depending upon funding levels, the completion of the
infrastructure will take place over three years. At that point, the
full benefits of the Service Center Modernization Initiative can be
achieved.
Administrative Convergence and the creation in the 2000 Budget of a
consolidated account for funding the Service Center Modernization
Initiative are also essential for success, particularly with the
Information Technology (IT) aspects. A consolidated IT staff will be
able to take advantage of the efficiencies that a common architecture
brings and will ensure that we do not revert to three stove pipes in
the future. The consolidated account will facilitate decision making
and priority setting on an enterprise basis and will help to improve
tracking and accountability.
In addition to the appropriations request, it is estimated that
$16.2 million will be transferred from the Commodity Credit Corporation
(CCC) to the Support Services Bureau to help support the new shared
Common Computing Environment (CCE). These funds will be the remainder
available under the current CCC cap for ADP expenses. Legislation is
proposed to increase the cap by $105 million, to $293 million for the
period through fiscal year 2002. This increase will enable CCC to meet
the basic FSA ADP needs while supporting the investment in CCE.
My office provides oversight to ensure that the business processes
are appropriately reengineered and drive the technology decisions and
that the Service Center technology is consistent with the USDA
technical architecture. We have a two-person oversight staff currently
financed by reimbursement from the fiscal year 1996 Appropriation to
the Secretary for implementation of ``InfoShare,'' which was the
predecessor to the SCMI, to carry out this function. We anticipate the
reimbursement for this activity to end by fiscal year 2000. Therefore,
an increase of $250,000 is requested to continue these positions with
appropriated funds and to ensure that the USDA Service Center
Modernization Implementation initiative achieves the Secretary's goals
of better integrating services and modernizing delivery of programs
administered by the Farm Service Agency, the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, and the Rural Development mission area.
clinger-cohen compliance
Since the creation of OCIO, we have been working to implement both
the guidelines and spirit of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996. Given the
inherent complexity of the task, I am happy to report that we made
progress this past year expanding the USDA Information Systems
Technology Architecture, improving the Department-wide and Agency
Capital Planning Processes, and developing our IT workforce planning
initiative. Together these efforts are improving the way the Department
acquires and uses IT, and reducing costs while increasing the
productivity of USDA programs.
usda information systems technology architecture
USDA actually began designing its ISTA prior to passage of the
Clinger-Cohen Act. Our first version of the ISTA was a multi agency
collaboration, which served as an essential guide for the LAN/WAN/Voice
and CCE IT investments for the Service Center Modernization Initiative.
However, to assure that the Department's overall technical
infrastructure is interoperable, efficient, and provides effective
support to achieve USDA's business goals, the ISTA requires further
development and integration into Department-wide planning processes.
The Service Center agencies' use of the ISTA provides an example of
the important role of an information technology architecture in
successful project implementation. With varying perspectives on what
were the best information technology solutions among the Service Center
Agencies, the technical portion of the ISTA provided a framework for
the agencies to build on and begin establishing a consensus on what to
purchase and implement. The purchase of the 16,500 CCE workstations
would have been impossible without the development of the ISTA
technical standards. Similarly, the technical architecture has
facilitated the CCE consolidation of software licensing, improving our
users' ability to share applications and data while reducing costs.
Additionally, my office continues to expand and apply the initial
version of the ISTA. Our update of the baseline architecture has
focused on Agency business processes, information exchange
requirements, the application portfolio, and identification of USDA
functions and technology platforms. Thus the ISTA is a dynamic tool,
which we are using in the selection phase of the Capital Planning and
Investment Control and IT waiver processes to avoid duplication and
ensure interoperability of all USDA IT investments.
The ISTA will ultimately modernize and transform the way we all
think about delivering programs and services to our customers. With the
fiscal year 2000 funding, a web-based repository to house the ISTA
combined with inter-agency ISTA training will inform programs and IT
staff about existing processes, applications, and standards at the
initial stages of a project. Further integration of the ISTA into the
Capital Planning and Budget Processes will help guide investment
decisions, continue to reduce duplication across agencies, and
eventually result in greater interoperability of USDA's IT systems. The
fiscal year 2000 funding request includes $500,000 to meet Clinger-
Cohen Act of 1996 requirements that Executive Agencies develop an
information technology architecture.
capital planning and investment control
We have also made progress implementing an Information Technology
Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) process, another
Clinger-Cohen requirement. We are following OMB and GAO guidelines to
ensure that IT investments are made in direct support of business
objectives, while maximizing the value and assessing and managing the
associated risks. This is not an easy task, as economic, environmental,
and policy changes require the Department to find new and flexible
solutions which often involve significant investments in information
technology. My office requires additional resources to implement the
CPIC process consistently across USDA agencies and, most important, to
ensure that these investments are properly managed.
I am pleased to report that in 1998, USDA became the first large
Federal Department to implement the Information Technology Portfolio
System (I-TIPS), a scalable web-based software tool used to track IT
projects as investments through the selection, control, and evaluation
phases of the Capital Planning and Investment Control Process. Thirteen
USDA agencies now use the I-TIPS selection module, exceeding our
original performance goal of five. We developed I-TIPS in conjunction
with the Department of Energy and the National Performance review. We
are proud that in addition to USDA, I-TIPS is now being used in seven
other Federal Departments.
The use of I-TIPS as a tool to provide USDA decision-makers with a
better picture of our IT investment portfolio is already producing
results--allowing the Executive Information Technology Investment
Review Board (EITIRB), which is chaired by the Deputy Secretary, to
make more informed decisions in its review and approval of the
Department's IT investment portfolio.
In addition, my office has produced a USDA CPIC guide for senior
decision-makers and agency planning staff. The guide explains the
fundamentals of capital planning and how we are integrating the OMB
guidelines and GAO model for CPIC into the USDA IT investment process.
Still, the design and implementation of a USDA-wide CPIC program
and support system is a multi year effort which requires a permanent,
ongoing program management staff. Skilled staff is needed to perform
and review cost-benefit, return on investment, and other detailed
analyses of IT investments in order to reduce as far as practical the
risk of failure in the development, deployment, and operation of USDA
information technology systems. The funding we have requested would be
used to train the agencies in the process and the I-TIPS tool to ensure
that capital planning is applied consistently throughout our
organization.
The benefits of a successful CPIC program are clear: IT investments
by USDA agencies that meet their program objectives on time and within
cost projections, and which support business objectives. I am
requesting $500,000 in fiscal year 2000 to meet the capital planning
requirements of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 and the OMB Circular A-11
Part 3 requirement that Federal agencies intensify their review and
analysis of information technology systems as capital assets.
project management
We are also taking steps to address deficiencies in USDA's
management of major information technology projects, an area cited by
oversight agencies in recent years. In order to reduce risk in the
development, deployment, and operation of information technology
systems, my office is creating a formal project management
certification program. This program will establish a standardized
methodology for project management: projects will be managed
consistently, resulting in increased success rates, and avoidance of
cost overruns and delays. At the same time, managers will be provided
with sound performance measurement tools. This initiative will also
help meet the project management requirements of OMB Circular A-11 Part
3, Planning, Budgeting, and Acquisition of Capital Assets, by
establishing and providing the means to track cost, schedule, and
performance goals. In fiscal year 2000, I am requesting an increase of
$300,000 and 2 staff-years to strengthen USDA's project management
capacity.
independent verification and validation
Mr. Chairman, we have also made progress with respect to two other
very important management tools which I would like to mention:
Independent Validation and Verification (IV&V) and our Acquisition
Moratorium.
Independent Validation and Verification (IV&V) is now a standard
policy tool that my office uses to manage all large-scale USDA IT
investments. At critical points in a project's life-cycle, independent
experts review the issues surrounding project design, development,
acquisition, and implementation.
For example, this past year an IV&V conducted by my office
validated the Service Center Modernization Initiative's Common
Computing Environment's cost/benefit analysis and technical alternative
plans. This ensured that all appropriate business and technical details
were included in the plans before any further steps were taken. Another
IV&V on the Department's Foundation Financial Information System
refocused the project in a new and sound direction, improving the value
of the resources being allocated and the probability of the project's
success.
In the coming year, we will continue to apply the lessons learned
from previous IV&Vs in order ensure all significant IT investments cost
effectively serve USDA program goals.
it acquisition moratorium
In compliance with our fiscal year 1999 appropriation (Public Law
105-86), my office, together with the Executive Information Technology
Investment Review Board, continues to review all USDA information
technology investments to ensure new purchases are directed at bringing
the Department into Year 2000 compliance. Any Departmental or Agency
information technology acquisition over $25,000 requires a waiver from
my office. These waivers are granted for emergencies and Year 2000
remediation efforts only.
The USDA IT investment moratorium is a success. Since Deputy
Secretary Rominger originally issued the moratorium in November of 1996
to improve the Department's IT management, we have been better able to
monitor agencies' use of funds while improving our IT decision-making
processes. And, since Secretary Glickman modified the IT acquisition
moratorium in August 1997, agencies have redirected a great deal of
attention and dollars to Year 2000 compliance.
The IT acquisition moratorium, together with IV&V reviews have
greatly improved our ability to ensure that USDA's IT projects meet
USDA's business objectives and are effectively and efficiently managed.
information technology workforce planning and development
My office is also actively working on a professional development
strategy to ensure that USDA's IT staffs possess the technology skills
necessary to effectively deliver USDA's programs and services. In light
of the current worldwide shortage of IT professionals, there is a clear
urgency in our efforts to attract and retain qualified technical staff
to support the Department's modernization efforts.
As competition for IT professionals grows more intense, we face the
growing challenge of keeping our skilled IT professionals. USDA is
experiencing a loss of skilled IT professionals from increased
competition with the private sector, and through buyouts and
retirements. Since 1994, we have lost more than 11 percent of the IT
professionals within the Department.
My office is collaborating with the Office of Human Resources
Management and the USDA IT Workforce Planning and Development Working
Group, a group composed of HR and IT specialists from several of the
Department's agencies, to address this problem by providing USDA
managers with recruitment and retention alternatives and flexibilities.
IT employees within government know that they will not receive salaries
comparable to the private sector; however, we can provide more
flexibility in their work schedules, greater opportunities for career
development, and management that is more sensitive to all of their work
place concerns.
We are also working to implement a set of core competencies for
USDA IT professionals which were developed by the CIO Council. In this
effort, the Deputy Chief Information Officer, Ira Hobbs, as co-chair of
the CIO Council's Education and Training Committee, is playing a
leadership role in the adoption of these competencies across
government. Together, these efforts support my office's management
initiative to implement a professional development strategy to ensure
that USDA's program and IT staffs possess the skills necessary to meet
the challenges of effectively delivering programs and services with
information technology. For fiscal year 2000, I am requesting an
increase of $200,000 and 1 staff year to improve USDA's information
technology workforce planning and development effort and to expedite
the implementation of the component of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996
dealing with workforce development.
telecommunications
USDA also faces significant challenges with respect to improving
the management of our telecommunications infrastructure. This past
year, we have made progress analyzing and optimizing our
telecommunications network while preparing for the Year 2000 date-
change and the upcoming transition to the new GSA FTS2001
telecommunications contract. As the telecommunications industry moves
from older voice to more advanced data technologies, it is crucial that
the Department continue to put in place a USDA corporate
telecommunications network that includes management processes and the
infrastructure necessary to efficiently meet the needs of our programs
today while planning for the services our customers will demand
tomorrow.
The work we have done this past year on the Telecommunications
Enterprise Network (TEN) Design and the Telecommunications Ordering,
Billing, and Inventory System (TOBI) projects are vital steps to
establishing a USDA enterprise-wide network. The TEN Design project
captured the current network baseline physical description along with
usage, cost, and performance statistics. The TOBI pilot project
combines a revised administrative process with an off-the-shelf
software application to improve the control and accounting of USDA
telecommunications acquisition. These design initiatives together with
our recent implementation successes represent the first steps toward a
cost effective enterprise network plan.
As I mentioned earlier, the Service Center LAN/WAN/Voice project is
providing the shared voice and data telecommunications infrastructure
necessary to present one-face to our customers at reduced costs.
Similarly, the Washington Metropolitan Area Optimization Project (WMAO)
has successfully optimized our headquarters network, generating $1.3
million in cost avoidance since February 1998, allowing agencies to
redirect these dollars toward their program activities. In the short-
term, the WMAO project is reducing USDA costs in the Washington
Metropolitan Area (WMA) while expending minimal expense and time. The
long-term objectives are to implement a cost effective and centralized
Configuration Management capability and provide enhanced Network
Services for all USDA offices in the WMA.
Over the next year, we face significant challenges transitioning to
the FTS2001 contract while continuing to reform our telecommunication
management process and infrastructure. Through strong management
processes we will integrate, optimize, and modernize current services.
The FTS2001 transition also provides us a tremendous opportunity to
refine and improve the Department-wide telecommunications network
design, security, management, and standards development. The challenges
associated with administratively managing two networks will be
significant while simultaneously managing the implementation,
operation, and disconnection of services.
Greater emphasis is being placed on aligning program delivery with
appropriate IT solutions. More efficient use of telecommunications
personnel, equipment and services will be achieved through
institutionalizing structured processes in which IT activity within
USDA and its agencies is directed toward building a common information
infrastructure for the greater agriculture community of interest.
To meet these challenges, I am happy to report the addition of a
new Associate Chief Information Officer of Telecommunications Services
and Operations to my senior management team. Filling this position has
already significantly enhanced our ability to provide day to day
leadership while assuming long term strategic planning responsibilities
for the network.
information technology security
Information technology officials across the Federal government
today agree that information security will be the next priority IT
issue following Year 2000. Every day, the information that USDA
agencies manage affects the financial markets and lives of individuals.
We must exercise due diligence in its protection. As we achieve greater
ease in the dissemination of information, the Department must walk a
fine line between information exchange and information protection: this
is especially important in an age of instant access and global
exchange. As networks expand and connect, security concerns will expand
exponentially.
In May 1998, President Clinton signed Presidential Decision
Directives (PDD) 62, ``Combating Terrorism,'' and PDD 63, ``Protecting
America's Critical Infrastructure.'' These directives lay out a
dramatically new approach to protecting the nation against
unconventional threats and assign new responsibilities to agencies for
protecting their critical infrastructures, especially their cyber-based
systems.
To meet these new requirements, we established a USDA Critical
Infrastructure Assurance Task Force, consisting of security and
telecommunications specialists. The task force is charged with
developing a plan to heighten awareness about risks to our information
systems and strategies, and cost-effectively and efficiently protect
USDA's critical infrastructure.
Plans, policies, and procedures must also be centrally developed
and managed to afford the greatest protection to the Department as a
whole. Without them, it is reasonable to assume that unauthorized
intrusions will continue and probably increase in both frequency and
severity. Currently, my office provides Department-wide guidance and
training on information security issues. Departmental policies either
issued or currently under review focus on software piracy, e-mail
security and privacy, and Internet firewall and network incident
responses. My office also participates with leading government security
organizations to ensure the Department's security policies and
practices are up-to-date.
The additional staff year and funding that I have requested are
necessary to thoroughly examine our critical infrastructures, identify
vulnerabilities, develop strategies to mitigate unacceptable risk, and
fully meet requirements of PDD 62 and PDD 63. The staff-year will serve
as the Contracting Officer Technical Representative and administer the
contracts required for this initiative and related critical
infrastructure protection projects which address continuity of
government and disaster recovery requirements.
Current USDA spending on information technology security as a
percentage of total IT spending is about ten times below the industry
average. Thus, coordination by my office is essential to leverage
agency and Departmental Administration resources and ensure USDA's
Critical Infrastructure Assurance plan is thorough, effective, and
economical. For this purpose, I am requesting an increase of $500,000
and 1 staff-year in fiscal year 2000 to support USDA information
security initiatives.
year 2000 strategy
Along with security, our highest priority is to ensure that USDA's
programs and services are not adversely affected by the Year 2000
problem. The Department continues to maintain a strong management
approach to effectively respond to the challenges of Year 2000
remediation and ensure that our systems and operations are Year 2000
compliant. We have expanded our efforts in several areas since I met
with you last year. During the past year USDA has:
--Expanded the responsibility and accountability for Year 2000
remediation to all agency senior executives by establishing a
critical element in their performance standards.
--Provided Department-wide guidance in several areas of Year 2000
remediation, including testing, independent validation and
verification, and business continuity and contingency planning.
This guidance has followed the General Accounting Office
approach.
--Continued to enforce a procurement moratorium requiring CIO
approval of any IT acquisition over $25,000
--Requested and received $37,789,000 in supplemental emergency
appropriations for Year 2000 conversion, for which I thank you
and the Committee members. This money is being applied to
remediation efforts in the areas of business continuity and
contingency planning, testing and validation, equipment and
facilities with embedded chips, hardware and software
improvements, outreach and technical assistance.
--Completed the development of mission area business continuity and
contingency plans. Each mission area has examined their
strategic goals and objectives and identified their core
business processes to ensure business continuity for all
programs and services.
--Conducted independent validation and verification assessments of
Year 2000 remediation in several areas, including systems
remediation, buildings and facilities, and program management.
--Took a leadership role on the President's Council on Year 2000
Conversion, including membership on most of the Council's
working groups which cover various sectors. These include:
benefits payments, building operations, education, emergency
services, energy (electric power), finance (banking, guarantee
agencies & investments), health care, housing, human services,
insurance, international trade, science & technology, small
business, telecommunications, transportation, and water &
wastewater. USDA chairs the Food Supply Working Group where we
are leading assessment and outreach to the food supply sector.
--Expanded the usage of an Internet-based reporting system which
allows agencies to input system information, including
descriptions, milestones, and current status, and information
from contingency plans. The information provides USDA with a
``real time'' status of Year 2000 remediation which assists
managers, oversight organizations and the general public who
have an interest in the progress of USDA's Year 2000 efforts.
The most recent quarterly report to the Office of Management and
Budget was submitted in February 1999. As of March 1, 1999, we are
tracking 353 systems, of which 285 (81 percent) are already compliant.
We have designated 52 of those mission-critical systems as Departmental
Priority systems, which have major impact regarding Americans' health,
safety or finances, or have significant economic impact. Of the 266
mission-critical systems being repaired, 260 (98 percent) are now
renovated, 245 (92 percent) are now validated and 234 (88 percent) are
now compliant. There are 32 mission-critical systems scheduled for
repair which have not completed the entire repair process. All are
expected to be implemented by March 31, 1999. There are 30 systems
remaining to be replaced. All but six mission critical systems are
expected to be implemented by March 31, 1999. Once a system has
completed the repair or replacement process, the Agency Executive
Sponsor must certify the system as Year 2000 compliant, thereby
ensuring the system fulfills its program as well as technical
requirements.
Even though we have made significant progress, our work is far from
done. During the remainder of this year we will continue to work on our
non-mission critical systems. We are redoubling our efforts to assure
that our facilities, laboratories, and telecommunications equipment are
functional. And we will continue to test all of our systems to assure
that the Department is fully prepared well before January 1, 2000.
Recognizing that not everything is within our immediate control, we
will also focus on business continuity requirements and continue to
make contingency plans so that all of our programs will be delivered
even if some glitches do occur. We are also continuing to work with all
of our partners, state and private, to ensure that food stamps, other
nutrition programs, loan and other programs will not be adversely
affected.
And we will continue our work with the President's Council on Year
2000 Conversion where USDA heads the Food Supply Working Group and has
representation on fourteen other working groups. We will continue to
work with the food industry to access the Year 2000 state of readiness
of the food supply, and provide the American public accurate
information so they can make rational, as opposed to irrational,
preparations for January 1, 2000.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, let me conclude by
saying again that I am privileged to serve as the Chief Information
Officer at the USDA.
These are exciting and challenging times. As I have indicated, we
are making progress toward meeting all of the challenges before us.
However, our work is far from done, and in some respect USDA is still
at the very beginning of what will clearly be the most far reaching
transformation in its history.
USDA, like all of government and the private sector, is faced with
a tremendous opportunity to harness new technologies that are forever
changing the way we deliver programs and provide services to the
American people, improving our efficiency and our effectiveness. As we
do this, we must face the emerging cyber-terrorist threat by protecting
our critical information infrastructures. To meet these challenges, we
must effectively manage the substantial resources which you have
entrusted to us on behalf of taxpayers. During the past year, we have
moved forward in implementing some important management tools to help
us get the job done. With your help, we will continue to move forward.
I look forward to working with you, and I will respond to any
questions you have at this time.
______
Office of Civil Rights
Prepared Statement of Rosalind D. Gray, Director
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
present the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Office of Civil
Rights. I was appointed Director, Office of Civil Rights, on July 13,
1998, and have full responsibility for civil rights at USDA. Last year
the Acting Assistant Secretary for Administration presented the budget
statement and reported to you on the first year's progress in
implementing the Civil Rights Action Team's--CRAT--recommendations for
strengthening civil rights and diversity efforts at the Department of
Agriculture--USDA. Today I am reporting on additional progress we have
made toward moving USDA to a stronger position and record on civil
rights enforcement.
treat all fairly and equitably with dignity and respect
The Department's overall civil rights and diversity goal is to
treat every customer and every employee fairly and equitably, and with
dignity and respect. We have implemented new policies and procedures to
achieve that goal. More than two dozen Departmental regulations and
directives have been drafted and issued. Training and assistance is
being provided to help the agencies assure that all employees
understand and practice the new policies, procedures and guidelines.
Also, an accountability system has been put in place to help assure
that all employees comply with the intent of our new civil rights
effort.
assure all have full access to all programs and services
Another major civil rights goal is to assure that all potential
customers have access to all USDA programs and services. All USDA
employees have been asked to study and comply with the February 25,
1998, ``Equal Opportunity Public Notification Policy''--Departmental
Regulation 4300-3, the January 14, 1998, policy on ``Communicating with
Under-served Customers''--DR 4360-1, and the March 16, 1998, ``Civil
Rights Policy for the Department of Agriculture''--DR 4300-6. These
directives delineate USDA policy and assure that all customers have
access to USDA programs and services. In addition, the
nondiscrimination statement is displayed in all offices and on all
publications, making information about programs and services available
to all through concerted efforts using alternative formats for those
with sight or hearing impairments or for those who need the information
in alternative languages. In partnership with community-based
organizations and other groups, we use nontraditional communication
channels to reach the hard-to-reach, and make all offices and meeting
facilities handicap-accessible.
staff reflect the diversity of the community
Another major civil rights and diversity goal of the Department is
to eliminate under-representation of minorities, women, and people with
disabilities in the workforce by recruiting and employing a highly
skilled, competent and diverse workforce. The Department will create a
workforce that reflects the diversity of the community. Recruiting
efforts are expanding to better reach under-represented candidates.
Agencies are required to do workforce climate surveys of their
employees each year and exit interviews when employees leave the agency
in order to surface employees' issues and assess employees'
satisfaction with working conditions. Moreover, agencies are required
to assess the reason for complaints and to take the corrective action
necessary to improve conditions that may cause under-represented
employees to prematurely leave the agency. Also, we have created a
``USDA Training and Development Consortium,'' that is responsible for
providing the leadership for competency-based training of supervisors
and managers. Interactive training will enhance ``people skills'' and
is critical for establishing and maintaining a positive work
environment that encourages and supports a diverse workforce.
most backlog complaints resolved
In 1999, the Department entered a consent decree with the
Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, Pigford vs. Glickman. The
consent decree provides for processing African American farmers'
discrimination complaints filed between January 1, 1981, and December
31, 1996.
We have resolved most of the old backlog of complaints that dated
back as far as the early 1980's. There were 1,088 program
discrimination cases in the backlog. The backlog cases are resolved
with the exception of 10 cases where complainants did not accept a
resolution offer, 8 assisted cases which require further investigation,
and the class member cases. The program discrimination cases in the
backlog that were part of the consent decree will generally be
processed outside the Department. In addition, more than 1,500 of 2,142
cases that were in the backlog of employment discrimination cases are
resolved.
In October 1998, we established the Early Case Resolution Taskforce
to prevent or reduce the further delay in the resolution of
discrimination complaints that were filed with USDA and, subsequently
backlogged, and ensured that cases previously closed were done in
accordance with CR policies and regulations. Departmental regulations
for processing employment and program discrimination complaints have
been approved and procedures for implementation are drafted. The new
complaints process is designed to resolve program discrimination
complaints in a timely manner--generally within 180 days.
other specific accomplishments
A new Conflict Resolution Center and new conflict management
policies and procedures will lead to early resolution of many conflicts
and misunderstandings before they become formal complaints. Early
intervention, mediation and alternative dispute resolution will be used
throughout the Department.
State Outreach Councils in each State to provide leadership and
coordinate efforts to assure that all potential customers have full
access to all USDA programs and services. These councils are made up of
our top USDA agency heads in the State, key State officials such as the
State Commissioners of Agriculture, and elected officials of State,
local, and tribal governments.
Every USDA employee is required to have training in civil rights
and diversity. Training is also offered to many cooperators, committee
members, and volunteers. All who interact with our customers must
understand our civil rights policies and regulations.
Special management training is provided to our top and mid-level
managers and supervisors because many of the discrimination complaints
stem from poor management practices such as simply not communicating
well enough with customers and employees so that they understand why
certain decisions are made.
Some loan application forms have been simplified so that it is less
burdensome and time-consuming to apply for a small loan. In addition,
the time required to approve some of our loans has been reduced.
For the first time in USDA history, agency managers are being held
accountable--at the Department level--for achieving annual civil rights
objectives. In fiscal year 1998, the Assistant Secretary for
Administration--ASA--and I, as Director of Civil Rights, rated the
agency administrators and staff office directors on their civil rights
performance.
In fiscal year 1998, USDA focused on the process and procedures
whereby agencies would be accountable for civil rights. The agencies
were required to provide monthly reports on their progress in
fulfilling the CRAT recommendations. The Office of Civil Rights
received the data, assessed it, and the ASA and Civil Rights Director
provided feedback to the agencies about whether or not they were
fulfilling the intent of the CRAT recommendations and fully
implementing the new civil rights policies and procedures.
In fiscal year 1999, we are continuing to hold the agency heads and
staff office directors accountable for civil rights. However, this year
the focus is more on the achievement of end results.
Special attention is being given to holding agencies accountable
for taking documented, positive actions resulting in: disciplining
managers and employees who discriminate, complying with settlement
agreements, improving workforce diversity, and holding all managers and
employees--at headquarters and the field level--responsible and
accountable for civil rights.
Agencies are expected to produce concrete results from increased
attention to civil rights. For example, we expect agencies to report
increases in service to small, minority, and women-owned firms, and
other under-served farmers, businesses, and organizations. We also
expect agencies to show evidence that their efforts to diversify the
workforce--at all grade levels and in all occupations--actually
resulted in a more diverse workforce.
office of civil rights budget request
Within the amount requested for Departmental Administration for
fiscal year 2000 is a budget request of $14,868,000 for Civil Rights.
This is $2,041,000 over the fiscal year 1999 level of funding for Civil
Rights. It includes $802,000 to improve employment complaints
processing, and to enhance information system management, and $837,000
to prepare for case increases due to cases that are now eligible for
processing under the statute of limitations waiver for program civil
rights complaints. Mandatory pay cost increases will require $402,000.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, we are making good
progress toward our goal of treating all customers and employees fairly
and equitably with dignity and respect. I appreciate the very strong
support this Subcommittee has given us. I welcome any questions that
you may have.
______
Office of Communications
Prepared Statement of Tom Amontree, Director of Communications
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
discuss the fiscal year 2000 request for the Department of
Agriculture's Office of Communications--OC.
As Congress defined in 1862 what would become today's U.S.
Department of Agriculture, a major goal of that law was to charge the
Agriculture Department with the responsibility to acquire and
disseminate to the people of the United States information on subjects
connected with agriculture. The communication coordination that fully
implements that mandate is directed today by the Office of
Communications.
The public learns about USDA's programs, functions and initiatives
through a centrally coordinated communications effort led by the Office
of Communications. Customers and constituency groups, who depend on the
Department, are served directly by communication activities that span
all of USDA's seven major mission areas. At the same time, the Office
of Communications provides leadership and central services that enhance
communications with USDA's employees throughout the Nation.
The Office of Communications is adopting new technologies to meet
the increased demands for information. Using the Internet's world wide
web, radio, television and teleconference facilities, we are able to
ensure that the millions of Americans whose lives are affected by
USDA's programs receive the latest and most complete information. The
Office of Communications' 5-year strategic goal is:
To support the Department in creating a full awareness among the
American public about USDA's major initiatives and services. A complete
knowledge by the general public--and specific publics, including USDA
employees--about USDA initiatives, policies, and programs is essential
to effective customer services and efficient program delivery and
should result in more citizensespecially those in underserved
communities and geographic areasavailing themselves of USDA services
and information that will help them in their daily lives.
The Office of Communications will continue to take an active part
in policy and program management discussions, coordinating the public
communication of USDA initiatives. OC will continue to provide
centralized operations for the production, review, and distribution of
USDA messages to its customers and the general public, and OC will
monitor and evaluate the results of these communications.
The Office of Communications will continue to acquire and instruct
staff in using the most effective and efficient communications
technology, methods, and standards in carrying out communications
plans.
OC intends to improve communications with USDA employees,
especially those away from headquarters. OC will help employees
understand USDA's general goals and policy priorities, to become more
familiar with USDA programs and services, and to understand
initiatives, especially cross-cutting ones, and how they relate to each
employee's specific job duties.
Our office is working hard to ensure compliance with Government
Performance and Results Act. We will work to update USDA regulations
and guidelines for communications; conducting regular training sessions
for USDA communications staffs about using communication technologies
and processes to enhance public service; fostering accountability for
communications management performance throughout USDA; and continuing
to work to create a more efficient, effective and centralized Office of
Communications.
The Office of Communications will provide equal opportunity for
employment and promote an atmosphere that values individual
differences. OC will continue to provide equal opportunity for
contracting goods and services. OC will increase availability of USDA
information to underserved communities and geographic areas to ensure
equal opportunity in USDA's outreach efforts, and will continue to
develop universally accessible information products.
fiscal year 2000 budget request
The Office of Communications is requesting a budget of $9,300,000.
This is a net increase of $1,162,000 over our fiscal year 1999
appropriation. The net increase would cover additional personnel costs
of $303,000 for pay costs, $588,000 for Electronic Access to
Information, $70,000 for an Outreach and Education Program for
Underserved Groups, and $201,000 to cover increased costs of critical
Department-level communications coordination and dissemination. This
effort is directly related to OC's accomplishment of its annual
performance goal to improve communication efforts with the public and
agricultural industry through live satellite teleconferences, radio,
and television special programs.
Without the funding for the Electronic Access to Information
initiative, the Office of Communications will be seriously handicapped
in providing information in the format and with the timeliness required
by USDA clientele and the American public. Specialized computer and
digital equipment are required to record, edit and prepare messages
acceptable to the media and accessible to the public through the
Internet. State-of-the-art computers are needed by the streamlined
Office of Communications staff to effectively perform its internal
communications coordination function, as well as to promptly and fully
respond to this surge of interest to acquire audio, video and print
information electronically.
As fiscal year 2000 begins, we will be in the final, critical
stages of information dissemination that will assure the American
public that food security will not be adversely affected by year 2000
issues. The $201,000 request is essential for us to expand the
communications efforts that will let an informed public respond
appropriately to this potential crisis. Additionally, we require
$70,000 for an expanded outreach and education program for underserved
groups. The $303,000 request for pay costs comes at the end of 3 years
of straight-lined funding and is needed to maintain an already
significantly downsized Office of Communications.
Office of Communications' initiatives are modest, but crucial
requests that will place the Office of Communications in the best and
most responsive position for meeting communications needs of our
customers and the American public in the 21st Century.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I will be pleased to
respond to any questions.
______
Office of the General Counsel
Prepared Statement of Charles R. Rawls, General Counsel
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have
this opportunity to present our fiscal year 2000 budget request and to
also provide you with an overview of our agency to include some of the
current activities and issues facing the Department.
mission
The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) is the law office for the
Department. As an independent, central agency within the Department,
OGC provides all legal services necessary to support the programs and
activities of USDA. OGC provides legal advice and services to the
Secretary of Agriculture and other officials of the Department of
Agriculture with respect to all USDA programs and activities.
organization
OGC's services are provided through 12 Divisions in Washington and
18 field locations. The headquarters for OGC is located in Washington,
D.C. The Office is directed by a General Counsel, a Deputy General
Counsel, a Director for Administration and Resource Management, and six
Associate General Counsels. The attorneys located in headquarters are
generally grouped in relation to the agency or agencies served. Our
field structure consists of five regional offices, each headed by a
Regional Attorney, and 13 branch offices. The field offices typically
provide legal services to USDA officials in regional, State, or local
offices.
Currently, we have on-board, 234 attorneys and 113 support staff,
including paralegals, in the Washington, D.C. headquarters and field
locations. Approximately half of our personnel are located in the
field.
current activities and issues
During the past year, OGC has supported the activities of the
Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) in the implementation of a number of
major initiatives and we anticipate the need for significant continuing
involvement in the coming year. Our involvement in these areas will
include assisting the Office of the United States Trade Representative
(USTR) and FAS officials with enforcement of the commitments received
in the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture and providing assistance
in pursuit of additional commitments in future negotiations. We also
anticipate extensive involvement in foreign assistance activities as
FAS carries out implementation of extensive humanitarian aid
initiatives.
OGC will continue to play an instrumental role with respect to the
formulation and implementation of international trade-related
agreements such as the Mutual Recognition Agreement concerning
veterinary biologics and the International Plant Protection Convention,
as well as having a role in preparation for the World Trade
Organization (WTO) Sanitary-Phytosantiary Committee meeting. OGC has
been and will continue to be involved in the preparations for the new
round of WTO negotiations to strengthen international trading rules and
in addressing specific issues such as credit and credit guarantees and
expanded free trade in the Americas.
OGC will continue to be actively involved in the development and
application of present international trading rules. The United States
has recently invoked the WTO dispute settlement procedures in several
agricultural matters with significant OGC involvement. For example, we
anticipate continued participation in WTO proceedings challenging the
European Union's (EU's) export subsidy on processed cheese, Japanese
phytosanitary issues and Canadian dairy export subsidies and access for
U.S. products, as well as ensuring EU compliance with the WTO decision
striking the ban on imports of meat produced with growth-promoting
hormones. OGC has also been active in consultations with South Korea
regarding access to its market and in connection with issues involving
the Israel Free Trade Agreement.
During the past year, OGC has also been involved in the
implementation of major initiatives relating to foreign assistance that
will continue to demand attention during the coming year. One of the
major OGC accomplishments during this past year was the development of
the legal framework for the removal of surplus wheat from the domestic
market under the authority of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)
Charter Act and the subsequent disposal of these commodities by CCC in
support of the ``President's Food Aid Initiative.'' Under this
initiative, CCC is exporting a large volume of wheat to meet
humanitarian food needs overseas under section 416(b) of the
Agricultural Act of 1949. Similarly, OGC provided extensive assistance
to FAS officials as they concluded an understanding with the Russian
government on key elements of a food assistance package totaling 3.1
million tons of agricultural commodities. The package includes a
donation of 1.5 million tons of wheat under section 416(b) as well as
concessional sale activity under Public Law 83-480 involving a variety
of U.S. agricultural commodities. In addition, OGC reviewed numerous
documents relating to the donation of another 100,000 tons of various
commodities to private relief organizations conducting operations in
Russia.
OGC continues to be actively involved in other FAS and CCC foreign
program areas, including export credit, supplier credit, and facilities
guarantee programs. We anticipate that there will be significant
increases in requests for OGC assistance in fiscal year 2000 due to the
upcoming round of negotiations on agriculture in the WTO and the
continued efforts of the Department to increase exports in response to
the various financial crises around the world.
Attorneys in OGC have continued to provide assistance in the
Production Flexibility Contract Program authorized by the Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. The sudden decline this
past summer in commodity prices for the major grains and oilseeds
resulted in a substantial increase in the need for OGC assistance with
respect to numerous issues related to marketing assistance loans and
loan deficiency payments. Similarly, OGC attorneys have worked closely
with officials of the Department, particularly with personnel of the
Farm Service Agency (FSA), to implement the various disaster and
marketing loss assistance provisions of the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1999. These new authorities involve more than $5.5
billion in expenditures. Furthermore, OGC worked with FSA and other
agencies in crafting a means of providing aid to hog producers who have
suffered through disastrously low prices during this past year. This
included developing a program to make $50 million in payments available
to hog producers using authority provided for in section 32 of the Act
of August 24, 1935, which had not been utilized since 1961.
OGC continues to provide FSA with needed assistance in connection
with conservation programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program,
which is in the midst of another successful sign-up. Additionally,
during this year, OGC helped FSA draft and finalize new Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) agreements with the States of North
Carolina, New York, Oregon, and Washington.
The tobacco program and tobacco-related issues have continued to
raise difficult legal issues. After a very successful series of
criminal prosecutions involving a widespread problem with tobacco
marketings that took place in 1990-1992, FSA, with OGC assistance, has
now begun to initiate civil actions to collect monies from warehouses
where over-quota tobacco may have been marketed. Also, OGC has provided
needed advice on issues arising out of the various proposed ``national
settlements'' for tobacco which have come before the agency. OGC
attorneys are assisting the Department of Justice in responding to an
appeal filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit by tobacco warehouse operators challenging administrative
penalties imposed upon them.
With respect to USDA's domestic food assistance programs, OGC has
been heavily involved in efforts related to the implementation and
enforcement of new legislation aimed at welfare reform and other
program improvements, as well as the ongoing program integrity and
compliance initiatives. We expect the demand for legal services in
connection with these activities to remain constant in fiscal years
1999 and 2000.
More specifically, during this past year, OGC attorneys worked
closely with the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to develop the
Administration's proposals for and/or implement the provisions of: the
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998
(AREERA), Public Law 105-185; the William F. Goodling Child Nutrition
Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Goodling Act), Public Law 105-336; the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33; and the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Division C
of Public Law 104-208. In particular, OGC is providing assistance in
connection with the implementation of the food stamp administrative
payment reduction provisions of AREERA and the changes to the Child
Nutrition programs brought about by the Goodling Act, such as new
services for at-risk school children and others up to 19 years of age
and revisions to eligibility and reimbursement provisions of the Child
and Adult Care Food Program. Challenges have been raised by potential
food stamp participants concerning the implementation by some States of
certain welfare reform provisions initiated by the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
(PRWORA), Public Law 104-193. These issues concern State food stamp
policies with respect to applicant awareness and access to the Food
Stamp Program. It is expected that similar ``welfare-to-work'' issues
may be raised as States continue to reform their welfare policies.
The implementation of the alien provisions of the PRWORA continues
to generate litigation in several States. OGC is representing USDA's
interests in ongoing inter-agency discussions aimed at providing a
uniform and predictable test for determining when the receipt of
benefits renders an alien deportable, inadmissable or ineligible for
adjustment of alien status as a result of being likely to become a
public charge.
In addition, OGC coordinated USDA's legal work in connection with
the first suspension action taken against a dairy operation determined
by State weights and measures inspectors to have provided under-filled
(shortweighted) half pints of milk to schools participating in the
National School Lunch Program. The 8 shortweighting results, in some
cases, half pint cartons lacked as much as half an ounce of milk,
prompted a closely orchestrated effort by State weights and measures
officials, State procurement officials, USDA agency personnel and OGC
attorneys to institute corrective and prospective action by the dairy
operation.
OGC continued to address numerous issues arising from the
nationwide rollout of electronic benefit transfer (EBT) in the Food
Stamp Program and demonstrations of the use of EBT in other food
assistance programs. Electronic delivery of benefits has shown
significant results in terms of reduced costs and improved program
integrity, as well as other improvements. For these reasons, the use of
EBT systems are a top priority of the Food Stamp Program.
We have provided substantial support to the Department's food
safety activities. Last year as you know, the HACCP rule was
implemented in the nation's largest meat and poultry plants. In January
of this year, HACCP became operational in over 2800 additional plants
nationwide. We have worked very hard with the Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) over the last year to ensure successful
implementation of these pathogen reduction and HACCP system
requirements. We provided daily support to FSIS not only for
implementation of HACCP inspection procedures but also on an array of
rulemaking initiatives to improve and streamline the food safety and
inspection system regulations. These regulatory initiatives have
included a proposal to permit the use of ionizing radiation to treat
refrigerated and frozen uncooked meat food products to reduce levels of
food-borne pathogens in these products; the finalization of rules that
would eliminate highly prescriptive sanitation regulations and replace
them with performance standards giving plants flexibility to innovate
and better ensure good sanitation practices tailored to each
establishment; and a proposed rule governing retained water in poultry
that would eliminate unnecessary differences between meat and poultry
processing requirements.
We also provided legal support for enforcement actions under the
meat and poultry inspection laws. We have handled an array of criminal,
civil and administrative cases involving violations of those laws and
as well as actions for the withdrawal and suspension of inspection
services, or termination of the custom exemption, from meat and poultry
establishments where compliance was lacking. OGC assisted the
Department of Justice (DOJ) in appellate litigation which challenged
the Department's application of meat and poultry inspection laws to
retail stores that seek to distribute meat and poultry products to
kiosks located in shopping malls. We are currently working with DOJ in
a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
by the American Federation of Government Employees, the Community
Nutrition Institute and eight FSIS food inspectors, challenging the
validity of the Pathogen Reduction/HACCP regulations and FSIS' decision
to test new inspection models that we believe will lead to more
effective inspection and better use of scarce inspection resources.
In the past year, OGC has provided extensive legal services to the
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) in various matters and will
continue to work closely with AMS on some of these matters as well as
new issues that will arise in the year ahead. OGC continues to provide
assistance in the reform and consolidation of federal dairy marketing
orders. A proposed rule was issued on January 21, 1998, after extensive
review and revision by our office. AMS is currently evaluating and
considering thousands of comments submitted in response to the
proposal. The Department is required by Congress to issue a final
decision between February and April 1999, and to implement the final
rule on October 1, 1999.
The organic standards rulemaking will continue to be an OGC
priority during the coming year. On December 16, 1997, a proposed rule
was published that would establish a National Organic Program under the
Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. The proposal generated over
275,000 comments. These comments ranged from simple opposition to all
or portions of the proposal to more complex and substantive comments,
raising a variety of policy and legal issues concerning the proposal
and issuance of a final rule. Currently, we are working with the
organic program staff on drafting a revised proposed rule that will
address concerns raised by the comments.
The Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996
provides general authority for the Secretary to issue orders
establishing new research and promotion programs. Prior to enactment of
this statute, research and promotion programs were authorized under
individual statutory authorities. The 1996 Act provides authority to
tailor a program according to the individual needs of an industry. On
November 6, 1998, a proposed rule was published in the Federal Register
that would provide for an industry funded promotion, research and
information program for peanuts, and representatives of the olive oil,
dry bean, seafood, asparagus, forestry products, macadamia nuts and
sweet corn industries have expressed interest in establishing programs.
We will continue to work with AMS as these new research and promotion
programs develop.
In 1998, the Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration in
Glickman v. Wileman, thus ending the First Amendment constitutional
challenge to the tree fruit advertising program. On the basis of the
decision in Wileman, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit dismissed Cal-Almond v. United States Department of Agriculture
and the Supreme Court subsequently declined to review that dismissal.
The challenge to the almond advertising program, and the argument that
it is significantly different that the tree fruit program since it
allows credit for a handler's branded advertising, also has been
rejected. The Supreme Court's rulings in Wileman and Cal-Almond raised
several dormant legal matters. Almost $7,000,000 of assessments held in
a trust fund were turned over to the tree fruit administrative
committee. An audit was conducted and it was found that approximately
$11,000 was still owed by various handlers. The Department is in the
process of obtaining a judgment for the remainder and seeking
collection. Motions will also be heard in early 1999 to collect the
remaining unpaid assessments under the almond marketing order. The
handlers are resisting collection with various technical arguments and
a significant amount of the funds are held by the Saulsbury Almond
bankruptcy trustee. Finally, there are on-going challenges to several
other advertising and promotion programs which claim to be
distinguishable from Wileman because these programs were created by
free-standing legislation and not by marketing orders. So far the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals and District Courts in California, Michigan,
and Tennessee have rejected these challenges. Despite a complete lack
of success by the handlers, it is expected that the challenges will
drag-on as appeals are pursued.
We work very closely with Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) in connection with its regulatory activities related to
the development of regulations that will allow new commodities to enter
U.S. markets while ensuring that America's agricultural resources are
not impaired and that plant and animal health in the U.S. are not
compromised. These regulations have included requirements for an array
of commodities, ranging from fruits and vegetables, to animals and
animal products. They include the importation of pork from Yucatan and
Sonora, Mexico, importation of ruminants and ruminant products from
South Africa, and the importation requirements for animal and animal
products from the European Union.
We dedicated significant resources to defending a lawsuit brought
by several environmental groups for alleged violations of the National
Environmental Policy Act in connection with APHIS regulations governing
the importation of logs, lumber, and unmanufactured wood products. In
the early phase of the lawsuit, the plaintiffs obtained an injunction
that prevented APHIS from issuing permits for the importation of
certain wood products until a supplemental environmental impact
statement (SEIS) was prepared. Our attorneys assisted APHIS in
preparing an exceptionally comprehensive SEIS and ensuring that it was
responsive to the Court's order. The SEIS was issued by APHIS in May of
1998. I am pleased to report that the district court accepted and
approved the SEIS findings, dissolved the injunction, and dismissed the
case.
APHIS' work on the SEIS led to the identification of additional
import issues involving wood and wood products that needed to be
addressed because of their significant pest risk potential. Principal
among these issues was the pest risk posed by solid wood packing
material. We assisted in the preparation of an interim rule,
promulgated on September 18, 1998, prohibiting solid wood packing
materials (SWPM) from China, and with an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking published in the Federal Register in January of 1999 dealing
with SWPM from all countries.
We also handled a variety of administrative and federal court cases
on behalf of APHIS to enforce its regulations. These cases have
included prosecutions for violations of the standards for accredited
veterinarians, the illegal importation of fruits and vegetables through
Canada, and violations of regulations governing the importation of Haas
avocados from Mexico into the United States.
We assisted APHIS with the development of a new international
agreement permitting the construction of a sterile screwworm production
facility in Panama that will help ensure the continued success of the
screwworm eradication program.
OGC continues to provide significant legal services to the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). In 1995 and 1996 APHIS
conducted a negotiated rulemaking involving the complete revision of
the regulations governing the humane handling, care, treatment, and
transportation of marine mammals held in captivity. OGC provided
substantial legal services to APHIS throughout the negotiated
rulemaking process, and recently, provided substantial drafting and
review services to APHIS in preparation for the publication of the
proposed rule. Because all of the stakeholders participated in the
formulation of the proposed rule, we do not expect that this rulemaking
will be as controversial as other animal welfare rulemakings. We do
expect, however, that this rulemaking will require the need for
continued legal services in fiscal year 1999.
In 1995 APHIS also published a proposed rule to develop new
regulations for marine mammals used in human-dolphin interactive
programs. This program is popularly known as Swim-with-the-Dolphin or
SWTD. The final rule became effective on October 5, 1998. OGC has
provided substantial legal services to APHIS throughout this
rulemaking. OGC continues to provide substantial legal assistance to
APHIS because of subsequent concerns raised by the marine mammal public
display industry regarding the scope of the final rule. APHIS will be
publishing in the near future a notice seeking comment from the
industry on all aspects of the rule. We anticipate that this process
will be very contentious because of the number of interest groups
involved, and we expect that APHIS will have to engage in further
rulemaking, which will require the need for continued legal services.
In the Trade Practices area, we are continuing to give assistance
and counsel to the Secretary on issues of concentration in agriculture
and the continuing response of the Department to recommendations of the
Advisory Committee on Agricultural Concentration. We prosecuted the
nation's largest packer administratively on allegations that the packer
gave an undue or unreasonable preference to certain feedlots in the
procurement of cattle. The Department's Judicial Officer dismissed the
majority of the case, but found one provision of the procurement
agreement to be in violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act and
issued a cease and desist order. That decision is now before the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit for decision. We are working with
agency personnel on a number of investigations into procurement,
pricing and competition in areas of production where there are high
levels of concentration. We are continuing to prosecute cases involving
financial or payment violations and we provide legal services in a
number of investigations and enforcement actions involving allegations
of false or misleading statements or representations or commercial
bribery in the marketing of agricultural products.
OGC also provides legal services to agencies which manage some of
America's largest lending portfolios. The ongoing implementation of the
Centralized Processing Center (CSC) for Single Family Rural Housing
loans continues to require substantial legal resources. OGC continues
to be heavily involved in debt collection and foreclosure work with
many cases going back to the emergency loan programs of the 1970's and
1980's. Implementation of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996
and the flexibility gradually being made available under the Rural
Community Advancement Program of the 1996 Act also requires substantial
legal resources. OGC also is providing legal advice concerning the
designation of five additional empowerment zones authorized by the
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 and 20 additional rural enterprise
communities authorized by the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1999.
The Secretary is committed to regulatory reform. We continue to
work with Department officials to implement the President's regulatory
reform package. This is a significant undertaking as we work with
agencies throughout USDA to reduce regulatory burdens, eliminate
obsolete or unnecessary regulatory requirements, and streamline
regulations, particularly in the areas of rural, farm and utility
lending. This year we look for a substantial push in this area from the
Rural Utilities Service (RUS), Farm Service Agency (FSA), Rural
Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), and Rural Housing Service (RHS).
OGC provided considerable assistance to RUS on a range of matters
related to the changing electric and telecommunications industries. In
particular, the introduction of competition in the electric industry
has resulted in increased demand for legal services by RUS on a number
of key electric program matters. For example, OGC has provided legal
services in connection with the restructuring of borrowers' power
supply arrangements through mergers, alliances, and other types of
reorganizations and through the renegotiation of borrowers' power
supply contracts. OGC has also dedicated substantial resources to the
negotiation and drafting of new security arrangements for some large
power supply borrowers. These arrangements, patterned after indentures
used in the private sector, will provide borrowers with more
flexibility in operating in the new competitive environment while
facilitating access to private market financing.
As a result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which introduced
deregulation and competition to the telecommunications industry, the
RUS telecommunications program is facing a wide range of issues and
concerns requiring legal services. These include issues of loan
purposes, loan security and borrower structure as well as the impact of
FCC orders implementing the Telecommunications Act on RUS borrowers and
program interests. RUS for the first time made distance learning and
telemedicine (DLT) loans in addition to its DLT grants. Legal
assistance is required both in the promulgation of new regulations
implementing the DLT program and in developing the documents for these
loans and grants. One should not underestimate the legal resources
which will be required by the movement to deregulate in the rural
electric and telecommunications area.
In the natural resources area, we have been involved in a number of
extremely significant undertakings concerning national forest
management and natural resources conservation programs. We also
assisted our clients, the Forest Service and the Natural Resources
Conservation Service, daily in legally advancing their program goals.
We have provided assistance nationally to the Natural Resources
Conservation Service in implementing a number of conservation programs,
including the Environmental Quality Improvement Program (EQIP), the
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP),
the Farmland Protection Program, the Conservation Farm Option and
Emergency Watershed Protection Program. In addition, we have provided
legal services in support of the Clean Water Action Plan, including the
EPA/USDA Joint Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations and the Watershed
Approach for Management of Federal Lands.
Management of our National Forests is a subject of intense debate
and litigation, with a great deal of legal work generated by the impact
of new scientific information on ongoing Forest Service projects and
commitments. Legal questions include interpretation of the nature of
forest planning in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling (Ohio
Forestry Association v. Sierra Club), the relationship of the
Endangered Species Act to the forest planning process, and revisions
and appeals of the second generation of forest plans. OGC provided
assistance to the Department of Justice regarding the scope of the
government's obligations under the Endangered Species Act. The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit held that federal agencies are
required by the Act to implement programs to conserve endangered and
threatened species and to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service as
to individual species.
Further, we are defending against numerous timber sale claims
arising from contract modifications and suspensions to protect the
habitat of endangered species and assisting the Forest Service with new
timber sale contracting authority commonly referred to as stewardship
contracting. We also successfully defended challenges in several places
in the West by local governments and individuals under the so called
``County Supremacy'' movement disputing federal ownership or
jurisdiction over public lands. We are currently involved in appeal of
a district court decision involving a land claim of the Pueblo of
Sandia to thousands of acres of the Cibolla National Forest north of
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
We have also devoted substantial resources to other legislative and
regulatory initiatives, such as land exchanges, relicensing of hydro
electric projects, grazing reform, reauthorization of the Endangered
Species Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Litigation which raises a question regarding application of a statute
of limitations to CERCLA natural resource damages claims by federal
trustees is pending before the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
OGC also provided the Forest Service with support in the administration
of the National Forest lands as they are affected by the complex
statutes related to mineral exploration.
In addition, we regularly provide advice on compliance and
litigation arising under the pollution control laws. Most frequently,
pollution control issues involve abandoned and inactive mines and
landfills on federal lands, the use and storage of agricultural
chemicals, and management of hazardous waste at agricultural research
facilities. We have worked with other federal resource management
agencies on implementation of executive authority under CERCLA to
address cleanup of hazardous substances affecting federal resources.
As the Administration and the Congress continue their efforts to
re-invent the Federal government, and as the Department takes its own
initiatives to make its delivery of services more efficient,
streamlined, and customer friendly, we anticipate greater demands on
the General Law Division. These range from providing legal services
regarding personnel and labor matters; increased legal services in
relation to the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act; debt
collection initiatives; Year 2000 compliance; and legal support for
creative approaches of doing more with less through mechanisms such as
partnering.
Among its many responsibilities, the General Law Division provides
legal services to the National Appeals Division (NAD). Agency
implementation of new administrative offset procedures pursuant to the
Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 continue to resonate in
numerous appeals to NAD, resulting in legal questions regarding the
intersection of the offset process and the NAD appeal process.
As NAD determinations begin to be challenged in the district and
appellate courts, novel issues have begun to arise regarding exhaustion
of administrative remedies, district versus claims court jurisdiction,
implementation of NAD determinations, and discovery.
With regard to the procurement of property and services, the
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 set in motion many changes still in evolution
regarding the acquisition, use, and disposal of information technology
by the Federal Government. In particular, the General Law Division will
continue to devote substantial resources to assist the Chief
Information Officer created by the Act in fulfilling her duties both
under the Act, and under separate Secretarial mandates, to improve
information technology management in the Department.
Also, with regard to procurement, since the 1996 revision of the
General Accounting Office protest rules, which in effect requires
agency legal representation, the General Law Division has provided an
enhanced level of legal representation of USDA agencies in such
matters.
As its name implies, the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 contained numerous provisions regarding
priority-setting, public input, and greater accountability in research,
education, and extension programs, both within the Department and among
our land-grant partners. Those reform provisions with the greatest
impact become effective on October 1, 1999. Considerable resources will
be expended in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 to ensure that
this deadline is met and to ensure a smooth transition to the
applicable requirements to research, extension, and education grant
funds awarded in fiscal year 2000.
Over the past few years the Department has taken measures to
improve the operations of its agencies and improve how its agencies
service their customers. In February 1999, USDA took another
significant step in that direction by converging the administrative
support functions of the Rural Development mission area, the Farm
Service Agency, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service into a
single entity, the Support Services Bureau (``SSB''). The General Law
Division provided legal advice with respect to the formulation of the
SSB. It is anticipated that as the SSB is implemented, significant
attorney resources will be required to address numerous legal issues
involving labor law, personnel law, administrative law, fiscal law, and
leasing of office space.
Besides the labor law issues that will be attendant to
restructuring and downsizing, changes have occurred in the OGC itself
that will require the attorney resources of the General Law Division in
the coming year. Last year the American Federation of Government
Employees was elected as the exclusive representative under the Federal
Service Labor Management Relations Statute (``FSLMR'') of both
professional and non-professional employees of OGC in field locations.
During this process, General Law Division attorneys advised OGC
managers regarding issues under the FSLMR. It is anticipated that
General Law Division assistance will continue to be required in
implementing management responsibilities under the FSLMR and
negotiating collective bargaining agreements with the new units.
We continue to provide legislative drafting and related assistance
to the Department and Congress on major legislative activities that
involve the Department. Extensive assistance was provided to Department
policy officials and Congressional staffs in drafting and analyzing
various legislative proposals recently considered by Congress,
including proposals in connection with the Goodling; AREERA; the
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. No. 105-277); and
the Plant Protection Act (HR 3766). We are preparing legislation to
improve the Department's conservation and trade assistance programs. In
addition, we are participating in the preparation of legislation in a
number of areas in support of the President's fiscal year 2000 budget
request for the Department.
Over the past two years the Department has engaged in massive
efforts to reform its civil rights performance. The Secretary wants to
ensure that all of our customers and employees are treated with dignity
and respect and are afforded equal employment opportunity and equal
access to all USDA programs. Critical to the achievement of these goals
was the creation of the Civil Rights Division (CRD) within OGC, staffed
with attorneys who have specialized expertise in civil rights law, and
are charged with providing legal services to the Secretary and all
agencies of the Department on civil rights legal issues.
The CRD played a very critical role in the settlement of the
Pigford and Brewington litigation. Both cases are class actions filed
by African American farmers who have filed administrative complaints of
discrimination with USDA since 1981 alleging race discrimination in
Farm Service Agency programs. The consent decree received preliminary
approval on January 5, 1999. A fairness hearing on the settlement was
held on March 2, 1999. When the consent decree is given final approval
by the court, it will provide a framework for the adjudication of
claims of African American farmers who believe they suffered
discrimination by the Department in connection with USDA credit and
benefit programs during the period January 1, 1981 through December 31,
1996. The settlement will help the Department open a more constructive
front in its efforts to be the Federal civil rights leader in the 21st
century.
Key to settlement of the Pigford and Brewington cases was the
enactment last year the waiver of various statutes of limitations, that
allows farmers with long-standing discrimination complaints to have
their claims finally heard. Section 741 of the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1999, enacted in section 101(a), Division A, of the
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,
1999, Pub. L. No. 105-277. The Associate General Counsel for Civil
Rights and the Assistant General Counsel for Legislation worked with
Departmental officials, members and staffs of the House and Senate, DOJ
officials, and White House officials to bring about enactment of the
statute of limitations waiver language in the budget bill. CRD also
worked some with GLD and the Associate General Counsel for Legislation,
Litigation, and General Law in drafting regulations to implement the
new law. 63 Fed. Reg. 67392 et seq. (Dec. 4, 1998) (codified at 7
C.F.R. Part 15f). The success of this work shows the potential when the
different divisions work in cooperation. cooperation.
Settlement of the Pigford and Brewington and any case in which a
farmer alleges discrimination can only include damages if the claim
alleges credit discrimination and the Department or the courts find
that discrimination occurred in our credit programs. The limitation on
the Department's ability to award damages in conducted discrimination
cases was made clear by the 1994 Opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel
(OLC), Department of Justice entitled Authority of USDA to Award
Monetary Relief For Discrimination. In its opinion, OLC ruled that, in
cases of alleged discrimination in a USDA conducted program, such as
FSA farm loan programs, the Secretary has authority to award monetary
relief, attorneys' fees, and costs if a court could award such relief
in an action by the aggrieved person. However, after examining Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, the
Rehabilitation Act, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), OLC
concluded that only ECOA waives sovereign immunity with respect to
monetary relief, authorizing imposition of compensatory damages by the
Department. In light of this opinion, OGC issued memoranda to the
Office of Civil Rights that made clear that CR can settle farmer
discrimination case for monetary damages only if the case involves
credit discrimination and only to the extent a court could award
damages given the facts of the case.
With respect to the Pigford and Brewington settlement, CRD will
take the leading role to ensure that USDA meets its commitments under
the consent decree, particularly with respect to the production of
relevant documents and necessary legal analysis related to each claim
filed pursuant to the consent decree. CRD is working with the FSA, the
Office of Civil Rights (CR), and the DOJ to develop rapid responses to
claims and to help ensure that the Government's responses are timely
and appropriate.
With respect to farmer discrimination claims not covered by the
Pigford and Brewington settlement, CRD will work with CR to ensure that
all claims, including those filed pursuant to the statute of
limitations waiver, receive expeditious and fair consideration, within
the bounds set by applicable law.
The number of employment discrimination cases filed against the
Department has increased dramatically. CRD and OGC field offices are
defending the Department in administrative litigation before the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and are working with DOJ to
ensure the best possible defense in court.
In Donnelly v. Glickman, C-95-4389 DLJ, a class action filed in
Federal district court on behalf of female employees of the Region 5
(California) of the Forest Service, a negotiated settlement is near. In
a related matter, the Government is negotiating with the Forest Service
Region 5 Regional Hispanic Working Group to negotiate settlement of
issues similar to those raised in Donnelly before litigation is filed.
In both negotiations, CRD attorneys are working with the OGC Regional
Attorney, DOJ, and Departmental officials in Washington, chiefly in
developing settlement proposals for the negotiations and participating
in the negotiations. CRD is performing the Department's goals of
addressing legitimate concerns of the plaintiffs and addressing
systemic issues that will hopefully prevent future litigation.
Similarly, in Herron v. Glickman, EEOC No. 100-98-7120X, a class
action pending before EEOC in Washington, filed on behalf of African
American employees of FSA, alleging that African American employees at
the GS 12, 13, and 14 levels were being prevented from obtaining
promotions to the GS 13, 14, and 15 levels respectively, CRD has
completed several months of discovery and is now discussing litigation
and settlement options with the FSA Administrator and the Under
Secretary.
To address other employment issues, CRD will intensify its efforts
to provide training and technical assistance to OGC field attorneys and
to Department officials, civil rights directors, and employee relations
specialists. The goal is to identify and address issues before they
become litigation. Where issues are identified, CRD will bring the
issues to the attention of appropriate Department officials, with legal
analysis and recommendations for addressing the issues.
Drafting and reviewing nondiscrimination regulations is part of
CRD's mission. In 1998, CRD drafted a proposed published regulation
governing nondiscrimination in programs and activities conducted by
USDA which will delete 7 C.F.R. Part 15, Subpart B, which deals with
programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance from
USDA--and create a new 7 C.F.R. Part 15d that will deal exclusively
with conducted programs. CRD is in the process of finalizing the
regulation for publication. The new 7 C.F.R. Part 15d would clarify
that the regulation applies to all USDA conducted programs and
activities; add familial status, marital status and sexual orientation
to the protected classes contained in the regulation; add a provision
concerning USDA agencies' compliance efforts; add public assistance
status as a prohibited basis under authority in the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act (ECOA); add a prohibition against reprisal; and reflect
Secretary's Memorandum 1010-4 (May 16, 1997), which further delegated
to the CR Director the authority to make final determinations on
complaints and order corrective actions. The regulation has been
published, the comment period has ended and the final regulation will
be published soon.
In 1998, CRD worked with CR on a number of nondiscrimination
Departmental Regulations (DRs) to further the effort to reform the
Department's civil rights enforcement program: DR 1614, Processing EEO
Complaints of Discrimination; DR 4330-2, Nondiscrimination in USDA
Conducted Programs and Activities; and DR 4330-1, Nondiscrimination in
Programs and Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance from
USDA. The Departmental regulations are near completion.
CRD is assisting more and more agencies in developing proposed
regulations that would require recipients of Federal financial
assistance to collect certain participation data on ``protected
classes,'' such as race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age,
and disability. This work is critical to ensuring compliance with Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other statutes that prohibit
recipients of Federal financial assistance from discriminating with
respect to the programs for which they are receiving Federal financial
assistance.
CRD drafted a Secretary's Memoranda and Secretary's Decision
Memorandum creating a uniform policy on adverse actions against
individuals who have filed complaints of discrimination against USDA.
These documents are near completion and will begin the clearance
process shortly.
CRD will continue to write memoranda giving advice and legal
opinions on a number of civil rights topics. A current project relates
to the Department's authority to provide compensatory damages in
discrimination cases arising in Federally conducted programs.
CRD's most important work is in assisting agencies and
administrators in complying with the letter and spirit of civil rights
laws, thereby avoiding unnecessary litigation, in providing training
and ongoing advice and other legal service. Training, however, is just
one component. The development of ongoing working and collaborative
relationships between CRD and agency officials is critical and will be
a great part of CRD's work this year.
fiscal year 2000 budget request
For fiscal year 2000, OGC is requesting $32,675,000 in direct
appropriations. This request represents a significant increase of
$3,481,000 over the fiscal year 1999 appropriation. The requested
increase is needed to support and maintain current staffing levels to
meet the current and projected increased demand in delivering pre-
decisional legal advice, training, appeal and litigation legal services
to agencies. The majority of the increase consists of $1,159,000 for
pay costs, which OGC does not have any flexibility for absorbing and
$1,621,000 to maintain current staff and provide enhanced legal
services in specific areas where staffing is insufficient to adequately
meet demands for legal services generated by the Department. The
remaining $701,000 is necessary for the office to meet processing
requirements into the year 2000 and beyond. OGC anticipates migrating
fully to Windows 98, replacing and or upgrading 15 file servers along
with 50 percent of the personal computers. The requirement to upgrade
the hardware will be a continuing process as the technology continues
to change.
closing
That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. We very much appreciate
the support this Subcommittee has given us in the past. Thank you.
______
Office of Inspector General
Prepared Statement of Roger C. Viadero, Inspector General
introduction and overview
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am
pleased to have this opportunity to visit with you today to discuss the
activities of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and to provide you
with information on our audits and investigations of some of the major
programs and operations of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Before I begin, I would like to introduce the members of my staff
who are here with me today: Jim Ebbitt, Assistant Inspector General for
Audit; Greg Seybold, Assistant Inspector General for Investigations;
and Del Thornsbury, Director of our Resources Management Division. I
want to thank the Committee for its support during the nearly 4\1/2\
years since my appointment as Inspector General. We have tried to work
closely with you, and I hope that we have been able to address some of
your concerns.
OIG's mission is to perform audits and investigations of the
Department's more than 300 programs and operations, recommend policies
and actions to promote economy and efficiency, and prevent and detect
fraud, waste, and mismanagement in these programs and operations. We
keep you and the Secretary informed about problems and deficiencies and
report criminal violations to the U.S. Attorney General. We have a
diverse staff of auditors, criminal investigators, and other personnel
in offices throughout the Nation to carry out these activities.
I am proud to say that in fiscal year 1998, we continued to more
than pay our own way. In the audit arena, we issued 220 audit reports
and obtained management's agreement on 1,122 recommendations. Our
audits resulted in questioned costs of over $112 million. Also, as a
result of our audit work, management agreed to recover more than $39
million and put another $128 million to better use. Most importantly,
implementation of our recommendations by USDA managers will result in
more effective operations of USDA programs. Additionally, our
investigative staff completed 815 investigations and obtained 777
indictments, 604 convictions, and 2,780 arrests. Investigations also
resulted in $81 million in fines, restitutions, other recoveries, and
penalties during the year.
We continued to work closely with agency officials during fiscal
year 1998 to address key issues and to expand our cooperation with
other Federal, State, and local law enforcement and audit agencies to
broaden the impact of our work. Working together, our staffs identified
program weaknesses and program violators. Capitalizing on the staffs'
respective expertise, we created solutions for positive action.
In fiscal year 1999, we are focusing our efforts primarily on food
safety and smuggling of uninspected, unapproved food products carrying
unwanted pests and diseases into the United States that affect the
wholesomeness of the Nation's food supply. We are also focusing our
audit efforts on the Department's financial accounting systems; farm
credit programs; the Rural Rental Housing Program; the Food Stamp
Program, including its Electronic Benefits Transfer efforts; and the
Child and Adult Care Food Program. In addition to investigations and
emergency responses to threats to the health and safety of food, our
investigative priorities include investigations of sponsors abusing the
child and adult care programs; employee integrity issues; and fraud in
the Department's loan, regulatory, and benefit programs. Before I
discuss some of our specific audit and investigative activities, I
would like to update the Committee on the status of our forfeiture
authority.
I am pleased to report to you that on the forfeiture front, with
this Committee's strong support, we are now authorized to receive
proceeds from forfeiture actions arising from our investigations. Our
memorandum of understanding was signed with the Department of Justice
in May of last year and, since that time, we have been a fully
participating agency in the Justice Department's Asset Forfeiture Fund.
Special Health and Safety Initiative
Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to discuss our special law
enforcement request for fiscal year 2000. This effort will be a major
endeavor for the agency, and we ask your support to provide the
resources necessary for it.
The quality or wholesomeness of the Nation's food supply, from
production to the consumer, is of special concern to OIG.
Investigations of any criminal activity that poses a threat to the
general health and safety of the public remain our highest priority.
Criminal investigations have usually involved the processing and sale
of adulterated meat or poultry and egg products; criminal tampering
with food products consumed by the public; and product substitution,
adulteration, or other misrepresentation of food products which are
regulated or purchased by USDA.
Recent and ongoing investigations involving real or alleged threats
to food products intended for the public have necessitated the
immediate deployment of OIG special agents and auditors to several U.S.
cities. These cases have involved real or threatened adulteration or
contamination of meat with everything from E. coli bacteria or Listeria
to HIV-infected human blood. Some of these products were destined for
or actually ended up in the National School Lunch Program or on
military bases.
To address these types of emergencies, we are entering into joint
activities with other Federal and State agencies to share intelligence
and conduct undercover operations. Doing so will help us stem the
threat to the food supply from packing plants and other facilities and
target criminal enterprise in general.
The increasing threat to the wholesomeness of domestic and exported
food requires not only vigilance but also advanced preparedness
including preemptive operations. Profit-motivated criminal activity
that threatens the food industry can cause economic disruption while
victimizing innocent members of the industry. Likewise, threats of
criminal adulteration and biological contamination of food products
from outside the food industry for extortion or ideological motives can
victimize and disrupt the Nation's food production and distribution
systems. These threats must be resolved through a vigilant, established
emergency law enforcement and health and safety response.
A threat in a Milwaukee, Wisconsin, meat plant is a prime example
of these types of dangers. This past December, the plant received a
threat of biological contamination using HIV-infected human blood. We
immediately deployed 30 OIG special agents (including eight bilingual
agents to converse with Spanish-speaking plant employees) and four
auditors to the scene to determine the validity of the threat and to
identify those responsible. Personnel from the Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) assisted in this investigation, with FSIS
staff taking the lead role in ensuring that potential contaminants had
not been introduced into the food chain. Our investigative efforts to
resolve this bioterrorism threat continue. Approximately 580 interviews
have been conducted to date. I am pleased to be able to report that
extensive testing of samples taken from the plant has not indicated the
presence of human HIV-infected blood.
In another significant case, an OIG Emergency Response Team was
dispatched to a Nebraska meat plant to investigate an outbreak of E.
coli bacteria when 15 people in Colorado became ill after eating ground
beef patties that came from the plant. Two plant officials have been
indicted and await trial for misleading FSIS and OIG during our
attempts to determine the source of the E. coli bacteria. Some 25
million pounds of ground beef were recalled due to this contamination,
which, at that time, was the largest meat recall ever in the Nation.
Additionally, we are currently investigating a significant case
involving another meat company alleged to have intentionally
adulterated and misbranded beef and pork products, which have also
tested positive for E. coli bacteria. Approximately 4.4 million pounds
of this company's meat product containing ground pork or ground beef
are under voluntary hold at various school districts, prisons, military
institutions, and other facilities. In addition, another 1.6 million
pounds of this product are being retained or detained at other
facilities.
We have also investigated other cases in which the health and
safety of the public were at serious risk. In Buffalo, New York, three
feed company employees pled guilty to Federal charges and await
sentencing for their role in selling canned meat products to the public
which were unfit for human consumption. This product was being shipped
from a Canadian company to the feed company to be used as animal food
but was diverted by these individuals to be sold for human consumption.
In a second case in New York, an FSIS inspector pled guilty in Federal
court and was sentenced to 6 months in prison for accepting bribes from
the owner of a slaughter facility to permit the slaughter of livestock,
including 3-D (dead, diseased, or dying) cows, without the benefit of
inspection. In Pennsylvania, the owner of a slaughterhouse pled guilty
to conspiracy, while three employees pled guilty to violating the
Federal Meat Inspection Act. These individuals were caught slaughtering
3-D cows after the FSIS inspector had left the premises and then
commingling the unwholesome product with meat that had been inspected.
We have initiated audits of the new food safety procedures for
inspecting meat and poultry plants, the Hazard Analysis Critical
Control Point system, or HACCP. Since an increasing number of
processing plants are becoming subject to HACCP, the safety and
wholesomeness of the Nation's meat and poultry supply are dependent on
HACCP being successfully implemented. Meanwhile, our efforts to
actively address the problems of food safety, posed by those who put it
at jeopardy and who are motivated by profit or ideology, present
special concerns for us. OIG needs to be prepared to immediately
respond to these emergency situations. To do so, we must be equipped
with the specialized equipment, protective clothing, and supplies
necessary to ensure the health and safety of our personnel responding
to these crises.
We also need to be mindful of the economic impact of closing a
major food processing plant. To our knowledge, the Milwaukee plant I
mentioned earlier had violated no laws and had been successfully
implementing HACCP inspection procedures. Yet, its production line was
successfully halted by outside forces, tons of its product were put on
hold, and the facility was temporarily shutdown. OIG's rapid response
and deployment of considerable staff resources not only helped to
protect the health and safety of consumers, but it also allowed the
plant to reopen--reemploying approximately 1,500 people with a minimum
disruption of production, lost profit, and impact on the local economy
as opposed to an indefinite and costly closure.
The costs of rapid responses by OIG such as this are great. In
addition to the personnel time and the disruption to other critical OIG
work, to date, we have expended approximately $40,000 in unanticipated
travel costs in the Wisconsin investigation alone. This figure will
continue to rise until the matter is resolved.
Another form of criminal enterprise that poses a significant threat
to the Nation's food supply and its economic well-being is smuggling of
uninspected, unapproved food products into the United States. A direct
result, and a byproduct of smuggling, is the danger that forms of
pestilence--whether insects, fungi, bacteria, or viruses--not
previously present in the United States could be introduced here. As a
result, entire crops of the U.S. agricultural industry--such as citrus,
vegetables, trees and other plants, or beef, poultry, and pork
products--could be severely damaged, devastating the economy of the
local communities producing these products as well as reducing both the
quantity and quality of the Nation's food supply.
The Administration has begun a new initiative to counteract the
invasion of unwanted and mostly foreign species of plants and animals.
By Executive Order, the President has established an Invasive Species
Council, which the Secretary of Agriculture will Co-chair, to ensure a
safe and wholesome food supply and prevent the spread of unwanted,
invasive pests.
OIG has begun an antismuggling campaign to interdict and suppress
foreign contraband that is dangerous when consumed by the American
population, and potentially catastrophic to the economic stability of
certain U.S. agricultural products. Ongoing criminal investigations are
targeting smuggled fruits, vegetables, plants, and other commodities or
animals that bring high dollars in underground ``black market''
commerce. This initiative requires significant agent resources
dedicated to intelligence collection, undercover operations, and
foreign law enforcement cooperative efforts that cross international
boundaries. These activities normally require extensive surveillance
utilizing high-tech investigative devices and equipment.
The smuggling of infested fruits into the United States is a
serious law enforcement problem because the criminal profit is
tremendous while the deterrent is grossly inadequate at present.
Longans are a good example. Longans are prized Asian fruits. They cost
$1 a pound from distributors in Taiwan and are sold illegally in U.S.
markets at $7 to $10 per pound. Often they are contaminated with fruit
flies. Although banned in the United States, sealed containerized
shipments of longans are routinely, and legally, allowed into U.S.
ports for transshipment to Canada. Intelligence efforts have documented
that semi-trucks, which can carry 40,000 pounds or more of
containerized longans, have transported shipments into Canada, where
the fruit is not prohibited, only to turn around and smuggle the
shipments back into the United States, thus, allowing for pest
infestations in this country.
One well-known example of a devastating pest that has been
introduced into this country is the Mediterranean fruit fly, commonly
called Medfly. One of the world's most destructive agricultural pests,
it attacks more than 250 kinds of fruits, nuts, and vegetables, causing
major economic losses. Whole States can be beset with severe crop
losses and economic problems caused by this and other such pests. In
the past 4 years, Florida has been faced with severe outbreaks of
oriental fruit fly, citrus leaf miner, brown citrus aphid, citrus
canker, African beetle, leather leaf anthracnose, pine short beetle,
and sweet potato fly in addition to the Medfly infestations. Animal
pests and disease importation are a severe problem in Florida and, due
to the favorable climate in most of the southeastern United States, the
pests and diseases could easily spread throughout that area. The costs
to protect the industry are staggering. Since 1980, over $256 million
in California State and Federal funds has been spent to eradicate
Medfly infestations in quarantined areas. In the last 10 years, Florida
has spent more than $150 million to eradicate such infestations.
The risk to the agricultural industry, including exports, is clear.
The State of California alone produces over $25 billion in fruits,
nuts, and vegetables annually--about 55 percent of the Nation's output.
About $11.8 billion of these commodities is exported to other countries
each year.
In carrying out successful smuggling investigations, OIG must
perform extensive travel; procure and maintain the necessary
specialized equipment needed to investigate these incidents; provide
essential protective supplies and/or equipment to ensure the health and
safety of our agents and auditors; and provide specialized training to
our staff to prepare them to cover various types of such emergencies.
OIG must also provide state-of-the-art Y2K compliant ADP equipment and
systems to track data; analyze intelligence-based information; and
provide faster, more responsive information to better support this
mission work. All of these items are essential to ensure that OIG can
adequately address this critical public health and safety issue
concerning the quality and wholesomeness of the Nation's food supply.
Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to highlight some of our
other audit and investigative activities.
audit and investigations activities
marketing and regulatory programs
animal and plant health inspection service (aphis)
We have investigated various types of criminal acts involving APHIS
programs. An investigation in San Francisco, California, provides a
good example. In this case, two businessmen pled guilty to causing the
delivery of misbranded food for introduction into interstate commerce
in this case. A joint investigation conducted by OIG, the U.S. Customs
Service, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration disclosed that the
businessmen smuggled bird nests, abalone, fish maw, scallops, and dried
oysters from Hong Kong by commingling these products with their
legitimate imports of frozen shark fins and other food products. The
two businessmen received 3 years' probation and were each ordered to
pay a $3,000 fine and restitution of $1,500. A third individual is
pending trial on similar charges.
In Oregon, six individuals are awaiting sentencing after they pled
guilty on Federal charges of theft for their part in a conspiracy to
fraudulently acquire and sell over 100 dogs to medical research
facilities. The six defendants have also agreed to testify against a
former USDA-licensed dog dealer, her husband, and their son, who have
all been indicted for conspiracy and mail fraud related to the scheme.
Our investigation disclosed that the dealer and her associates either
stole dogs or obtained them under false pretenses over a 15-month
period. The dealer then falsified APHIS forms in order to conceal her
activities. She also forwarded false documents to the Oregon State
Department of Agriculture.
agricultural marketing service (ams)
Oversight of the Fluid Milk Promotion Program Needs Strengthening
Our review of the Fluid Milk Promotion Program indicated that AMS
and the National Fluid Milk Promotion Board need to improve their
oversight and controls over the program's activities to ensure that
assessments on fluid milk are used in accordance with the Fluid Milk
Promotion Act. Those assessments, from approximately 370 processors,
totaled about $169 million from December 1993 through June 1997.
Neither AMS nor the Board provided adequate management or oversight
of program activities. AMS left most oversight efforts to the Board.
The Board delegated most administrative functions to two contractors
and was not actively involved in the day-to-day operations of the
program. One contractor, the Milk Industry Foundation, was responsible
for performing various management and administrative services. The
other contractor, the Board's Administrator, was responsible for
collecting assessments, accounting for funds, and performing compliance
reviews. These services were provided through contracts with the
Administrator's public accounting firm. Altogether, the Board's
Administrator, either as an individual or through his firm, had three
sole-source contracts with the Board.
Although AMS was responsible for reviewing and approving all
contracts, the Board paid over $127 million for contracts, representing
75 percent of the funds collected through the program, without AMS'
approval. The Board entered into these sole-source contracts without
any competition to ensure the most cost-effective procurement of
services.
The Act requires that the Board obtain title to all assets
developed using program funds. In one case, the contract to procure
photographs, taken as part of a major milk-marketing campaign, the
popular ``Milk Mustache'' or ``Got Milk'' advertising campaign, did not
include language to secure title to the photographs. Consequently, the
program expended almost $130,000 in royalties for the continued use of
the photographs. The photographer still has control and possession of
the photographs, which were developed using over $2.7 million in
program funds.
Overall, neither AMS nor the Board has determined, as required by
the Act, whether the program has resulted in increased milk
consumption. While this marketing campaign has been highly visible in
the marketplace, no independent studies have been performed to
determine the campaign's impact on fluid milk consumption.
We recommended that AMS: (1) suspend Board program activities until
a plan is developed whereby the Board will take full control of its
activities and comply with the Act, including establishing guidelines
for awarding contracts to ensure that contracted goods and services are
obtained in the most cost-effective manner; (2) require the Board to
determine the effectiveness of its research and promotion activities to
increase fluid milk consumption; (3) require the Board to obtain AMS
approval on all contracts before any funds are obligated or expended
and that the Board obtain title and possession of all assets acquired
with program funds; and (4) require the Board to assure that audits of
its books and records are conducted using generally accepted Government
auditing standards. AMS did not agree to suspend the Board's
activities. However, it has agreed to institute improvements and is
continuing to work with the Fluid Milk Board to strengthen management
controls.
food, nutrition, and consumer services
food and nutrition service (fns)
Operation Talon
In previous testimony, I informed you we had initiated ``Operation
Talon.'' This special law enforcement initiative, made possible by the
passage of Welfare Reform, involves the exchange of information between
law enforcement and State social services agencies. Specifically, law
enforcement fugitive records are matched with social service agencies'
food stamp recipient records, and the information is used by law
enforcement officers to locate and apprehend dangerous and violent
fugitive felons who may also be illegally receiving food stamp
benefits.
Overall, Operation Talon has been the most successful investigative
initiative we have yet undertaken. To date, this initiative has
resulted in the arrest of over 3,650 fugitive felons. This has included
26 wanted for murder or attempted murder; 11 for rape or attempted
rape; 8 for kidnapping; and 1,202 for assault, robbery, or drug
offenses. This has also resulted in the arrest of 18 fugitive felons
wanted for child molestation. A number of States are removing arrested
fugitives from their food stamp rolls, which will result in savings to
the Food Stamp Program and allow food stamp benefits to continue to go
to the needy for whom they were intended. One particularly rewarding
note is that 2 of the 18 fugitives wanted for child molestation have
also been charged with violating State ``Megan's Law'' statutes. In one
of these cases, OIG and the Hudson County, New Jersey, Sheriff's
Department arrested a convicted child molester for failing to register
as a sex offender. The fugitive had moved without notifying appropriate
State officials and eluded the authorities until he provided his new
address to participate in the Food Stamp Program.
One recent Operation Talon success was in Austin, Texas, where our
special agents worked with Texas law enforcement officials in
apprehending over 75 fugitive felons. We have additional warrants and
anticipate the arrest of numerous other fugitive felons in this highly
successful operation. Operation Talon is an ongoing initiative, and,
working with local law enforcement agencies, we are planning future
arrest operations in many parts of the country.
Food Stamp Program (FSP)--Coupon Trafficking
We are continuing to devote significant investigative resources to
combat fraud in the Food Stamp Program. Ever since the program began
distributing food stamps to needy Americans, unscrupulous people have
been willing to devise methods to unlawfully benefit from this
important program. There are basically two types of traffickers--the
street traffickers who buy or barter food stamps or EBT card benefits
for cash or other nonfood items, and the retailers who purchase or
redeem unlawfully obtained food stamps or cards from eligible
recipients.
We have conducted several significant food stamp trafficking cases
in the last year. Investigations conducted of large-scale fraud
operations in New York, Philadelphia, and Detroit are good examples of
these. In these investigations, we have thus far identified 55 store
owners and employees involved in the unlawful acquisition of some $99
million in food stamp benefits. This has resulted in the arrest and
conviction of many of these individuals, some of whom have been
sentenced to prison terms and ordered to pay millions of dollars in
restitution. Our investigations into these matters continue, and we
anticipate additional persons will be charged.
Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP)
Last year, I testified about a special law enforcement initiative
we had undertaken with one of the targeted programs being CACFP. I
indicated that we would continue ``sweeps'' of program sponsors to find
those who are abusing the program to remove them from sponsorship, to
prosecute them if warranted, and to recover ineligible payments. Since
last year, our CACFP initiative has been designated as a Presidential
Initiative which we named Operation ``Kiddie Care.''
Our efforts have been very successful. Currently, we have 29 open
CACFP investigations. As of December 1998, 54 sponsors in 23 States
were being audited or investigated. We identified 37 sponsors as being
seriously deficient, a term used by FNS to designate sponsors who could
be terminated from the program unless the deficiencies are addressed
promptly. Fourteen sponsors, who had been receiving a total of $24.4
million annually, have been terminated from the program.
In Ohio, seven persons, including the director of the sponsoring
organization operating a local child and adult care food program, pled
guilty to conspiracy to submit false claims for issuing or receiving
reimbursement payments for in-home day care providers who did not exist
or did not have children in the home. This ongoing investigation has
identified 11 people to date who conspired to set up more than 40 false
providers. This conspiracy, which had been ongoing since 1988, resulted
in the submission of false claims for reimbursements totaling about
$1.1 million. The investigation continues with additional prosecutions
anticipated.
In another California case, an executive director of a sponsor
retained food reimbursements to cover the salary he claimed to earn in
California while he was actually working for another enterprise and
living in Wisconsin. He also had a vehicle in Wisconsin for his
personal use which was being paid for by the California sponsor. We are
currently investigating about $231,000 of program funds paid to this
individual.
We will continue with Operation ``Kiddie Care'' as long as we find
evidence that abuses exist. Returning integrity to this important
feeding program and protecting the resources of the American taxpayer
are high priorities for OIG and FNS.
Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children
(WIC)
One of the primary purposes of the WIC program is to provide funds
to pregnant women and families with small children to allow them to
purchase certain nutritious food items. In an effort to curb fraud in
the WIC program, we are continuing our investigative activities in this
area. One such investigation occurred in conjunction with the Columbus,
Ohio, Division of Police; the Ohio Department of Taxation; and the
Franklin County prosecutor where we conducted a 12-month undercover
investigation into trafficking of WIC infant formula and untaxed
cigarettes. Investigators determined that store owners and a wholesaler
received the formula through the black market, removed its ``not for
retail sale'' marking, and sold it commercially in area stores and to
businesses in other States. In two separate ``buy-bust'' cases, store
owners and managers were arrested for illegally purchasing hundreds of
cases of WIC formula and hundreds of thousands of cartons of untaxed
cigarettes. Both investigations were linked to a Columbus commodity
wholesaler at whose warehouses between $500,000 and $1 million in
commodities were seized. The owner and the manager of the first ``buy-
bust'' case pled guilty to racketeering and trafficking in WIC benefits
and untaxed cigarettes. The owner and manager in the second case pled
guilty to trafficking in WIC benefits and untaxed cigarettes. Their
corporation pled guilty to racketeering, and the wholesaler is now a
fugitive.
farm and foreign agricultural services
farm service agency (fsa)
OIG and FSA Managers Meet
In a joint effort to further agency cooperation, OIG and FSA senior
managers and other policy makers met at a roundtable conference in San
Antonio, Texas, the week of December 7, 1998, to explore and embrace
new ways of working together. Prior negative experiences brought many
participants to the conference with an ``us versus them'' attitude. In
the roundtable, OIG auditors, special agents, and FSA program officials
were able to explain obstacles they frequently encountered in
accomplishing their agencies' missions. Working together as part of a
united team, the participants identified several opportunities to
improve communications, and all participants left with a new
appreciation for the other's needs. We look forward to improved working
relationships with FSA's Administrator and his hardworking staff.
Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) Overpayments
We reviewed 1996 crop-year program payments in California, Florida,
Georgia, and Oklahoma, where $26.9 million in benefits--out of a total
of $45.9 million nationwide--were paid as of July 31, 1997. We found
hidden or inaccurate reporting of production and the use of incorrect
yields to compute payments for 23 of the 98 cases. We found that
because the estimates and adjustments used to determine loss could not
be verified, the process for determining the actual amount of loss
allowed producers to obtain unwarranted program benefits. This was a
major problem for seeded wheat forage in Oklahoma. For other crops--
strawberries, cherries, and onions--production was based on information
reported by the producer which also was not verifiable as actual
production. We recommended that FSA collect $411,000 in overpayments.
FSA has agreed to review the payments and collect any overpayments to
which relief provisions did not apply.
Overpayment of Emergency Assistance to Producers in the Upper Great
Plains
In January 1997, FSA implemented two programs to provide assistance
to endangered livestock caught in the blizzards and cold weather in
North and South Dakota. The Emergency Feed Grain Donation Program
(EFGDP) provided 100-percent cost-share assistance to livestock
producers for snow removal and to feed their livestock in immediate
danger of perishing. The Foundation Livestock Relief Program (FLRP)
provided 30-percent cost-share assistance for area producers to enhance
the diet of foundation livestock--or breeding stock--weakened by the
severe winter weather.
Because the two programs ran concurrently with different cost-share
rates, some producers improperly received assistance for supplemental
feed purchases under EFGDP instead of FLRP. This allowed the producers
to receive 100 percent of the feed cost compared to the 30-percent
cost-share. In addition, we found that producers were paid excessive
snow removal costs during a 15-day extension period and for snow
removal when they already had access to normal feed supplies. FSA
improperly authorized $2.5 million of FLRP payments to 23 counties in
Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, and Wyoming adjoining the disaster area. We
recommended FSA strengthen its oversight role in certain areas to help
ensure that future disaster assistance is limited to identified areas
and require county offices to act on the cases where excessive EFGDP
and FLRP payments were issued. FSA believes its existing controls are
generally adequate; but, due to the complexity and difficulty of
administering emergency and disaster programs, procedures to improve
oversight will be incorporated into future programs. FSA agreed,
subject to the finality rule, to recover the overpayments.
Environmental Benefits Index Scores Controls Could Be Improved
Under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) producers receive
annual payments from FSA to take highly erodible cropland out of
production and establish and maintain a vegetative cover on it. During
signup, producers designate tracts of land determined to be
environmentally sensitive, which are reviewed and scored according to
values on the Environmental Benefits Index (EBI). One subpart of the
index identifies the environmental benefits of the land, such as
providing cover beneficial to wildlife. It also specifies what
numerical scores may be given for the different kinds of conservation
practices--planting mixed grasses, legumes, etc.--that the producer
established to enhance each benefit. Tracts that have been awarded
higher scores are regarded as more worthy of conserving and qualify for
CRP consideration ahead of tracts with lower scores. Tracts that fall
below a minimum score are excluded from the program.
We reported that the Natural Resources Conservation Service's
(NRCS) implementation of CRP exhibited significant control weaknesses.
These included improperly modified point scores for various
environmental ranking factors and subfactors in some States. In
addition, producers in some States received high scores for preserving
cover beneficial to wildlife or for protecting threatened and
endangered species even though the required cover or endangered species
were not present on the tract of land. Such inconsistencies can result
in greater CRP consideration for cropland in one State, even though its
environmental benefits are no greater than those of its neighbors. We
identified approximately 2,900 offers nationwide with annual rental
payments totaling about $13 million that were at risk of incorrect
acceptance into CRP. NRCS management issued guidance that addressed
some scoring problems noted in our review.
farm service agency (fsa) investigations
Historically, one of our primary activities has been the
investigation of criminal violations of the various farm loan programs
administered by USDA. We continue to conduct such investigations with
great success. A good example is a honey producer in Idaho. This
individual was sentenced to serve 28 months in prison and ordered to
pay USDA over $3 million in restitution after he pled guilty to
submitting false statements to FSA in order to obtain over $6 million
in loans and subsidy payments.
rural development
rural housing service (rhs)
OIG and RHS Join Forces to Combat Fraud and Abuse in Rural Rental
Housing (RRH) Program
OIG and RHS combined efforts to identify, investigate, and
prosecute owners and management agents that had abused or defrauded the
RRH program. We targeted owners and management agents who were
suspected of abusing the program.
Joint OIG-RHS teams physically inspected 631 apartment complexes
and then examined the financial records of apartment complexes operated
by 32 owners and management agents in 13 States. The teams identified
over $3.5 million in misused funds and uncovered serious physical
deterioration of some apartment complexes, including conditions that
posed health and safety risks to the tenants. Our work is continuing,
and we will issue a summary report later this spring.
An investigation in Washington State centered on a prominent local
attorney who was a general partner of multiple limited partnerships
which owned federally financed and subsidized low-income housing
projects. The attorney had built 65 apartment projects in 20 States
under the RRH program. Our investigation disclosed that the partner
submitted false and fictitious construction invoices to RHS and to the
lending banks which administered RHS loans in order to divert $176,000
in funds from four RHS loans. Our investigation also showed that he
received kickbacks from the bank where loan funds were deposited. In
order to conceal the kickbacks, he submitted fictitious invoices to the
bank for purported legal services rendered. He also failed to disclose
$95,000 in income derived from the diverted funds and other sources on
his 1995 individual income tax return. He pled guilty to making false
statements, receiving unlawful payments, and filing a false Federal
income tax return. He was sentenced to 21 months in prison and ordered
to pay $300,000 in restitution.
Problems Exist With Electric Program Loan Funds, Borrowers
We evaluated the Rural Utilities Service's (RUS) electric program
because of its high dollar value--approximately $32 billion, potential
for large losses--writeoffs of more than $1.7 billion and about $8
billion owed by troubled borrowers, and recent changes in legislation
and in the industry. We found that the eligibility criteria prescribed
by law and regulation for hardship loans and prioritization of
applications for municipal rate loans did not take into consideration
the applicant's financial strength, loan amounts, or local user rates.
Also, the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as amended, and
regulations did not allow RUS to ensure that guaranteed loans benefited
only truly rural areas. This could delay funding for improvement of
electrical services to the most needy borrowers and in truly rural
areas.
We recommended that RUS seek legislative change and amend
regulations so that hardship loan funds can be targeted to areas of
greatest need by taking into consideration financial condition and
local area user rates and by ensuring municipal rate loan funds benefit
only truly rural areas. Although agency officials generally agreed with
our findings, they did not agree with our recommendations to seek a
legislative or regulatory change.
insurance
risk management agency (rma)
Reinsurance Companies' Quality Control Systems Lacking
RMA delivers multiple-peril crop insurance programs through
standard reinsurance agreements with private insurance companies. Under
the agreements, the companies are required to develop quality control
plans consistent with the agency's policies and procedures that
safeguard against waste, loss, unauthorized use, and misappropriation.
This past year, we reviewed the quality control processes of reinsured
companies operating under agreements made with RMA in 1995. We found
that, although the quality control systems generally complied with the
terms of the agreement, they did not effectively improve program
delivery, ensure program integrity, and adequately measure or report on
program performance. The consequences of poorly specified requirements
in the reinsurance agreements were insufficient data collection,
maintenance, and reporting requirements; ineffective oversight of
quality control operations; and insufficient controls against conflicts
of interest. As a result, program officials cannot rely on reinsured
companies' quality control reviews.
We recommended that RMA, in consultation with crop insurance
organizations and experts, adopt appropriate professional standards for
quality control and, in particular, controls to deal with conflicting
sales and claims adjustment operations that affect the integrity of
crop insurance programs. The agency concurred with our recommendations
for improved quality control processes but not with our findings and
recommendations for improved controls against potential conflicts of
interest. We are working with RMA on the disputed recommendations.
Nonirrigated Crop Insurance Yields Set Too High and Practices Not
Viable
Prompted by an OIG hotline complaint, we audited RMA's first year,
crop-year 1998, extra long staple (ELS) cotton insurance program in the
Texas counties of Glasscock, Midland, Reagan, and Upton. We determined
that the transitional-yields, or T-yields, and established yields based
on historical averages for nonirrigated ELS cotton were set
exceptionally high. Also, we questioned whether the growing season and
rainfall were sufficient to produce ELS cotton in these four counties.
We reported that, as a result of these issues, RMA could incur
excessive losses of about $12 million for the 1998 crop-year alone.
Similarly, we disclosed that high T-yields for nonirrigated popcorn in
the Rio Grande Valley resulted in indemnities totaling about $5.5
million for 1997, and nonirrigated dent corn T-yields for 1998 were
sufficiently elevated to result in losses of between $2.2 million and
$2.8 million in Tom Green County, Texas.
Officials in the four counties stated that these were not locally
accepted practices because more water is required than the counties
receive in rainfall and the growing season is too short for ELS cotton
to properly mature. Therefore, we concluded that nonirrigated practices
were not viable in the cited counties and recommended that, effective
for crop-year 1999, RMA discontinue coverage for ELS cotton in the four
counties named in the complaint, popcorn in the Rio Grande Valley, and
dent corn in Tom Green County. RMA agreed.
research, education, and economics
cooperative state research, education, and extension service (csrees)
Schedule A Extension Appointees' Rights Need Clarification
There are approximately 8,000 Schedule A appointees working
nationwide in the State Cooperative Extension System (CES). The
appointees receive Federal benefits including participation in the
Federal Health Benefits Program and civil service retirement plan. In
1990, the Civil Service Due Process Amendments extended coverage to
these appointees. Our review of adverse actions taken against two
appointees by one State university CES director disclosed that the
universities are not always aware that protections such as counseling
and appeals procedures apply. In this case, the university had offered
no protections and stated that its own policy allowed the CES to
dismiss the appointees without recourse. The Office of General Counsel
provided CSREES with an opinion that these positions fall within the
due process requirements of the Merit Protection System. USDA's Office
of Human Resources Management confirmed that Schedule A appointees are
Federal employees for purposes of civil service protections.
On December 9, 1998, the Merit System Protection Board ruled that
the individual taking actions against the two employees was within
Federal jurisdiction. The case was remanded to an Administrative Judge
for further adjudication. OIG has encouraged CSREES to work with the
National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges to
inform all CES offices of the appointees' current status and assist
them in developing suitable personnel procedures for these positions.
accounting, financial, and information management
Financial Statement Audits
As required by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 and the
Government Management Reform Act, we completed seven financial
statement audits of the Department's programs. We issued unqualified,
or ``clean,'' opinions on the fiscal year 1997 financial statements of
the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, the Commodity Credit
Corporation, and the Rural Telephone Bank. Audits of the Rural
Development mission area and the Food and Nutrition Service resulted in
qualified opinions. Rural Development received a qualified opinion
because we were unable to assess the reasonableness of its estimated
loan subsidy costs for loans obligated after fiscal year 1991.
In fiscal year 1997, FNS received a qualified opinion because we
were unable to assess the reasonableness of its gross, non-Federal
accounts receivable for the Food Stamp Program and the related account
balances and notes to the financial statements. I am happy to report
that on February 1, 1999, we issued an unqualified opinion for the
fiscal year 1998 financial statements for FNS.
For fiscal year 1997, we issued a disclaimer of opinion on the
Forest Service (FS) and the USDA consolidated statements. FS received a
disclaimer due to significant financial system weaknesses which include
the lack of an integrated general ledger and supporting subsidiary
records. The USDA consolidated statements received a disclaimer of
opinion for fiscal year 1997 because the Department could not provide
assurance that its financial systems provide information that is
relevant, timely, consistently reported, and in conformance with
applicable accounting principles. In addition to financial system
problems, numerous internal control weaknesses exist that materially
impact the Department's ability to report accurate and reliable
financial information.
A disclaimer of opinion has been issued to the Department for each
of the last 4 years. This means that the Department, as a whole, does
not know whether it correctly reported the amount of revenue it
received, the cost of its operations, or other meaningful measures of
financial performance. The Department and its agencies have recognized
the weaknesses and have put considerable effort into improving their
financial systems and reporting processes. While plans have been made
to fix these problems and actions have been taken to address some of
the weaknesses, more must be done. The Department is carrying out its
Financial Information System Vision and Strategy project aimed at
developing a single integrated financial management system that meets
all Treasury and Office of Management and Budget requirements and
fulfills the needs of USDA. We continue to assist departmental and
agency officials in these efforts.
Information Resources Management
Department Progressing With ``Year 2000'' Conversion
The Year 2000 issue has the potential to limit the Department's
ability to deliver its programs. In April 1997, we began a continuing
review and assessment of the Department's Year 2000 conversion efforts.
Most recently, we completed a review of the renovation and validation
efforts of seven agencies. This review determined whether the agencies
had devised a strategy to convert, replace, or eliminate impacted
hardware and software; fully tested and certified systems identified as
compliant; and adequately assessed data exchanges and communicated with
the exchange partners. Overall, we determined that the agencies are
progressing in their Year 2000 conversion efforts; however, improvement
is needed in some areas.
Our review disclosed that FSA had reported four mission critical
systems--the Highly Erodible Land and Wetland Conservation system, the
Cotton Rate Offer system, the Daily Terminal Prices System, and the
Marketing Assessment System--as Y2K compliant without performing any
validation testing. Also, FSA reported that its Warehouse Rates
Management System and the Processed Commodities Inventory System would
not be implemented until June 1999. The Foreign Agricultural Service
reported that its Financial Accounting and Reporting system will be
implemented in April 1999. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service reported its Information System Upgrade Project would not be
implemented until September 1999. In addition, FS reported its data
exchange agreements generally consisted of informal verbal agreements
which did not fully establish the data conversion responsibilities of
each exchange partner.
Due to the time sensitivity of the Year 2000 issue, these findings
and others have been provided to the affected agencies in interim
reports. The agencies have responded to our recommendations, and an
audit report consolidating our findings will be issued later this year.
Currently, we are reviewing personal property, facilities, and
equipment because of their reliance on embedded microprocessor chips.
employee integrity
The investigation of serious misconduct by USDA employees remains a
high priority of OIG. During fiscal year 1998, OIG issued 55 reports of
investigation concerning serious allegations of misconduct by USDA
employees. Our investigations resulted in 23 convictions of current and
former employees and 80 personnel actions, including reprimands,
suspensions, resignations, removals, and alternative discipline.
In July 1994, a tropical storm struck southern Georgia, causing
serious flooding and millions of dollars in damage. As a result, NRCS
negotiated and funded numerous watershed repair contracts under the
Emergency Watershed Protection Program (EWPP). After we received
confidential information from a private sector contractor, our 18-month
investigation developed evidence showing that two NRCS employees, who
were responsible for managing EWPP contracts, accepted cash bribes from
a contractor in exchange for special considerations in obtaining EWPP
contracts. A third employee arranged for a contractor doing business
with NRCS to perform construction work on personally owned land. The
cost of this work was then improperly billed to USDA. During July
through September 1998, the three employees entered guilty pleas in
U.S. District Court to violations resulting from their acceptance of
bribes and gratuities. One employee was fined and placed on probation
while the other two employees are awaiting sentencing. All three
employees resigned from NRCS.
A Louisiana Rural Development county office employee pled guilty in
Federal court to embezzling and misapplying over $82,000 in rural
housing loan payments she had received in her office. She was sentenced
to serve 6 months' imprisonment, to be followed by 4 months' home
confinement. She was also fined $10,000 and ordered to pay nearly
$24,350 in restitution. The employee resigned soon after we initiated
our investigation.
conclusion
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. As you can see, the work
of OIG is far-reaching and expansive. I appreciate the opportunity to
appear today and present this information, and I hope that my comments
have been helpful to you and the Committee. I will be pleased to
respond to any questions you may have at this time.
______
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics
Prepared Statement of Dr. I. Miley Gonzalez, Under Secretary
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear
before you to discuss the fiscal year 2000 budgets for the Research,
Education, and Economics (REE) mission area agencies. I am accompanied
by Deputy Under Secretary, Dr. Eileen Kennedy, and the Administrators
of the four mission area agencies: Dr. Floyd Horn, Administrator of the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS); Dr. Colien Hefferan, Acting
Administrator of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service (CSREES); Dr. Susan Offutt, Administrator of the
Economic Research Service (ERS); and Mr. Donald Bay, Administrator of
the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Each Administrator
has submitted written testimony for the record.
The REE budget, the first budget submitted since the passage of the
Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998
(Reform Act), reflects very strong support for the REE programs and a
recognition of contributions that research, education, economics and
statistics programs of REE can make in solving the pressing challenges
facing agriculture and the nation. REE and its agencies have a proud
history of finding solutions to the challenges facing agriculture over
many decades. Building on the extraordinary possibilities of cutting
edge research and biotechnology, REE is more capable than ever of
delivering on new challenges in production agriculture, food safety and
nutrition, mindful of the need to find environmentally sound solutions.
The budget we are discussing today, begins to meet the spirit of the
message delivered by the House Committee on Science last fall in its
report Unlocking Our Future. To quote the report, ``Science . . . must
be given the opportunity to thrive, as it is the precursor to new and
better understanding, products and processes.'' I believe this budget
affords the Nation's agriculture and food system and all who have an
interest in its future, the opportunity to benefit from such a thriving
research and education system. As good as our REE programs are today,
the size and shape of the increased investment found in this budget is
one in which all would benefit, producers from Maine to Guam and
consumers from Alaska to Puerto Rico.
Overall, the President's budget provides $2.1 billion for the four
REE agencies, an increase in program level of 7 percent above fiscal
year 1999 for the conduct of research, education, and statistical
programs. This is the most significant increase in the REE budgets
since the early 1990's and moves REE in the direction of the funding
increases in the budgets of other major research agencies across the
government over the last few years. Meaningful increases are requested
for all four agencies to support high priority initiatives and programs
addressing critical issues, such as food safety, human nutrition,
emerging diseases, pest management, and environmental quality.
The 7 percent increase in the overall program level of funding
depends significantly on the inclusion of the Initiative for Future
Agriculture and Food Systems under Section 401 of the Reform Act. The
program provides an infusion of $120 million in the CSREES budget to
competitively award research, education, and extension grants focused
on high priority issues outlined in the Reform Act, such as farm
efficiency and profitability and natural resource management. In
addition, $20 to $40 million will be available for research, extension,
and education through the Fund for Rural America when allocation
decisions are made after the 2000 Appropriations Act is enacted.
The overall increase in the REE budget reflects the strong support
that REE is receiving from the Secretary and the Administration. We
have worked diligently with the Secretary to explain the benefits of
the research investment and make the results and benefits more broadly
known to our stakeholders and the general public. However, I am still
concerned that we find ways to balance the research portfolio in
helping colleges and universities enhance their future capacity with
base funding, so they may strengthen their ability to compete in the
new Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems that encourages
this competitiveness. We want to work with you in this arena. Minority
serving institutions find themselves even more disadvantaged in this
growing competitive environment.
As we take some satisfaction in the increase in this budget and the
implied recognition of its value and productiveness, I believe we must
acknowledge that new times demand new ways of doing business. I have
talked with our university partners, and they share this recognition of
this need for change as we move into the 21st century. Multi-
disciplinary, regional, multi-state, and multi-institutional strategies
facilitate both efficient and effective returns on our research,
education, and extension dollars. We must continue to listen to our
stakeholders and customers and hear their needs. We must shape and
describe our programs so, with a good dose of our judgment, the
programs are responsive to those same stakeholders and customers. We
must tell them in plain English just what we plan to do and what
difference it will make for farmers, ranchers, food processors, and
others in the food industry, as well as consumers. In other words, we
must hold ourselves accountable for the investment made in our programs
and understand that agricultural research and education issues
transcend national borders and global competitiveness requires
international scientific partnerships. We believe we are meeting the
outreach, accountability, and coordination requirements of recent
legislation efficiently and effectively. We are confident our efforts
along these lines will contribute to program effectiveness, and better
equip us, and you, to defend budget requests in increasingly
competitive arenas.
Often agriculture research and extension hold the keys to
effectively addressing acute problems. Our recent response to the wheat
and barley scab crisis in the northern Plains is an example of how
quick action can make a difference. Similarly, our rapid and effective
response to the Avian influenza scare proved to be very valuable in
protecting the lives and health of all people.
I believe it is equally important to call on and support the
research and education system in government, at universities and at
other research institutions in mounting a proactive, long term approach
to solving or even avoiding acute problems, such as the ones being
experienced by the farm community today. In this regard, I believe the
REE education, extension and information technology programs can play a
critical role. In our knowledge-based society, getting the right
information in an accessible form to the user is the key to empowering
farmers, individuals, families, and communities to improve their
futures and guard against bad times. If I may quote again from the
report Unlocking Our Future, ``Not only must we ensure that we continue
to produce world-class scientists and engineers, we must also provide
every citizen with an adequate grounding in science and math, if we are
to give them an opportunity to succeed in the technology-based world of
tomorrow.'' The results of our research and analyses yield information
farmers need to effectively manage the many types of risk inherent in
operating a farm, including crop selection, disease, weather, market
volatility, and pest control. We have an obligation to ensure that this
information gets to the farmers and other producers so they can make
informed decisions. They need this to have a complete safety net. I
urge you, in your deliberations on the REE budgets, to take full
advantage of the potential value of such a long term approach for the
new roles and responsibilities of scientific investigation and
education in agriculture. We must make substantial funding for these
areas the highest priority if we are to prepare for the future.
ree fiscal year 2000 initiatives
Before turning to the budgets of the four REE agencies, I would
like to focus on six high priority initiatives found in the budget:
Integrated Pest Management, including implementation of the Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA); Food Safety; Agricultural Genomics;
Small Farms; Global Change; and Community Food Security. They all
represent critical investments to meet major challenges facing
agriculture and the nation.
Effective pest management is a continuing challenge for
agricultural producers. The public's increasing concern about the
quality of the environment and the safety of our food, reflected in
such laws as the FQPA, heighten the challenge. While generally sharing
the overall goals, producers find themselves needing new pest control
technology that is effective and economically viable, and at the same
time responsive to public environmental and food safety concerns.
Under the umbrella of FQPA Implementation and Integrated Pest
Management, the REE agency budgets include $29 million in increases
focused on providing EPA information and data essential for science-
based implementation of FQPA and on advancing efforts to develop and
transfer to producers environmentally sound and effective pest
management technology. In fiscal year 1998, the Department established
the Office of Pest Management Policy, to coordinate the FQPA/IPM
activities. That office is effectively serving in that capacity. In
particular, it is working closely with EPA to ensure that that agency
has the data it needs, when it needs it to make decisions critical to
producers on the availability of different pesticides under FQPA.
Under the broader integrated pest management component of this
ongoing initiative, significant progress has been made in developing
sound pest management technologies and their adoption by producers.
However, there is considerable distance to go in the pursuit of
promising technologies and in the adoption of practices and
technologies that take advantage of the newest discoveries coming out
of IPM research. The initiative includes increases to support enhanced
research on biocontrol alternatives to pesticides and new control
technologies, as well as to support more effective transfer of the new
technologies to producers. Both the ARS and the CSREES budgets include
funding requests to expand work with producers to test new technologies
and practices and facilitate their adoption. These increases to promote
adoption of technologies are critical if the Nation is to benefit from
the discoveries coming out of laboratories.
Promoting food safety is a second issue in which the Administration
and Department have a keen interest, an interest that fiscal year 1999
Appropriations and the Reform Act indicate is shared by Congress. While
the U. S. food supply is one of the safest, if not the safest, in the
world, millions of Americans become ill each year due to food-borne
pathogens. Consumers increasingly express concern about the safety of
all food. Episodes of food contamination and the consumer response at
the grocery store demonstrate the influence of consumer confidence on
the demand for foods.
Over the past few years, the Administration has taken major strides
to improve our current food safety system. A ``farm to table'' approach
to food safety has been adopted in which the potential for the
introduction, transmission, prevention and/or elimination of
contaminants is systematically examined at each step along the path to
the consumer's table. Ongoing implementation of Hazard Analysis and
Critical Control Point (HACCP), relying heavily on USDA research, is
radically changing our meat and poultry inspection system and already
showing signs of significantly reducing food contamination levels. Last
year, the Administration placed new emphasis on food safety in fruits
and vegetables, now an integral part of the Administration's Food
Safety Initiative begun in fiscal year 1997. Producers are increasingly
being called on to modify their production practices to reduce the
potential for pathogen contaminations. In recognition of these new
challenges, the food safety program is also placing new emphasis on
research to help producers respond to preharvest food safety issues,
such as animal waste management.
The REE component of the Food Safety Initiative in the fiscal year
2000 budget provides increases to ARS, CSREES, and ERS, totaling $26
million, including increased funding through the National Research
Initiative (NRI). Additional funds will be provided under the increase
for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems. The
majority of the funds will focus on developing improved pathogen
prevention and detection methods and other bioscience research in ARS
and CSREES. ERS requests funds to determine the economic burden from
unsafe food and to assess the benefits and costs of alternative
pathogen control policies. CSREES would also receive funding to expand
education efforts for those involved in the food production system from
farm to table.
To enhance the effectiveness of the national food safety research
effort and the larger Food Safety Initiative, USDA, in collaboration
with the Department of Health and Human Services, is providing
leadership in establishing a new Joint Institute for Food Safety
Research. Created in response to a Presidential directive, the new
virtual Institute will promote coordinated planning and priority
setting of food safety research across the government and with the
private sector, using existing funds. The Institute will also
facilitate transfer of research results into new food safety practices.
A third initiative I would like to highlight is agricultural
genomics. The promise of biotechnology for producers is well
established. Higher yields, improved quality, greater resistance to
disease and pests, and reduced stress due to adverse weather conditions
are outcomes we can anticipate will help producers individually, and as
an industry, to be more competitive in the global market. These same
outcomes will help the Nation achieve a safe, abundant, and nutritious
food supply and meet the needs of a growing population worldwide.
However, such success depends on having an understanding of the genetic
make-up of plants and animals on which biotechnology depends.
As a leader in the President's Food Genome Initiative, a
government-wide initiative, USDA is making a major contribution to the
larger effort, expanding our knowledge of genomes of species of
importance to the food and agricultural sector. The REE mission area
has chaired the Interagency Working Group on Plant Genomics involving
the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Department of Health
and Human Services, the Department of Energy and the National Science
Foundation. In this role, REE continues to engage commodity group
representatives and leading scientists in discussions about the plant
genome research program.
Joint ARS and CSREES programming under the USDA Agriculture Genome
Initiative includes research on animals and microbes, as well as
plants. This research program is built on the blueprint for future
research outlined in a USDA concept paper and follows the Interagency
Working Groups's Plant Genome recommendations.
This research, focused on gene structure and function, is expected
to have considerable payoff for crop species ranging from rice to corn
and animal species ranging from cattle to swine to poultry. Efforts in
the USDA food genomics program will initially concentrate on
identification of economically important traits that increase yield,
quality and disease resistance in plants, minimize the need for
pesticides, and protect the environment.
The budget provides ARS and CSREES increased support for genomics
research. The CSREES funds would be provided under the NRI and the new
Initiative. The Reform Act indicates both agricultural genome and
agricultural biotechnology are high priority areas for the purposes of
making grants.
The small farms initiative is the fourth initiative I would like to
highlight. Small farmers and ranchers make a valuable contribution to
agriculture and rural America, often filling market niches and bringing
life to rural communities. But many have fallen on hard times with the
industrialization of agriculture and are struggling to find a place in
an increasingly competitive sector. In 1997 Secretary Glickman
established the National Commission on Small Farms to determine the
status of small farms in the United States and recommend USDA actions
to promote their economic viability and, therefore, their contribution
to the agriculture sector and rural America in these new times. This
initiative is responsive to the Commission's report, A Time to Act, in
providing ERS and CSREES funds to better understand the market
information needs of small farmers and the degree to which these needs
are being met and to develop programs that help small farmers acquire
the critical business skills and develop effective marketing strategies
that promote economically viable farms. Increased funding in the NRI
will support examination of the economics of small farms and their
contribution to local economies, as well as increased funding of
research appropriate to this segment of the sector. Data on small and
medium-sized farms coming from the Census of Agriculture recently
completed by NASS will be valuable in helping ARS and other agencies
identify and conduct research responsive to the needs and priorities of
such farms.
Climate change is a fifth initiative I would like to highlight.
Climate change has extraordinary implications for production
agriculture in terms of the impact of climate change on plants and
animals, as well as the potential for new production practices to
mitigate these effects on agriculture and on the Nation. In support of
the President's Initiative on Global Climate Change, the fiscal year
2000 budget includes funds in the ARS, CSREES, and ERS budgets to
support research to gain a better understanding of climate change, its
causes and associated consequences for agriculture. The funds will also
support complementary research on possible coping or adjustment
mechanisms to minimize the adverse effect of climate change on
agricultural production. Looking to the potential for agriculture to
play a positive role in mitigating the greenhouse effect and associated
global warming, other increases would provide new understanding of the
greenhouse gas emissions and the potential for carbon sequestration
carried out under production agriculture to mitigate such emissions. It
is a promising possibility for agriculture that warrants serious
investigation.
The final initiative to be highlighted is Community Food Security.
Communities across the Nation have been confronting an increasing
number of food-related problems including unprecedented demand on the
charitable food sector, the decline of local agriculture systems, and
poor nutrition. To address these and related problems, the CSREES
budget includes $15 million for a Food Recovery and Gleaning grant
program as the principal component of the USDA Community Food Security
Initiative. The purpose of the grant program is to improve methods of
collection, transport and storage of recovered and gleaned food, to
enhance the technical assistance and education network to empower
communities to establish and administer food recovery programs and to
extend understanding of the technical issues in food recovery.
These are the highlights of six initiatives that span the agencies
within REE. Fuller discussion of agency components of these initiatives
can be found in the agencies' Explanatory Notes.
ree agency fiscal year 2000 budgets
I would like to turn briefly to the budgets of the four REE
agencies. The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) fiscal year 2000
budget requests $837 million in ongoing research and information
programs or a net increase of $51 million over fiscal year 1999. The
proposed increases will be dedicated to a broad range of the high
priority programs, such as food safety, human nutrition, invasive
species and integrated pest management. To partially offset these
increases the budget also includes redirection of approximately $35
million in current programs to fund higher priority program initiatives
of nationwide interest. As the principal intramural biological and
physical science research agency in the Department, ARS continues to
play a critical role for the Department and the larger agricultural
community in conducting mission-driven research. Results from ARS's
fundamental research provide the foundation of applied and
developmental research carried out in many public and private
institutions. Building on its own and other fundamental research, ARS
also conducts applied research and technology development to solve
specific problems of national and regional importance and to meet the
research needs of other USDA agencies.
The ARS fiscal year 2000 budget includes an increase of $20 million
in the third year of the Human Nutrition Research Initiative. Research
results continue to confirm the critical role of nutritious diets in
promoting good health and mitigating diet-related disease. It is hard
to overestimate the potential payoff for individuals and society as a
whole from the adoption of healthy diets. At the scientific level and
the personal level, increasing our understanding of the relationship
between diet and health and of the sources of important nutrients will
enhance our well-being and reduce our national health care bill.
The fiscal year 2000 increases will emphasize the role of nutrition
in bone growth and nutrient requirements for healthy mental function.
Also included in the budget are funds to complete the Western Human
Nutrition Research Center and the first of two phases of the new
Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center.
In addition to the ARS increases in the highlighted initiatives and
nutrition, the ARSbudget includes increases for emerging infectious
diseases and invasive species, global change and sustainable
ecosystems.
The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes $45 million for the ARS
building and facilities program, a decrease of $12 million from fiscal
year 1999. As the Subcommittee knows, over the last 18 months the
Strategic Planning Task Force on Research Facilities, mandated in the
1996 Farm Bill, has been addressing the multifaceted and complex issues
related to agricultural research facilities and their adequacy to
support cutting edge research in the 21st Century. We are awaiting the
Task Force's recommendations and guidelines in their report to be
completed later this year. In the meantime, we believe we must provide
support for several ARS projects in which there are critical and
immediate needs.
The $45 million also includes $22 million in funding for five
locations, in addition to the two Nutrition Research Centers. This
includes $14 million for the Regional Research Centers located in
Albany, Peoria, Philadelphia, and New Orleans, which all need major
infrastructure replacement and modernization. Another $8.2 million is
requested for the Plum Island Animal Disease Center. Current biosafety
and biocontainment standards and regulatory issues relating to
environmental quality and energy conservation are among many concerns
that indicate the facility is in serious need of modernization. The
increases for renovations are the product of careful planning over
several years and are vital for ARS to continue its high quality and
productive research for which it is world renowned.
The President's fiscal year 2000 budget provides $1.1 billion for
the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. This
includes $948 million in the discretionary budget, an increase of $24
million over fiscal year 1999. Within the discretionary budget, an
increase of $81 million is provided for the National Research
Initiative (NRI). The NRI increases will focus on several high priority
areas, including development of integrated production systems,
agricultural genomics, global change and food safety.
As indicated above, the budget also includes $120 million in
mandatory spending under the Reform Act for fiscal year 2000, and a
total of $600 million over 5 years for the Initiative for Future
Agriculture and Food Systems under the Reform Act. This competitive
research, education and extension program will emphasize a multi-
disciplinary and multi-institutional approach to addressing high
priority issues outlined in the law. The Administration strongly
believes that the most appropriate and effective use of taxpayer
dollars is through peer-reviewed competitively awarded research grants
that focus on national issues and concerns. Programs such as the NRI
and the Initiative for the Future Agriculture and Food Systems provide
a very effective mechanism for attracting and focusing the highest
quality research conducted across the country on high priority issues
faced by the agriculture and food system. There is also evidence that a
significant portion of competitive grants are awarded to land grant
colleges, universities and State extension agencies. The
Administration's budget should result in a major infusion of funds to
these institutions.
In addition to the NRI increases and the broader Initiative for
Future Agriculture and Food Systems, the CSREES budget includes
increases to empower less advantaged people and communities so they may
improve their own lives and that of their families.
The CSREES budget also includes increases in the Children, Youth
and Families At Risk (CYFAR) program and Expanded Food and Nutrition
Education Program. The goal of both programs is to help individuals and
families gain the skills and create the environment that encourage
individuals, families and community leaders to take responsibility for
their own lives and that of their communities.
In addition to the increases, the CSREES budget provides for a
redirection of fiscal year 1999 funding for the new Integrated
Research, Education, and Extension grant authority provided in the
Reform Act. Bringing the research and education component together with
extension affords the opportunity to integrate programs which draws on
the strengths of both activities. The research agenda is more likely to
be informed by extension's connection to the customer and extension is
more likely to understand research findings coming from the research.
In providing critical funding to the research, education, and
extension programs of the Land Grant system and other universities and
organizations across the country, CSREES continues to play a central
role in helping generate new knowledge and technology and in
facilitating the transfer of that knowledge and technology to those who
will use it.
The Economic Research Service's budget decreases from $63 million
in fiscal year 1999 to $56 million in fiscal year 2000. As the
Department's principal intramural economics and social science research
agency, ERS conducts research and analysis on the efficiency, efficacy,
and equity aspects of issues related to agriculture, food safety and
nutrition, the environment, and rural development. The decreased
funding level is due to the return of the food program studies to the
Food and Nutrition Service. The fiscal year 2000 ERS budget supports
new or enhanced research of approximately $2.9 million. In addition to
the increases in the initiatives highlighted above, the ERS budget
includes $0.9 million to enhance the Agency's program in commodity
market analysis. The increase will allow ERS to further strengthen its
commodity program to assure the maintenance of sufficient capacity to
analyze the structure and peformance of commodity markets, contribute
its analytical expertise to related Department activities and enhance
the dissemination of analytical market information to customers who
rely on its availability. Additional funds of $0.2 million will support
an examination of the impact of electric utility deregulation on rural
areas.
The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) budget declines
by $3 million to $101 million due to the cyclical nature of Census of
Agriculture funding. The market-oriented policy and the competitive
global market in which agriculture exists make NASS's comprehensive,
reliable, and timely data on U.S. agricultural commodities more
critical than ever to farmers, ranchers, and other agribusinesses
needing to make informed production and marketing decisions. The
results of the 1997 Census, the first NASS has conducted, were released
last month, 10 months ahead of schedule. The survey results show that
with careful counting the number of farms was relatively stable over
the last 5 years. While the overall NASS budget decreases, the agency's
budget includes several increases to enhance and broaden its
statistical program. They include $2.5 million to conduct a new fruits
and vegetables survey as part of the Food Safety Initiative, $1.6
million to collect pesticide use data for horticulture and greenhouse
industries to support a science-based response to the Food Quality
Protection Act and $1.8 million to conduct the decennial Agricultural
Economics and Land Ownership Survey. An additional increase will allow
for establishing a permanent NASS office in Puerto Rico. NASS is the
only USDA agency with field offices that do not include Puerto Rico.
The increase will facilitate both better statistics and better access
to statistics for producers in Puerto Rico.
summary
In summary, I want to reiterate that I believe that, given a tight
budget environment, the REE agencies' budgets reflect a strong
commitment to investment in agricultural research, statistics,
education, and extension, one stronger than in the recent past. It also
reflects an understanding that research and education are the key to
solving not only the problems agriculture and its producers are facing
today, but those of tomorrow. With continued strong investment we will
be ready to meet those future problems. And if we are even smarter and
more farsighted, we will employ research and education to mitigate
agriculture problems before they overtake us. Thank you. We welcome
your questions.
______
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Prepared Statement of Dayton J. Watkins, Administrator
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
appear before you today to present the Administration's fiscal year
2000 Budget for the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS).
Mr. Chairman, the key to improving the economic conditions of rural
areas, and particularly those areas experiencing decades of poverty and
stagnant economies, is the creation of more business opportunities and
more jobs. But, particularly jobs that pay wages that are sufficient to
lift families out of poverty. Presently, service sector jobs are the
leading employer in many rural areas, and as important as those jobs
are to the local economy, they still do not pay a wage sufficient to
support a family of four. Creation of these jobs is best accomplished
by the private sector, but as we all know there are a number of rural
areas in which private sector capital is not readily available, and it
is these areas in which we target the programs of the Rural Business-
Cooperative Service. The $1.2 billion requested for the programs in
this budget will assist in creating or saving about 100,000 jobs.
business and industry guaranteed and direct loan programs
For the Business and Industry (B&I) Program, the fiscal year 2000
budget includes $31.1 million in budget authority to support $1.0
billion in Guaranteed Loans and $50 million in Direct Loans, Since the
streamlined Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program regulations
were published in December 1996, demand for the program has increased
300 percent. With this level of funding we estimate that these two
programs will create or save over 40,000 jobs. But equally as
important, under the guaranteed loan program we are able to help the
local lender provide financing and this helps build community
stability.
Of the $1 billion requested for the guaranteed program we are again
proposing to make available $200 million for financing for new
cooperative businesses with a particular emphasis on new value-added
cooperatives. Priority will be given to projects involving farmer-owned
value-added cooperatives. In addition, this financing is available for
guarantees of individual farmer's purchase of cooperative stock in a
start-up cooperative established for value-added processing of an
agricultural commodity raised by the individual farmer stockholders. We
expect this program to be a key tool in capital investment in rural
areas and as a means of helping farmers keep more of the income
generated by their product.
intermediary relending program
The fiscal year 2000 budget also includes $22.8 million in budget
authority to support $52.5 million in loans under the Intermediary
Relending Program. The initial investment of this level of funding will
create or save an estimated 13,000 jobs, but because these funds are
re-loaned 3 or 4 times by the intermediary, we estimate that over
40,000 jobs will result eventually. In an effort to be of more
assistance through this program we revised the regulations in 1998 to
expand the $2 million cap on loans to intermediaries to a $15 million
cap to any one intermediary in annual increments of $1 million. The
regulation is more user-friendly and authorizes the Rural Development
State Offices to process applications at the State level, rather than
submitting applications to the National Office for processing. This
change has speeded up the application process and allows State Offices
to work closer with borrowers to provide immediate feedback concerning
their applications. Pursuant to Rural Development's mission of
prioritizing the most under served communities we are prioritizing the
neediest communities, such as those in low-income or under served
areas, those with declining populations, or communities faced with
economic restructuring or economic disasters. In addition, the eligible
purposes for loans to businesses have been expanded. The demand for
this program continues to be strong.
rural business enterprise grants
For the Rural Business Enterprise Grants Program, the fiscal year
2000 budget includes almost $36 million. We anticipate that this level
of funding will provide over 14,000 new jobs. The purpose of this
program is to assist small and emerging businesses and the small amount
of funds we typically invest in a project, on a dollar-for-dollar basis
generates another $2.40 in private capital.
rural economic development loans and grants
The fiscal year 2000 budget requests $15 million in Economic
Development Loans and $4 million in grants. These programs represent a
unique partnership since they directly involve the Rural Electric and
Telecommunication borrowers in community and economic development
projects. They are the intermediaries through which these funds are
invested locally and each dollar invested through these programs
attracts an additional $3 dollars in other capital. The loan program is
a zero interest loan to the cooperative which guarantees repayment of
the loan to the government. Loans are used primarily for economic
development activities while the grant funds can be used for
establishing revolving loan funds and for community development
projects.
rural business opportunity grants
The fiscal year 2000 budget includes $5 million for Rural Business
Opportunity Grants to provide much needed technical assistance and
capacity building in rural areas. We have determined through the
Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community process that the most significant
non-capital need in most rural areas is the capacity to develop the
economic and community development strategies that are necessary to
attract private investment capital and Federal and state assistance.
The vast majority of rural communities are served by part-time
officials who do not have the time or the necessary training to compete
with larger communities for funding that may be available to them. The
funds requested under this program will aid in providing that
invaluable assistance that allow communities to take the first step in
assisting themselves.
rural cooperative development grants
For Rural Cooperative Development Grants, the fiscal year 2000
budget requests $5 million to provide continued support in the creation
of new cooperative forms of business and to fund the existing and new
Cooperative Development Centers who directly assist farmers and others
in the development of new rural cooperatives, value-added processing,
and other rural businesses. We are firmly committed to the philosophy
that the development of new opportunities to enhance farmer income and
simultaneously create new business and job opportunities for others is
critical to the family farmer and to the renewal of many rural areas.
While the farm economy does not produce as many jobs as it once did, it
is still the key component of most local economies and must be the base
for revitalizing these economies.
cooperative research agreements
We are requesting $2 million for needed research on cooperatives.
Cooperative Research Agreements are used by RBS to participate with
universities and other entities in providing research that relates
directly to the needs of rural cooperatives. This includes a diversity
of needs, reflecting the many changes that are taking place for
cooperatives, such as major expansions into value-added processing.
There is a greater interest on the part of small farmers and others in
applying the cooperative form of organization to non-agriculturally
based enterprises. In the past, funding has been included with RBS'
administrative expenses account.
appropriate technology transfer for rural areas
The fiscal year 2000 budget also includes $2 million for the
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA) program that
provides producers and agribusiness advisors information on use of the
best sustainable production practices. Encouragement of such practices
lessens dependence on agricultural chemicals and is more
environmentally friendly.
The ATTRA program handled over 18,000 requests this past year and
continues to be a major source of information on sustainable
agriculture throughout the country through its 800 number and the use
of Internet. We are asking for $2 million, an increase of $700,000, for
the ATTRA program to accommodate expanding requests for information.
conclusion
Over the past several years, RBS has been provided with increased
program resources to use in meeting rural business and economic
development needs. We have streamlined our programs, improved consumer
focus and developed strategic relationships all to benefit the entire
rural America. Each year we have used all of our resources in this new
business environment, but still, the need exits for more resources to
accommodate the needs of those communities not yet experiencing
positive economic impact of America's economic prosperity. Mr.
Chairman, this concludes my statement on the fiscal year 2000 Budget. I
would be happy to respond to any questions the Subcommittee may have
regarding the Business-Cooperative Development programs of the Rural
Development Mission Area.
______
Office of the Secretary for Rural Economics and Community Development
Prepared Statement of Jill Long Thompson, Under Secretary
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure to
present to you the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the Rural
Development Mission Area. It is even more pleasurable when I can submit
a program budget that is $800 million higher than the level enacted
last year, but at a lower cost than last year. The increase reflects
the President's strong commitment to rural America. It is also due to
the President's strong commitment to balancing the budget, growing the
economy and maintaining low interest rates, that we are able to keep
our subsidy costs low.
Mr. Chairman, the economic growth that we are enjoying has reached
some parts of rural America, but it is not at all widespread
geographically or demographically. For the most part rural America is
still characterized by sluggish or declining economies, and many parts
of the country are still plagued by high rates of poverty and
unemployment rates. In fact, many rural areas have poverty rates as
high as 20 percent. Among those most vulnerable to the effects of
poverty are elderly women and children. Over 3 million children in
rural areas live in poverty while almost one quarter of older Americans
in rural areas also live in poverty and primarily in areas lacking
adequate health care and social services. Many of the rural areas such
as the Mississippi Delta, Native American reservations, and the
Southwest border region, have endured decades of poverty, and it is
these areas to which this Administration has devoted a significant
portion of our staff and financial resources. We do so because these
areas are also characterized by the lack of capacity to seek out the
Federal and other financial assistance that could aid in improving
their lives.
Our efforts to improve the capacity of these areas to help
themselves has coincided with the need to more effectively utilize
administrative resources which we have accomplished through staff
reductions and the closure of many of our local offices. We have
attempted to compensate for the resulting lack of presence in some
communities by building partnerships with other governmental entities,
non-profit organizations, and the private sector. While we are making
some progress there remains a large void of such assistance in many
areas.
Mr. Chairman, the President's commitment to rural America is deep,
he knows the private sector is the key to resolving the many and
differing economic problems affecting these areas, but he also knows
that the private sector cannot accomplish the task alone. The private
sector cannot finance housing for low and very low income families; the
private sector cannot finance the thousands of water and waste water
systems needed; the private sector cannot extend higher educational
opportunities to remote rural areas; and the private sector cannot
finance the thousands of fire and rescue projects, relying sometimes on
the proceeds from bake sales and fish fries to repay loans, as we do on
frequent occasion. Likewise, the Federal government cannot create the
thousands of private jobs that are needed to raise the economic hopes
of rural areas. But, we are demonstrating that the Federal government
in partnership with the private sector and others can do much more than
each of us can do alone. The private sector is now participating with
us in more and more projects, and the private sector is beginning to
realize, as the President recently stated, that these many pockets of
poverty and high unemployment represent this country's largest untapped
market. I am reminded of Henry Ford's answer to the negative reaction
of fellow industrialists when he decided to give each employee a
significant weekly raise, ``I am doing this so they can buy my cars.''
We cannot be content with the current, historically low unemployment
rate; we must continue our efforts to work with the private sector to
create more jobs, so the millions of individuals still mired in poverty
can eventually buy the products produced by this economy.
Mr. Chairman, poverty is insidious, and it destroys people's
confidence, their desire and their drive. One can see the effects in
too many rural areas of this country. Should anyone doubt the benefits
of these programs, I challenge him or her to visit some of the areas I
have, and see the optimism and joy of families when they move into a
home they have built with their own hands; when they enjoy the benefits
of clean running water in their homes for the first time, or when they
see their children connected to the Internet where they can explore the
world. These are just some of the reasons I am proud to present this
budget request for your consideration.
rural development budget request
The budget request for Rural Development is just under $11 billion
for direct loan, loan guarantees, grants and technical assistance. It
is an increase of $800 million over the fiscal year 1999 level, but it
requires less budget authority than the current fiscal year. The
request includes over $4 billion to support the President's National
Home-ownership Initiative with an additional 50,000 more opportunities
for home-ownership; a 12 percent increase in funding for the water and
waste disposal loan and grant programs in support of the Water 2000
Initiative; and $1.2 billion in funding for the business programs which
will assist in creating or saving almost 70,000 jobs in rural America.
rural housing service
Mr. Chairman, as I have said on numerous occasions, no single
factor contributes more to the vitality and stability of a community
than does home-ownership. And no sector of the economy contributes more
to the growth of the economy than does home-ownership. Every month the
Department of Commerce releases statistics on housing starts and this
information is eagerly awaited by all of the financial institutions in
our country. The effects on the economy are also evidenced by the
policy decisions for annual reductions in Federal income tax revenues
of about $94 billion for the deduction of mortgage interest, and other
deductions attributable to the housing industry.
Despite the positive economic effects of the housing industry, the
budget process of the Federal government and the budget constraints we
all must labor under, force our attention and our energy to the
discussion of the comparatively meager $728 million in budget authority
required to support the $5.9 billion in loans, loan guarantees, and
grants needed by the less well off individuals in rural America. The
economic value of the investments made by the Rural Housing Service are
the same as those made by the private sector lenders, Mr. Chairman, but
the societal and familial values can be much greater.
The programs administered by the Rural Housing Service reach the
families and individuals that cannot otherwise afford decent, safe, and
sanitary housing. They reach families and individuals that the private
sector cannot serve. And in many ways they reach two of the population
groups most vulnerable to the effects of poverty elderly women and
children.
single family housing
The request for single family housing loans totals $4.3 billion,
over $300 million more than available for fiscal year 1999 and
requiring only $114 million in budget authority. Each new home
constructed under this program provides 1.75 years of employment, over
$50,000 in wages and generates over $20,000 in taxes for the local
economy. In short, each new home generates much more economic value
than it costs in budget authority. The average income of a borrower in
the direct loan program is $17,000 and the average interest rate paid
initially by these borrowers is about 4 percent, even though the
interest rate can be subsidized to as low as 1 percent. The Rural
Housing Service has been successful in stretching limited funding by
generating private sector participation in this program. This effort
began in 1996 with 20 partners and has now grown to 78 partners in 36
states. However, as important as stretching limited resources, is the
acquaintance of private lenders with rural areas which can generate
even more business for the lender. The guaranteed loan program provides
loans at the market rate and serves borrowers with more moderate
incomes.
multi-family housing
The multi-family housing direct loan program serves those
individuals and families least able to afford suitable housing. The
average annual income of our tenants is $7,300 and for the most part
the tenants are elderly female heads of household living on minimum
social security benefits. Yet, it is this program and its related
rental assistance that presents the largest dilemma in terms of policy
and budget decisions. Because of the tenants it serves, these loans are
typically subsidized to 1 percent this contributes to a high subsidy
cost. However these tenants have no housing alternatives. There is a
tremendous need for this type of housing and while we need to remain
cognizant of budget constraints we should not be blind to the most
needy in this country. The guaranteed program that was begun just two
years ago serves renters with higher incomes. The demand for the
program is significant and the program is particularly well received as
an effective way to ensure that rural businesses have a well housed
work force. It promotes rural economic stability. We are requesting the
program be increased from $75 million to $200 million and we are
recommending legislation which will eliminate the subsidy cost.
Presently, we are required to provide interest subsidies for at least
20 percent of the loan funds and we have determined that this
requirement is not necessary to ensure affordable housing is available.
The subsidy cost can be redirected to programs serving the more needy.
rental assistance
Rental assistance is a subsidy provided to the developers of the
direct loan multi-family housing projects in the form of renewable
five-year contracts. The contracts make up the difference between the
required tenant payment (30 percent of income) and the market rental
rate, or the rate required to amortize the loan. Rental Assistance is
the single largest component of the cost of administering the rural
housing programs. We are requesting $640 million for this program, an
increase of $57 million from the fiscal year 1999 level. The largest
portion of the funding is needed to renew existing contracts that will
expire in 2000. The balance is needed for rehabilitation loans, loan
servicing options and for new construction. The request for rental
assistance is submitted as a ``forward funding'' request which calls
for $440 million to be available in fiscal year 2000 and $200 million
available on the first day of fiscal year 2001. While this represents a
change in the budgeting method for this program, it will not delay the
provision of rental assistance to our tenants.
mutual and self-help housing
Mr. Chairman, this program is one of the most rewarding programs we
administer and I encourage every member of this subcommittee to visit
one of our sites to see the positive effects provided when families,
who would not otherwise have an opportunity to be homeowners, join
forces and build their own houses. The house becomes secondary to the
benefits of self confidence and self assurance provided throughout the
family and community. This pride is evidenced in the fact that the
delinquency rate in these homes is less than others we finance and the
borrowers move to conventional credit much faster than do other
borrowers. We are requesting a slight increase of $4 million for this
program bringing the level to $30 million. These grant funds provide
the technical support needed by the families as they construct their
homes which are then financed through the single family direct loan
program.
farm labor housing
We are requesting a combined increase of $9 million for the Farm
Labor Housing loan and grant programs which will allow us to finance
the construction and repair of 960 units for migrant and seasonal farm
laborers, who with Native Americans are the worst housed populations in
America. These programs are the only programs within the Federal
government specifically designed to serve this population and the
program is one of the few areas over which USDA has the jurisdiction to
improve the lives of farm workers who are, in large part, responsible
for the low cost other Americans have to pay for food. This program
also helps to ensure that the children of farm workers are well cared
for while their parents are at work. A substantial number of the
projects constructed through this program provide child care facilites
which are often administered through Head Start or Migrant Head Start.
community facilities
We are requesting a significant increase in funding for community
facilities. This is one of our most popular, but often overlooked
programs from which we finance a wide variety of essential community
projects, ranging from hospitals, nursing homes, and child care
facilities to drainage improvements. For years most of the funds have
financed health facilities and fire and safety projects, but a recent
priority has been child care facilities which are desperately needed in
rural areas and the need is growing as families move from welfare to
work and single mothers are filling many of the new jobs created in
rural areas. Since the inception of this initiative RHS has provided
more than $42 million for 141 new or improved child care centers. In
several of the projects RHS has partnered with Rural LISC, a non-profit
organization and the Head Start program of the Department of Health and
Human Services; we expect the partnership to grow even more in fiscal
year 1999 and fiscal year 2000.
For community facilities we are requesting $473 million for loans,
loan guarantees and grants, an increase of $86 million. Included in the
request for community facilities is $5 million to reinvigorate the
effort to install severe weather early warning systems through out
rural areas. Although the funding is requested under the community
facilities program, the program will be administered by the Rural
Utilities Service. This effort began initially in 1994 following
widespread destruction and 30 deaths from tornados spawned by one storm
in Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina. The Vice President called for
95 percent coverage for rural America with early warning systems
triggered by the National Weather Service. And while we had some
initial success through voluntary efforts of our Electric and
Telecommunication borrowers liability issues soon slowed the effort.
The Vice President has renewed the effort and we estimate the total
cost will be $50 million. The $5 million requested in this budget will
finance the installation of the necessary equipment at 15 to 20 of the
highest priority sites. In all cases we will make every effort to use
existing towers which will reduce the cost per site by $200,000. This
is a very small investment that could save a significant number of
lives and help reduce the billions in property loss each year due to
these storms.
rural utilities service
Mr. Chairman, the Rural Utilities Service administers programs that
have a long and proud history of contributing to the economic growth
and stability of rural areas. These programs led to the economic
prosperity of rural America and they continue to provide the
infrastructure necessary to ensure economic growth in those areas that
are still experiencing economic difficulty. While many have argued in
prior years that these programs are no longer needed, the reality is
that the need has only shifted from initial connectivity to electric
and telephone service to maintenance of an aging infrastructure. The
current argument from some quarters is that deregulation of the
electric and telecommunications industries will drive down the cost of
these services and that the service can be provided by the private
sector. Mr. Chairman, there is a reason that the Federal government led
the way in providing electric and telephone service to rural areas; the
profit was not there to induce the private sector to make the initial
investment and most rural areas are still not profit centers. And while
competitive pricing will reduce prices on a macro level, the situation
could be quite different on a micro level, particularly in rural areas.
We must maintain our vigilance and ensure that rural areas are fairly
treated in this era of deregulation. Many rural areas are currently
having a very difficult time maintaining or attempting to rebuild
viable economies. Rural economies are very sensitive to even minor
changes and we should be very cautious as we proceed with deregulation.
The budget request for Rural Utilities is $3.4 billion, a slight
increase over fiscal year 1999 and the necessary budget authority
required to support the request is almost $100 million less than that
needed in fiscal year 1999. Due to the growing demand for electric
loans we are proposing a new direct loan program. The loans from this
new $400 million program would be made at the Treasury rate requiring
minimal budget authority. In total, we are requesting $1 billion for
electric loans. For telecommunications loans, including the Rural
Telephone Bank, we are requesting $645 million. We are again proposing
the Rural Telephone Bank begin operating as a performance based
organization with the goal of achieving privatization within ten years.
We are in the process of finalizing legislation which will be submitted
to Congress shortly to effect this transition.
distance learning/telemedicine
For Distance Learning/Telemedicine loans and grants, the budget
requests a total of $220 million, an increase of $58 million. The
demand for this program continues to grow because it makes a real and
immediate difference in people's lives, and the potential of the
program increases with every improvement in technology. Rural Americans
must be connected to the information superhighway, not because of the
educational and medical purposes, but also because such access opens
limitless opportunities for new business opportunities.
water and waste disposal
We are requesting an increase of $156 million for the water and
waste disposal and solid waste loan and grant programs at a cost of
almost 50 percent less than required for fiscal year 1999. The total
request is just less than $1.5 billion. This level of effort will
provide new water service to approximately 650,000 rural residents,
improved water service to 1.3 million rural residents and improved
waste disposal services to another 600,000. Under the Water 2000
Initiative, RUS will devote a portion of its resources to those
families lacking running water in their homes or experiencing serious
problems with drinking water. A side benefit of this investment is the
creation of over 40,000 jobs, primarily in the construction trades, in
rural areas.
Mr. Chairman, the economic problems affecting many rural areas are
most easily explained by the fact that 50 percent of all of the jobs in
non-metropolitan areas are in the service industry. While these jobs
are vital to local economies, they often do not provide enough income
to support a family at anything but a subsistence level. More than 60
percent of the rural families with incomes below the poverty level have
family members with some type of employment, and 23 percent of the
rural poor were either full time workers or were in families with one
or more full time workers. Over half of the jobs in rural areas pay
less than $17,000 annually and another one quarter pay less than
$12,000. In most of these same areas we also find deficiencies in
transportation, infrastructure, health care and social services.
Increasing the incomes through the creation of employment is the best
and most permanent solution to these problems and that is what we do
through the efforts of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service.
rural business-cooperative services
The budget request for these programs is $1.2 billion, a slight
increase over the level provided for in fiscal year 1999. The request
for the business and industry loan guarantee program is $1.0 billion,
the same level as last year. Mr. Chairman, a recent report issued by
the General Accounting Office demonstrates the commitment of this
Administration to improve the stewardship over taxpayer dollars. While
the program level has increased from $100 million in fiscal year 1993
to $1 billion, the amount of outstanding principle delinquent has
decreased from 22.5 percent to 6.1 percent and the percentage of
borrowers delinquent has dropped from just under 14 percent to 5
percent. This is a significant accomplishment and I am very proud of
this staff.
The budget also requests $52 million for the Intermediary Relending
Program, an increase of $19 million over fiscal year 1999. This level
of funding will leverage an additional $197 million in investment
capital and create more than 12,000 jobs. These funds are relent 3 or 4
times, which in turn creates more employment opportunities over the
life of the original loan. For Rural Business Enterprise grants, we are
requesting $36 million, $1 million less than available for fiscal year
1999. We are also requesting $5 million for Rural Business Opportunity
Grants to provide partnership technical assistance planning grants to
help rural communities develop comprehensive economic revitalization
strategies.
For rural cooperative development grants, we are requesting $7
million, an increase of $3 million. Rural cooperatives are growing both
in numbers and in terms of non traditional types of cooperative-
businesses. Cooperatives are forming business alliances with private
corporations, engaging in value added processing and beginning to enter
the retail and export markets. Expanded use of the cooperative form of
business is helping retain income in rural areas. The additional
funding will aid in providing technical assistance to small farmers and
small farm related operations in developing marketing and management
skills. We are also requesting $2 million to continue cooperative
related research through universities. In the past, this effort has
been funded at the same level through the salaries and expense account.
To further aid the formation of new cooperative businesses, we are
again proposing to utilize up to $200 million in business and industry
loan guarantees specifically for new cooperative businesses, including
the guarantee of loans to individual members to purchase stock in a new
cooperative. The level of funding requested for the Rural Business-
Cooperative Services will help create or save about 100,000 jobs
throughout rural areas.
alternative agricultural research and commercialization corporation
The budget request for the Alternative Agricultural Research and
Commercialization Corporation is $10 million, a significant increase
over the level provided for fiscal year 1999. This level of funding
will aid in bringing six new agriculturally based products to market
and create about 1,500 jobs.
Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities The budget request also
includes $15 million for the second year funding for the five new rural
Empowerment Zones and 20 new Enterprise Communities. As you know, the
designations were announced in January of this year. The Administration
is also proposing legislation which would provide mandatory funding in
fiscal year 2000 and the out years for these communities. Our
experience with the rural Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities is
demonstrating that this approach to community revitalization is very
successful because it involves the entire community, it empowers local
residents to develop their own solutions and time-frames, and it
addresses structural problems comprehensively rather than from the
perspective of narrowly focused categorical assistance programs.
salaries and expenses
Mr. Chairman, the Rural Development Mission Area is blessed with
very capable, dedicated employees and it is only because of them that
we have been successful in restructuring our field offices, downsizing
the work force, re-engineering some of our business processes and still
effectively delivering the programs. The vast majority of our employees
are in the field offices and know first hand the value of the programs
we administer because they live in rural areas. The number of full time
employees has been reduced from over 9,500 to 7,100 since fiscal year
1993, a reduction of 26 percent in a very short time frame. During the
same time frame the Rural Development program level has increased from
about $7 billion to $10.9 billion, an increase of 56 percent. Also
during this same time frame we have asked our employees to take on
additional responsibilities. We have reached our streamlining targets,
and our employment will not decrease any further, unless we do not
receive sufficient funding for salaries and expenses.
The Secretary has recently decided to proceed with the
implementation of administrative convergence, which will consolidate
many of the headquarters and field administrative functions of the
Natural Resource Conservation Service, the Farm Services Agency and
Rural Development, as a means to achieve savings through improvements
in administrative support. I am a strong supporter of this effort.
The budget request for Salaries and Expenses is $542 million, an
increase of $25 million over the level available in fiscal year 1999.
There is no fat in this request. We have for too long deferred needed
investments in a number of areas, particularly in information
technology and accounting systems. Some of these systems are seriously
outdated and incompatible with much of the current software that would
allow us to work more efficiently. One firm visiting some of our field
offices referred to them as museums for computer equipment.
Mr. Chairman, both the Congress and the Administration can take
pride in the accomplishments in reinventing and restructuring the
federal government. However, we should ensure that we leave as our
legacy a more effective and efficient system, not one that cannot
function due to the lack of sufficient support. Our employees take
great pride in what they do and they deserve our strong support. I ask
for your serious consideration of this request.
This concludes my comments. The Administrators and I are available
for any questions the Members of the Subcommittee might have.
______
Rural Housing Service
Prepared Statement of Jan E. Shadburn, Administrator
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for this
opportunity to testify on the President's fiscal year 2000 budget
proposal.
As you and the members of the Committee well know, the Asian
economic crisis of the past year as well as drought, disease, and
numerous other problems have had devastating effects on America's
farmers, ranchers, and agricultural communities. Rural manufacturers
have felt the effects as well, as they find that foreign markets can no
longer absorb their products. The more than $5 billion for farmers and
ranchers which you appropriated last year is helping to shore up the
economies of rural communities across America. More will need to be
done, though, as production agriculture and manufacturing continue to
lose jobs to increases in productivity and other factors.\1\ Rural
communities need help retaining their members, attracting new
residents, and providing basic services. Rural Housing Service (RHS)
programs meet these needs. Through partnerships that span the private,
nonprofit, and public sectors, RHS provides rural American communities
with affordable rental housing, homeownership opportunities, child care
facilities, schools, and a multitude of services for the elderly.
Together, these programs enhance community livability, create jobs, and
add to local tax bases, giving rural communities the resources they
need to grow and prosper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Throughout this testimony, I describe current socioeconomic
conditions in rural America. All of the statistics and trends I cite
come from the USDA Economic Research Service's (ERS's) 1997 and 1998
Rural Conditions and Trends Socioeconomic Conditions Issues, as well as
from 1998 Agricultural Outlook reports. ERS typically reports these
data in terms of ``non-metropolitan'' and ``metropolitan''. For
convenience, I use the term ``rural'' to refer to non-metropolitan and
``urban'' to metropolitan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
rural housing service programs help level the playing field for rural
children
Today, rural children are at an economic disadvantage compared with
urban children. Twenty-four percent of America's 14 million rural
children live in poverty. To show you how insubstantial the resources
for these children are, the poverty threshold in 1996 for a family with
two adults and two children was $15,911; for a family with one adult
and one child, it was $8,163. Children of color bear a tremendous share
of this burden: 50 percent of rural African American children live in
poverty, as do 46 percent of rural Latino children and 41 percent of
rural Native American children. Urban children, by contrast, are better
off: they are less likely to live in poverty and more likely to live in
middle- and upper-class homes. In 1997, 39 percent of urban children
lived in households with incomes higher than 300 percent of poverty,
compared to only 25 percent of rural children. Rural children deserve
the same opportunities as urban children. By providing affordable and
safe rental housing, homeownership opportunities, and essential
community facilities such as child care centers and schools, RHS can
help rural communities level the playing field.
Rural communities often have difficulty housing their poor citizens
for the following reason: poor rural people cannot afford their housing
because they lack the necessary income, not because rural housing is
very expensive. In fact, almost 60 percent of poor rural households who
pay more than 30 percent of their income towards housing and utilities
pay less than $500 each month for housing costs. As you know, many
families find it difficult these days to make ends meet, even when they
work full time. Wages in rural areas are often insufficient to lift
families out of poverty.
The RHS Section 521 Rental Assistance program, the Section 515
Rural Rental Housing program, and the Section 514/516 Farm Labor
Housing program directly address the problem of housing affordability
by filling the income gap. In fact, the average income for tenants in
Section 515 and Farm Labor Housing is $7,300. The Rental Assistance
program ensures that families living in Section 515 and Farm Labor
Housing pay no more than 30 percent of their incomes toward rent and
utilities by providing landlords with a grant to make up the
difference. Even with Rental Assistance, some families have so little
income that they must make choices between necessities such as medicine
and food. The Section 515 and Farm Labor Housing programs decrease the
income gap by providing very low interest loans and grants to
developers, who in turn are able to provide tenants with below-market
rents for safe and comfortable housing. Currently, 225,750 households
receive Rental Assistance. About half are young single people and
families, and the remainder are elderly. More than 452,000 families are
living in the decent, safe, and comfortable housing that the Section
515 and Farm Labor Housing programs provide. Illustrative of the
tremendous need for this housing is the fact that 86,000 Section 515
and Farm Labor Housing tenants pay more than 30 percent of their income
towards rent, and 29,000 pay more than 50 percent, yet these families
remain in RHS housing. Even though they are heavily rent overburdened,
these tenants still see RHS housing as their best alternative.
The President's proposed $640 million Rental Assistance budget will
enable 41,800 households to remain in either Section 515 or Farm Labor
Housing, helping young families to provide a stable environment for
their children and affording elderly households the income security
they would not otherwise have. The proposed budget will also provide
Rental Assistance to new Farm Labor Housing apartments as well as to
rehabilitated Section 515 and Farm Labor Housing apartments. In
addition, it will provide a limited amount of new construction and
emergency servicing Rental Assistance. Emergency servicing Rental
Assistance is crucial in disasters such as the recent California citrus
freeze, which by destroying citrus crops also devastated the economies
of numerous small towns and took away the seasonal jobs of hundreds of
agricultural workers. Without the emergency Rental Assistance RHS is
providing, those agricultural workers who live in RHS's Section 515
Rural Rental Housing would have not have been able to make their
monthly rent payments, jeopardizing not only their own housing security
but also the financial viability of their entire Section 515 complex.
The President's budget of $100 million for the Section 515 Rural
Rental Housing program will ensure that RHS is able to maintain its
17,000 complexes in good repair and to provide approximately 1,900 new
apartments. Funding for the Section 515 program directly benefits the
very poorest children, their parents, and elderly people. These are
people whom communities struggle to provide with good housing.
The President's $40 million budget for the Farm Labor Housing
program will allow RHS to provide farmworkers and their families with
approximately 600 new apartments and 350 rehabilitated apartments.
Farmworkers are one of the most poorly-housed populations in the
country, and, as I have already pointed out, 46 percent of rural Latino
children live in poverty. The 113 additional units that the proposed
budget increase provides will ensure that at least a few of these
children are able to live in the safe, pleasant housing that is so
often out of reach for farmworkers.
RHS is working to improve tenants' quality of life and self-
sufficiency by promoting on-site services such as computer training,
reading programs for children, resume preparation for job seekers,
tutoring services for children and adults, health services, Meals on
Wheels, and fitness classes. By working together with the Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) to find and correct any fraud or abuse, we are
also making sure that the most vulnerable in our society are protected.
This partnership with the OIG complements our implementation of the
reforms you mandated, as well as the over 100 administrative measures
we have taken to improve the program.
For those families with low and moderate incomes who wish to rent
apartments, RHS has begun providing the Section 538 Rural Rental
Housing guaranteed loan program. The average rent for a Section 538
apartment is $455 per month. The President's proposed budget of $200
million for this program will allow RHS to provide almost 5,400 new
apartments to rural families. Included in the President's budget is a
legislative proposal which would remove the requirement that 20 percent
of loans be subsidized, thereby removing the main source of subsidy
cost. This legislative change would allow RHS to receive twice as much
money and provide twice as many apartments as it would be able to were
the subsidy requirement to remain.
I have discussed the rental housing options RHS provides rural
American families and their communities. Now I would like to spend a
few minutes telling you about how we serve rural families who have
demonstrated their ability to repay a loan and wish to own their home.
The Section 502 direct loan program, and its companion program, the
Mutual Self-Help Housing program, are targeted at people who earn 80
percent or less than the median income in their area. These programs
give borrowers and their children the boost they need to move out of
poverty. We recently commissioned the USDA Economic Research Service
(ERS) to conduct a national survey of borrowers who have received
Section 502 direct loans since 1995, whether for Self-Help or for
contractor-built homes. The results were impressive. First, 25 percent
of borrowers had at some time received government rental assistance. As
a matter of fact, we know that many of the families who participate in
the Self-Help program are farmworkers who once lived in RHS-funded farm
labor housing. Now these families are paying a mortgage, and by the
time they leave the program they are likely to have moved off interest
credit and to be paying the note rate on their loans. The ERS survey
shows that 83 percent of borrowers were first-time homebuyers. Ninety
percent said that they were living in a better home than they were
before, and 61 percent said they were living in a better neighborhood
than before. To show you what a good investment we have been making
over the past four years, Section 502 homes seem to have appreciated in
value, with a median purchase price of $64,800 and an estimated current
value of $72,000. RHS borrowers are sinking roots into their
communities, providing their children with so many benefits: a
comfortable and safe home they can be proud of, a better neighborhood,
and, eventually, equity against which to borrow for a college
education, a business expansion, or even another home.
Let me share with you what a difference the Section 502 direct loan
program has made in the life of one Mississippi family. Ms. Ruby Jean
Lee is a 48-year-old single parent of three children, ages eleven,
thirteen, and seventeen. She is currently employed at Northwest
Community College in Senatobia and earns an annual income of $9,300.
Until a few days ago, she and her children were living in an
overcrowded old wood-frame house with a leaky roof, weak floors,
inadequate heat, and nonfunctional plumbing. In July 1998, Ms. Lee
applied for a Section 502 direct loan. She was certified eligible, and
in October she closed her loan of $65,000. She and her children moved
into their new three-bedroom, two-bathroom home in February 1999. Ms.
Lee and her children finally have a water-tight roof, good heating
system, solid floors, and indoor plumbing that works. The Section 502
direct loan program that is included in the President's budget will
allow for 1,730 more such opportunities, for a total of 16,630
families.
The President's budget provides a $4 million increase for the Self-
Help Housing Technical Assistance Grant program, bringing the program
level to $30 million. This increase will allow RHS to provide
approximately 16 new technical assistance grants to Self-Help
organizations in underserved communities such as Empowerment Zones and
Enterprise Communities, as well as in areas which currently do not have
a Self-Help program. It will also allow 1,900 families to build their
own homes, an increase of 370.
For low- and moderate-income families, RHS offers the Section 502
Single Family guaranteed loan program. This program eliminates the
downpayment barrier that prevents many young families from becoming
homeowners by providing financing for the full value of the home. The
President's budget of $3.2 billion for the Section 502 guaranteed loan
program will finance more than 34,000 homes.
RHS multi- and single-family housing programs provide high quality,
affordable housing to rural American families. Communities benefit from
these programs not only because they increase their housing stock but
also because they realize the jobs, local taxes, and fees generated by
construction. Using the National Association of Home Builders'
estimates of the economic benefits generated by housing construction,
the President's budget for RHS multi-family housing will create and
preserve more than 8,000 jobs in construction and construction-related
industries, $268 million in wages, and $142 million in combined
federal, state, and local revenues and fees. The President's single
family housing budget will create and preserve more than 35,000 jobs,
$1.1 billion in wages, and $601 million in revenues and fees.
In order to retain and attract young working families, rural
communities must offer not only safe and affordable homes but also good
day care and schools. Today, rural children under the age of six face
higher poverty rates than older children, with children of color
bearing a disproportionate burden: young African American children are
three times as likely to be poor as white children, and young Latino
and Native American children are twice as likely. Research by ERS
suggests that the reason young children suffer higher poverty rates
than older children is that rural areas lack the child care facilities
which enable parents to go to work. Many rural parents face a tough
choice: go to work to increase their family's income but worry
constantly about whether their children are safe and well cared for, or
live in poverty in order to stay at home to take good care of their
children. RHS's Farm Labor Housing and Community Facilities programs
offer a way out of this dilemma by providing much-needed safe, high
quality child care facilities.
Although housing complexes financed through the Farm Labor Housing
program are not required to provide child care facilities, these
facilities are an eligible loan purpose of the program, and many
borrowers have taken advantage of the opportunity to provide them to
their tenants. These facilities are critical to farmworker families,
whose economic circumstances are sometimes so dire that they must bring
their young children with them into the fields. RHS is continuing to
encourage its Farm Labor Housing borrowers to build child care
facilities. RHS has also greatly augmented the number of child care
facilities it funds through the Community Facilities program, financing
13 centers in 1995, 19 in 1996, 33 in 1997, and 46 in 1998. The
facilities financed in 1997 and 1998 alone will serve more than 10,000
children, and we plan to continue this high level of commitment to
providing child care facilities.
One of the biggest determinants of success in life is education,
and mobile young families often relocate to be near good schools.
Because small rural communities have difficulty obtaining funds to
build and repair educational facilities, RHS provides these communities
with Community Facilities direct loans, guarantees, and grants. RHS has
funded schools, including schools for people with mental or physical
disabilities, teacher housing, dormitories, and all-purpose college
campus buildings. We have also joined a partnership with the American
Indian Higher Education Consortium to assist this organization with
funding tribal colleges. Since 1993, we have provided $3 million in
direct loans and grants to build college facilities in Montana, North
Dakota, and Arizona. In addition, Rural Development State Directors
with large Native American populations have been expanding their
outreach and communication with tribal leaders. As a result of this
interaction, we expect in the future to be funding more community
facilities and housing for Native Americans.
The President's proposed $473 million budget for the Community
Facilities direct loan, guaranteed loan, and grant programs will ensure
that we are able to continue these expanded child care and educational
services, as well as to continue our commitment to providing high
quality health care and emergency services facilities. The increases in
the direct loan and grant programs will allow RHS to expand services in
the most distressed communities, including Empowerment Zones and
Enterprise Communities.
rhs programs provide rural america's elderly poor with safe and
affordable housing
In 1996, 9 million of rural America's 54 million people were 60
years old or older. Twenty-nine percent of rural seniors between the
ages of 60-74 were poor or near-poor (100-149 percent of the poverty
level), as were a staggering 42 percent of people over the age of 74.
Poverty among seniors increases with the degree to which their
surroundings are rural, with elderly poverty rates being highest in the
most remote areas and the lowest in urban centers. Ironically, because
the likelihood of poverty among seniors increases with age, those who
typically have the greatest need for assistance with the tasks of every
day life are the least able to pay for it.
The children of the Great Depression worked all their lives to
build the rural economy. Many of them did not work in jobs with
retirement plans, and they survive on their monthly social security
check, food stamps, and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Many of
them are living in housing worse than what they had during the
Depression and to varying degrees are struggling to take care of
themselves. Often, their children lack the resources to help them, as
do their communities. Every day, through its home repair, rental
housing, and community facilities programs, RHS provides modern housing
for the first time to elderly people who have been chopping wood for
heating or walking to a well for water because their homes are so
decrepit.
The Section 504 grant and loan programs directly address the
housing rehabilitation needs of very low-income seniors who own their
own homes.\2\ The median income of beneficiaries of both programs is
less than $9,000. Often, our customers have no choice but to remain in
the substandard homes in which they have lived for decades, and the
programs makes a tremendous difference in their quality of life. The
President proposes a budget of $30 million for the grant program and
$32.4 million for the loan program. Combined, this funding will allow
both of these heavily oversubscribed programs to improve the homes of
11,200 households with basics most Americans take for granted: a roof
that does not leak, indoor plumbing, an air conditioner, an electric or
gas heating system, a solid floor, or an electrical system that meets
the fire code. They will also allow seniors to retrofit their homes to
accommodate disabilities, for example by installing low counters,
handrails, and ramps for wheel chairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Section 504 grant program is limited to rural seniors while
the Section 504 loan program is available to any rural person with a
very low income. However, 60 percent of loan program beneficiaries are
seniors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Section 515 program provides a highly valued residential
alternative to relatively independent rural seniors who find that they
can no longer keep up with the yard work and structural maintenance
that homeownership requires. In addition to being virtually
maintenance-free, Section 515 apartments for elderly and disabled
people are equipped with special amenities such as strategically placed
handrails and emergency call buttons or lights with which to signal for
help. They are also wheelchair accessible. Managers of these complexes
often arrange for services such as transportation, grocery and
pharmaceutical delivery, Meals on Wheels, health screenings, and
entertainment, and they make sure that the community rooms stay in
constant use. In addition, a small percentage of Section 515 complexes
offer congregate facilities in which seniors receive at least one meal
per day. Many seniors in Section 515 housing receive Rental Assistance,
as well, enabling their small incomes to go further to cover costs of
prescription drugs, food, and other necessities.
Margaret Bakken is one of the more than 180,000 seniors who is
currently benefiting from Section 515 housing. She also receives Rental
Assistance. In October 1989, she and her husband Norbert Bakken, who
then were 77 and 85 years old respectively, completed an application to
live in the Section 515-funded Pine Ridge Apartments in Ridgeland,
Wisconsin. Their rural Chetek home was heated only by wood and lacked
plumbing and an indoor toilet. Mr. Bakken was physically unable to chop
wood and haul water, so Mrs. Bakken had to perform these demanding
tasks every day. At the time she and her husband applied to live at
Pine Ridge, she could no longer keep up with these chores and with the
maintenance of her old house. She was worried about how she and her
husband would survive the coming winter. Mr. and Mrs. Bakken were
overjoyed and extremely grateful that their application was accepted
and that they could move into a warm, comfortable, and secure
apartment. Without the aid of the Section 515 program and a monthly
Rental Assistance payment of $261, the Bakkens could not have afforded
such a nice home on their annual income of $6,960. In December 1995,
Mr. Bakken passed away. Mrs. Bakken, now 87 years old, remains a tenant
at Pine Ridge Apartments. She tells us she loves her home and enjoys
the quiet, safe environment. The assistance she receives through RHS
allows her to live a comfortable life, unlike many of her peers.
In addition to providing housing repair loans and grants and
subsidized rental housing, RHS also provides elderly rural Americans
with numerous community facilities, including assisted living
facilities, boarding homes, adult day care centers, intergenerational
care centers, retirement homes, and nursing homes. The program also
invests heavily in rural health care facilities, from which seniors
typically benefit in great measure. In 1997, RHS invested $51 million--
23 percent of its total Community Facilities funds for the year--to
either build or make improvements to 33 senior facilities. In 1998, we
invested $43 million in 40 facilities. We plan to continue our
commitment to serving the ever-increasing rural elderly population.
rhs and its partners leverage their resources to build communities
None of the programs I have described would be successful without
the help of our many partners. Without the strong interest and support
of our network of 2,000 private lenders, the Section 502 guaranteed
loan program would not have been able to help 39,400 families become
homeowners last year. These same lenders are also working hard to make
our Section 538 guaranteed loan program a success. Our nonprofit
technical assistance grantees are at the heart of the Section 523
Mutual Self-Help Housing program, which has made homeownership a
reality for thousands of people for whom it seemed impossible.
Nonprofit organizations also help package our loans, performing
valuable outreach to underserved communities in the process and helping
to stretch our limited staff resources. And our nonprofit and
government partners in the Rural Home Loan Partnership have played
pivotal roles in expanding the reach of the Section 502 direct loan
program. Thanks to the combined efforts of the Rural Local Initiatives
Support Corporation (Rural LISC), the Federal Home Loan Bank System,
the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, and RHS, in 1998 the Partnership made home loans worth
$19.8 million ($13 million in Section 502 direct loans, $6.8 million
from private and nonprofit lenders) to help 284 families become
homeowners. Nonprofit community development corporations provided them
with homebuyer education to ensure that they will be successful
borrowers.
Finally, let me discuss the contributions of our most important
partners, the citizens of rural America. So often we hear of how a
town's citizens rally to improve the housing conditions of one of our
customers. In an Appalachian community in eastern Ohio, for example,
students at the high school build one new home each year for a local
family. In a community with an unemployment rate of 10 percent, their
contribution makes a real difference. Recently, one young couple with a
four-year-old child received one of these homes, which they financed
through a $70,000 Section 502 direct loan. Through this arrangement,
the family was able to save $20,000 in labor costs, and the students
learned marketable construction skills.
Another fine example of RHS and a community working together to
improve the life of a local resident took place in southern New Mexico.
An eighty-six-year-old woman, who has been deaf since childhood, has
lived her whole life in the home her parents built. When the woman's
friends approached the local public works office and the local Rural
Development office for assistance, her home lacked a septic system and
indoor plumbing, had no kitchen facilities other than a wood stove, and
had a leaking roof and a dirt floor. Rural Development was able to
provide a Section 504 grant for $7,500. The public works employees
began soliciting help from the community to augment this grant. They
were able to secure $10,000 in materials and donated labor. Many
citizens from the town, as well as Rural Development and public works
employees, provided their labor to the renovations. When the
renovations were completed, the home had a new roof, floor, kitchen,
septic system, and remodeled interior. Because so many people from the
city, various businesses, and private individuals donated their time,
money, and materials to remodel this home, this Section 504 grant truly
turned into a community development project.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, with your continued
support, RHS and our thousands of partners around the country will
continue to lay the foundations for a strong rural America.
______
Rural Utilities Service
Prepared Statement of Wally Beyer, Administrator
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit the President's fiscal year 2000 budget and
program proposals for the Rural Utilities Service (RUS). I want to
begin by thanking you and the members of the subcommittee for your
continued support for the infrastructure programs and policies of rural
America. Together, we are helping rural America invest in its
communities and its future.
A safe, affordable, modern utility infrastructure is a key
component of economic competitiveness. It is also a fundamental
building block of economic development. Dramatic regulatory and market
changes are occurring in the telecommunications, electric and water
utility sectors. Without the help of the RUS, rural communities will
have a very difficult time financing their utility investments.
At RUS, we are continuously working to enhance rural utility
efficiency by encouraging system mergers, leveraging private capital
and forging new partnerships for economic development. We are reforming
our program regulations to be more customer friendly, focusing our
resources on rural development and loan security.
The nearly $42 billion RUS loan portfolio includes investments in
approximately 7,500 small community and rural water and wastewater
systems, and 2,000 telecommunications and electric systems, servicing
approximately 84 percent of America's 3,096 counties. This 64-year old
local/federal partnership is an American success story. It is a
partnership providing critical infrastructure to 80 percent of the
nation's landmass while enhancing the lives of 25 percent of the
nation's population. That infrastructure spurs economic growth, creates
jobs, and improves the quality of life in rural America. The vitality
of rural communities truly depends on access to modern, reliable, and
affordable utilities.
reform, reinvention and responsibilities
RUS is not your mother and father's REA! We are working to make RUS
pro-active in a rapidly changing utilities market. The success of the
public-private partnership between RUS and its borrowers depends on the
ability of borrowers to respond quickly to changing conditions.
Consistent with the spirit of reinvention, the RUS continues to
streamline its policies, offering borrowers more flexibility in
financing, while ensuring safe, reliable modern utility service to
rural Americans.
Specifically, RUS has reinvented its focus and activities by:
--Targeting scarce Federal grant funds and limited budget authority
to those areas of our country that do not have basic utility
infrastructure; to those areas with the highest poverty levels
and out-migration of human, financial, and economic resources;
and to our Native Americans;
--Developing varied and flexible financing programs that result in
substantial interest savings to RUS electric borrowers. Since
1993, RUS has refinanced or repriced $9 billion of high
interest Federal Financing Bank loans, saving rural consumers
$227 million;
--Reducing regulatory burdens enabling eligible borrowers and rural
communities to more effectively and efficiently participate in
RUS programs;
--Eliminating and simplifying RUS loan approval processes, allowing
borrowers to respond more quickly to the ever-changing
financial and economic markets;
--Automating loan processing functions to provide borrowers faster
access to loan and grant funds while reducing the
administrative costs incurred by the Federal government.
Processing time for RUS loans has been slashed from 9 months to
less than 1 month;
--Networking with Federal, State, and local government agencies in an
advocacy role for rural citizens;
--Servicing an electric industry in revolution both technically and
financially;
--Promoting a paperless society that makes the Federal government
more responsive to its customers while decreasing the national
paperwork burden; and
--Leading the way to Y2K compliance. Since 1996 RUS has been a leader
in the effort to promote Y2K compliance among rural utilities.
the federal partnership with rural america
A diversified rural economy requires investment in infrastructure,
and quality education and health care to foster economic growth.
Affordable power creates on farm and off-farm employment. Modern
wastewater treatment systems along with clean drinking water improve
the rural environment and health. We must provide rural children with
educational opportunities that will enable them to compete with the
best and brightest from around the world. Our rapidly aging rural
population must have affordable access to quality health care. Rural
businesses need state-of-the-art communication technologies and
affordable power to create new jobs and enhance the quality of life.
All Americans should have a healthy environment and safe, clean
drinking water and have their commercial and recreational water
resources protected from contamination. RUS is helping rural
communities in each of these areas.
Our goal is to help provide rural America with the tools and
resources necessary to realize the full extent of its potential. We are
applying creative thinking, personal commitment, and customer service
to program delivery.
telecommunications--50 years of progress
1999 marks the 50th Anniversary of the RUS Telecommunications
Program. In 1949, when the Telecommunications program started, only
about 39 percent of U.S. farms were receiving telephone service of any
kind. During Congressional hearings, many witnesses testified to both
the need and demand for rural telephones, for area coverage, and for a
source of long-term financing to change from magneto to dial. A new era
for rural telephony began with enactment of the REA telephone loan
legislation. Congress ensured that adequate telephone service be made
generally available in rural areas and to the widest practicable number
of rural users of such service.
Today, 50 years later, the RUS Telecommunications Program and the
Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) have developed into successful, forward-
focused programs with a continuing, strong demand for investment
capital. We are making certain that Rural America succeeds in the
digital age.
Advanced telecommunications services are crucial to rural America's
economic development. Rural businesses must be able to compete and
rural residents need better access to the global economy, quality
health care, and quality educational opportunities. The concept of
``basic'' voice telephone service no longer exists. ``Core'' services,
defined in terms of speed and bandwidth, that evolve with new
technologies must be established and delivered to rural America.
Loans made by the RUS Telecommunications Program and RTB affect the
lives of many rural residents. Rural telecommunications are providing
advanced communications technologies for rural businesses, increased
educational opportunities for rural students, and improved health care
for rural residents. RUS and the RTB are working hard to assist
borrowers in enhancing the standard of living, ensure the quality of
life, and bring about economic development to rural America. As we
approach the 50th anniversary, RUS has seen an increased demand for its
financing.
This year's telecommunications budget proposes $560 thousand in
budget authority to support $50 million in direct hardship
telecommunications loans and $2.4 million in budget authority to
support $300 million in Treasury-rate loans, as well as $3.3 million in
budget authority to support $175 million in Rural Telephone Bank (RTB)
loans.
The successful implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
is critical for rural consumers. In addition to being a lending agency,
RUS continues to be an advocate for rural citizens before federal and
state regulators. We firmly believe that the benefits of the digital
revolution must be shared by all Americans. Continued capital
investments and operational and technical support are critical to
maintaining a high level of quality in areas served by RUS borrowers.
The budget also reflects our commitment to privatize the RTB within
the next 10 years. By establishing the RTB as a performance based
organization (PBO), the RTB can demonstrate that its financial and
managerial independence is consistent with privatization goals. The
cost of the subsidy budget authority and administrative expenses would
be paid from the unobligated RTB liquidating account balance in fiscal
year 2000.
distance learning and telemedicine
In the Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) Program, the budget
request of $20.7 million in budget authority will support $200 million
DLT loans and $20 million in DLT grants.
The Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program provides financial
assistance for rural education and health care providers seeking to
utilize advanced telecommunications technologies. DLT loans and grants
provide needed infrastructure and high technology end-use equipment for
rural areas. This program is a powerful complement to the e-rate which
provides discounts for monthly services and connections to schools,
libraries, and rural health care facilities. The Federal Communications
Commission administers the e-rate as part of the Universal Service
Support System. The DLT program and the e-rate provide an unparalleled
opportunity to use telecommunications to enhance rural education and
health care providers.
Vice President Gore said it best when he announced the 1997 DLT
awards. He stated: ``This country cannot afford a digital divide
between those who have access to the benefits of the Information
Superhighway and those who do not.''
Since 1993, the DLT program has funded 252 projects totaling $68
million in 43 states and two U.S. territories. These projects serve 850
schools and learning centers and 600 hospitals and rural health
clinics. The DLT programs provide seed money to leverage almost two
times its investment from other private and public sources.
Simply put, rural Americans must be connected to America's
Information Superhighway. USDA/RUS is the catalyst for this rural
connection.
electric program
The Electric Program budget proposes $10 million in budget
authority to support a program level of $1 billion dollars. The
President's Budget requests $450,000 budget authority for a hardship
program level of $50 million; $9 million budget authority for a
municipal rate program level of $250 million. The budget proposal
provides a $300 million funding level for guaranteed loans. The loan
guarantees do not require any budget authority.
The RUS Electric Program continues to serve one of the most
effective local/public partnerships of the federal government. Today's
program ensures that all areas of our nation have access to reliable,
reasonably affordable, electric energy. We are also forging new and
strengthened relationships with private lenders to offer RUS guarantee
loans.
Over the last several years, changes have been made in the electric
lending program to reduce the overall federal cost of the program. In
an effort to reduce the cost of the electric program and provide yet
another financing tool to meet increasing demand, the Administration
again proposes a new Treasury Rate Loan Program to complement its
existing loan programs. This $400 million loan program can be generated
with only $320,000 of budget authority.
Each RUS electric loan dollar leverages an additional three dollars
from private sources.
In the coming years, rural distribution and power supply systems
will require continued assistance in upgrading and replacing an aging
electric infrastructure to support growing electricity demand, new
technologies, and a more competitive industry structure. For example,
RUS financing will enable rural electric systems to replace aging,
inefficient and undersized electric transformers and conductors to
enhance the reliability of distribution and transmission systems to
meet load growth while cutting line losses, improving energy
efficiency, and reducing carbon and other air pollution emissions.
Demand for the RUS Electric Program exceeds available resources;
there is currently a $1.3 billion waiting list for RUS electric
financing assistance.
financially stressed borrowers
RUS is also working very closely with electric borrowers facing
financial stresses from past nuclear and large base-load generating
plant investments and from increasing pressures from wholesale and
retail competition. In each instance, RUS is diligent in ensuring that
work-out agreements maximize the recovery to the Federal taxpayers.
Today, RUS is actively working with six financially stressed borrowers
as compared with some 15 borrowers four years ago.
Since its inception, RUS has worked closely with its borrowers to
ensure the integrity of its loan portfolio. The financial health of
each RUS borrower is of the utmost concern to the Agency and when that
health is threatened, RUS immediately undertakes the steps necessary to
minimize delinquencies. RUS' loan security goals and debt collection
activities maximize the collection of delinquent debts owed to the
Federal government by ensuring that collection and correctional
activities are promptly pursued.
water and environmental programs
This budget seeks $503 million in budget authority for Water and
Waste Disposal (WWD) grants; $2.746 million in budget authority for
solid waste management grants; and $63.9 million in budget authority to
support $900 million in WWD direct loans and $75 million in guaranteed
loans.
The budget request includes $20 million for Colonias along the U.S.
Mexico border, $16.2 million for technical assistance and training
grants, $5.3 million for the circuit rider program, $20 million for
rural Alaskan villages, and $34.7 million in budget authority for loans
and grants in empowerment zones and enterprise communities. Our budget
request will also allow third-party grantees (such as rural water
circuit riders) to make over 28,000 water systems and 29,000 wastewater
system contacts to assist communities with intensive assistance, and
through a clearinghouse effort taking 28,000 telephone calls and 11,000
electronic bulletin board and web site contacts.
As a result of the strong technical assistance efforts, both from
staff and third-party grantees/contractors, loan delinquency and loan
losses will remain low. Currently, 1 percent of borrowers are
delinquent and since the inception of the water and waste disposal
program less than 0.1 percent of the amount loaned has been written
off.
The RUS program improves the quality of life and health of about
1.3 million Americans each year by bringing safe drinking water and
environmentally sound wastewater facilities to those rural communities
in the greatest need. The program is delivered by a field network of
Rural Development employees who provide ``hands-on'' technical and
financial assistance through the Rural Community Advancement Program
(RCAP).
In the Water and Environmental Program area, RUS has shown great
leadership in using information age technologies to add value and
efficiency. A RUS Intranet allows program delivery professionals up to
the minute information, the ability to seek advice, share best
practices and to store forms, bulletins, regulations and staff
instructions online.
water 2000 presidential initiative
The Water 2000 Initiative has been very successful at investing in
the people and places where safe drinking water is needed most. The
program has been so successful that demand for funds exceeds supply.
Based on the Administration's belief and policy that low income, high
unemployment and high poverty areas with water-related public health
problems have the greatest needs, we increasingly target drinking water
and environmental investments to those areas.
In a state-by-state safe drinking water assessment performed in
1995, RUS found that at least 2.5 million rural Americans had very
critical needs for safe, dependable drinking water, including almost
one million people who had no water piped into their homes.
Approximately 5.6 million more were found to have serious needs under
the Safe Drinking Water Act standards. At that time, the costs of
meeting rural drinking water needs were estimated at $10 billion.
Under Water 2000 targeting guidelines, over four fiscal years, RUS
has committed almost $1.8 billion in loans and grants to over 1,000 of
the nation's highest priority safe drinking water projects. Water 2000
projects serve communities with the most limited financial resources
and highest poverty rates. Once completed, Water 2000 projects funded
as of October 1998 will provide 380,000 Americans water for the first
time for the first time from properly constructed, maintained and
tested public sources.
Few tell the Water 2000 story as clearly or dramatically as Carole
Buckland of Binghamton, New York. ``The families of Park Terrace in the
town of Binghamton, New York are out of water! Water, the very thing
that humans need for survival!'' Carole wrote in a letter to President
Clinton, asking for help for her community. That letter triggered a
series of events that brought Carole Buckland to Washington, D.C. on
July 13th 1998 to meet Vice President Gore, who announced that
Binghamton would have a Water 2000 project and that the Park Terrace
families would have ``water, . . . clean, safe water that would bring a
quality of life that most of us take for granted.''
We are proud of our record of helping rural communities help
themselves bring drinking water and wastewater facilities to thousands
of Americans--with strong emphasis on those who truly need our services
most. As the application backlog illustrates, this is a huge job that
directly affects the health and safety and economic well-being of rural
America.
the new telecommunications & electric competitive environments
To ensure that newly formulated policies address the role of rural
utility systems in a deregulated marketplace, RUS has assumed a pro-
active role in discussions with the Federal Communications Commission,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and our partners in the Executive
Branch to protect and enhance RUS loan security and improve the lives
of rural residents. As this nation grapples with telecommunications and
electric industry market reforms, RUS will remain in the forefront of
these discussions and will lead the policy debate as it impacts rural
Americans. In an ever-changing legislative and regulatory environment,
ensuring the security of a $36 billion portfolio of telecommunications
and electric loans while providing modern, high quality, reliable, and
affordable infrastructure in rural America will present a formidable
challenge into the 21st Century.
electric restructuring legislation
In 1998, President Clinton submitted legislation on electric retail
market restructuring. Similar legislation is being prepared for
reintroduction in 1999. I am pleased to report that the RUS made
significant contributions to this landmark legislative proposal. No
restructuring plan currently before the Congress is as complete or as
sensitive to rural issues as the President's bill. The legislation
recognized that restructuring will present challenges to rural areas
and provide for a rural safety net of about $500 million a year to help
mitigate any adverse effects on rural consumers. The USDA has looked
very carefully at the effects of retail electric competition on rural
communities. The proposal includes a flexible mandate, allowing states
to opt out of retail competition. The bill also requires the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission to consider the multi-tiered nature of
rural electric cooperatives; the tax exempt status of those
cooperatives and the program interests and loan security of USDA in its
rate-making authority. The RUS looks forward to working with the
Congress to implement restructuring legislation which appropriately
considers rural needs.
y2k outreach and readiness
In addition to working within the Rural Development Mission Area to
ensure USDA's Y2K compliance, RUS has been a national leader on Y2K
industry outreach. RUS featured its first Y2K presentation at its 1996
Telecommunications Engineering Symposium. In 1998, we aggressively
brought the issue to the attention of our industry and community
partners.
In our telecommunications and electric programs, we have surveyed
our borrowers and issued regulations requiring borrowers to provide Y2K
compliance statements for new loans and loan advances. We have offered
our assistance and will expedite processing of Y2K related loan
requests. For our Water and Environmental Programs, which are
administered at the state level, RUS has utilized state program
managers and circuit riders as well as our national conference to
conduct effective Y2K outreach.
The RUS has also been very active in the President's Y2K council
serving on the telephone, electric and environmental committees. Deputy
Administrator Christopher McLean also serves on the Y2K Task Force of
the National Association of Regulatory Commissioners.
RUS takes the Y2K situation very seriously. It is a matter of
public health, safety and national security. Even if utility outages
are limited and isolated, the consequences of Y2K failures for the
communities affected will be no less grave. This problem can not be
underestimated.
weather radio
Already in 1999, savage winter tornadoes have ripped through the
states of Arkansas, Tennessee and Mississippi. When disastrous weather
strikes, the difference between survival and the loss of human life can
be a matter of minutes. With early warning, families, especially
children and the elderly can be afforded sufficient time to protect
themselves in the face of oncoming tornadoes, flash floods and
hurricanes. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Early Warning Weather Radio network can help provide that margin of
safety. NOAA weather radio provides warnings of dangerous weather
conditions to nearly 70 percent of all Americans. The 30 percent of
Americans without NOAA weather radio broadcasts are, however, almost
entirely in rural areas.
For several years, RUS has participated in this interagency effort
to expand the coverage of NOAA Weather Radio and to upgrade the current
system to an all hazards network that will also warn against potential
terrorist, economic, and environmental dangers. We have already
identified unserved areas and tower resources among RUS borrowers where
NOAA weather radio transmitters could be installed. While there is much
still to do in rural America, there are already several success stories
to report from these efforts. The State of Alabama, for example, has
achieved near total state-wide coverage.
I am very pleased to report that the President's budget includes a
new $5 million grant initiative in the Rural Development Community
Facilities program to be administered by RUS that will add
approximately 18 new transmitters to the NOAA Radio Network.
RUS estimates that, at current costs, it will take about $50
million to increase NOAA radio coverage from its current 70 percent to
95 percent. The $5 million in the President's Budget is an important
commitment and tremendous initial step towards protecting the lives of
rural Americans.
native american outreach
The Federal government has a special responsibility to and
relationship with America's Native peoples. Since the earliest days of
rural electrification, this agency has focused special attention on
tribal communities. One of our earliest electric borrowers was the
Navajo Nation. In telecommunications, five out of the seven tribally
owned telephones companies are RUS borrowers. The significant RUS
investments in utilities service in Alaska, provide service to some of
the most remote native Alaskan villages. Just this year, the RUS
Telecommunications Program made its second loan to Sandwich Isles
Communications to provide state of the art telecommunications service
to native Hawaiians living on homeland territory. The DLT program has
also funded 21 projects serving tribal areas.
RUS investments in drinking water and wastewater projects serving
tribal and rural Alaskan communities have increased by nearly 400
percent since fiscal year 1993, and continue to grow. RUS is uniquely
dedicated to helping unserved and under-served communities. We expect
that in fiscal year 1999, the annual investment in tribes from our
Water and Environmental Programs will exceed $25 million. Additionally,
we are intensifying coordination of funds with the Indian Health
Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at higher
levels than ever before.
conclusion
USDA/RUS continues to help rural America build its future. Our
ability to succeed in the next century depends, to a large extent, on
the investments in productivity enhancing modern infrastructure. No
where is that need greater than in rural America. With your continued
support, RUS will play a significant role in advancing rural America's
quality of life and enhancing its competitiveness in the global
marketplace.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and the members of the committee.
______
SUBMITTED QUESTIONS
Departmental Administration
Questions Submitted by Senator Cochran
bravo initiative
Question. What is the BRAVO initiative and when was this initiative
first funded?
Answer. Bringing Rural America Venture Opportunities, BRAVO, is a
Secretarial business development program designed to assist Tribal
entities--Indian Nations--in establishing small start-up information
technology companies. BRAVO will create technology-based jobs on Indian
Lands and in surrounding economically disadvantaged rural areas.
Software development will be the initial services provided to USDA.
Employees will be recruited/trained from Indian Reservations and
economically disadvantaged individuals from surrounding areas.
BRAVO was officially initiated during fiscal year 1999 with the
addition of one GS-15 project manager position to the Office of Small
and Disadvantaged Business Utilization's, OSDBU, FTE ceiling. OSDBU
absorbed the costs of the position and has requested resources to
support the BRAVO project in the fiscal year 2000 budget.
bravo obligations
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget indicates that $65,000 was
obligated under other USDA appropriations for the BRAVO initiative in
fiscal year 1999; no such obligations are projected for fiscal year
2000. Please explain.
Answer. As no funds were in Departmental Administration's fiscal
year 1999 appropriation for BRAVO, OSDBU absorbed the cost. As OSDBU is
a very small staff, one USDA program agency participating in BRAVO
provided $65,000 toward the cost of this position. No such obligations
are projected in fiscal year 2000 because OSDBU has requested funding
for BRAVO as part of USDA's fiscal year 2000 budget.
target center
Question. What is the TARGET Center?
Answer. The United States Department of Agriculture, USDA
Headquarters Technology Accessible Resources Gives Employment Today--
TARGET--Center established in 1992, in Washington, DC, and the Midwest
TARGET Center established in 1995 in St. Louis, Missouri, support all
USDA employees Nationwide. The Centers' mission is to provide policy,
guidance, and support for applying accessible technology solutions
within USDA for employees with disabilities. The TARGET Centers ensure
compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended. Furthermore, the TARGET Centers support the Department's
workforce diversity and Federal workforce policies.
The TARGET Centers provide a wide range of services to USDA and
other Federal agency employees with disabilities, and their
supervisors. Employees nationwide are able to request services from the
TARGET Centers in order to address computer and telecommunication
accessibility issues for employees with disabilities. These services
include: evaluations, demonstrations, and assessments of assistive
technologies and accommodations; review and analysis of accessible
technologies; disability awareness presentations; coordination of
training; resource information on accommodations, vendors, and
technologies; contracting of accommodations services; technical
support; consultations with managers and employees; and information
provided in alternative, accessible formats.
The TARGET Centers track Federal, State, local, and private
initiatives regarding accessible workplace technologies and
accommodations. As a liaison between the Department, the computer
industry, schools, public organizations and associations, the TARGET
Centers provide crucial information to USDA to ensure that
accessibility requirements of employees with disabilities are included
in decision making processes.
Having established quality operational infrastructure, the TARGET
Centers also support other Federal agencies through cross service
agreements. These agencies include the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, National
Institutes of Health, and Food and Drug Administration.
An intricate component of the USDA Accessible Technology Program,
the USDA Headquarters TARGET Center was highlighted in December 1998 as
one of three Federal government best practices in Re-charting the
Course, the first report of the Presidential Task Force on Employment
of Adults with Disabilities. This report was presented to Vice
President Al Gore on December 14, 1998. In recognizing the success of
the Center, USDA seeks to strengthen the impact the TARGET Centers have
in creating a fully accessible USDA computer and telecommunication
environment.
funding and staffing levels for departmental administration
Question. Provide a table showing the fiscal year 1997, 1998, 1999,
and proposed 2000 funding and full-time equivalent staffing levels for
the following Departmental Administration activities: (1) Office of
Civil Rights; (2) Office of Outreach; (3) Office of Procurement and
Property Management; (4) BRAVO initiative; (5) Office of Small and
Disadvantaged Business Utilization; (6) Office of Human Resources
Management; (7) Office of Ethics; (8) Office of Operations; (9)
Management Support Staff; and (10) Office of Administrative Law Judges/
Judicial Officer.
Answer. The information follows.
FUNDING AND STAFFING LEVELS--FISCAL YEARS 1997, 1998, 1999 AND PROPOSED 2000
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 Act. 1998 Act. 1999 Est. 2000 Est.
Activities -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Civil Rights.................................................... \1\ $8,517 86 \1\ $12,242 129 $13,227 137 $14,868 154
Outreach........................................................ .............. .............. 750 8 1,433 16 2,825 27
Procurement and Property Management............................. 2,961 33 2,741 32 3,261 35 3,507 35
BRAVO Initiative................................................ .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. \2\ 194 1
Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.................... 780 10 788 9 1,196 11 1,235 11
Human Resources Management...................................... 5,772 78 5,596 81 6,969 84 7,219 84
Ethics.......................................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 600 5 618 5
Office of Operations............................................ 762 11 673 13 987 14 1,014 14
Management Support Staff........................................ 2,409 28 2,507 28 2,842 27 2,929 27
Administrative Law Judges/Judicial Officer...................... 1,490 19 1,449 18 1,653 16 1,708 16
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 22,691 265 26,746 318 32,168 345 36,117 374
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal years 1997 and 1998 reflect a transfer of $2,475,000 for the EEO Counselors.
\2\ The Bravo initiative is part of OSDBU's fiscal year 2000 President's Budget of $1,429,000.
hazardous waste management
Question. How much of the $7 million increase proposed in fiscal
year 2000 budget is for investigation and cleanup of Forest Service
sites; how much is to continue and accelerate investigative and cleanup
activities at ARS sites; how much for cleanup of CCC grain storage
bins; and how much for cleanup actions at the sites of other USDA
agencies? Please provide a status report of these activities and
provide the fiscal year 1999 funding level.
Answer. The proposed increase in fiscal year 2000 for Forest
Service is $4,365,000; ARS work $479,000; CCC grain storage bins
$1,500,000; and other agencies' work $646,000. The following tables
summarize the funding allocation for fiscal year 1999 and the budget
for fiscal year 2000 for the use of agency funds and the central
hazardous waste management account.
TOTAL USDA HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FUNDS
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
1999 HWM Fiscal year
Agency central 1999 agency Total funding
account funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Credit Corporation.................................... $3,000 $5,000 $8,000
Forest Service.................................................. 6,900 9,000 15,900
Agricultural Research Service................................... 3,666 .............. 3,666
Farm Service Agency, Farm Credit Programs....................... .............. \1\ 1,000 1,000
Food Safety and Inspection Service.............................. 230 .............. 230
Rural Housing Service........................................... 75 95 170
Office of the General Counsel................................... 1,379 .............. 1,379
Program Administration.......................................... 450 .............. 450
-----------------------------------------------
Total, USDA HWM Funds..................................... 15,700 15,095 30,795
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Estimates are roughly between $1 to $2 million.
TOTAL USDA HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FUNDS \1\
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2000 HWM Fiscal year
Agency central 2000 agency Total funding
account funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodity Credit Corporation.................................... $4,500 $5,000 $9,500
Forest Service.................................................. 11,265 10,272 21,537
Agricultural Research Service................................... 4,145 .............. 4,145
Animal & Plant Health Insp. Service............................. 210 160 370
Farm Service Agency, Farm Credit Programs....................... 150 \2\ 1,000 1,150
Food Safety and Inspection Service.............................. 230 .............. 230
Rural Housing Service........................................... 60 60 120
Office of the General Counsel................................... 1,569 .............. 1,569
Program Administration.......................................... 571 .............. 571
-----------------------------------------------
Total, USDA HWM Funds..................................... 22,700 16,492 39,192
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Central account figures are the amounts planned in the budget request and agency funding figures are amounts
agencies have planned in their budget requests for agency funding of the program. These figures are subject to
reevaluation and adjustment during the year as new developments occur.
\2\ Estimates are roughly between $1 to $2 million.
Question. How much is requested for fiscal year 2000 to support an
increased workload in the Office of General Counsel--OGCto continue to
provide legal assistance and advice for hazardous waste management?
What is the fiscal year 1999 level of funding?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 funding level for OGC is $1,379,000
and the budget for fiscal year 2000 is $1,569,000 which is an increase
of $190,000 in support of the increased workload.
Question. Why isn't legal assistance and advice for hazardous waste
management a cost borne by the Office of General Counsel--OGCrather
than Hazardous Waste Management?
Answer. The hazardous waste management account has been available
for use on CERCLA/RCRA environmental compliance issues USDA-wide,
including necessary legal services, since its inception in the fiscal
year 1988 Agriculture Appropriations Act. Funding from this account is
critical to ensuring that USDA agencies meet the complex requirements
contained in hazardous materials laws, including State and local laws
made applicable by broad waivers of sovereign immunity.
The assistance provided by legal staff on identifying applicable
regulatory requirements is an essential part of achieving environmental
compliance at USDA and avoiding civil and criminal liability. The
central hazardous waste management account is allocated to all affected
USDA agencies by the Secretary based on critical needs in this area.
The funds allocated for legal services from this account are based on a
determination by the Secretary and USDA agencies that those services
are necessary for USDA to support priority environmental projects.
Although USDA agencies receive funding that may be used for
environmental matters in addition to the central hazardous waste
management account funds, this account was created so that priority
environmental compliance issues would be funded, including legal
services.
It is worth noting that one of the important services provided by
the OGC in this area is negotiation of cleanup agreements with parties
responsible for contaminating lands and damaging resources under the
jurisdiction of USDA. Last year alone, over $100 million in cleanup
work on Federal lands was performed by the parties responsible for the
harm, through agreements negotiated by the OGC. These cleanups would
otherwise have been funded with scarce appropriated dollars or the
damage would have continued unabated. Hazardous waste management
appropriation funds expended by the OGC may also be recovered from
responsible parties and returned to the account. It is based on an
evaluation USDA-wide of the needs in this area that a portion of the
central hazardous waste management account is allocated to the OGC.
______
Office of Chief Information Officer
Questions Submitted by Senator Cochran
overall usda information technology (it) budget
Question. I understand that USDA's IT budgets will exceed $1
billion in fiscal year 2000. What are USDA's overall planned IT
expenditures for fiscal year 2000 broken out by agency and staff
offices?
Answer. As reflected in the OMB Exhibit 42 report submitted in
January, 1999, USDA has requested budget authority for IT of just over
$1.2 billion. A copy of OMB Exhibit 42 is provided for the record,
along with a summary of the major USDA IT Systems, specified by Agency.
[The information follows:]
USDA Formation Technology Portfolio--Highlights \1\
[In millions]
Fiscal year 1999
Agency/System estimate
Part 1:
Mission Area--Financial Management System (and the financial
component of other systems):
FNS/Agency Financial Management System.................... 4
FNS/Food Stamp Integrated Information System.............. 2
FS/Central Accounting System.............................. 39
FS/Integrated Personnel System............................ 6
FSA/CORE.................................................. 3
NRCS/Financial Management System.......................... 6
All Other USDA Financial Systems.......................... 44
______
Total USDA Financial Systems............................ 104
Mission Area--Other USDA Program and Administrative Systems:
FNS/Food Stamp Integrated Information System.............. 4
FNS/FSA/AMS/Processed Commodities Inventory Management
System.................................................. 9
FNS/Electronic Benefits Transfer.......................... 43
FSIS/Field Automation Information Management System....... 12
APHIS/Integrated Systems Acquisition...................... 6
FS/Integrated Personnel System............................ 6
FSA/RD/FAS/RMA/Service Center............................. 50
RD/Dedicated Loan Origination System...................... 5
NRCS/Administrative Support and Records Management........ 1
All Other USDA Program and Administrative Systems......... 508
______
Total Part 1............................................ 748
=================================================================
________________________________________________
Part 2:
Data on Infrastructure and Office Automation:
FS/Project 615............................................ 100
FS A /SCOAP............................................... 11
All Other USDA Infrastructure and Office Automation
Systems................................................. 339
______
Total Part 2............................................ 450
=================================================================
________________________________________________
Part 3:
Data on IT Architecture and Planning: All Other USDA IT
Architecture and Planning Systems...........................
______
Total Part 3..................................................
=================================================================
________________________________________________
Total--All USDA IT Systems.............................. 1,198
\1\ Source--OMB Exhibit 42 Report.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CY--BA/ BY--BA/
PY--BA FTE FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resources for Financial
Management (6)
Report on Resources for
Financial Managment Activities:
Asset Management:
1001 No. of FTE ....... 6,563 6,561
1002 Budget Authority ....... 409 425
Accounting and Reporting:
2001 No. of FTE ....... 2,157 2,159
2002 Budget Authority ....... 127 131
Audits of Financial
Statements:
3001 No. of FTE ....... ....... .......
3002 Budget Authority ....... 1 1
Financial Management
Systems:
4001 No. of FTE ....... 739 738
4002 Budget Authority ....... 129 125
----------------------------
Subtotal:
5001 No. of FTE ....... 9,459 9,458
5002 Budget Authority ....... 666 682
Adjustments:
6001 No. of FTE ....... ....... .......
6002 Budget Authority ....... ....... .......
----------------------------
Total, net:
7001 No. of FTE ....... 9,459 9,458
7002 Budget Authority ....... 666 682
Audits of Financial
Statements Contract:
8102 Budget Authority ....... 1 1
In-house costs:
8201 No. of FTE ....... ....... .......
8202 Budget Authority ....... ....... .......
Org-wide Financial
Statements Contract:
9102 Budget Authority ....... ....... .......
In-house costs:
9201 No. of FTE ....... ....... .......
9202 Budget Authority ....... ....... .......
----------------------------
Total, all reporting
entities:
9401 No. of FTE ....... ....... .......
9402 Budget Authority ....... 1 1
9998 Robert M. Darragh III ....... ....... .......
9999 (202) 720-0994 ....... ....... .......
Part 1. Data on IT Systems By
Mission Area (7)
Mission Area 1: Financial
Management Major IT:
0110-10 FNS Agency Financial ....... ....... .......
Management System
0110-11 Development/ ....... ....... .......
modernization/
enhancement
0110-12 Steady State 4 4 4
----------------------------
0110-13 Subtotal, IT costs 4 4 4
Appropriation/Funding
Sources:
0110-14 01 FNS appropriations 4 4 4
----------------------------
0110-17 Subtotal, funding 4 4 4
sources
0110-20 FS Central Accounting ....... ....... .......
System
0110-21 Development/ ....... ....... .......
modernization/
enhancement
0110-22 Steady State 2 2 2
----------------------------
0110-23 Subtotal, IT costs ....... ....... .......
Appropriation/Funding
Sources:
0110-24 01 FNS appropriations 2 2 3
----------------------------
0110-27 Subtotal, funding 2 2 3
sources
0110-30 FS Central Accounting ....... ....... .......
System
0110-31 Development/ 30 36 34
modernization/
enhancement
0110-32 Steady State 3 3 4
----------------------------
0110-33 Subtotal, IT costs 33 39 38
Appropriation/Funding
Sources:
0110-34 01 FS Appropriations 33 39 38
----------------------------
0110-37 Subtotal, funding 33 39 38
sources
0110-40 FS Integrated Personnel ....... ....... .......
System
0110-41 Development/ 5 6 6
modernization/
ehancement
0110-42 Steady State ....... ....... .......
----------------------------
011O-43 Subtotal, IT costs 5 6 6
Appropriation/Funding
Sources:
0110-01 FS Appropriations 5 6 6
----------------------------
0110-47 Subtotal, funding 5 6 6
sources
0110-5O FSA CORE ....... ....... .......
0110-51 Development/ 3 2 .......
modernization/
enhancement
0110-52 Steady State 1 1 1
----------------------------
0110-53 Subtotal, IT costs 4 3 2
Appropriation/Funding
Sources:
0110-54 01 CCC 1 1 1
0110-54 02 FSA Appropriation 3 2 .......
----------------------------
0110-57 Subtotal, funding 4 3 .......
sources
0110-60 NRCS Financial Management
Information System-Legacy:
0110-61 Development/ ....... ....... .......
modernization/
enhancement
0110-62 Steady State 6 6 6
----------------------------
0110-63 Subtotal, IT costs 6 6 6
Appropriation/Funding
Sources:
0110-64 01 NRCS Appropriation 6 6 6
----------------------------
0110-67 Subtotal, fundinq 6 6 6
sources
All Other Financial
Management:
0120-01 Development/ 11 14 12
modernization/
enhancement.
0120-02 Steady State 29 30 31
----------------------------
0120-03 Subtotal, IT costs 40 44 43
Appropriation/Funding
Sources:
0120-04 01 FS Appropriation 5 5 5
0120-04 02 USDA Agencies 32 34 38
Approprations
0120-04 03 CCC 3 5 .......
----------------------------
0120-07 Subtotal, funding 40 44 43
sources
Total: Mission Area:
0130-01 Development/ 49 58 52
modernization/
enhancement
0130-02 Steacy State 45 46 49
----------------------------
0130-03 Subtotal, IT costs 94 104 101
Other Mission Areas:
Mission Area 2: USDA ....... ....... .......
Program and
Administrative Support
Systems
Major IT:
1110-10 FNS Food Stamp ....... ....... .......
Integrated Information
System
1110-11 Development/ ....... ....... .......
modernization/
enhancement
1110-12 Steady State 3 4 4
----------------------------
1110-13 Subtotal, IT costs 3 4 4
Appropriation/Funding
Sources:
1110-14 01 FNS appropriations 3 4 4
----------------------------
1110-17 Subtotal, funding 3 4 4
1110-20 Processed Commodities ....... ....... .......
Inventory Management
System
1110-21 Development/ 1 1 4
modernization/
enhancement
1110-22 Steady State 8 8 8
----------------------------
1110-23 Subtotal, IT costs 9 9 12
Appropration/Funding
Sources:
1110-24 01 AMS Appropriation 1 1 3
1110-24 02 FSA Appropriation 2 2 2
1110-24 03 CCC 2 2 2
1110-24 04 FNS appropriations 4 4 5
----------------------------
1110-27 Subtotal, funding 9 9 12
sources
1110-30 FMS Electronic Benefit ....... ....... .......
Transfer
1110-31 Development/ ....... ....... .......
modernization/
enhancement
1110-32 Steady State 43 43 43
----------------------------
1110-33 Subtotal, IT costs 43 43 43
Appropriation/Funding
Sources:
1110-23 01 FNS appropriations 43 43 43
----------------------------
1110-37 Subtotal, funding 43 43 43
sources
1110-40 FSIS Field Automation & ....... ....... .......
Information Management
1110-41 Development/ 8 12 12
modernization/
enhancement
1110-42 Steady State ....... ....... .......
----------------------------
1110-43 Subtotal, IT costs 8 12 12
Appropriation/Funding
Sources:
1110-44 01 FSIS Appropriation 8 12 12
----------------------------
1110-47 Subtotal, funding 8 12 12
sources
1110-50 APHIS Integrated Systems ....... ....... .......
Acquisition Project
1110-51 Development/ ....... ....... .......
modernization/
enhancement
1110-52 Steady State 10 6 9
----------------------------
1110-53 Subtotal, IT costs 10 6 9
Appropriation/Funding
Sources:
1110-54 01 APHIS Appropriation 10 6 9
----------------------------
1110-57 Subtotal, funding 10 6 9
sources
1110-60 FS Integrated Personnel ....... ....... .......
System
1110-61 Development/ 5 6 6
modernization/
enhancement
1110-62 Steady State ....... ....... .......
----------------------------
1110-63 Subtotal, IT costs 5 6 6
Appropriation/Funding
Sources:
1110-64 01 FS Appropriations 5 6 6
----------------------------
1110-67 Subtotal, funding 5 6 6
sources
1110-70 Service Center ....... ....... .......
1110-71 Development/ 90 50 90
modernization/
enhancement
1110-72 Steady State ....... ....... .......
----------------------------
1110-73 Subtotal, IT costs 90 50 90
Appropriation/Funding
Sources:
1110-74 01 RD Appropriation 6 8 .......
1110-74 02 CCC 49 10 16
1110-74 03 FSA Appropriation 4 1 .......
1110-74 04 Service Bureau ....... ....... 74
Appropriation
1110-75 05 NRCS Appropriation 31 31 .......
----------------------------
1110-77 Subtotal, funding 90 50 90
sources
1110-80 RD Dedicated Loan 1 1 1
Origination System
1110-81 Development/ 1 1 1
modernization/
enhancement
1110-82 Steady State 4 4 4
----------------------------
1110-83 Subtotal, IT costs 5 5 5
Appropriation/Funding
Sources:
1110-84 01 RD Appropriations 5 5 5
----------------------------
1110-87 Subtotal, funding 5 5 5
sources
1110-90 NRCS Administrative ....... ....... .......
Support and Records
Management/MSIS
1110-91 Development/ ....... ....... .......
modernization/
enhancement
1110-92 Steady State 1 1 1
----------------------------
1110-93 Subtotal, IT costs 1 1 1
Appropriation/Funding
Sources:
1110-94 01 NRCS Appropriations 1 1 1
----------------------------
1110-97 Subtotal, funding 1 1 1
sources
All other for Mission Area
1120-01 Development/ 75 95 94
modernization/
enhancement.
1120-02 Steady State 406 413 413
----------------------------
1120-03 Subtotal, IT costs 481 508 507
Appropriation/Funding
Sources:
1120-04 01 FCIC Revolving Fund ....... 2 2
1120-04 02 Other USDA Agency 420 429 442
Appropriations
1120-03 GIPSA Trust 2 2 1
1120-04 04 CCC 18 21 18
1120-04 05 FS Appropriation 41 54 44
----------------------------
1120-07 Subtotal, funding 481 508 507
sources
Total: Mission Area
1130-01 Development/ 180 165 207
modernization/
enhancement.
1130-02 Steady State 475 479 482
----------------------------
1130-03 Subtotal, IT costs 655 644 689
All Mission Areas:
9930-01 Development/ 229 223 259
modernization/
enhancement
9930-02 Steady State 520 525 531
----------------------------
9930-03 Subtotal, IT costs 749 748 790
Part 2. Data on Infrastructure
and Office Automation (8)
Major IT Infrastructure
System:
01-1010 FS Project 615 ....... ....... .......
01-1011 Development/ 85 68 31
modernization/
enhancement
01-1012 Steady State 28 32 71
----------------------------
01-1013 Subtotal, IT costs 113 100 102
Appropriation/Funding
Sources:
0-1-1014 01 FS Appropriations 113 100 102
----------------------------
-01-1017 Subtotal, funding 113 100 102
sources
01-1020 FSA SCOAP ....... ....... .......
01-1021 Development/ ....... 1 .......
modernization/
enhancement
01-1022 Steady State 9 10 8
----------------------------
01-1023 Subtotal, IT costs 9 11 8
Appropriation/Funding
Sources:
01-1024 01 CCC 9 11 8
01-1024 02 FSA Appropriation ....... ....... .......
----------------------------
01-1027 Subtotal, funding 9 11 8
sources
Other Infrastructure System:
01-2001 Development/ 89 105 88
modernization/
enhancement
01-2002 Steady State 216 234 222
----------------------------
01-2003 Subtotal, IT costs 305 339 310
Appropriation/Funding
Sources:
01-2004 01 CCC 11 20 1
01-2004 02 FS Appropriation 106 108 99
01-2004 03 USDA Agencies 188 211 210
Appropriation
----------------------------
01-2007 Subtotal, funding 305 339 310
sources
----------------------------
All Infrastructure System:
99-3001 Total Development/ 174 174 119
modernization/
enhancement
============================
99-3002 Total Steady State 253 276 301
============================
99-3303 Total, All 427 450 420
Infrastructure
Systems
Part 3. Data on IT Architecture
and Planning (9)
Other IT Architecture and
Planning:
01-2001 Development/ ....... ....... 1
modernization/
enhancement
01-2002 Steady State ....... ....... .......
----------------------------
01-2003 Subtotal, IT costs ....... ....... 1
Appropriation/Funding
Sources:
01-2004 01 USDA Agency ....... ....... 1
Appropriations
----------------------------
01-2007 Subtotal, funding ....... ....... 1
sources
----------------------------
All IT Architecture and
Planning:
99-3001 Total Development/ ....... ....... 1
modernization/
enhancement
----------------------------
99-3002 Total Steady State ....... ....... .......
============================
99-3003 Total, All IT ....... ....... 1
Architecture
Part 4. IT Resources Summary (0)
Mission Area,
Infrastructure, and
Architecture Totals:
99-3001 Development/ ....... ....... .......
modernization/
enhancement
99-3002 Steady State 773 801 832
============================
99-3003 Total, All IT costs 1,176 1,198 1,211
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Of the total planned expenditures, how much does the
Department expect to spend for (1) new hardware and software purchases
by agency and by computer system, and (2) IT personnel by component
agency and by staff office?
Answer. As reflected in the OMB Exhibit 42 report submitted in
January, 1999, USDA has requested budget authority for IT of just over
$1.2 billion. Specific information on the expenditures for hardware and
software are no longer reported. According to the last Exhibit 43
report, prepared in the fall of 1998 for budget year 2000, the
estimated expenditures for equipment in fiscal year 2000 are $224
million, and the estimated expenditures for software in fiscal year
2000 are $66 million.
According to the estimate prepared in August of 1998, 4,816 FTEs
from all of USDA's agencies and staff offices were to be devoted to
information technology activities for fiscal year 2000. The
composition, by agency or office, follows:
USDA IT PERSONNEL BY COMPONENT AGENCY AND OFFICE
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Personnel FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMS..................................... $2,951 72.00
ARS..................................... 16,127 225.50
APHIS................................... 13,332 202.00
CSREES.................................. 2,053 24.50
DA...................................... 1,931 25.75
ERS..................................... 4,355 50.00
FSA..................................... 45,671 683.00
FNS..................................... 10,517 158.56
FSIS.................................... 4,501 72.00
FS 84,689 1443.19
GIPSA................................... 2,016 27.50
NASS.................................... 7,058 142.00
NRCS.................................... 25,308 414.00
OBPA.................................... 315 4.40
OC...................................... 264 5.00
OCE..................................... 567 4.50
OCFO.................................... 26,452 604.00
OCIO.................................... 24,287 314.33
OIG..................................... 1,179 23.00
OGC..................................... 229 3.00
RMA..................................... 3,935 58.80
RD...................................... 14,763 259.00
-------------------------------
TOTAL............................... 292,500 4,816.03
------------------------------------------------------------------------
information technology contractor assistance
Question. To what extent does USDA rely on contractor assistance to
carry out its IT responsibilities? Please list all ongoing IT
contracts, the amount of the contract award, and the contractor's scope
of work.
Answer. During fiscal year 1998, there were 1,191 active contracts
for ADP-related support services, as defined by the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy. These contracts totaled approximately $259 million.
In fiscal year 1999, there are 548 active contracts for ADP-related
support services, totaling approximately $117 million.
For a full list of active IT service contracts, please see the
attached document ``IT support Service Contracts Active in Fiscal Year
1999''.
[The information follows:]
IT SUPPORT SERVICE CONTRACTS ACTIVE IN FISCAL YEAR 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Number
Reporting agency/description Code Obligated Action Completion of
``D'' amount date date actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS:
DADP ACQUISITION SUP SVCS.......................... 314 $156,207 1993/09 2004/08 1
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 78,780 1997/06 1998/12 1
ADP PROGRAMMING SVCS............................... 308 369,154 1998/08 1999/03 1
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM SVCS.................. 307 975,000 1998/09 1999/03 1
TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK MGMT SVCS................ 316 2,208 1998/09 1999/01 1
TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK MGMT SVCS................ 316 2,018 l999/11 1999/09 1
TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK MGMT SVCS................ 316 2,345 1998/09 1999/09 1
TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK MGMT SVCS................ 316 18,674 1998/11 1999/09 2
TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK MGMT SVCS................ 316 77,583 1998/12 1999/09 5
TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK MGMT SVCS................ 316 26,381 1998/10 1999/09 15
--------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL......................................... ........ 1,708,348 ......... .......... 29
========================================================
ARS:
ADP ACQUISITION SUP SVCS........................... 314 13,000 1998/09 1999/09 1
ADP SVCS/TELECOMM & TRANSMISSION................... 304 48,000 1999/01 1999/09 1
ADP SYSTEM ANALYSIS................................ 306 105,000 1998/09 1999/08 1
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM SVCS.................. 307 27,000 1998/09 1998/10 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 200,000 1996/09 200109 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 2,000 1997/10 2001/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 15,000 1997/11 1999/09 1
TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK MGMT SVCS................ 316 14,345 1999/01 1999/09 1
TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK MGMT SVCS................ 316 1,189 1998/09 1999/09 1
TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK MGMT SVCS................ 316 23,966 1998/08 1999/02 1
TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK MGMT SVCS................ 316 339,340 1998/04 1999/03 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 10,656 1999/02 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 22,599 1999/02 1999/02 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 171,092 1998/12 1999/03 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 30,055 1998/10 200109 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 -172,000 1998/10 1998/12 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 16,252 1998/10 1998/10 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 198,000 1998/06 1998/12 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 197,000 1998/04 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 13,000 1996/10 1999/09 1
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM SVCS.................. 307 650,000 1998/09 1999/09 1
AUTO NEWS, DATA & OTHER SVCS....................... 317 424,410 1998/11 2003/12 1
AUTO NEWS, DATA & OTHER SVCS....................... 317 25,000 1998/03 1998/12 1
AUTO NEWS, DATA & OTHER SVCS....................... 317 550,000 1998/10 1999/09 2
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 141,063 1998/10 1999/09 2
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 28,000 1997/11 2001/09 2
TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK MGMT SVCS................ 316 72,000 1998/09 1999/02 3
AUTO NEWS, DATA & OTHER SVCS....................... 317 235,000 1998/09 1999/09 4
TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK MGMT SVCS................ 316 164,998 1998/10 l999/09 14
--------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL......................................... ........ 3,565,965 ......... .......... 50
========================================================
FAS: OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS............... 399 40,280 1994/09 1999/09 1
--------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL......................................... ........ 40,280 ......... .......... 1
========================================================
FCS:
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 20,160 1999/02 1999/04 1
ADP INF, BROADCAST & DIST SVCS..................... 309 150,000 1996/11 1999/09 1
ADP SVCS/DATA ENTRY................................ 303 134,306 1998/07 1999/09 1
ADP SYSTEM ANALYSIS................................ 306 301,619 1998/10 1999/09 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 1,412,582 1998/07 1999/08 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 73,105 1998/09 1999/04 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 427,996 1998/09 1999/02 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUICATIONS SVCS................. 399 125,070 1998/09 1999/06 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 139,878 1998/09 1999/03 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 31,812 1998/09 1999/02 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 89,417 1998/06 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 209,914 1998/04 1999/05 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 37,088 1998/02 1998/10 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 -6,520 1998/11 1998/11 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 317,120 1998/09 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 606 1998/12 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 93,182 1998/09 1999/08 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 1,086,767 1998/09 1999/07 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 892,921 1998/07 1999/07 1
ADP INF, BROADCAST & DIST SVCS..................... 309 99,994 1998/05 1999/09 1
ADP INF, BROADCAST & DIST SVCS..................... 309 200,000 1996/05 1999/09 1
ADP INF, BROADCAST & DIST SVCS..................... 309 200,000 1995/09 1999/09 1
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 53,925 1998/10 1999/09 2
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 765,558 1998/08 1999/09 2
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 490,692 1998/09 1999/09 2
ADP SYSTEM ANALYSIS................................ 306 190,288 1998/09 1999/09 3
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 1,753,350 l998/10 1999/09 4
--------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL......................................... ........ 9,290,830 ......... .......... 4
========================================================
FS:
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 7,000 1998/02 1998/10 1
ADP PROGRAMMING SVCS............................... 308 32,000 1998/06 1998/11 1
ADP PROGRAMMING SVCS............................... 308 100,000 1999/02 2000/04 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 57,428 1997/08 1998/12 1
ADP PROGRAMMING SVCS............................... 308 40,471 1998/01 1998/31 1
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM SVCS.................. 307 425,000 1998/05 1998/12 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 46,840 1999/02 1999/10 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 25,185 1999/02 1999/09 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 9,945 1999/02 1999/04 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 72,000 1998/09 2001/09 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 43,000 1998/09 1999/12 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 359,000 1998/09 1999/09 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 11,000 1998/09 1999/08 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 2,054 1998/09 1998/11 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 2,176 1998/07 1999/07 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 54,168 1998/07 1999/06 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 27,432 1998/02 1999/01 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 -2,171 1997/12 1998/12 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 11,997 1997/04 1998/12 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 430,870 1993/12 1998/12 1
DIGITIZING SVCS.................................... 315 8,122 1998/09 1999/07 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 62,975 1998/12 1999/06 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 44,653 1998/12 1999/03 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 21,200 1998/11 1998/12 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 758 1998/11 1998/11 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 5,040 1998/10 1998/11 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 63,175 1998/09 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 36,080 1998/09 1999/08 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 30,373 1998/09 1998/12 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 96,002 1999/01 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 9,277 1999/01 1999/02 1
DIGITIZING SVCS.................................... 315 10,600 1998/09 1999/01 1
DIGITIZING SVCS.................................... 315 20,000 1998/08 1999/07 1
DIGITIZING SVCS.................................... 315 10,900 1998/07 1999/02 1
DIGITIZING SVCS.................................... 315 100,000 1998/05 1999/07 1
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM SVCS.................. 307 56,126 1998/10 1998/12 1
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM SVCS.................. 307 -36,S57 1998/10 1998/10 1
AUTOMATED INFORMATIOK SYSTEM SVCS.................. 307 -168,000 1998/09 1998/10 1
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM SVCS.................. 307 56,126 1998/08 1998/12 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 10,000 1998/09 1999/02 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 20,000 1998/08 1999/04 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 5,000 1998/08 1999/02 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 6,000 1998/08 1998/11 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 1,271 1998/08 1998/10 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 30,000 l998/04 1999/09 1
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 67,253 1998/09 1999/09 1
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 2,781 1998/10 1999/06 1
ADP INF, BROADCAST & DIST SVCS..................... 309 40,000 1998/10 1999/09 2
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 2,284,000 1995/09 1999/04 2
ADP PROGRAMMING SVCS............................... 308 2,000 1998/10 2000/10 2
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 13,000 1998/08 1998/12 2
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM SVCS.................. 307 154,521 1997/09 1998/10 2
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 35,429 1996/12 1998/12 .........
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 28,000 1998/08 1999/05 2
TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK MGMT SVCS................ 316 12,000 1997/11 1998/11 2
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM SVCS.................. 307 97,839 1998/10 1999/03 3
ADP SYSTEllS DEVELOP............................... 302 35,000 1998/08 1999/03 4
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM SVCS.................. 307 2,000 1998/08 2000/08 4
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 73,000 1998/01 1998/10 6
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 51,481 1997/09 1998/12 6
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 16,641 1998/09 1998/10 6
--------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL......................................... ........ 5,169,365 ......... .......... 92
========================================================
FSA:
ADP DATA CONVERSION SVCS........................... 311 962,000 1997/12 1998/12 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 70,000 1999/10 1999/10 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 7,137,988 1999/09 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 7,900,000 1998/10 2002C9 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 118,446 1998/10 1999/10 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 1,995,000 1998/10 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 216,000 1998/09 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 664,160 1998/04 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 23,120 1998/02 1999/09 1
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM SVCS.................. 307 349,558 1999/09 1999/09 1
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM SVCS.................. 307 304,983 1998/05 1999/09 1
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 2,931,911 1999/02 2000/01 1
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 20,000 1999/02 1999/09 1
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 50,170 1999/02 1999/03 1
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 50,170 1999/01 1999/05 1
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 475,074 1998/11 1999/10 1
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 189,808 1993/11 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 10,000 1996/02 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 2,624,810 1996/01 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 60,000 1995/12 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 4,416,608 1995/10 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 260,000 1995/09 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 47,000 1995/04 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 198,000 1995/02 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 2,690,510 1995/01 1999/12 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 2,745,324 1998/02 1999/01 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 8,026,000 1997/10 2002/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 130,000 1997/09 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 11,000 1997/07 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 58,000 1997/05 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 -26,000 1997/03 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 31,000 1996/07 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 103,000 1996/05 1999/09 1
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 406,657 1998/10 1999/10 1
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 5,000 1998/09 1999/10 1
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 156,509 1998/06 1999/09 1
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 312,759 1998/06 1999/03 1
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 583,760 1997/10 1998/10 1
ADP DATA CONVERSION SVCS........................... 311 168,000 1998/10 1999/09 1
ADP DATA CONVERSION SVCS........................... 311 100,000 1998/10 1998/12 1
ADP DATA CONVERSION SVCS........................... 311 150,000 1998/09 1999/12 1
ADP DATA CONVERSION SVCS........................... 311 30,000 1998/09 1998/10 1
ADP DATA CONVERSION SVCS........................... 311 550,000 1998/12 1999/03 2
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM SVCS.................. 307 258,000 1998/10 1999/09 2
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 341,000 1997/01 1999/09 2
ADP DATA CONVERSION SVCS........................... 311 365,000 1999/01 1999/03 2
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM SVCS.................. 307 207,366 1999/10 1999/10 2
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 5,494,091 1997/10 1999/09 2
ADP DATA CONVERSION SVCS........................... 311 650,000 1998/09 1998/12 3
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 646,934 1998/09 1999/03 3
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 -739,000 1996/09 1999/09 4
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 4,852,700 1996/10 1999/09 4
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 2,330,178 1998/09 1999/09 8
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 5,139,866 1998/10 1999/09 11
--------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL......................................... ........ 66,852,458 ......... .......... 87
========================================================
FSIS:
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 95,641 1997/06 2009/10 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 199,744 1998/07 1999/01 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 50,760 1998/10 1999/09 1
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM SVCS.................. 307 139,097 1999/03 1999/04 1
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 165,050 1998/10 1999/09 2
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM SVCS.................. 307 15,446 1999/01 1999/03 2
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM SVCS.................. 307 22,739 1998/10 1998/11 2
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM SVCS.................. 307 4,484 1998/12 1998/12 3
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM SVCS.................. 307 126,377 1998/10 1998/10 4
AUTOMATED INFORMATION' SYSTEM SVCS................. 307 28,253 1998/11 1998/12 4
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTRM SVCS.................. 307 279,434 1998/12 1999/01 8
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM SVCS.................. 307 652,359 1999/01 1999/02 11
AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEM SVCS.................. 307 548,182 1999/02 1999/03 11
--------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL......................................... ........ 2,327,567 ......... .......... 51
========================================================
NRCS:
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 135,240 1997/09 1999/09 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 99,612 1998/05 2001/09 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 215,632 1998/08 2001/09 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 499,955 1999/02 1999/09 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 -5,000 1998/08 1999/09 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 544,920 1997/12 1999/09 1
ADP SYSTEIS DEVELOP................................ 302 255,000 1997/09 2001/09 1
ADP SYSTEIS DEVELOP................................ 302 167,049 1998/06 1999/09 2
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 367,431 1998/10 1999/09 2
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 289,554 1998/04 1999/09 3
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 24,814 1998/05 1999/09 3
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 418,904 1997/07 2001/09 4
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 643,988 1997/12 2001/09 4
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 1,679,840 1998/12 1999/09 4
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 1,316,498 1998/11 1999/09 5
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 383,953 1999/01 1999/09 5
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 2,635,896 1998/01 1999/09 6
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 540,571 1998/03 1999/09 7
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 239,221 1998/07 1999/09 7
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 1,316,270 1998/09 1999/09 11
--------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL......................................... ........ 11,769,346 ......... .......... 70
========================================================
OFM:
ADP SYSTEM ANALYSIS................................ 306 122,067 1998/10 1999/03 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 45,363 1998/10 1999/09 1
ADP SYSTEM ANALYSIS................................ 306 184,982 1998/10 1999/09 2
--------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL......................................... ........ 352,412 ......... .......... 4
========================================================
OIG:
OTHER ADP & TELECOMFUNICAIIONS SVCS................ 399 1,000 1987/10 1998/10 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMPUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 4,000 1998/12 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 5,000 1998/11 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 14,000 1998/10 1999/09 3
--------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL......................................... ........ 24,000 ......... .......... 6
========================================================
OO:
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 160,930 1995/09 1999/09 1
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 20,000 1999/02 1999/09 1
ADP INF, BROADCAST & DIST SVCS..................... 309 147,596 1997/12 1999/03 1
ADP INF, BROADCAST & DIST SVCS..................... 309 19,000 1393/01 1999/01 1
ADP PROGRAMMING SVCS............................... 308 832,796 1095/10 1999/09 1
ADP PROGRAMMING SVCS............................... 308 191,785 1995/04 1999/09 1
TELECOMMUJICATION NETWORK MGMT SVCS................ 316 159,162 1998/02 1999/09 1
TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK MGMT SVCS................ 316 -26,869 1997/10 1999/09 1
TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK MGMT SVCS................ 316 118,825 1997/09 1998/10 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 26,596 1999/02 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 187,500 1999/01 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 127,461 1998/12 2003/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 3,493,000 1998/12 1999/10 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 -39,235 1998/12 1998/12 1
TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK MGMT SVCS................ 316 480,338 1999/01 1999/09 1
TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK MGMT SVCS................ 316 11,587 1999/01 1999/02 1
TEkECOMMUNICATION NETWORK MGMT SVCS................ 316 5,762 1999/01 1999/01 1
TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK MGMT SVCS................ 316 414,590 1998/12 1999/09 1
ADP TELEPROCESSING & TIMESHARE..................... 305 16,000 1998/10 1998/10 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 360,535 1998/05 1998/12 1
ADP SVCS/TELECOMM & TRANSMISSION................... 304 25,000 1999/02 1999/03 1
ADP SVCS/TELECOMM & TRANSMISSION................... 304 25,000 1998/11 1999/02 1
ADP SVCS/TELECOMM & TRANSMISSION................... 304 192,780 1998/09 1999/09 1
ADP SVCS/TELECOMM & TRANSMISSION................... 304 62,802 1997/10 2008/09 1
ADP PROGRAMMING SVCS............................... 308 70,120 1998/02 1999/12 1
ADP INF, BROADCAST & DIST SVCS..................... 309 27,500 1998/11 1998/12 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 35,977 1998/11 1998/12 1
ADP TELEPROCESSING & TIMESHARE..................... 305 175,000 1999/01 1999/03 1
ADP TELEPROCESSING & TIMESHARE..................... 305 25,000 1993/11 1999/03 1
ADP INF, BROADCAST & DIST SVCS..................... 309 172,380 l997/10 1999/03 1
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 959,839 1998/12 1999/09 1
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 13,824 1996/01 1999/09 1
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 29,724 1998/09 1999/10 1
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 929,479 1995/11 1999/09 2
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 52,999 1999/02 2003/09 2
ADP SVCS/DATA ENTRY................................ 303 2,067,672 1998/09 1999/09 2
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 1,059,450 1998/09 1998/12 2
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 286,770 1998/09 1999/09 2
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 236,000 1998/11 1999/09 2
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 63,982 1998/09 1998/10 2
ADP SVCS/TELECOMM & TRANSMISSION................... 304 51/000 1998/12 1999/02 2
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 5,947,608 1998/10 1999/09 4
TELECOMMUNICATION NETWORK MGMT SVCS................ 316 1,887,176 1999/02 1999/09 4
--------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL......................................... ........ 21,104,442 ......... .......... 57
========================================================
RD:
ADP DATA CONVERSION SVCS........................... 311 33,333 1999/02 1999/09 1
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 78/000 1998/06 1999/05 1
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 30,276 1998/12 1999/09 1
ADP PROGRAMMING SVCS............................... 308 212,382 1998/09 1999/05 1
ADP SYSTEM ANALYSIS................................ 306 83,336 1998/08 1999/08 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 599,965 1998/08 1999/08 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMlICATIONS SVCS................. 399 5,001 1994/09 1999/09 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 192,750 1999/02 1999/08 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 47,808 1998/12 2000/01 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 159,664 1998/11 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 6,675,000 1998/09 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 423,131 1998/08 1999/09 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 347,748 1998/08 1999/08 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 82,815 1998/07 1999/12 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 39,224 1998/03 1999/12 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 110,288 1998/01 1999/12 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 40,000 1999/02 2000/02 1
ER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATICNS SVCS................... 399 167,072 1999/02 1999/04 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 43,434 1999/01 1999/03 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 36,000 1997/11 1999/02 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 5,939,000 1997/04 1999/05 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 593,000 1996/11 1999/05 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 89,000 1996/02 1999/05 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 5,252,000 1995/10 1999/05 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 7,274,730 1995/09 1999/12 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 7,182,000 1995/05 1999/12 1
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 50,960 1995/02 1999/09 1
ADP SVCS/TELECOMM & TRANSMISSION................... 304 34,409 1998/12 1999/09 1
ADP OPTICAL SCANNING SVCS.......................... 312 210,000 1998/09 1999/09 1
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMFNT............................ 301 11,500 1998/11 1999/09 1
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 34,655 1998/09 1999/08 1
ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOP................................ 302 519,206 1998/09 1999/09 2
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 1,121,880 1996/10 1999/12 2
ADP FACILITY MANAGEMENT............................ 301 704,914 1998/10 1999/09 3
OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATIONS SVCS................ 399 2,612,604 1998/10 1999/09 4
--------------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL......................................... ........ 41,037,086 ......... .......... 42
========================================================
TOTAL............................................ ........ 163,242,099 ......... .......... 524
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Did USDA's Executive Information Technology Investment
Review Board approve the Department's fiscal year 2000 IT budget/IT
systems proposals? If so, when and what were the results? (Identify any
IT systems proposals that were not approved for funding and their
dollar amount).
Answer. The Executive Information Technology Investment Review
Board--EITIRB--considered and approved the USDA information technology
portfolio of investments for fiscal year 2000 as part of the investment
review process in the fiscal year 2000 budget process. The Board
focused on the major information technology--IT initiatives within the
Department, the totality of the investment, and the strategic issues
that derive from this level of investment. USDA major technology
initiatives include the Foundation Financial Information System, the
Service Center Modernization Initiative, Rural Development's Dedicated
Loan Origination System, the Forest Service's Project 615, and the Food
and Nutrition Service's Electronic Benefits Transfer program.
In addition to approving the USDA IT portfolio, the EITIRB
discussed key IT issues and challenges which affect all agencies
including: the Department's Year 2000 compliance efforts, management of
the Department's telecommunications network, USDA Continuity of
Operations Plans, the increased use of independent verification and
validation, and the USDA moratorium on all new IT purchases that do not
directly support the Department's Year 2000 compliance work.
Prior to the formulation of the Department's IT portfolio, USDA's
Agency IRM Review Boards review IT initiatives and decide whether to
continue, modify, or stop a project or system sponsored by the agency.
These surviving IT projects or systems then become part of the draft
Department IT portfolio where it is reviewed by OCIO staff and approved
by the EITIRB.
clinger-cohen act
Under the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, departments and agencies were
to establish a Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) process
and an information systems technology architecture to guide IT
investment decisions.
usda capital planning and information systems technology architecture
Question. Where does the Department of Agriculture stand with
respect to fully instituting a CPIC process and implementing an overall
information systems technology architecture? What work remains and what
are the time frames and milestones for completing it?
Answer. During fiscal year 1999, the OCIO capital planning
performance plan goal was to have 10 agencies using the Capital
Planning and Investment Control Process. For fiscal year 2000, the goal
stated was 20 agencies using capital planning. We now have 15 agencies
using capital planning, and hope that by the fiscal year 2001 budget
cycle, which begins in July, all of our agencies and staff offices will
be using capital planning to manage their IT investments. Further, USDA
plans to use I-TIPS, an information technology capital planning support
system, to produce reports for OMB, including Circular A-11 Exhibit 42
and xhibit 300. Additional resources requested in the President's
budget would be used to hire and train skilled staff to perform and
review benefit-cost, return on investment, and other detailed analyses
in order to reduce as far as practical the risk of failure in the
development, deployment, and operation of USDA information technology
systems.
During fiscal year 2000, integration of the USDA Information
Systems Technology Architecture--ISTA--into the capital planning
process will continue to ensure the interoperability of future
information technology investments across program areas and further
breakdown existing ``stovepipes'' within the Department. We will use
the principles and standards of the architecture process to evaluate
investments and ensure the best use of our scarce resources.
USDA is revising Version 1 of the Information Systems Technology
Architecture. The next version will be published in the summer of 1999.
This effort is refocusing the architecture to align with the Federal
Architecture Model, which prescribes a segment approach for addressing
diverse organizations such as the Federal government and USDA. Major
segments represent business areas such as grants, finance, ecosystems
management, etc. Organizing by segments allows critical parts of the
architecture to be developed individually, while also providing a
mechanism for integrating the architecture segments into the larger
enterprise architecture. Examples of USDA segments include: the
Foundation Financial Information System--with initial implementation of
the Department-wide financial system beginning in fiscal year 1999 and
ending in fiscal year 2002, the Service Center Initiative's Lan/Wan/
Voice and Common Computing Environment--CCE--which are bringing common
telecommunications, and network and desktop hardware and software
infrastructures, to over 2500 county-based farm service centers. Lan/
Wan/Voice deployment is over 85 percent complete, with the remainder to
be completed in fiscal year 1999. CCE deployment was initiated in
fiscal year 1998 for Year 2000 machine replacements and will continue
through fiscal year 2002 to fully complete the system. And, the
Procurement Modernization Team is working to provide modern, integrated
procurement automation tools and streamlined business processes to the
USDA acquisition community--breaking down ``stovepipes'', reducing the
time and cost of processing procurement actions, and better supporting
the Department's mission.
Question. To what extent did the Department follow a CPIC process
and its current IT architecture to direct and approve the IT
investments planned for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Version One of the USDA Information Systems Technology
Architecture, issued in February of 1997, was the foundation for OCIO
architectural review during the fiscal year 2000 budget cycle. The
Department has also developed a Guide to its Capital Planning and
Investment Control process, which was recently approved and it is being
printed for distribution to USDA agencies and staff offices. The Guide
is a reference manual that provides information about Capital Planning
and Investment Control and was developed with significant input of USDA
agencies. While the Guide was not published officially at that time, it
was available to all agencies as guidance for the fiscal year 2000
budget cycle. The principles within the Guide include criteria for
investment selection such as mission, cost, and technical issues
including architecture. They formed the basis for OCIO's budget review
for fiscal year 2000.
usda fiscal year 2000 budget increase
Question. USDA's fiscal year 2000 budget summary shows a budget
increase of $2.4 million for the Chief Information Officer (CIO) to
continue implementing a plan to strengthen the department's management
of information technology across several areas. Based on the various
areas cited:
What are the CIO's plans for improving Department-wide management
and security of information systems and telecommunications networks?
Answer. In January 1999, the USDA CIO appointed a new Associate CIO
for Telecommunications Services and Operations--TSO to provide day-to-
day management leadership while also assuming long term strategic
planning responsibilities for the Department's telecommunications
network. In this role, the Associate CIO for TSO will ensure the
necessary safeguards to protect USDA's telecommunications
infrastructure are implemented.
In fiscal year 2000, OCIO will be leading Departmental initiatives
to improve and strengthen information security and telecommunications
management across the Department. Presidential Decision Directive--
PDD--63, which mandates USDA take appropriate steps to protect its
critical infrastructure, will form the basis for these activities. The
Department will begin by assessing the risk to its information and
telecommunication networks. Potential risks include: intrusion by
unauthorized individuals, disruption of services due to natural
disasters, malicious actions by USDA employees, data corruption,
critical system failure propagated from a failure in a connected non-
critical system, computer viruses and worms, etc.
The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes funding for the USDA
risk assessment and for subsequent actions to address and mitigate
identified vulnerabilities to the maximum extent possible. The budget
request also includes funding to leverage agency resources in creating
a USDA incident response capability, and to ensure the readiness of
USDA telecommunications services required to support the Department's
Continuity of Government plan.
Training will also be an integral part of USDA's security plans.
OCIO is beginning this effort by coordinating a security course for
USDA agency IT staff interested in this rapidly expanding and crucial
area. By building security expertise inside the Department, USDA
respond more quickly and effectively to future security threats.
USDA has also implemented a comprehensive Information Security
Policy review and update project to keep up with the rapid pace of
change in the information security field. In fiscal year 2000, OCIO
will continue focusing on Internet security policies to guide the
Department's use of identification and authorization tools, Internet
firewalls, encryption and digital signatures and certificate
technology, Virtual Private Networks, and other Internet security
issues. The policy review will also include the development of new
policies and revision of existing policies in such areas as electronic
mail privacy and security, incident reporting, software piracy, and
security awareness and training.
Further, OCIO is working with USDA Agencies to: 1--respond to
existing regulatory requirements as well as PDD 63 requirements; 2--
link the IT security planning and budgeting processes; and 3--establish
performance indicators for measuring the effectiveness of agency IT
security programs. As part of this process, Agency IT security
submissions are due to OCIO by June 1, 1999. After an initial request
for IT security budgets during late 1998, agencies will be required to
submit IT security budget information as a part of the annual A-11 IT
budgeting process.
Question. How does the CIO plan to strengthen IT capital planning,
review and evaluation processes and refine the Department-wide
architecture?
Answer. The Chief Information Officer--CIO plans to strengthen the
USDA's IT capital planning process in several ways, as resources allow.
OCIO will play a more active role in phases of the life cycle of
capital planning by expanding our developed process beyond the
selection phase to the control and evaluate phases as well, including
improved project management for information technology. OCIO will also
make increased use of independent verification and validation, an
approach that has proven valuable, to review IT decisions, both from
managerial and technical perspectives. The CIO will also expand efforts
to bring the understanding and adoption of capital planning, the
discipline, to the remainder of USDA agencies and staff offices.
Thereby educating and evolving the existing IT investment processes in
all USDA agencies to embody the capital planning model, and employ its
methods and tools to assist in the management of information technology
investments.
In fiscal year 2000, OCIO will focus its architecture efforts on
implementation. In working with USDA agency personnel who are building
the Department's future financial system, OCIO's will be working to
ensure that integral pieces of the project such as common
datawarehousing standards--essential to agency financial reporting and
a unified loan module--applicable across multiple USDA loan programs--
are designed to share information and re-use technology to the maximum
extent possible. Similarly, OCIO will help coordinate the Department's
use of geospatial information systems and data--a technology heavily
used in the Forest Service and an integral piece of the Service Center
Modernization Initiative. Further, OCIO architecture coordination will
focus on a structured approach to providing secure electronic access
options to USDA program participants.
Question. What is the CIO doing to develop a workforce planning
capacity to improve the management of the USDA IT infrastructure?
Answer. OCIO is actively involved in strengthening the knowledge,
skills and capabilities of USDA's IT staff. During fiscal year 1998 a
new member was added to the OCIO staff to work specifically on issues
relating to the current national IT workforce crisis, as well as
requirements cited in the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996. Both the USDA and
OCIO Strategic Plans include strategies to implement a professional
development program to ensure that program and IT staffs possess the
skills necessary to effectively manage and deliver IT programs and
services.
During fiscal years 1998 and 1999, OCIO has been collaborating
closely with USDA's Office of Human Resources Management--OHRM--in IT
workforce planning and development. Early in fiscal year 1999, USDA's
Deputy CIO was named co-chair of the Federal CIO Council's Education
and Training Committee, and is now working with federal agencies to
ensure adoption and implementation of the core competencies for IT
professionals approved by the Council.
During fiscal years 1999 and 2000, the OCIO will continue to
address IT staffing issues including training, certification,
classification consistency, and private/public sector challenges in the
area of IT workforce planning and development.
Question. How will the Department/CIO provide oversight for the
single IT infrastructure and supporting organization of FSA, RD, and
NRCS?
Answer. Departmental oversight of the Service Center Initiative
single IT infrastructure and the Support Services Bureau is assigned to
the USDA Chief Information Officer--CIO, because of the major
technology component. The CIO carries out this responsibility with a
Senior Policy Advisor and support position. Activities include
providing advice and council to senior USDA policy officials and the
NFAC, conducting reviews, studies and analyses of implementation
activities, providing Oversight Reports and Issue Papers, working with
OMB and Congressional staffs on implementation issues and managing
contracts to utilize independent verification and validation
contractors to assess technical and management issues. The Oversight
Staff will also continue to review all IT waiver requests from Service
Center agencies to ensure that to the extent possible, any investments
needed to meet emergency needs are made in a way to progress towards
the long term objective of single IT structure.
The OCIO Oversight activities have led to improvements in the
management of the Service Center initiative, better coordination,
improved technical solutions and a better understanding of the
initiative both within and outside USDA. It is vital to continue this
function as the Service Center initiative moves into the next stage of
major acquisitions and deployment of reengineered business processes.
Question. How is the CIO's performance in strengthening
departmental IT management being assessed?
Answer. The OCIO Annual Performance Plan serves as a tool to assess
the CIO's performance in strengthening the departmental management of
information technology. The plan lays out performance measures for
OCIO's six critical issue areas, which include: 1) assuring mission
critical information systems are Year 2000 compliant, 2) overseeing
implementation of a single information technology infrastructure to
support the Service Center Agencies, 3) improving department-wide
management of telecommunications infrastructure, 4) developing policies
and procedures for implementing the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996.
usda information technology moratorium
In 1996, USDA established a moratorium on all new IT purchases and
required agencies to obtain a waiver.
Question. Does USDA still have this IT moratorium in place, and if
so, what are the Department's plans for future use of the moratorium?
Answer. In compliance with our fiscal year 1999 appropriation--
Public Law 105-86, the Executive Information Technology Investment
Review Board has approved all information technology investments and
the Chief Information Officer continues to review all USDA information
technology investments to ensure new purchases are consistent with the
current architecture and are directed at bringing the Department into
Year 2000 compliance. Since August 1997, any Departmental or Agency
information technology acquisition over $25,000 requires a waiver from
the Chief Information Officer. These waivers are granted for
emergencies and Year 2000 remediation efforts only.
There are only two types of information technology acquisitions
which do not require a waiver--existing contracts for mission-critical
maintenance and leases, and information technology acquisitions by
organizations other than USDA agencies that are funded by USDA grants.
Once USDA has achieved its Year 2000 compliance objectives and more
fully integrated the USDA Information Systems Technology Architecture
into the capital planning process, OCIO will reassess the moratorium on
information technology purchases.
Question. How many waivers did agencies request for each fiscal
year period since the moratorium was established and what was the
dollar amount of the waivers?
Answer. During fiscal year 1997 there were 127 waiver requests
submitted for approximately $283.7 million. During fiscal year 1998
there were 246 waiver requests submitted for approximately $379.7
million. Through April 6, 1999, there have been 80 waiver requests
processed for approximately $178.2 million.
Question. How many of these waivers were approved for each fiscal
year period since the moratorium was established and what was the
dollar amount of the approved waivers?
Answer. During fiscal year 1997, 113 waivers requesting
expenditures of approximately $210.5 million were approved and 5 were
approved for telecommunications items involving no expenditures. During
fiscal year 1998, 224 waivers were fully approved and 12 were partially
approved. Fiscal year 1998 waiver amounts approved totaled $356.8
million. Through April 6, 1999, 79 waivers were fully approved and one
was partially approved. Amounts approved totaled $170.6 million.
Question. How many waivers were denied for each fiscal year period
since the moratorium was established and what was that dollar amount?
Answer. During fiscal year 1997, 7 waivers were denied totaling
$29.5 million, 2 waivers were exempt from the moratorium totaling $43.7
million. During fiscal year 1998, 7 waivers were denied and 3 waivers
were canceled by the requesting agency or OCIO for lack of
documentation. Denied amounts totaled $22.9 million. Through April 6,
1999, three waivers were canceled by the requesting agency or OCIO for
lack of documentation. Denied amounts from the partially approved
waiver total $7.6 million.
support services bureau
Question. USDA's budget for fiscal year 2000 proposes a new
account, called the Support Services Bureau, to provide consolidated
administrative support functions, including information technology with
an identified funding level of about $90 million. This includes an
appropriation request of $74 million to support this modernization
initiative, and another $16 million for this purpose will be made
available from CCC.
What specifically will this total funding of $90 million dollars
support by service center agency in fiscal year 2000 (in terms of
software and hardware acquisitions, FTEs, and contractor support,
etc.)?
Answer. Through the end of fiscal year 1999, funding for the
activities performed within the Service Center Initiative (SCI) is
provided by the participating agencies. The collective agencies
determined the budget for each activity and the total amount of their
contributions. For fiscal year 2000, a direct appropriation is
requested to fund the continuation of the currently agency-funded SCI
activities. Since this appropriation is in support of Service Centers
and not individual agencies, a breakdown by Service Center agency is
not available. The requested direct appropriation will be supplemented
by a CCC transfer of $16,231,000.
The following table provides a breakdown by ongoing activities and
overall funding source for fiscal year 2000:
[In thousands of dollars]
Activity Fiscal Year 2000
Program/Change Management..................................... 2,500
Business Process Reengineering................................ 14,000
Common Computing Environment.................................. 48,231
Base Data Acquisition......................................... 25,550
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
TOTAL..................................................... 90,281
Program/Change Management activities include customer service
initiatives, change management training programs in the field and at
headquarters, communications, outreach activities and SCI initiative-
wide program management functions.
The BPR investment will be employed to complete development and
pilot testing of the initial Service Center BPR projects included in
the BPR Business Case and several critical agency projects, and
complete deployment of the first reengineered applications. In fiscal
year 2000, an integrated deployment is planned for the Service Center
Organizer (SCO) software, the Integrated Office Information Systems
Project, the Common Land Unit Project, the Customer Information
Management Project and the initial Geographical Information System
(GIS) Project. The Combined Administrative Management System will also
be deployed to support administrative convergence of the county-based
agencies.
The fiscal year 2000 investment for CCE will build on initial CCE
workstation acquisitions that include 16,000 systems in fiscal year
1998, and approximately 6,000 additional systems in fiscal year 1999.
In fiscal year 2000, deployment of another 8,000 CCE workstations is
planned. In addition, network servers will be provided to USDA offices
to allow centralized configuration management of software, real-time
help from IT support elements and file sharing by service center
employees. If funding permits, the SCI also plans to deploy an initial
GIS capability to offices where GIS data is available.
A total of $25.5 million will be invested to continue acquisition
of GIS data (orthoimagery and soils data) during fiscal year 2000, in
accordance with the GIS Strategy published in August 1998.
Question. Since the new Support Services Bureau is being
implemented to consolidate administrative costs, should one expect
corresponding reductions in the agencies' budgets of at least the $90
million?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget includes a $74,050,000 direct
appropriation and transfer of $16,231,000 in CCC funds for the SCI. A
corresponding reduction of $31,050,000 from the Natural Resources
Conservation Service has been included by USDA to partially offset this
request. The fiscal year 2000 budget also requests additional transfer
authority in support of the consolidated administrative functions that
will be executed under the Support Services Bureau (SSB). Authority has
been requested to transfer fiscal year 2000 funds embedded in the
agency budget requests to the SSB in order to support consolidated
administrative functions previously performed by the agencies.
Question. How much in administrative support savings will be
achieved in fiscal year 2000 and beyond by establishing the Support
Services Bureau, and how many FTE positions will be eliminated?
Answer. Secretary Glickman approved the Organizational Structure of
the Support Services Bureau (SSB) on February 3, 1999, and directed
that the SSB be operational on October 1, 1999. The Secretary asked
that the SSB Implementation Team finalize the administrative staffing
level relative to the SSB formation. This estimate is scheduled for
completion in May 1999, and will outline the level of administrative
support needed.
Question. How much is estimated to be transferred from FSA, NRCS,
and RD for administrative services for the Support Services Bureau? How
will this affect salaries and expense accounts of FSA, NRCS, and RD?
Answer. The Secretary asked that the Implementation Team finalize
the administrative budget levels relative to the SSB formation. A team
has been formed to make this estimate for fiscal year 2000 expenditures
and FTE levels for the SSB. They should complete their work by the end
of May 1999 and we will provide these estimates to you. Staffing and
resources for direct program delivery will not be converged, but remain
specific to each agency.
usda service centers
In August 1998, GAO reported on weaknesses in USDA's service center
IT modernization effort and provided several recommendations. (USDA
SERVICE CENTERS: Multibillion Dollar Effort to Modernize Processes and
Technology Faces Significant Risks (GAO/AIMD-98-168, August 31, 1998.).
Question. Why does USDA continue to spend millions of dollars
buying new technology for its service centers before it completes
business process reengineering and before it finalizes how the
Department will provide one-stop-shopping in all of its field offices?
Answer. In the period 1995-1997, USDA did make some moderate
investments, primarily to upgrade the FSA system 36 machines, to
upgrade the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Field Office
Computing System (FOCS) platforms, and to provide computers required to
implement the Dedicated Loan Origination Servicing System (DLOS) of
Rural Development. USDA acquired 16,000 CCE workstations in fiscal year
1998, and plans to acquire 6,000 additional workstations in fiscal year
1999. In fiscal year 1999, USDA is deploying these CCE workstations to
satisfy Y2K compliance requirements and meet critical agency business
needs. These interim investments have been coordinated and justified
separately based on costs and benefits as well as critical program
needs. They were recognized as steps needed to support the business of
the agencies as we go through the process of reengineering business
processes and acquire an interoperable, shared information system for
all of the agencies. It should be noted that the Rural Development
investment, in fact, was to implement a reengineered process, the DLOS,
that will save hundreds of millions of dollars in support and other
costs. In 1997, USDA instituted a moratorium on IT investment that was
further strengthened in fiscal year 1998. Exceptions are considered and
granted only to meet Year 2000 needs or emerging needs associated with
equipment failures, new program or legislative requirements, or major
initiatives such as civil rights and Service Center implementation. In
the case of the Service Center agencies, exceptions granted generally
include conditions such as buying computers that meet the minimum
standards set for the Common Computing Environment (CCE) pilot sites.
Planned Service Center investments are directly tied to the
business process reengineering (BPR) work that is being done. The
planned phasing of future CCE investments is consistent with the BPR
process, including the piloting and testing of the reengineered
processes and enabling technologies. Phases of technology investments
will move forward as they are justified and needed to field new
business processes, meet Year 2000 needs, etc. Because the BPR process
for current programs and administrative activities will take several
years to complete, all investments cannot wait until the full process
is completed. We must enable the Service Center staff to take advantage
of efficiencies and service improvements as they are ready to be
fielded. By using an interoperable and scalable architecture that has
flexibility for modifications as required, USDA will be able to
transition from the existing to new IT systems in a manageable fashion.
The business of the collective agencies is too comprehensive and
complex and changes too frequently to suggest that all business should
be reengineered before any investments are made. If USDA were to take
that approach, some of the agency equipment would be nearly twenty
years old, and we would have foregone the chance to reap benefits and
efficiencies before replacements were provided, not to mention the
issue of Year 2000 failures.
Question. What is the Department's status of addressing the GAO
recommendation to ensure that all identified weaknesses are addressed?
Answer. The Department is taking every step necessary to ensure
that all material weaknesses are addressed prior to approving IT
investments. Service Center IT projects are subjected to the evolving
USDA capital investment and control process just as any other
investment. The Service Center Business Case for technical solutions
that included benefit, cost, and risk information has been completed.
The USDA Chief Information Officer (CIO) conducted an independent
verification and validation (IV&V) contractor review of this
documentation that, while pointing out some shortcomings that need to
be addressed, essentially verified that the documentation was properly
done. The Executive Information Technology Investment Review Board has
devoted considerable effort to examining these activities and
monitoring progress. The CIO has established a Senior Executive
Position to focus oversight activities for this initiative. IV&V by
outside contractors have been used extensively by OCIO to evaluate
service center projects and plans. The USDA moratorium and approval
authority of the CIO for IT procurements are used as control points to
ensure that proper planning and execution is taking place. The CIO has
used her authority to suspend projects and stop work when conditions
have warranted until problems are resolved. Regular reviews of
milestones and performance are conducted.
USDA has established processes for the approval, monitoring, and
control processes for this project. In addition, except for the
telecommunications initiative that was started in fiscal year 1996 and
initial Year 2000 computer replacements, only pre-acquisition
activities have approval from the CIO to proceed. These include support
for BPR, pilot projects, and technical studies and evaluations. Other
than Year 2000 compliant investments, the USDA has not approved the CCE
for procurement and deployment, and the CIO has conditioned any such
approval on meeting capital investment planning and control
requirements and other factors. These activities are still in the
development stage and, as GAO recognized, involve issues that must be
resolved before USDA will move ahead. These issues have been identified
earlier by the internal USDA oversight process and are in the process
of being corrected. USDA has no intention of moving forward with CCE
acquisition until all of the requisite plans, management and controls
are in place to ensure success. The CIO is currently engaged in a
review of how the Service Center Initiative has responded to
management's concerns raised in the past to ensure that all appropriate
corrective actions have taken place.
Question. What is the status of the Department's effort to
implement one-stop service, what will this entail, in terms of a
concept of operations, and when will this be implemented? (Provide the
latest time frames and milestones for all major activities related to
this effort).
Answer. We are in the process of updating our implementation plan
to reflect recent funding levels that were lower than those requested
in fiscal year 1998 and 1999, and the impact that such levels have had
on the original plan. USDA developed a Service Center Concept of
Operations in 1996 and 1997. The Concept of Operations served as the
springboard for the 1997 BPR study, consisting of the four BPR teams.
The USDA October 1997 Business Case documented the results of the BPR
Study. USDA is in the process of updating the Concept of Operations and
overall plan by the end of July 1999 to reflect the current Service
Center Initiative. We will provide a copy of these documents when they
are available.
Question. What has the Department identified as its funding needs
in fiscal year 1999 and 2000 for making USDA service center agencies'
information systems and other technology Year 2000 compliant and for
supporting ongoing operations and maintenance of its systems?
Answer: To be provided to the subcommittee.
Question. Has the Department assigned a senior-level official with
overall responsibility, authority, and accountability for managing and
coordinating the separate service center IT modernization projects,
when was this assignment made, and who was assigned?
Answer. The Secretary has approved an organization of the SSB which
has a National Board of Directors made up of the Administrator of the
Farm Service Agency, The Deputy Under Secretary of Operations and
Management of Rural Development, and the Chief of the Natural Resources
Conservation Services. An Executive Director who reports to the
National Board will lead the SSB. In support of the national structure,
each state will have a Board of Directors and a single Administrative
Support Unit. In addition to the State units, four unique program units
have been identified. These entities will also have a Board of
Directors and a single Administrative Support Unit. To ensure a single
point of accountability for the SSB, the National Board of Directors
will allocate administrative funds and delegate administrative
authorities to the SSB Executive Director, which, in turn, will be
reallocated to the State Board of Directors. The Executive Director and
other senior leaders of the SSB will be fully responsible to the
National Board for ensuring that the needs and requirements of the
serviced agencies are met. The SSB Deputy Director will also be the
Chief Information officer for this group of Agencies, and will manage
the IT support for the Service Center Initiative.
The Secretary signed a memorandum on March 3, 1999, approving the
organizational structure of the Support Services Bureau and appointing
Joseph Leo as the Acting Executive Director for implementing the new
organization.
Until the SSB is operational, the ongoing SCI will continue to
operate as a joint project for FSA, Rural Development, and NRCS. The
Deputy Secretary assigned the responsibility for strategic coordination
and management of the SCI to the National Food and Agriculture Council
(FAC), with oversight by the USDA OCIO. The National FAC manages the
efforts of inter-agency project teams working towards completing the
SCI. All Service Center Agency staff working on the SCI is contributed
by the agencies without reimbursement.
Question. Why hasn't the Department implemented GAO recommendations
calling for the CIO to be held accountable and responsible for managing
and implementing the service center IT modernization effort?
Answer. The Department did not agree with the GAO recommendation.
Our position is that we will continue to place accountability with the
program leaders of the agencies to ensure that the modernization,
business process reengineering, change management, and other components
of the Service Center initiative are carried out successfully. The USDA
CIO will continue to provide a strong oversight role to ensure that the
IT modernization is done correctly and is in accordance with the
overall IT architecture envisioned for the Department.
Question. GAO also recommended in its report that, until critical
weaknesses in the Department's service center IT modernization effort
are resolved, USDA should limit IT funding to its service centers to
only that necessary to (1) bring mission-critical systems into Year
2000 compliance; (2) implement cost-effective efforts that support
ongoing operations and maintenance; and (3) develop and document a
concept of operations and the new mission-critical business processes
necessary to provide one-stop service at all sites and integrate the
service center business process reengineering project with its county-
based study.
Why has the Department disregarded this recommendation?
Answer. Not all past and planned USDA IT procurements during
reengineering are tied directly to business processes. There are
technologies that are universally needed and are available to
accomplish basic business activities. These include office automation
applications, electronic mail, Internet access, and other similar
applications. Also, there is recognition that these common applications
can be supported on computer systems sold as basic desktop or laptop
business platforms.
Many of USDA's simple business processes can be reengineered to
make immediate use of these common tools to deliver services. Most
organizations are approaching technology implementation with the
recognition that both the business processes and the technology
components are not static. If either component is held constant while
the other is refined, the result is an unbalanced solution. Either the
business or the technology has changed to the extent that the solution
no longer serves the organization. IT experts are advising that there
are basic technology components that can be implemented and that
business process reengineering can proceed in parallel with these
acquisitions. The Common Computing Environment Project implementation
plan is structured to acquire these types of technologies within the
first phases, with the more business sensitive components delayed until
the reengineering is more complete. This approach allows the Service
Center implementation to proceed and, at the same time provides the
opportunity to better match technology with the business requirements.
It also enables the agencies to field current or soon to be available
reengineered processes as they are ready to be implemented.
Question. The President's budget shows in its Information
Technology Performance Table (Table 22-1) that $90 million was spent in
fiscal year 1998 for the Common Computing Environment (for the service
centers), and that about $50 million would be spent during fiscal year
1999 and another $90 million spent in fiscal year 2000.
Define what the Common Computing Environment entails (i.e.,
technology being acquired, number of sites, number of staff, etc.), and
describe how the Department is measuring its performance in achieving
its Common Computing Environment goals?
Answer. As discussed earlier, $48 of the $90 million will be used
for the Common Computing Environment (CCE) Project, with the remaining
funds to be used in support of the Program/Change Management, Business
Process Reengineering, and Base Data Acquisition projects. CCE is
providing the hardware and software for the integrated business systems
necessary to make one-stop service a reality and to deploy the
reengineered business processes. At the core of this vision is a shared
information system that provides service center staff access to
customer, program, technical, and administrative information,
regardless of the agency they represent. The preliminary CCE technical
architecture is complete, and is being tested in service centers sites
with BPR pilot projects. More than 16,000 CCE workstations have been
acquired to replace agency systems that do not comply with Y2K
requirements and provide critical business functionality required for
current program delivery. These machines and accompanying software will
be delivered in the third quarter of fiscal year 1999. In fiscal year
2000, we plan to acquire 8,000 workstations, initial network and GIS
servers, and necessary software to run the reengineered processes. We
currently have 17 employees assigned to the CCE project. Full CCE
deployment is scheduled for completion by the end of 2002, depending on
the availability of funding.
When fully implemented, the Common Computing Environment (CCE)
will:
--Provide the enabling technologies to support the successful
introduction of reengineered business processes across the core
service center agencies (FSA, NRCS and Rural Development).
--Optimize the data, equipment, and people sharing opportunities for
service center agencies.
--Overcome the extreme limitations of the current legacy systems.
--Allow the service centers to use commonly available information
technology, such as the Internet, to deliver services and
conduct business with customers and partners.
--Achieve efficiencies across the agencies and enhance customer
service today and into the 21st Century.
The vision is of open systems operating within a common technical
architecture sustaining both the program delivery and administrative
support needs of the agencies. The business requirements for defining
the CCE will come, in large part, from the BPR and Business Process
Improvement (BPI) efforts within the Service Center Initiative.
The performance measures for the CCE initiative are based on
acquisitions and deployment. However, all these acquisitions and
deployment are driven by the BPR, customer service, base data
acquisition, and sharing of information in a common technical
architecture. All of these activities are dependent upon each other
and, accordingly, their performance is measured as a whole, not
individually. Performance measures for the entire project are included
in our 2000 Annual Performance Plan that was submitted to Congress this
year.
Question. What are the current estimated life-cycle costs for the
Common Computing Environment, what time period does this cover, and
when does the USDA expect to have it completely implemented? (Include
all important time frames and milestones).
Answer. The Department is in the process of updating the Common
Computing Environment Deployment plan. This plan includes estimated
procurement and delivery dates, necessary levels of funding, and the
life-cycle costs. The plan should be completed in July 1999. We will
provide a copy of this plan when it is completed. Acquisition cost for
the CCE as currently estimated at about $360 million.
Question. What was acquired for the USDA Service Center, in terms
of the number and cost of computers, software, etc., with the fiscal
year 1998 expenditure of $90 million and the estimated $50 million in
fiscal year 1999 expenditures for the Common Computing Environment?
Answer. The fiscal year 1998 $90 million expenditure and fiscal
year 1999 estimated $50 million expenditure will cover all of the
Service Center activities and not only CCE. In fiscal year 1998, more
than 16,000 CCE workstations were acquired at a cost of approximately
$29.5 million under CCE. A total of about $3.0 million in fiscal year
1998 and $2.4 million in fiscal year 1999 is allocated to technical
studies required for defining the CCE Technical Architecture. In fiscal
year 1999, nearly $7.0 million will be spent to acquire 6,000
additional CCE workstations and software, and conduct deployment
activities.
Program/Change Management activities include customer service
initiatives, change management training programs in the field and at
headquarters, communications, outreach activities and program
management expenses. BPR expenditures include costs of project
developments, equipment and preparations for 9 service center pilot
sites and 5 State Office pilot sites, training of test personnel, and
the conduct of pilot testing activities. LAN/WAN/Voice expenditures
include costs to complete installations at approximately 2,200 USDA
offices and operate and maintain the infrastructure that has been put
in place. Base data funds are used to acquire orthoimagery and soils
data required to develop and test our Geographical Information System
(GIS).
A table showing the budgets by activity for fiscal years 1998 and
1999 follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Activity -------------------------------
1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program/Change Management............... 2,050 2,500
BPR..................................... 9,516 11,388
Common Computing Environment............ 33,536 9,332
LAN/WAN/Voice........................... 25,275 11,400
Base Data Acquisition................... 19,750 15,050
-------------------------------
TOTAL............................... 90,127 49,670
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. The explanatory notes indicate that of the $7.5 million
for fiscal year 1996 to the Secretary of Agriculture for Service Center
Implementation Team, $224,951 were obligated in fiscal year 1998 and
$4,465,344 remains. What are your plans for obligation of the remaining
amount?
Answer. The unobligated funds remain in the Office of the Secretary
account for the use of the Service Center Initiative (SCI). We plan to
spend most of the $7,500,000 by the end of fiscal year 1999. The
carryover funds will be used to coordinate the SCI activities and to
supplement shortcomings of funding from the participating agencies.
activities as mandated by Congress.
delivery of usda programs, services, and benefits via the internet
The Internet is being used more and more by companies to conduct
business and deliver services and benefits via what is called e-
business.
Question. To what extent is USDA presently delivering
programs,benefits, or services via e-business and how does the
department plan to expand the use of Internet in the future?
Answer. A sample of current and future USDA e-business applications
to serve the public via the Internet is provided below:
Farm Service Agency--FSA--consistent with the Federal Acquisition
Streamlining Act, the Electronic Bid Entry System (EBES) was developed
and implemented January 1998 to automate the bid entry portion of the
commodity procurement process. The EBES application received a runner-
up award in the ``1998 Windows World Open'' competition held in Chicago
April 20-23, 1998. EBES also received a ``Government Technology
Leadership Award'' December 1, 1998. The Financial Internet Site was
developed in February 1999. FSA/CCC began officially using the FSA/
Financial Internet site to announce the monthly interest rate changes
related to price support and marketing assistance loans. This process
replaced paper notifications that were mailed to the cotton, peanut and
tobacco associations each month.
Participation in FSA programs through Electronic Funds Transfer
(EFT) increased from about 14 percent in the 1st Quarter of fiscal year
1998 to 56 percent during the 4th quarter. A total of about 2.5 million
payments were disbursed during the 4th quarter of fiscal year 1998, 1.4
million of which were disbursed via EFT. This participation level
increased to 71 percent during the 1st quarter of fiscal year 1999.
Major payment activity during this time frame included--$2.8 billion in
Market Loss Assistance Payments and $4.5 billion in Production
Flexibility Contract Payments. FSA is now planning an EFT disbursement
process through Treasury for the Farm Loan Programs.
Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS) in a joint project with FSA,
will implement an electronic bid entry system to automate the bid entry
portion of the Domestic, Dairy, and AMS commodity procurement
processes. Vendors will submit bids electronically via an Internet web-
based application. Bids will then be forwarded to a database which will
be used to analyze the bids and generate contracts. Programming,
testing, training and implementation will be completed this fiscal year
1999.
Rural Development (RD) provides prospective sellers electronic
access to its business opportunities through the OSDBU page of the USDA
Departmental Administration home page. This site provides forecasted
opportunities for the current fiscal year for USDA agencies.
Research, Education, and Economics Agency (REE) established a
procurement Web-page to provide electronic access to facilitate
government and private industry access to REE procurement
opportunities, including on-line solicitation documents.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT)
is an extension of electronic credit and debit procedures that have
been developed as part of the commercial payment systems. EBT systems
issue and redeem benefits through the use of an electronic funds
transfer network and point-of-sale--POS--technology. FNS is engaged in
EBT initiatives to support the Food Stamp Program--FSP and the Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC) Program. The use of this technology
eliminates the need for paper coupons and cash change in the issuance
of benefits. These initiatives feature automated links between FNS, the
Federal Reserve, the Department of Treasury's ASAP system and state
partners. Currently 33 states and the District of Columbia have
operational Food Stamp EBT systems. Two milestones were passed during
1998 when the monthly volume and value of EBT transactions exceeded
those for the traditional coupon-based technology. During September of
1998, there were over 1.7 million Food Stamp transactions via EBT,
totaling nearly $681 million in benefits. The corresponding statistics
for coupon-based benefits were slightly over 1 million coupon
transactions, with a value of approximately $613 million.
The Food Stamp EBT initiative expects to achieve implementation in
42 states by the end of fiscal year 2000. The WIC EBT initiative plans
to increase the number of state operational pilot systems from one to
seven by the end of fiscal year 2000.
Forest Service--National Recreation Reservation Service (NRCS)--In
October, 1997, the Forest Service in conjunction with the US Army Corps
of Engineers, entered into a service contract with Park.Net, Inc. to
allow the general public to make reservations for recreation activities
in the national forests and waterways. The system began accepting
reservations in October 1998. The Forest Service, through a contractor,
sells reservations to the public via a call center, electronically
through computers at field location sites, and through an interactive
Internet web site.
Office of Procurement and Property Management (OPM) has defined
requirements for a USDA-wide procurement system that includes the
ability to identify buyers and sellers in a secure environment. OPPM
has begun evaluating a commercial procurement system that provides
electronic access to buyers and sellers in a secure environment.
Question. What level of expenditures, either IT-related or
otherwise, are planned to support or develop e-business for USDA
program delivery?
Answer. The Department has not separated future e-business
expenditures from Agency IT budgets. However, the Service Center
Agencies have begun to study the future infrastructure costs necessary
to provide electronic access to America's farmers. And, OCIO will be
devoting more time and resources to this issue in the coming year.
commodity credit corporation (ccc) funding cap
Question. In 1996, the Congress limited CCC's funding for ADP
equipment and services during fiscal years 1997 through 2002. What has
USDA spent each fiscal year (from fiscal year 1997 to the present)
under the caps and for what purpose were these funds expended?
Answer. CCC funding for investments in automation and servicing of
existing automation was limited to $275 million during fiscal years
1997 through 2002 by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act
of 1996. Within this cap, ongoing maintenance as well as system
improvements have to be accommodated. However, since this Act was
passed, additional legislation has reduced the originial cap by $87
million to $188 million, a cut of over 30 percent from the originial
$275 million. Given the need to meet basic maintenance requirements for
current systems, only a portion is available for technology
investments.
In fiscal year 1997, total obligations for CCC ADP were $36.1
million. All but $3.5 million was for ongoing system maintenance needs.
In fiscal year 1998, total CCC ADP obligations were $80.6 million of
which $35.5 million was used for ongoing systems maintenance and the
balance of $45.1 million was used for technology investment in service
centers. The fiscal year 1999 appropriations act limits spending for
CCC ADP to $65 million. It is anticipated that the bulk of this
spending will also be for system maintenance. System maintenance
spending is critical to ensure the continued operation of existing
systems, some of which will eventually be replaced with tecnology being
deployed to the Service Centers. Maintenance funding includes support
for networks, CCC accounting systems and commodity management systems
needed to support CCC programs.
Adequate investment in information technology is critical to the
success of the plan to consolidate farm, conservation and rural
development program delivery into Servie Centers. The plan called for a
reduction in the number of field offices from over 3,700 to about 2,560
Service Centers, and staffing reductions accompanied by major
technology investments. To date, the number of field offices has been
reduced to about 2,700 and staffing reduction have occurred; however,
the corresponding IT investment has not taken place.
Recognizing the need to increase the level of support for IT to
begin to fulfill the objectives of the consolidation plan, the fiscal
year 2000 President's Budget proposes a new, direct appropriation of
$74 million for these investments in a central account, the Support
Services Bureau account. In addition, approximately $16 million of the
estimated remaining balance under the CCC ADP cap will be transferred
to this new account which will then provide a total of $90 million for
technology investment in the Service Centers in fiscal year 2000. Only
through the necessary technology investment can the goal of providing
efficient and effective service to agricultural producers and rural
people through ``one stop'' Service Centers be met.
interagency food safety initiative
Question. How are information systems and other new technologies
being used to achieve objectives under the President's interagency Food
Safety Initiative and what are the costs? What information systems are
involved?
Answer: The President's fiscal year 2000 interagency Food Safety
Initiative includes one time funding to implement the Field Automation
Information Management (FAIM) project to provide States off-the-shelf
inspection automation infrastructure to accommodate HACCP. The State
FAIM initiative is not a single application but a collection of
systems. FAIM provides inspectors with electronic forms, technical
references, office automation tools, electronic mail, and computer
based training. The number of applications has and will continue to
expand over time, with HACCP inspection scheduling and reporting to be
the next significant application added. Taken as a whole, the State
FAIM initiative provides the infrastructure to support new inspection
technologies such as HACCP, and brings the States and FSIS closer to
having a uniform nationwide inspection system.
Question. What performance measures have been established to
evaluate success of the Food Safety Initiative and to what extent have
these measures been achieved?
Answer: FSIS established performance measures in the Fiscal Years
1999 and 2000 FSIS Annual Performance Plans to evaluate the success of
the Food Safety Initiative. These measures, which can be found under
``Performance Goal Two'' of the plans, include:
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
-------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of foodborne illness causing 7 7 7 9
pathogens monitored in collaboration
with the CDC, FDA and State Public
Health Departments through the
Foodborne Disease Active Surveillance
Network (FoodNet). Fiscal year 2000
estimates include two parasites:
Staphylococcus enterotoxin, and
Listeria monocytogenes and Listeria
species................................
Number of FoodNet Case Studies.......... 2 3 3 3
Number of new formal risk assessments 1 1 1 1
initiated annually to identify and
quantify food safety risks.............
Number of cooperative agreements with... N/A N/A N/A 5
States for risk assessment.............. ...... ...... ...... ......
Standard operating procedures ( \1\ ( \1\ ( \1\ ( \1\
established for coordination of ) ) ) )
foodborne illness outbreaks and other
food safety emergencies................
Strategy with HHS and USDA, and private N/A ( \1\ ( \1\ ( \1\
sector groups developed and implemented ) ) )
to expand communications on food safety
information to the general public......
Number of people reached with food 110 132 158 170
safety information through media
stories, circulation reports, Home Page
visits, Hotline calls (in millions)....
Number of Federal-State joint
undertakings in:
Technical conferences............... 12 12 12 12
Advisory Committees................. 3 3 3 3
Other Committees.................... 3 3 3 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Yes.
The Agency is confident that these activities are on target.
However it should be noted that these are long term projects. For
example, FoodNet, which is a collaborative effort with HHS, will be the
main source of information used to monitor projects in achieving the
FSIS stated outcome of a 25 percent reduction in the number of
foodborne illnesses associated with meat, poultry, and egg products by
the year 2000. Many factors can influence disease incidences on a year-
to-year basis, and it will be necessary to collect several years of
data to be confident of the stability of trends. These performance
measurements will be reassessed once the President's Council on Food
Safety finalizes a strategic plan.
usda response to gao telecommunications management recommendations
In 1995, GAO reported that USDA was not effectively managing its
telecommunications systems and services USDA Telecommunications: Strong
Leadership Needed to Resolve Management Weaknesses, Achieve Savings
(GAO.AIMD-98-131, June 30, 1998). Because of this, the GAO indicated
that the Department was wasting millions of dollars each year paying
for unused, unnecessary, and uneconomical telecommunications services.
To its credit, USDA took some steps to begin addressing GAO's
recommendations for resolving the telecommunications management
problems at the Department--improvements that USDA says could reduce
its $200 million-plus reported annual investment in telecommunications
by as much as $70 million each year. However, GAO again reported in
1998 that the Department had failed to achieve any significant cost
savings and management improvements because its corrective actions were
incomplete or inadequate.
Question. What progress has the Department made since GAO's 1998
report to implement GAO's recommendations to:
--ensure that all telecommunications resources are inventoried,
properly accounted for, and cost-effectively managed;
--consolidate and optimize telecommunications services to achieve
savings where opportunities exist to do so;
--adequately plan integrated networks in support of USDA's
information-sharing needs;
--determine the extent to which the Department is at risk nationwide
for telephone abuse and fraud and acted to mitigate those
risks?
Answer. The USDA Telecommunications Network Stabilization and
Migration Program--TNSMP--established in May 1997, clearly defines
agency and Departmental telecommunications management roles and
responsibilities. As part of the TNSMP, twenty-one major hub cities
have been identified for consolidation/optimization. Further, as part
of the Department's transition to the new FTS2001 contract, the
Department will connect these cities into shared USDA network. Thereby
implementing the phase one of the Department's future Enterprise
Network.
A Departmental moratorium on the acquisition of all
telecommunications resources was established in the fall of 1996 and
remains in effect today. The moratorium requires USDA agencies to
document the need for each telecommunications acquisition prior to
initiating the acquisition process. Waivers have been granted only when
clearly demonstrated cases for need could be established. In addition,
opportunities for sharing telecommunications services when applicable,
were required as a part of moratorium waivers.
As part of the Department's Year 2000 readiness program, USDA has
implemented a Department-wide inventory of all telecommunications
hardware, software, and services, e.g., data and voice communications
circuits. This inventory will be maintained in a centralized database
and will be fully operational by the end of April 1999.
Under Departmental Regulation--DR 3300-1, dated March 23, 1999, all
USDA agencies and staff offices are required to ``seek and actively
pursue opportunities for sharing, optimizing, and consolidating of
telecommunications resources.'' Reorganizing USDA's telecommunications
network around the twenty-one hub cities identified in the TNSMP, will
also facilitate improved telecommunication's management throughout the
Department.
DR 3300-1 also provides specific policies regarding telephone abuse
and fraud risks, and mitigation of those risks. This policy requires
agency personnel to enforce the appropriate business practices and
educate USDA personnel in the proper use of office telephones, thereby
mitigating the risk of abuse and fraud. Specifically, ``Agencies and
staff offices shall establish internal procedures to determine the risk
of and vulnerability to telephone fraud, waste and abuse of their
networks. Agencies shall implement cost-effective actions to minimize
their exposure to telephone abuse. Examples to minimize exposure would
be to review and verify telephone billing information, block collect
and third party calls through the Local Exchange Carrier--LEC and
educate employees on acceptable use policies.''
In order to better integrate USDA network services, the Department
is in the process of developing Part III of USDA's Information Systems
Technology Architecture--ISTA--on telecommunications. The
Telecommunications Architecture establishes a departmental framework to
guide agencies in the delivery and management of new and existing
telecommunications services in order to meet the needs of their mission
area.
usda telecommunications savings in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year
2000
Question. What total telecommunications savings have been achieved
in fiscal year 1999 and how much in telecommunications savings does the
Department expect to achieve in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Total annual savings and cost avoidance across all
telecommunications sharing, cost reduction, and consolidation
initiatives for fiscal year 1999 will exceed $3 million. USDA currently
estimates transitioning to the FTS2001 telecommunications contract and
optimizing access arrangements will save the Department an estimated $6
million in fiscal year 2000.
Question. What has the Department done or planned to do with the
savings achieved?
Answer. Telecommunications cost savings achieved in fiscal year
2000 will be realized by USDA agencies.
usda year 2000 preparation
Y2K is just around the corner, and there have been numerous
accounts of what could go wrong in the technology arena, from failed
information systems to embedded chips.
Question. How many mission critical systems has the Department
identified and what is the status of making them Y2K compliant?
Answer. The following table outlines the Y2K status of USDA's
mission-critical systems as of April 6, 1999.
[The information follows:]
Total Number of Mission-Critical Systems:
April 9, 1999................................................. 350
Number Compliant.............................................. 335
Percent................................................... 96
Number To Be Replaced......................................... 6
Percent................................................... 1.7
Number To Be Repaired......................................... 4
Percent................................................... 1.9
Number To Be Retired.......................................... 5
Percent................................................... 1.4
Total Number of Mission-Critical Systems Originally being
Repaired:
Current Number Complete....................................... 266
Assessment Phase.............................................. 266
Percent................................................... 100
Renovation Phase.............................................. 264
Percent................................................... 99.2
Validation Phase.............................................. 264
Percent................................................... 99.2
Implementation Phase.......................................... 262
Percent................................................... 98.5
usda fiscal year 2000 expenditures for y2k remediation, testing, and
implementation
Question. What is the Department's planned expenditure, broken out
by each agency and the department itself, for completing work on Y2K
remediation, testing, and implementation of mission critical systems
during fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The Department's planned Year 2000 expenditure is provided
in the following table.
[The information follows:]
[In thousands of dollars]
Fiscal year 2000
Agency expenditures
Foreign Agricultural Service.................................. 70
Farm Service Agency........................................... 2,130
Food Safety & Inspection Service.............................. 85
Agricultural Marketing Service................................ 30
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.................... 2,196
Forest Service................................................ 200
Natural Resources Conservation Service........................ 110
Agricultural Research Service................................. 205
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service... 280
Economic Research Service..................................... 60
National Agricultural Statistics Service...................... 100
Departmental Administration................................... 500
Office of the Chief Financial Officer......................... 1,000
Office of the Chief Information Officer....................... 2,920
Office of Communications...................................... 300
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total..................................................... 10,186
usda fiscal year 2000 expenditures for y2k work on vulnerable processes
and systems
Question. For other vulnerable processes and systems, such as
telecommunications, facilities, alarm systems, etc., what is the
Department's planned expenditure, broken out by each agency and the
Department itself, for completing work on Y2K remediation during fiscal
year 2000?
Answer. The Department of Agriculture will continue to remediate
vulnerable processes and systems throughout fiscal year 2000. Funding
for these efforts will come from the agencies' fiscal year 2000 budget,
which does not breakout remediation funding for telecommunications,
facilities, alarm systems, etc. USDA has requested $6.198 million in
supplemental funding for Y2K remediation of Vulnerable Systems
(embedded chips in buildings, facilities, scientific and laboratory
equipment). Supplemental one and two have been appropriated. These are
three year funds (Fiscal year 1999, 2000, 2001).
USDA requested Y2K funding for remediation of vulnerable systems,
by Agency, is provided below:
[The information follows:]
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Supp 1 12/8/98 Supp 2. 2/3/99 Supp 3 4/2/99 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSIS............................................ 400 .............. 628 1,028
Forest Service.................................. 2,000 .............. .............. 2,000
ARS............................................. 303 1,840 418 2,561
DA.............................................. 150 .............. .............. 150
OCIO............................................ 300 .............. .............. 300
APHIS........................................... .............. .............. 159 159
---------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................... 3,153 1,840 1,205 6,198
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA requested funding for Y2K remediation of telecommunications
systems, by Agency, is provided below:
[The information follows:]
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Supp 1 Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DA...................................... 323 323
OCIO.................................... 4,000 4,000
Forest Service.......................... 1,750 1,750
ARS..................................... 1,143 1,143
FSIS.................................... 200 200
-------------------------------
Total............................. 7,416 7,416
------------------------------------------------------------------------
usda agency business continuity and contingency plans
Question. To what extent has each of the component agencies, staff,
and field offices completed and tested business continuity and
contingency plans? For those that have not yet completed and fully
tested their plans, what are the time frames and milestones for doing
so?
Answer. Business Continuity and Contingency Plans--BCCPs--have been
received from all mission area, agencies, Departmental Administration,
and several staff offices. The majority of these plans have been
approved. Final approval from the Under Secretary for one agency plan
is pending, and we are working with three staff offices regarding their
plans. The target date for completing these plans is May 21, 1999, with
USDA's overall plan due to the Office of Management and Budget by June
15, 1999. However, USDA Agency BCCPs will continue to be reviewed,
tested, and revised as necessary through September 1999--the date the
General Accounting Office has recommended for BCCP completion.
For BCCPs relating to the field/regional offices and service
centers, OCIO is providing guidance for developing and implementing
Local Contingency Plans. Several agencies have started this process and
information is being shared across USDA.
BCCPs are scheduled to be tested from January through October 1999.
Several agencies have started testing their BCCP in accordance with the
GAO Guidelines. The Y2K Program Office is developing additional
guidance for this testing activity which will be provided to agencies
by the first week in May 1999. This guidance will give examples of the
various tests (desktop, rehearsals and simulations), how to plan and
evaluate the process, and steps for process improvement. As part of the
review process with agencies, the Y2K Program Office will be working
with the Office of Inspector General to develop evaluation criteria for
conducting site visits during agency BCCP tests. The testing schedule
for the Department and for five agencies or offices who have already
submitted schedules is provided below.
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start Complete
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department-wide Test Schedule-- January 1999....... September 1999
for all mission areas and staff
offices.
Foreign Agricultural Service.... ................... September 1999
Forest Service.................. April 1999......... October 1999
Food Safety and Inspection February 1999...... September 1999
Service.
Agricultural Research Service... March 31, 1999..... April 30, 1999
National Appeals Division--end- ................... May 1999
to-end testing through March
1999.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
usda y2k emergency funding--approved and expected in fiscal year 2000
Question. How much in Y2K emergency funding has OMB approved for
the Department, for what specific purpose were these funds requested,
and how much additional funding does USDA anticipate having to request
from OMB in fiscal year 2000?
Answer. As of April 6, 1999, OMB has approved $46,168,420 in
emergency Y2K funding for Year 2000 work planned for fiscal year 1999.
These funds are to support remediation activities in our aggressive
program to address Year 2000 computer and embedded chip problems and
ensure the uninterrupted delivery of USDA programs and services.
Supplemental funding requirements include:
--meeting the remediation needs of additional systems;
--conducting end-to-end testing;
--independent verification and validation;
--business continuity--contingency--planning and testing;
--hardware and software system upgrades or replacements;
--embedded and scientific equipment upgrades or replacements; and
--technical assistance.
Current base appropriation estimates for fiscal year 2000 are $10.2
million. USDA does not anticipate requesting additional money from OMB
in fiscal year 2000, however in the event of unforseen requirements,
USDA will be able to request additional allocation from the fiscal year
1999 Supplemental, which is a three-year appropriation.
presidential decision directive 63--pdd-63
Under Presidential Decision Directive 63 (PDD-63), federal agencies
are to ensure the protection of critical infrastructures, which include
critical information systems, telecommunications, and other essential
services. To carry out this responsibility, agencies were to have
developed a critical infrastructure protection plan by February 1,
1999. According to PDD-63, these plans are to be fully implemented by
May 22, 2000.
Question. Has the Department completed its critical infrastructure
protection plan? If so, what actions must USDA take to implement the
plan?
Answer. The USDA Critical Infrastructure Assurance Plan CIAP--has
been completed and is now in the final steps of Departmental review.
USDA's CIAP will follow the Vulnerability Framework prepared under
contract for the national CIAO. It calls for a four staged analysis and
corrective action strategy to identify and mitigate vulnerabilities to
USDA's essential cyber infrastructure. In addition, it defines
responsibilities for continued security assurance, it addresses the
need for an on-going risk management program, and it identifies the
basic requirements of a comprehensive Emergency Management Program to
ensure the continuity of cyber support for the Department's vital
program activities.
USDA is well positioned to implement this plan. The analysis and
planning we have done to correct Y2K problems, optimize our
telecommunications systems, and develop an information architecture
will collectively serve as a solid baseline from which we will assess
the broader array of security concerns. The procedures and policies we
have in place to support our ongoing information system security
program will provide additional detail necessary to assess our cyber
infrastructure and determine what corrective actions are necessary to
ensure its safety and integrity.
time frames for implementing usda's critical infrastructure protection
plan
Question. What are the time frames and overall costs for
implementing USDA's critical infrastructure protection plan?
Answer. USDA's Critical Infrastructure Assurance PlanCIAP follows
the Vulnerability Framework prepared under contract for the national
Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office--CIAO. Our estimation of the
time it will take to fully define all of USDA's essential cyber
infrastructure, identify vulnerabilities of the systems, facilities and
other assets of that infrastructure, and develop a mitigation strategy
that will assure continuous operation is 16 months.
Much of the work called for in the early stages of our
infrastructure assurance strategy will have already been accomplished
through our efforts to correct Y2K problems, optimize our
telecommunications networks, and develop an information architecture.
Costs for these efforts will not be attributed to our infrastructure
assurance initiative. Other costs will be borne, in large part, by our
network of security and telecommunications specialist who work directly
for our program agencies. Overall coordination will be provided by
existing staff assigned to the Office of the Chief Information Officer.
USDA recognizes that critical infrastructure assurance requires
specialized skills not readily available or resident within our
technical community. For this reason, the Office of the Chief
Information Offices has requested $500,000 in its fiscal year 2000
budget for security measures. These funds will be used to engage
contract expertise in the areas of vulnerability assessment, intrusion
detection, risk mitigation, and other critical infrastructure assurance
plan tasks.
usda information technology and telecommunications expenditures for
pdd-63
Question. How much is being spent to purchase new or upgrade
existing information technology and telecommunications systems to
comply with PDD-63?
Answer. At this time, it is too early to estimate the cost of the
specific measures necessary to assure the security of USDA's critical
cyber infrastructure, as required by PDD-63. USDA has developed a very
methodical approach to defining its critical cyber assets, identifying
existing and expected vulnerabilities and developing a corrective
action plan. Much information must be assembled and much analysis must
be performed prior to establishing a firm cost for complete USDA
infrastructure assurance.
usda information technology budget
Financial Management Systems
Question. What is the status of USDA's effort to implement its
single integrated financial management information system?
Answer. The Foundation Financial Information System--FFIS--is the
cornerstone of the effort to implement a single integrated financial
system. FFIS will replace the Central Accounting System--CAS--at NFC
and will provide a Standard General Ledger for the financial management
operations there. FFIS is being implemented in phases. Two agencies and
two regions and one research station of the Forest Service are
currently up on FFIS. The remainder of the Forest Service and the Food
Safety and Inspection Service will be implemented on October 1, 1999.
Other USDA agencies will be implemented in phases with the remaining
agencies being implemented on October 1, 2002.
In addition, analysis of the use of a data warehouse is in process
now. The warehouse will be implemented in phases and will first address
FFIS reporting followed by the USDA consolidated financial statements.
A full implementation schedule has not been developed for the warehouse
pending outcome of the initial analysis task.
The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reassessed the
original Financial Information System Vision and Strategy--FISVIS--and
believes that a ``single integrated financial system'' will be achieved
through the sound integration of all financial management systems in
the Department. The integrated system will be comprised of a data
warehouse fed by multiple general ledger systems. The information
contained in those systems used to feed the data warehouse will be used
for reporting the more detailed information that is not available in
the summarized information contained in the data warehouse. All of the
systems involved must meet all applicable authoritative requirements,
including the capture of information using standard data definitions
and posting rules, and transactions that are traceable to the point of
entry.
Question. How many agencies are currently using the single
integrated financial management information system, and what are the
time frames and milestones for having all USDA agencies use it?
Answer. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer--appropriated
funds, Risk Management Agency--RMA--and two regions and one research
center of the Forest Service have been implemented on FFIS. The
remainder of the Forest Service and the Food Safety and Inspection
Service will be implemented on October 1, 1999. Other USDA agencies
will be implemented in phases with the remaining agencies being
implemented on October 1, 2002.
Question. What does USDA plan to spend on developing and operating
its integrated financial management information system in fiscal years
1999 and 2000?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 estimate included in the President's
budget is $26.9 million; the estimate for fiscal year 2000 is $32.9
million. As we proceed with the execution this year, we are finding
that the fiscal year 1999 estimate can be reduced somewhat to $23.8
million. Further, we have adjusted the fiscal year 2000 estimate
downward to $32.5 million. These new fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year
2000 costs are reflected in the project plan developed by the new
project management team. The estimates do no include any costs the
agencies will bare internally.
Question. What are USDA's latest life-cycle costs and time frames
and milestones for fully implementing its single integrated financial
management information system?
Answer. The new 5-year project plan covering fiscal year 1999 to
fiscal year 2003 includes estimated project costs for that time period
of $136.1 million. This covers full implementation of all USDA agencies
by October 1, 2002, post-implementation requirements, as well as
shutdown activities associated with the Central Accounting System--CAS.
______
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Questions Submitted by Senator Cochran
puerto rico
Question. The budget proposes the addition of a NASS office in
Puerto Rico and describes this establishment as a cooperative
agreement. Please provide the amount of funds that the Puerto Rico
Department of Agriculture will contribute to this cooperative
agreement.
Answer. The Puerto Rico contribution to the cooperative program
would exceed 50 percent of the total cost of the joint agricultural
statistics program. The Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture would
supply the office facilities and the majority of professional,
clerical, and field staff. However, the Puerto Rico Department of
Agriculture would not transfer direct funding to USDA.
The Government of Puerto Rico has requested that NASS establish a
cooperative program with the Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture
which would allow NASS to establish a joint Puerto Rico/USDA
agricultural statistics office in San Juan. This partnership, which
would operate similar to others that NASS maintains with State
cooperators throughout the United States, would enhance Puerto Rico's
current agricultural statistics program by combining the present Puerto
Rico Department of Agriculture's Office of Statistics staff with staff
assigned from NASS.
A partnership between the Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture and
NASS would help to bring consistency and comparability between Puerto
Rico agricultural data and the agricultural statistics collected and
published for the 50 States. In addition, this office would plan and
conduct the 2003 and future Censuses of Agriculture in Puerto Rico.
Question. Will this cooperative agreement obligate USDA for
additional expenses associated with the census of agriculture?
Answer. Under this cooperative agreement, NASS would provide some
data processing equipment as well as Federal personnel, including two
agricultural statisticians and a data processor, but would not
contribute direct funding.
food safety and pesticide use surveys
Question. The budget proposes an increase of $2,500,000 for a fruit
and vegetable food safety survey and an increase of $1,600,000 for
pesticide use data for the horticulture and greenhouse industries. Are
other federal agencies contributing funds to fund these surveys? How do
these programs differ from the Pesticide Data Program, which is not
funded by NASS?
Answer. NASS does not anticipate receiving funding from other
federal agencies in support of these survey efforts.
NASS currently collects survey data in support of the Pesticide
Data Program. Pesticide use data are collected for field crops, fruit
and vegetable crops (in alternate years), livestock, and general farm
use, along with information on postharvest chemical applications on
selected commodities. Related information is also gathered on
Integrated Pest Management practices. The importance of these data
collection efforts have been elevated due to the requirements of the
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA).
The $1.6 million requested for fiscal year 2000 would be used both
to fill data gaps for additional commodities not covered under NASS's
current program and to provide data important to scientists and
researchers addressing issues related to FQPA implementation. This
initiative would enable NASS to conduct a pesticide use survey of the
nursery and greenhouse industries, which are rapidly growing segments
of agriculture, and would also allow for a significant expansion of
current field crop, fruit, and vegetable programs to fulfill data needs
of FQPA. This would be accomplished through a yearly survey rotation
program. The increasing importance of pesticide use data has been
reinforced through the refinement of risk assessments with the
availability of ``real world'' data, as opposed to the use of
assumptions of maximum usage of pesticides on all acres of commodities.
In alternating years, NASS would collect and publish comprehensive
nursery and greenhouse pesticide use statistics at the State level for
major States where nurseries and greenhouses are located. Pesticide use
data are needed for these industries in order to fill the void in
information about what pesticide products and quantities are used for
producing various nursery and greenhouse plants. In addition, NASS
would expand pesticide use data collection coverage for field crops
such as dry beans and peas, canola, flaxseed, hops, lentils, mint,
rice, rye, safflower, sorghum, sweet potatoes, artichokes, beets,
brussel sprouts, garlic, kale, collards, mustard greens, okra,
pumpkins, radishes, squash, and turnip greens. Included in the
commodity expansion would be collection of additional data relative to
target pests and preharvest intervals for pesticide applications.
Through partnering with Michigan State University, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and other end users, NASS has strived to address
these emerging data needs as the chemical risk assessment process has
matured.
The $2.5 million would be used to fund a survey of fresh fruit and
vegetable growers and packers to establish a baseline of agricultural
practices as they relate to food safety. These data would be used to
address issues related to the President's Food Safety Initiative. The
survey will be conducted in 14 States representing nearly 85 percent of
the Nation's fresh fruit and vegetable acreage and will consist of core
questions covering water, manure management, facility sanitation and
hygiene, and transportation practices.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Burns
data for crop insurance programs
Question. The estimated budget for fiscal year 2000 is cut by $8.4
million for the National Agricultural Statistics Service. This is an
important service for ensuring accurate data is available for crop
insurance purposes. In the past, not enough time or resources has been
spent on the gathering or distribution of this data. How will USDA
restore and increase this funding to provide assurance that a reliable
data base is available?
Answer. The $8.4 million decline for fiscal year 2000 reflects the
decrease in activity due to the cyclical nature of the census of
agriculture program and does not reflect reductions to NASS base
programs.
NASS supports the USDA crop insurance program through a cooperative
agreement with the Risk Management Agency (RMA). Through this
cooperative agreement, NASS provides county estimates for 21 crops
which RMA requests annually in support of USDA's crop insurance
programs. RMA utilizes NASS data in the administration of the Group
Risk Plan. In addition, NASS data are used to formulate premium rates
and transitional yields for determining insurance guarantees when
little or no actual production history data are available from the
producer. To the extent available, RMA also uses NASS data in the
development of new crop programs and/or plans of insurance.
______
Economic Research Service
Questions Submitted by Senator Cochran
food assistance program studies and evaluations
Question. The Economic Research Service was given responsibility in
fiscal year 1998 and again in fiscal year 1999 to manage the research
program for the nation's food assistance programs. What was the
underlying rational you used to guide setting up the program?
Answer. The first item on our agenda was to develop a set of
guiding principles for program development and implementation. First,
we wanted a program that addresses the research and information needs
of clients--program managers, program participants, Congress, USDA, and
the public. We believe integrated research in the broader context of
the current and future economic and social environment is critical. We
also believe that a broad array of public and private entities should
be directly involved in the research, evaluation, and review efforts
and that integration of ERS staff expertise in the development,
implementation, and accomplishment of research projects will add a new
dimension to the program. As scientists, our approach is that all
studies and evaluations should be rigorous and have verifiable and
unbiased results. ERS standards demand rigorous internal and external
review of results. It is an ERS policy that all data collected, to the
extent possible, are publicly assessable and widely distributed--
putting high quality information in the hands of everyone can only
result in better decisions. Finally, the program would move toward the
development and maintenance of continuous data sets. The latter will
allow us to address issues in a more timely, accurate, and cost
effective manner than relying on very tailored surveys designed to
address a particular topic.
Question. Could you explain the process you used to identify
research priority areas?
Answer. ERS has sought input from a broad constituency of policy
officials, researchers, practitioners, advocates, industry groups, and
service providers to identify and develop our research priorities. In
January 1999, ERS convened a round-table discussion with over 60
distinguished experts representing these various groups to obtain their
individual opinions and perspectives. Participants included Julie
Paradis, Deputy Under Secretary for Food and Consumer Services; Dr.
Rebecca Blank from the President's Council of Economic Advisors; Dr.
Pat Ruggles, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Policy Research at
DHHS; Melinda Newport, the President of the National Association of WIC
Directors; Barry Sackin, of the National Association of School Food
Service Providers; Larry Goolsby, the American Public Human Services
Association; and others.
Question. How has the Economic Research Service involved the Food
and Nutrition Service, both this year and last year, in the
determination of research priorities?
Answer. To ensure that the ERS program meets the policy information
and research needs of the Department, ERS is working closely with Food
and Nutrition Service (FNS) program and research leaders to identify
needs and priorities. FNS has also been extensively involved in the
development of contract requirements and the evaluation of
deliverables. They have a capable and knowledgeable staff that has been
helpful in our program implementation. Representatives from FNS have
helped us refine our research agenda, served on technical review
panels, and assisted with ongoing projects. Their assistance, advice,
and knowledge of the programs certainly have helped us develop what we
believe is a program for which everyone can be proud and take credit.
Question. What are the research priorities for fiscal year 1999?
Answer. We have identified 6 research themes for fiscal year 1999
as follows:
(1) WIC Program Research
(2) The Food Stamp Program as a Safety Net
(3) Better Serving the Working Poor
(4) Child Nutrition Programs
(5) Outcome-Based Performance Measures
(6) Research Innovation, Infrastructure, and Outreach
Highlights of the proposed program include research to stem the
rising obesity in poor children served by the food programs, and
research to understand why Food Stamp Program caseloads have declined
more than expected. Other highlights include research on the role of
the food assistance programs in establishing dietary patterns, analysis
and measurement of food security, and research on nutrition and health
outcomes associated with food programs.
Question. What staffing adjustments has the Economic Research
Service made to run the research and evaluation program?
Answer. The food assistance research program has been given
priority in ERS. Some of the most senior and capable staff have been
assigned to manage and direct the program, many of whom have extensive
experience in the food assistance research area. Staffing has been
accomplished largely through reallocation of existing personnel. A
small research office has been established in an ERS division to direct
and coordinate the activities of more than 30 research scientists
involved to various degrees in this research program. Two capable and
knowledgeable senior researchers have been assigned to help direct the
food stamp and child nutrition research agenda.
Question. Has ERS used any of the funds to support farm or other
nonfood assistance research?
Answer. No. All funds appropriated for food assistance research and
evaluation have been used to support food assistance and nutrition
research. In fiscal year 1998, less than $100,000 was used to support
program administration. The balance was used to support extramural
research and data collections.
Question. What is your response to those who believe the ERS
program is too academic?
Answer. The ERS research program is driven by policy issues and
concerns of a critical nature to the nation. Our research outputs are
designed to inform decisions by members of both the private and public-
sectors. If decisionmakers are to be well-informed, then the
information base must be credible. Credibility stems from a strong
science base, which means meeting disciplinary standards for analytical
rigor and reaching out to the best economists wherever they might be
found. When appropriate, ERS and ERS-supported research is published in
academic journals, a process that both helps ensure analytical rigor
and that builds the Agency's reputation with the scholars and
universities that produce the next generation of ERS researchers.
Question. Why did you start a small grants program?
Answer. A small grants program was created to stimulate new and
innovative research on food assistance programs and to broaden the
participation of social science scholars in food assistance research.
Five academic institutions and affiliated research institutes
administer the program. Each institute focuses on a particular facet of
food assistance, such as, diet and health outcomes, relationships to
poverty and well-being, rural issues, and special at-risk population
groups. The expected completion date for fiscal 1998 projects is
September, 1999. Research projects include:
The Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of
Wisconsin is looking for proposals that address the effects of food
assistance on individual and family well-being and food security. They
were awarded $234,843.
The Joint Center for Poverty Research, University of Chicago and
Northwestern University invites proposals on interactions between food
assistance and other welfare programs, and linkages between the
macroeconomy and food assistance. They were awarded $262,740.
The Southern Rural Development Center at Mississippi State
University will focus food assistance research on rural people,
families and communities in the South. The Center also proposes to
initiate a dialogue among scholars through the establishment of a Rural
South Food Assistance Research Task Force, with the purpose of further
articulating research priorities on food assistance-related issues.
They were awarded $220,000.
The University of Arizona American Indian Studies Program will work
with scholars at tribal colleges and elsewhere to support research
addressing the unique position and problems of Native Americans with
respect to food assistance. Their small grants program will focus on
the relationship between food assistance programs on reservations and
family poverty. They were awarded $246,224.
The University of California-Davis Department of Nutrition will
award small grants for research on the impact of food assistance
programs on nutritional risk indicators (anthropometric, biochemical,
clinical and dietary), food purchasing practices and food insecurity.
This program will seek to encourage examinations of multiple indicators
of nutrition impact, and interdisciplinary approaches integrating
epidemiology, economics or anthropology with nutrition. They were
awarded $225,024.
Question. What research is ERS conducting on Able Bodied Adults
Without Dependents (ABAWDS) and Immigrants, two groups whose Food Stamp
Program eligibility status were heavily impacted by welfare reform?
Answer. ERS has two studies underway that are focused on these
groups. First, we have partnered with several agencies within the
Department of Health and Human Services to fund a study of how the
immigrant population is fairing under welfare reform. The project is
being conducted by the Urban Institute. They are conducting a very
thoughtful and thorough investigation of the immigrant populations in
Los Angeles and New York City. The study is well underway.
Second, we have extensive studies underway on the status of people
leaving the Food Stamp Program in Arizona, Illinois, Iowa, and South
Carolina. These studies are looking not only at the ABAWDS, but also at
the larger number of other people who are leaving the Food Stamp
Program. We believe this approach will provide a more complete analysis
and an improved understanding of the issues for decision makers.
Question. Why has the Economic Research Service placed more
emphasis on the collection of continuous data sets?
Answer. ERS is committed to investing in broad-based, program and
policy relevant data that addresses not only today's needs but also
future unforeseen needs. These data tend to have less detail on any
particular program but cover more programs and also tend to follow
people for a number of years. In this way, we can examine such issues
as gaps in program coverage, performance measures of outcomes, multiple
program participation, impacts on diets over one or more days, and how
households utilize programs over an extended period of time.
We believe that one of the most cost-effective ways to achieve
these research objectives is to partner with other federal data
collection efforts and add important food assistance components. This
includes support for expanding the low-income samples in the USDA
Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals, the DHHS Nutrition and
Health Examination Survey (NHANES), and special supplements targeted to
food assistance issues in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and the
Survey of Program Dynamics.
We also have a strong research interest in understanding the role
of child nutrition programs in cognitive development. Consequently, we
have added a food assistance module in the Department of Education's
Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey-Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K) which
follows children from kindergarten through fifth grade. These data will
allow us to examine the relationship between program participation,
cognitive development, school performance, and children's physical
activities.
Question. The fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Act requires the
Economic Research Service to transfer $2 million of the funds provided
to it for studies of the food stamp, WIC, and child nutrition programs
to the Food and Nutrition Service to enable it to conduct programmatic
evaluations and analyses. Have those funds been transferred?
Answer. Yes. The Department sent an SF-1151, Nonexpenditure
Transfer Authorization, to the U.S. Treasury in December 1998 to
transfer the appropriated funds from ERS to the Food and Nutrition
Service. The document was processed by the Treasury Department on
January 18, 1999.
Question. For fiscal year 1999, the Economic Research Service was
given responsibility for several Congressionally-mandated studies in
the food assistance area. What is the status of each of those studies?
Please indicate who is doing the study, the framework established for
the study, when the study will be completed, costs, etc.
Answer. ERS was given responsibility this year for two
legislatively mandated studies on the WIC program. One study is on the
appropriate amounts of sugar and fiber in the diets of the WIC
population and the impact on diets of the sugar limit in dried cereals.
The other study is to assess the cost containment practices used by
states (other than for infant formula) on access to the food items by
participants, WIC voucher redemption, program participation, health
outcomes, and program costs. As with all congressionally mandated
studies, we have given these projects top priority.
ERS was directed to enlist the National Academy of Sciences to
conduct the first study. We have been in contact with NAS, but they
will not undertake this particular study. They said it is neither an
issue of national significance nor does it require their unique
capabilities. We are currently in discussions with the Under
Secretary's office to develop a mutually acceptable alternative.
In reference to the cost containment study, we have met with
representatives from the Private Label Manufacturers Association,
General Mills, the National Association of WIC directors, and FNS. We
are in the process of developing a competitive procurement to conduct
the study. We expect the project to cost no more than $1.1 million in
fiscal year 1999 funds for data collection and $400,000 in fiscal year
2000 for analysis and reporting. We expect the project to be completed
within three years of contract award.
In early versions of the agriculture appropriation, ERS was
directed to do a plate waste study for the National School Lunch
Program. After it was learned that GAO had just completed such a study,
the conference report language was changed to have the Secretary
prepare a report on recommendations to reduce plate waste. FNS will
prepare this report since it deals with program implementation.
food safety
Question. Funding of $453,000 was provided to ERS for fiscal year
1999 to provide economic analysis in food safety risk assessment. Has
ERS begun this work with the funds available? What work is underway and
what additional work will be undertaken with the additional $453,000
requested for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. ERS is continuing research on the costs associated with
illnesses associated with seven pathogens in food. Starting with the
estimated numbers of illnesses, and examining the nature and severity
of the illness, ERS analysts have calculated the medical costs, based
on the typical treatment needed for each type of illness. When the
illness implied long-term disability or long-term care, the cost of
that long-term care, lost wages, and reduced productivity were also
included. Estimates also take the age and gender distributions of each
illness into account and for each pathogen both the short-term and
long-term medical costs. The total annual costs for the seven pathogens
is between $6.7 and $36 billion annually.
ERS is participating with other Federal agencies in both the
National Food Safety Initiative and the President's Food Safety
Initiative for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. Under the National Food
Safety Initiative, ERS is collaborating with the Agricultural Research
Service, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), Office of Risk
Assessment and Cost/Benefit Analysis, and the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC). ERS is a member of the Risk Assessment
Consortium established under the Initiative and this collaboration
supports risk assessment activities relating to food safety policies.
In collaborating with CDC and FSIS, ERS is using the ``FoodNet'' site
surveillance data developed under the Initiative to develop better and
more comprehensive estimates of the costs of foodborne disease and the
benefits of pathogen reduction.
ERS is planning a three-year research program to improve our
estimates of the benefits of food safety using the appropriation of
$453,000 for fiscal year 1999. This research will be funded under a
competitive grants process, where one or more research programs will be
funded over three years to apply state-of-the-art economic analysis to
estimate the benefits of making the U.S. food supply safer. We
anticipate a final report will be completed in fiscal year 2002. ERS
will also be updating and revising our existing estimates of the
benefits of food safety in collaboration with the Food and Drug
Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
through our collaborative research program established under the
National Food Safety Initiative.
ERS is collaborating with several USDA and other Federal agencies
on food safety economics research. We are collaborating with the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on a study they are
conducting on measuring food safety benefits. Our two agencies are
working together to ensure that the joint research programs are
complementary and do not result in duplicated effort. ERS is also
collaborating with staff of USDA's Office of Risk Assessment and Cost/
Benefit Analysis, the Food and Drug Administration, and the
Environmental Protection Agency on joint research on measuring the
benefits of safer food. We will be inviting scientists from
collaborating agencies to provide scientific peer-review of the project
proposals during the selection process, and will also seek input from
them during the implementation of the research project.
In fiscal year 2000, we will continue our research program to
estimate the benefits and costs of food safety policies and programs.
The additional funding of $453,000 for fiscal year 2000 will support
economic analysis in risk assessment activities. We will work with the
Risk Assessment Consortium established under the National Food Safety
Initiative to develop priorities for food safety risk reduction based
on economic criteria. We will expand our knowledge of food safety
benefits by studying the costs of foodborne disease linked to
additional microbial pathogens using the FoodNet surveillance data. We
will also be collaborating with FDA to evaluate the benefits and costs
of production practices recommended by FDA under the Produce and
Imported Food Safety Initiative.
office of energy policy and new uses
Question. What work will not be performed by the ERS now that the
Office of Energy has been transferred to the USDA Office of the Chief
Economist?
Answer. With respect to electric utility deregulation research, ERS
will not duplicate work underway or planned by the Office of Energy
Policy and New Uses. As a result, if further work in this area is
funded, we will rely heavily on the Office of Energy for policy
analysis and expertise on electric utilities. ERS will continue to
provide modeling and research expertise, and will increase its capacity
to analyze the financing and delivery of electricity in rural America,
but will not be the primary source of policy analysis on electric
utility deregulation issues, those will fall to the Office of the Chief
Economist.
electric utility deregulation
Question. I understand that the Office of Energy, under the
auspices of the Office of the Chief Economist, has done an internal
study on electric utility deregulation at the request of USDA's Rural
Utilities Service (RUS). Increased funding of $200,000 is requested for
ERS for fiscal year 2000 for an interagency activity to expand the
Department's capacity to assess the potential impacts of electric
utility deregulation.
How much is ERS currently spending on assessments of the potential
impacts of electric utility deregulation?
What research/economic analysis has ERS produced?
Why is additional research necessary if the Office of Energy has
already done an internal study on the impacts of electric utility
deregulation at the request of RUS?
Who will do this work at ERS? What involvement will the Office of
Energy have? What involvement will RUS have?
What role will the Department of Energy have? Is the Department of
Energy contributing financially to this effort?
Answer. At the request of USDA Rural Utility Service (RUS), and
with their financial assistance, ERS undertook a preliminary assessment
of the rural impacts of electric utility deregulation in fiscal year
1997. This work was led by the Office of Energy, which at the time was
part of ERS. The research did involve other ERS researchers as well as
data supplied by RUS and the Department of Energy. This initial effort
has resulted in research that is currently being conducted for use by
the Department to examine some of the potential impacts of deregulation
at the national level. Recognizing that the electric utility
deregulation process at the State, and possibly Federal, level will
unfold over a number of years, ERS requested additional funds to help
support a long-term research effort on the full range of issues
surrounding deregulation. We view this as a collaborative effort,
drawing on the modeling and analytic strengths of ERS, the policy
expertise of the Office of Energy Policy and New Uses, now housed in
the Office of the Chief Economist (OCE), and the program expertise of
RUS. As a result, the work could also be funded through the OCE
account, but we believe that long-term research on this issue is very
important as policy makers at the State and Federal level contend with
the complex issues involved. Answers to your specific questions follow:
With the creation and relocation of the Office of Energy Policy and
New Uses, ERS reduced the number of staff working on energy-related
issues. In fiscal year 1999, we expect to spend between $100 and $200
thousand on energy-related issues largely focusing on electric utility
deregulation and biomass fuel.
Much of our work on electric utility deregulation has been in
support of the research underway under the auspices of the OCE. In
particular, the regional economic impacts of anticipated changes in
electric rates were estimated using a model developed by ERS staff. In
addition, a forthcoming issue of Rural Conditions and Trends, published
by the agency, includes a short article on what electric utility
deregulation could mean for rural America.
Work underway appears to raise legitimate concerns about the
distributional impacts of electric utility deregulation, but it is only
a first step. As State deregulation efforts have demonstrated, there
are many ways of structuring the deregulation process, each with its
own set of pricing and competitive impacts. The Department's
preliminary research, which is not yet complete, only examines some of
the potential impacts of one scenario for deregulating electric
utilities. If the Department is to craft programs and policies which
ensure that rural Americans have access to affordable, reliable, and
safe electric power as the electric utility sector restructures in
coming years, it will need a continuing flow of information and
analysis. Given the sizeable loan programs the Department operates in
support of rural electric cooperatives, it has an obligation to
minimize potential loan losses as these key rural electric service
providers are affected by, and react to, State and Federal deregulation
efforts.
This research effort will continue to require the full cooperation
of ERS, OCE, and RUS. None of these agencies, by itself, has the
resources and expertise needed to study the full range of issues
deregulation involves for rural households, businesses, and
governments; investor-owned, municipal, and cooperative electric
service providers; and USDA. Within ERS, staff with expertise on
regional economic modeling, business finance, and industrial location
will help assess the distributional impacts of electric rate changes on
the rural economy. RUS will provide expertise and data on rural
electric cooperatives and the USDA programs serving them. The Office of
Energy Policy and New Uses within OCE will continue to provide policy
analysis and spearhead the Department's electric utility deregulation
work.
To date, USDA's research on electric utilities has relied upon the
Department of Energy's (DOE) aggregate models. We will continue to rely
on DOE's data and models as the starting point for our research on
rural distributional impacts. DOE has not provided any financial
support for USDA's electric utility deregulation research thus far, and
none is anticipated in the future.
national assessment of climate change and variability
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget requests an increase of
$300,000 for U.S. Global Change Research Program National Assessment
Activities. Does $300,000 represent the total cost of these assessment
activities?
Answer. The $300,000 requested by ERS for National Assessment
activities is part of an $800,000 total budget request by USDA for
fiscal year 2000, with the difference split between ARS and NRCS. The
funding will be used to conduct economic analyses pertaining to the
potential impacts of climate change and variability on agricultural
production. These analyses were not undertaken in the first National
Assessment due to time and financial constraints.
Assessments play an integrative role across the U.S. Global Change
Research Program (USGCRP) program by assembling and synthesizing
scientific results, increasing interaction among scientists and the
public, and identifying gaps in knowledge. Assessments are also an
important vehicle for disseminating information to public policy and
decision making communities. The current National Assessment of the
Consequences of Climate Variability and Change satisfies the mandate of
the Global Change Research Act of 1990 to prepare and submit to the
President and the Congress ``an assessment which integrates, evaluates,
and interprets the findings of the Program . . .'' This Assessment is
demonstrating a new public-private partnership that links research to
the needs of stakeholders by providing managers, policy-makers, and the
public with information needed to increase resilience to climate
variability and cope with climate change. The current National
Assessment is providing valuable information on the ability of
agricultural and forestry systems to adapt to climate change. Fiscal
year 2000 assessment activities will focus on continued efforts to
involve USDA stakeholders in helping to identify risks, opportunities,
research and information needs associated with increased climate
variability, and climate change.
Question. Will Global Change Research Program National Assessment
Activities related to USDA programs be carried out by ERS or is ERS
requesting funding for government-wide assessment activities?
Answer. The funding requested by ERS will be used to sponsor USDA
research activities pertaining to the impact of climate change and
variability on agricultural production. ERS will coordinate its efforts
with the USDA Global Change Program Office and other USDA agencies.
While the research sponsored by ERS will be related to the goals of the
National Assessment program, the funding request is intended to support
the mission of ERS as it relates to global change activities.
outlook reports
Question. How has ERS responded to the language in the reports
accompanying the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Act regarding the
frequency of situation and outlook reports?
Answer. Beginning in January, 1999, ERS resumed publication of
field crop and livestock reports on a monthly schedule. This is the
same frequency as in 1996. There are 3 published reports in each of the
specialty crop series--Fruit and Tree Nuts, Sugar, Tobacco, and
Vegetables--compared to 4 in 1996. However, ERS is preparing electronic
briefing rooms for these commodities that will provide a vehicle for
more frequent release of data and analysis.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Cochran
rural housing
Question. A total of $500 million has been cut from rural housing
direct loan subsidies over the last five years. The President's fiscal
year 2000 budget cuts an additional $240 million in budget authority
for the cost of these loans as well as rental assistance. The fiscal
year 2000 budget request proposes an additional 10 percent increase,
$2.5 billion, in HUD funding. If this amount is appropriated, HUD will
have received a 2 year increase totaling approximately $6 billion.
While some HUD resources make their way to rural areas, they are not
adequate to meet the need for improved housing in rural America. Where
is the $240 million in budget authority being spent in the fiscal year
2000 proposed budget?
Answer. I think it is important to put the reductions in budget
authority for rural housing programs in the proper context. A large
portion of the reduction in budget authority over the time period you
referenced is due to the need for less budget authority as a result of
lower interest rates. Another significant factor was the Congressional
reduction of the funding for the rural rental housing program. The
fiscal year 2000 Budget requests $640 million for rental assistance
with $200 million being available and, therefore, reflected as budget
authority in fiscal year 2001. This was necessary to remain within the
budget caps agreed to by the Administration and the Congress. In
developing the President's fiscal year 2000 Budget, rural housing
programs were not reduced in order to fund other specific programs.
Question. At a time when the HUD budget is increasing by 10 percent
a year and there is an increased need for rural housing assistance, why
isn't the Administration investing more in rural housing programs?
Answer. I think of the increases in HUD funding as an effort to
recover from the disastrous cuts in these programs made during the
Reagan Administration. The Administration would very much like to
invest more in rural housing programs, but as I have said previously
the primary objective is to continue efforts to ensure the budget is
balanced and continue to meet the highest priority needs. This is a
delicate balancing act, but one that is necessary because of the need
to put our fiscal house in order. The Administration has, however, been
able to provide substantially more guaranteed loan assistance for rural
housing, which contributes to the amount of housing being built in
rural America at very little government cost.
Question. There is a tremendous need of additional housing for
migrant and seasonal farmworkers. What is the backlog for farmworker
housing loans and grants?
Answer. We presently have on hand applications for loans and grants
totaling $25.1 million. These applications are from the states of
Pennsylvania, Texas, California, Washington, North Carolina, Florida
and Oregon. However, we believe that this does not reflect the true
demand because when we changed from allocating the funds to States and
began nationwide competition borrowers ceased filing applications with
States. When we announce the availability of funds in April, I think we
will have a better idea of the true demand.
early warning systems
Question. Ms. Thompson's testimony indicates that $5 million of the
funding for community facilities is earmarked to install severe weather
early warning systems throughout rural areas. The total estimated cost
is $50 million for all sites. The $5 million will finance the
installation of the necessary equipment at 15 to 20 of the highest
priority sites. Where are the ``highest priority sites'' located? How
many sites have existing towers that can be used? Who will maintain
these sites once the towers are in working order and what is their life
span? What is the total number of sites that need service? What is the
agencies goal for these sites in order to fulfill the Vice President's
wish for 95 percent coverage of rural areas?
Answer. The highest priority sites tend to be located in the
Southeast, Southwest, Great Plains, and Mid-Western states. The
priority systems is designated by the National Weather Service (NWS),
based on a number of variables such as population density, and severe
weather occurrences. The Rural Utilities Service is in the process of
helping identify existing towers owned by RUS borrowers or others in
areas targeted by NWS for a transmitter. The number of tower sites is
not yet known, and constantly increases due to the construction of new
telecommunications, cellular, paging and other telecommunications
services. RUS will target its borrowers with towers in the needed areas
in order to maximize program monies and the number of sites funded.
However, there will be some targeted areas in which towers do not
exist.
Maintenance and liability of these transmitters and constructed
towers will be assumed by the NWS, and supported through that
appropriation. Customarily, an existing tower owner retains ownership
of the tower space, but allows the NWS use for its transmitter. We
envision a grant recipient (tower owner) purchasing and installing the
transmitter, and donating the transmitter to NWS. This releases the
tower owner from maintenance and liability.
Approximately 170 sites are needed to reach 95 percent coverage.
RUS believes by utilizing its relationship with its borrowers and using
grant monies to leverage donation of tower space, we can achieve this
goal.
rural electrification and telephone programs
Question. Ms. Thompson's testimony states that in the rural
utilities area, a shift has occurred resulting in a move from initial
connectivity to electric and telephone service to maintenance of an
aging infrastructure. How many loans lent in RUS are for maintenance
vs. initial connectivity?
Answer. Mr. Chairman, the point I was attempting to make in my
statement is that even though the vast majority of rural residents
today have access to electrical and telecommunications services, the
programs we administer are just as needed now as they were in the 1930s
and 1940s. The primary purposes of the loans today are to maintain an
infrastructure, upgrade the systems, and connect new customers. About
45 percent of the electric loans made to distribution borrowers are for
maintenance and upgrades and the remainder are for connecting new
customers. For the telecommunications programs the percentage of the
funds used for new subscribers is about 27 percent.
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request proposes a new
Treasury Rate Electric loan program. Has this legislation been sent to
the authorizing Committees? If this new loan program is not authorized,
how will this affect the budget authority request for other electric
loans programs? Are the agency's customers demanding a new program such
as the proposed Treasury rate program? Does the agency have any
indication that its customers will use this new program?
Answer. The legislation is in clearance at the Office of Management
and Budget and will be submitted to Congress in the near future. There
will be no effect on the budget authority for other electric programs
if this proposal is not enacted. Agency customers have expressed desire
to move from the municipal rate program to avoid the long queue for
loan approval to the guaranteed program, but have also expressed
anxiety about dealing with the Federal Financing Bank because of the
bad experiences of the generation and transmission borrowers with the
FFB during the 1980's. They have also expressed anxiety about having to
deal with two Federal bureaucracies, RUS and the FFB. We have
absolutely no doubts the borrowers would use the new program.
rural telephone bank
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request proposes
privatization of the Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) over a ten year period.
This authorization must be acted on by the Agriculture Committee, not
the Appropriations Committee. Should this legislation not be enacted
into law, how will this affect the budget authority for the RTB for
fiscal year 2000?
Answer. This should have no effect on the budget authority for the
fiscal year 2000 budget since the language appropriates the funds from
the unobligated balances of the RTB liquidating account.
business and industry loans
Question. The agency should be commended for its efforts in
reducing the amount of outstanding principal delinquent and the
percentage of borrowers delinquent within the business and industry
loan guarantee program. What has contributed to this successful
reduction?
Answer. The staff in the field offices realize that this program is
important to rural America only if we make successful loans and because
of that the staff works very closely with the borrowers and lenders to
ensure the loans are successful. This attitude in turn leads to better
loan underwriting which has been improved through more intensive
training. I am very proud of the staff, and I agree, they are to be
commended.
cooperative development grants
Question. For rural cooperative development grants, the fiscal year
2000 budget request is $7 million, an increase of $3 million. How much
of this additional funding will enhance technical assistance of small
farmers and small farm operations in developing marketing and
management skills? Is this assistance not available from the Extension
Service?
Answer. I cannot give a precise answer as to how much of the funds
will be made available for developing marketing assistance and
management skills. This is going to be one of my highest priorities and
applicants for the grants will be so notified of that priority through
the Federal Register. This is a very important area because the most
glaring weakness in small business start-ups is in marketing their
products and I am convinced it will be the same for cooperatives. The
Cooperative Research Educational Extension Service (CREES) does offer
some assistance to producers and we will continue to use the capacity
of CREES where appropriate as we develop new research products.
partnership technical assistance grants
Question. Please discuss the need for a new earmark of up to $5
million from the rural business and cooperative development programs
for partnership technical assistance grants to rural communities.
Answer. The majority of rural communities are dependent on part
time public officials and voluntary help and they do not have the
technical capacity to compete for Federal and State assistance that
might be available to them. They consistently lose in the competition
for such assistance even though their need may be greater. Our staff
provides as much assistance as possible, but the need is far greater
than we can meet. In order to get these communities to the front of the
queue for such assistance we need to have available a source of funds
through which we can help these communities develop the capacity to
compete more successfully. I think we have demonstrated through the
Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community that once this capacity is
available, the traditionally under served communities compete very
well.
cooperative research agreements
Question. How much funding is being used from the Salaries and
Expense account in fiscal year 1998 and 1999 for cooperative related
research through universities and other entities? Which universities
and other entities are receiving this funding and how much is provided
to each? When does the agency expect the research to be completed? How
are the universities and other entities selected to conduct the
research?
Answer. I will submit a list of the research agreements awarded in
fiscal year 1998 for the record. The amount used for cooperative
agreements in 1998 was $1.9 million and approximately $1.3 million will
be used in 1999. Most of this research at universities will be
completed within 3 years from initiation of the project. The normal
procedure used for executing these projects is that an announcement is
posted in the Federal Register and applicants submit projects based on
the areas suggested. Proposals are rated by the agency according to
established criteria in the announcement and are awarded competitively
according to ratings received. Universities and other entities
receiving funding under the Research on Rural Cooperative Opportunities
and Problems program in fiscal year 1998 were as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Institution Title Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJRutgers University A Cooperative Approach to $94,445
the Development,
Production, and
Marketing of a Value
Added Blueberry Product.
IAIowa State University Agricultural Development 57,342
in the 21st Century: The
Changing Role of
Cooperatives.
NYCornell University (with NE The Role of Small-Scale 69,854
Small Farm Institute) Growers' Cooperatives in
Sustaining Northeast
Agriculture.
MANE Small Farm Institute The Role of Small-Scale 29,992
(with Cornell University) Growers' Cooperatives in
Sustaining Northeast
Agriculture.
ARUniversity of Arkansas A new Generation of 35,625
School of Law Farmer Co-Ops: Defining
& Redefining What It
Means to be a
Cooperative.
OROregon State University Cooperatives' Export/ 50,779
Import Arrangements for
High-Valued Products.
MSMississippi State Univ Role of Livestock 53,222
Marketing Co-Ops in
Southeast Cattle
Production.
INPurdue University Opportunities for Locally 44,526
Owned Multiplant Grain
Cooperatives with
Identity Preserved
Grains.
MOUniversity of Missouri Redefining Ag Bargaining 44,526
Co-Ops for the 21st
Century: Solving the
Free Rider problem.
INPurdue University Structural Change in 53,819
Cooperatives and
Agribusiness: What are
the Opportunities and
Implications for
Producers?.
CASan Joaquin College of Law ``New Wave of Rural 48,750
Agricultural
Cooperatives.'' A
Symposium Law Reviewed
Issue.
WIUniversity of Wisconsin Cooperative Dairy 76,930
(with Iowa State Production Models: A
University) Means for Rural
Development.
KYCenter for Sustainable Six Decades of 95,000
Systems (with Univ. of KY, Cooperation: A Living
Commodity Growers Co-op, & Legacy Nurturing New
Natl. Farmers Union) Cooperatives or A
Culture ``Up in Smoke?''.
KSKansas State University Valuing Marketing Rights 86,330
in New Generation
Cooperatives.
WAWashington State Univ Financing Co-Ops Through 35,799
Patron Demand Deposit
Accounts: Future
Prospects and Pitfalls.
MSAlcorn State University Economic Development in 94,297
Rural Mississippi: What
Is the Appropriate Role
of Cooperatives?.
SCSouth Carolina State Univ Barriers to Small & New 68,890
Farmer Membership in
Agricultural Marketing
Cooperatives in the
Southeastern Region.
NDNorth Dakota State Univ. Assessment of Cooperative 40,185
(with Univ of Wis. & Mont. Board Training Programs
State Univ.) and Needs and
Development of Training
Material.
WIUniv. of Wis. Co-op Center Assessment of Cooperative 31,680
(with ND State Univ. & Board Training Programs
Mont. State Univ.) and Needs and
Development of Training
Material.
MTMont. State Univ. (with Assessment of Cooperative 24,975
Univ. of Wis. & ND State Board Training Programs
Univ.) and Needs and
Development of Training
Material.
FLUniversity of Florida Optimal Scheduling of 66,600
Farm-to-Plant Milk.
IAIowa State University Group Action Lessons from 25,000
the History of a
National Farm
Organization.
IAIowa State University Conferences on Rural Data 10,000
Needs.
WAWashington State Univ. Capacity Utilization 15,000
Issues for Washington
State Cooperatives.
-------------
TOTAL 1,920,021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
support services bureau
Question. With the implementation of administrative convergence how
much will Rural Development be expected to contribute to the Support
Services Bureau? How will this affect each agency's salaries and
expense budget?
Answer. Mr. Chairman, preliminary estimates are that the Rural
Development Mission Area would transfer about 1,070 staff in
headquarters, St. Louis, and the States and the cost would be in the
neighborhood of $73 million. Following reorganization of the Department
and the creation of the Rural Development Mission Area, we consolidated
the administrative functions and placed those functions under the
umbrella of the Rural Housing Service with sources being provide to all
three agencies. Hence the effect on the salaries and expense budget of
the other two agencies should be minimal since the monies for
administrative personnel and functions are currently transferred to the
Rural Housing Service under the policy oversight of the Deputy Under
Secretary for Operations and Management and day to day operational
oversight of the Deputy Administrator for Operations and Management.
salaries and expenses
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget request proposes an increase
of $25 million for the salaries and expenses account. How will this
increase be used?
Answer. The requested increase is for three items: one totaling $14
million is pay cost increases composed of the annualization of the
fiscal year 1999 pay increase and the increase anticipated for fiscal
year 2000; another totaling $8 million is for improvements to our
financial systems; and the third item is $2 million for a Housing Data
Warehousing Initiative, the purpose of which is to improve loan
origination, loan servicing, and loss mitigation by sharing information
on loan portfolio management among the Federal Housing Administration,
the Veterans Administration,, and the Government National Mortgage
Association.
Regarding the first item, I would like to note that since my tenure
as Under Secretary, we have tightened our belt continually on items
such as travel, training, and information technology to ensure we had
sufficient funds to maintain our staffing level and not be forced into
adverse actions such as reductions-in-force and furloughs. In doing so
we reduced training to a very low level, and disrupted several
financial management improvement projects. The increases requested must
be provided to avoid reductions in force.
water and waste
Question. What is the backlog of applications for the Water 2000
initiative?
Answer. We do not maintain a separate backlog of applications for
the Water 2000 initiative, those applications are part of the total
backlog for water and waste disposal loans and grants which total about
$4 billion combined.
rcap unobligated balances
Question. Please list the amount of obligated and unobligated
balances from prior year appropriations for the rural utilities
assistance program. Why will the unobligated balances not be available
for future obligation for the Rural Community Advancement Program
(RCAP)?
Answer. Appropriations made to this account are made available
until expended and any unobligated balance or future cancellation of
obligated balances, other than those made appropriated for disaster
recovery, are available for obligation for water and waste disposal
loans or grants. Appropriations to the Rural Utilities Assistance
program began in fiscal year 1996 and as of the end of fiscal year 1998
the unobligated balances totaled $543,841 and the obligated balance
totaled over $528 million. The totals for fiscal year 1997 for
unobligated and obligated are $1,062,359 and $593,313,440,
respectively. The totals for fiscal year 1997 include a small amount of
funds made available for disaster assistance.
electric and telecommunication programs
Question. Why is the Department requesting greater flexibility to
manage electric and telecommunication loan programs by allowing the
budget authority to be interchangeable for those programs?
Answer. Mr. Chairman, the demand for the loan programs,
particularly the electric loan programs is increasing significantly,
but it is not consistent from year to year for each of the programs.
Having one source of budget authority for the electric programs, as
opposed to three would enable the Administrator to adjust to demand
annually and ensure the funds are used more effectively.
Question. The budget justification notes that the fiscal year 2000
requested lending levels for electric and telecommunication loans are
justified to meet the Administration's goal to stimulate economic
development and fulfill the variety of Administrative initiatives. What
is the variety of Administration initiatives?
Answer. Mr. Chairman, the infrastructure provided through these
programs is a vital key to economic stability and economic development
in rural areas. Infrastructure investment provides the foundation for
new economic activity and economic stimulation is the basis for the
enactment of the programs we administer.
rural economic development grants
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes a decrease of $7
million for rural economic development grants. At the proposed level,
how many grants will be available? What will be the average grant
amount?
Answer. Mr. Chairman, the decrease results from the lack of funds
in the ``Cushion of Credit'' account from which these grants are made.
At the $7 million level requested, there would be as few as 20 grants
made at an estimated average of $350,000 each.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Burns
rural electric and telephone programs
Question. The funding for the Rural Utilities Service was cut by
over $247 million, and within that agency, funding for
telecommunications was cut by over $25 million. I have been a huge
proponent of telecommunications in my home state of Montana. The Burns
Telco center serves a large sector of the population of Montana. A cut
like this can hurt telecommunications efforts immensely. How does USDA
plan to restore funding to Rural Utilities?
Answer. Senator Burns, I think there must be some confusion in the
budget numbers that I hope I can clarify. You are correct that the
funding requested for telecommunications loans is $25 million less than
fiscal year 1999, but there is an increase in Rural Telephone Bank
loans of $18 million so the net effect is about $7 million less for
telecommunication loans. Such reductions are necessary if we are to
remain within the budget caps agreed to in 1997 by the Congress and the
Administration. The reduction in electric and telecommunication loans
totals only $67 million, and for the Rural Utilities Service the budget
request is $142 million higher than fiscal year 1999.
ez/ec grants
Question. EZ/EC grants to states were cut by $15 million. These
Rural Enterprise Zones and Rural Empowerment Communities are part of
Vice-President Gore's empowerment zones. They are represented largely
by Native Americans and enhance community development. How can the USDA
justify this budget cut?
Answer. Senator, again I think there may be some confusion caused
by the manner in which the budget material is presented. In fiscal year
1999, the $15 million for the rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise
Communities was part of the Agricultural Appropriations Act. However,
for fiscal year 2000 the Administration is requesting $15 million in
funding through the Social Security Block grant program, just as the
first round of EZ/EC communities was funded. Our presentation of the
budget reflects only that the funding will not be available through the
Agriculture Appropriations Committees.
rural business-cooperative service
Question. Rural Business-Cooperative Service was cut by $4.6
million. How can the USDA justify this type of cut when Americans
living in rural areas are currently in such a huge economic crisis?
Answer. Senator, the budget request for the Rural Business-
Cooperative Service is an increase of $20 million in program level.
rural housing service
Question. Rural Housing Service also suffered a huge budget cut. A
decrease of $1.2 billion is proposed for fiscal year 2000. Again,
people in rural areas cannot afford to have this important funding
decreased. Montana is already at a disadvantage as the money is
allocated to states based on a factor, which is based on population.
Thus, those states with a low population, such as Montana, are not
allocated nearly enough funding for the needs of their rural
population. How will USDA replace funding for Rural Housing?
Answer. Senator, again I do not know what is causing the confusion
with the budget material, but the budget requested for rural housing is
over $600 million higher than the amount appropriated for fiscal year
1999. Regarding the allocation issue, the percent of rural population
of a State is one of the factors used in allocating funds, and that
factor is provided by the latest census information. We will be happy
to look at the allocation formula to see if there is some adjustment
that would be appropriate.
alternative agricultural research and commercialization corporation
Question. In last year's testimony it was projected that the
Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization Corporation
(AARCC) would recover $300,000 in repayments but in actuality received
over $450,000, well ahead of the projected return on investment. For
fiscal year 1999 it is projected that payments will total $1.7 million.
How much money has been recovered to date? Do you expect the payments
to surpass the projections again this year?
Answer. The figures you state are correct, but are cumulative
figures through the end of the fiscal year; i.e., the accumulated
amount across all fiscal years since AARCC started operation in 1992.
To date, repayments to the revolving fund total $840,120. Half way
through this fiscal year, AARCC has received $389,204 in repayments and
is on target to exceed its 1999 repayment plan of $800,000.
Question. With a lower appropriation level than anticipated in the
past and a higher return last year, how does this affect the business
plan that has been laid out over the next five or six years?
Answer. Long-term return on investment (ROI) has been affected. The
ROI AARCC realizes today is generated by investments made five or six
years ago. Future ROI will be affected by the deals done today. ROI in
the outyears is expected to be less than anticipated in AARCC's
business plan because reduced appropriations provided us with fewer
funds to invest.
Question. In your 10-year business plan and your 10-year strategic
plan you do not anticipate appropriations after fiscal year 2002. Have
the plans changed?
Answer. No, AARCC anticipates no longer requiring appropriations
beyond fiscal year 2002, provided we have sufficient ROI and
appropriated income to continue to operate until then.
Question. In the fiscal year 2000 budget request of $10 million,
Secretary Thompson indicated that six new agriculturally based products
will be created. Can you tell me what new products are to be brought to
market, the location of the new industries, and the number of jobs
associated with each industry?
Answer. The job creation targets in AARCC's strategic and annual
performance plans are projections based on past experience. AARCC data
show that in the six years since inception, an average of one new job
has been created for each $5,000 invested by AARCC. These new jobs are
only possible because of the leveraging effect of AARCC investment
capital, which has generated roughly $3.00 of private investment
capital for every dollar invested by AARCC. Thus, it really takes a
total investment of between $15,000-$20,000 to create one new job. With
an appropriation of $10 million in fiscal year 2000, AARCC could
anticipate helping to create 486 new jobs. The nature and location of
the industries in which these jobs might appear depends on which
proposals are approved for funding by AARCC's Board of Directors. If
past trends continue, the demand for AARCC assistance will far outstrip
the corporation's investment resources. In fiscal year 1998, AARCC
project funding totaled $5.2 million; requests exceeded $27 million.
Question. If the fiscal year 2000 budget request of $10 million is
not appropriated, how would this affect the marketing of these new
products?
Answer. Existing portfolio companies would receive no additional
assistance from AARCC in bringing new products to market, or in
expanding their presence in the marketplace. In most cases, help from
AARCC is the only outside assistance these companies can count on since
traditional sources of credit are unavailable to them as start-up or
development-stage companies seeking to commercialize new and unfamiliar
products.
Question. It has come to my attention that there tends to be three
or four core companies that seem to be the most profitable. Please
provide more about the companies that have the greatest return on
investment.
Answer. It is usually the case in venture capital funds that three
or four key investments generate most of a portfolio's ROI. But this is
judging ROI in strictly financial terms. Because AARCC has a broader
mandate than private sector venture capital firms, the AARC
Corporation's strategy considers much more than profit. In pursuing
AARCC's investment strategy, no one variable--ROI, job creation, or
agricultural material used--has priority. Investment decisions are made
after weighing these three factors in order to maintain a balance in
the portfolio. In judging AARCC's portfolio investments against these
three factors, six companies appear to have made the greatest strides
toward commercial levels of production. An overview of these six
companies follows:
Automotive Lubricants from Vegetable Oil
This company, in partnership with a Michigan oil seed growers
cooperative and Michigan State University, recently formed a limited
liability company (LLC) to begin the licensed production and sale of
soy-based engine oil. A processing plant is tentatively scheduled to
begin operation in 2-4 months.
The engine oil is currently undergoing a battery of tests as part
of certification program. Testing is being conducted according to
American Petroleum Institute (API) standards and should be completed by
the end of the year. Concurrently, the product is being tested as part
of a motor pool fleet trial sponsored by the State of Michigan.
The U.S. Navy has just completed the initial round of two-phased
evaluation of the engine oil. The Phase I evaluation involved a year-
long cost comparison of the company's product, petroleum oil, and
synthetic lubricants. Preliminary results from life cycle cost analyses
show an annual cost savings of 10-15 percent versus petroleum-based
motor oil. Cost savings compared to synthetic lubricants was
considerably smaller, however. The Phase II evaluation will test
product performance for environmental, safety, and health benefits as
compared to petroleum based and synthetic products. Once both phases of
the evaluation are complete, and provided satisfactory results are
obtained, an implementation plan will be developed for service-wide
adoption of the product in military motor pools.
Nutraceuticals from Corn Syrup
Late last year this Minnesota-based company arranged with a
contract fermentation company to toll-manufacture a dietary supplement
product made from corn syrup. Two fermentations have been successfully
completed following the company's patented purification process. Final
product is ready for packaging and distribution.
The company has signed and exclusive U.S. sales and distribution
agreement with a major branded food products company and in January
fulfilled its first substantial purchase order under the contract. A
second purchase order has been received and is being filled.
A marketing and public relations program is being developed to
promote the benefits of the company's product to the neutraceutical
industry. Additionally, a market research and consulting firm has been
retained to consult on product positioning within the marketplace.
By mid-summer, the company expects to officially introduce its
dietary supplement product to the European market. For several months,
the company has been in negotiations with a large food and
nutraceutical ingredient manufacturer in The Netherlands over an
exclusive sales and distribution agreement for Europe. Concurrently,
the company has retained a Dutch regulatory consulting firm to manage
its regulatory affairs in Europe. Documentation for European regulatory
approval has been submitted and approval is expected by early summer.
Ethanol from Wood Waste and Energy Crops
AARCC's first two rounds of investment helped this Arkansas company
prove its biomass-to-ethanol conversion technology and helped fund the
construction and initial operation of its Phase I pilot plant. The
pilot plant demonstration was completed in September, using wood waste
as the biomass feedstock. Processing costs have proven to be
competitive with gasoline on a per gallon basis.
Having demonstrated quantifiable production volume and costs, the
company is now ready to pursue Phase II of its strategic plan--the
construction of a semi-commercial production facility. AARCC's most
recent round of investment provided the funds to complete a financing
package (through USDA's Business & Industry Loan Guaranty program) and
engineering feasibility study for the new facility, and to secure
ethanol purchase agreements.
Commercial Applications for Milkweed (Syriaca) Floss
For the first time in its eleven year history, this Nebraska
company reported a positive net income in 1998. The company has built
its business in two areas--Syriaca (Milkweed) processing, and milkweed
floss comforters and pillows.
1998 was a year of continued sales growth (12 percent) for the
company. Comforters and pillows are sold primarily through catalog
companies, however distribution has expanded recently to include
mainstream retailers. The hypoallergenic properties of ground syriaca
clusters have captured the interest of a cosmetics manufacturer, whose
director of research & development recently visited the company to
assess its capability to produce ground syriaca is sufficient
quantities to meet its needs. Applications for syriaca oil are also
being explored.
Citrus-based Household Cleaners and Solvents
This Connecticut company manufactures cleaners and solvents derived
from citrus peal and other natural materials. The company experienced a
10 percent increase in sales in 1998 and is the only AARCC-funded
company to receive a GSA contract following the USDA sponsored National
Marketplace for the Environment trade show held in Washington in
November 1997. The company is in the process of obtaining a Federal
stock number.
Last year, the company retained a New York City advertising agency
to develop a new branded image and advertising campaign for its
products. Focus groups were organized to obtain consumer feedback about
product effectiveness and packaging. Changes are now being incorporated
into the product line as a result. A series of infomercials are being
developed for the Home Shopping Network and similar cable-access, and
internet-based retailing operations.
Fiberboard furniture and flooring panels from soy straw
Construction of this company's new, commercial scale fiberboard
manufacturing facility in Mankato, Minnesota, is nearly complete. The
company is scheduled to begin manufacturing operations on May 3 of this
year. Upon start-up, the Mankato facility will be the lowest capital
cost fiberboard plant operating in North America, with a cost per
square foot of output that is almost half the industry average. The
facility will be the only one of its kind capable of using multiple
fiber sources with multiple resins to create a variety of panelized
products. Of the plant's annual capacity of 45 million board feet, the
company has received letters of intent from customers expressing an
interest in purchasing an initial 48 million board feet.
The company is being considered for a multi-million dollar
investment by a group of investors interested in building an identical
facility in California's rice-producing Sacramento Valley.
Question. Are procedures in place to determine that investees use
AARCC funds as they are intended and, if so, what are they? Have these
procedures been delayed?
Answer. AARCC is in the process of refining its internal control
procedures with the help of an outside CPA firm. An updated set of
internal control procedures is expected to be available by mid-summer.
Question. It is required by the AARCC agreements and the investees
that audited financial statements are to be submitted. Are there any
policies or procedures for performing credit checks, background
investigations, or gathering references concerning the investees?
Answer. In its March 27-28, 1996, meeting, the AARCC Board of
Directors made changes in the reporting requirements of companies
receiving AARCC funds. The Board voted to require project update
reports and financial reports to be submitted on an annual, instead of
semi-annual basis. Also, the Board voted to require projects to have,
as directed by the Board, a CPA audit to be conducted annually or an
unaudited, signed financial statement prepared in accordance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and supplemented by
corporate tax returns. AARCC has initiated a process of credit and
background investigations on new and renewal applicants. This process
relies on on-line credit information obtained through Dunn & Bradstreet
business information reports and Experian credit reports.
Question. Do you require disclosures by AARCC investees that may
also do business with other companies that are affiliated with AARCC?
Answer. AARCC's Board of Directors has approved a procedure as part
of a recent investment approval, to assign responsibility back to the
Board of Directors of AARCC-funded companies to annually review and
certify that any non-arms-length transactions occurring among or
between parent and/or subsidiary company(ies) are made at prices that
do not disadvantage the company AARCC is invested in. These
certifications must identify any non-arms-length transactions by type
and amount, and the services rendered through the transaction. They
must also identify the cost of those same services in an actual arms-
length transaction so as to demonstrate that such costs would have been
equal or greater and that, consequently, the AARCC-funded company was
not disadvantaged by the transaction.
Question. Does AARCC have adequate control to assure that the
Government receives the royalties and repayments that it is due? Please
explain.
Answer. In its March 27-28, 1996, meeting, the AARCC Board of
Directors made changes in the reporting requirements of companies
receiving AARCC funds. The Board voted to require projects to have, as
directed by the Board, a CPA audit to be conducted annually or an
unaudited, signed financial statement prepared in accordance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and supplemented by
corporate tax returns. These documents are used to verify sales reports
that are the basis for calculating royalties due to AARCC.
During monitoring visits or phone calls, AARCC personnel try to
obtain as much information as possible about the accounting and
technical aspects of an investment. Information is gathered on how much
AARCC money has been spent to date and what tasks from the company's
own business plan have been accomplished with that money. Regarding the
technical aspects of an investment, information is gathered about what
is needed to make the project successful, what obstacles to success
have arisen, what alternative approaches might be pursued, and what
help AARCC might provide to move the project forward.
Question. Is a security interest required on assets that are
purchased with AARCC loan funds? Please explain.
Answer. AARCC funds are typically used to make equity investments.
AARCC purchases shares of stock in the companies it invests in. These
companies in turn use the proceeds of the AARCC investment to purchase
equipment that is then collateralized for working capital loans. This
is exactly what AARCC intends for these companies to do. The value of
AARCC's shares in the company is increased when AARCC funds are used to
leverage additional working capital for the company.
Question. Are there any instances that a project received more
funds than requested? If so, why?
Answer. Yes, there have been cases in which a project was funded at
a level higher than that which was requested. This happens if AARCC's
Board of Directors feels that an entrepreneur has underestimated that
amount of capital required to commercialize his or her technology or
product line. Given the broader experience of the Board members, they
are often able to identify potential shortfalls in projected capital
requirements. Most entrepreneurs are conservative in preparing their
business plans, and it is our experience that they underestimate future
expenses.
Question. Do all grants that are submitted have to go through a
competitive bidding process?
Answer. Yes, as a rule grants must be competitively bid, but there
are a few exceptions. Some grants have been awarded under AARCC's
authority to support educational activities which promote the biobased
economy. Occasionally, AARCC has provided grants to companies to enable
their participation in trade shows or similar activities that enhance
the profile of the company's products. In other instances, after an
investment proposal has been reviewed and approved, a grant has been
made to finance feasibility testing for a given product or technology
on the condition that if the product or technology proves viable and
can be successfully commercialized, the grant funds convert to a
recoverable investment later on. In all cases, grant proposals are
reviewed by the Due Diligence Committee of the AARCC Board of
Directors.
______
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Questions Submitted by Senator Cochran
sterile fruit fly release program
The fiscal year 2000 budget request proposes a $2.2 million
increase for the fruit fly exclusion and detection program. Dr. Reed's
statement indicates this money will be used to strengthened detection
and control trapping activities in Florida and California.
Question. How much funding has each state, Florida and California,
received for the sterile medfly release program in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. APHIS and the California Department of Food Agriculture
(CDFA) operate a sterile Medfly Preventive Release Program (PRP) over a
2,155-square mile area of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San
Bernadino Counties. The PRP is designed to prevent the development of
Medfly infestations and to limit the geographic size of any
infestations that may manage to start. The PRP releases a minimum of
125,000 sterile Medflies per square mile per week over the PRP zone. An
additional 125,000 sterile Medflies per square mile per week is
released over a high-risk area in central Los Angeles. Total program
costs for fiscal year 1999 are estimated at $14.6 million which is
shared equally between APHIS and the CDFA. APHIS' contribution of $7.3
million is funded from annual appropriations in the fruit fly exclusion
and detection line item.
APHIS and the State of Florida are currently conducting an area-
wide sterile release program as part of the emergency eradication
effort in Florida. The Florida sterile release program covers a 700-
square mile area that includes portions of Manatee, Sarasota,
Hillsborough, and Dade Counties. APHIS' program costs are estimated to
be $7 million in fiscal year 1999. The Agency has $5.1 million
available from CCC emergency funds for fiscal year 1999 program costs.
Question. How much do they get in the proposed fiscal year 2000
budget for sterile medfly release programs?
Answer. The proposed fiscal year 2000 budget includes $7.3 million
to continue the ongoing PRP in California.
Question. How successful has the release of sterile medflies been
in addressing the outbreaks in California?
Answer. Prior to the 1994 implementation of an area-wide sterile
release program as part of a Medfly eradication program, the Los
Angeles area experienced annual Medfly outbreaks. Since 1994, however,
only 1 Medfly outbreak has occurred within the PRP boundaries which
encompass 2,155-square miles in the Los Angeles basin area of
California. Despite this outbreak, APHIS considers the PRP a very
effective program for several reasons. First, the constant layer of
sterile flies provided through the PRP helps limit the size and spread
of any potential outbreak. Second, smaller scale outbreaks that do
occur can be addressed using less intrusive control methods such as
limited Malathion bait applications and increased sterile fly releases.
The current California medfly outbreaks are located outside the PRP
boundaries in Orange, San Diego, and Riverside Counties.
Question. How much money is earmarked for trapping of the fruit fly
in Florida and in California in the fiscal year 2000 budget request?
Answer. The majority of the proposed $2.2 million increase--
approximately $1.9 million--is earmarked for the cooperative trapping
program in Florida while approximately $334,000 of the increase would
be used to enhance the cooperative trapping program in California.
malathion aerial spraying
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has told APHIS that the
use of Malathion must be minimized.
Question. Does EPA indicate how much Malathion the agency can use,
if any? Should the agency not receive this additional funding, how will
the agency reduce the use of Malathion?
Answer. EPA has indicated that they would like the Agency to use
Malathion only as a ``last resort'' especially aerial applications over
urban areas. In October 1998, APHIS submitted to EPA an application for
a quarantine exemption for the use of Malathion in certain fruit fly
emergency situations. The application is pending.
The additional funding would be used primarily to increase survey
activities to national fruit fly trapping protocol levels. Early
detection of outbreaks allows APHIS and cooperators more options in the
selection of control actions, often eliminating the need for aerial
applications of pesticides. Without an effective early detection
system, APHIS and cooperators will not likely be able to reduce use of
aerially-applied pesticides like Malathion.
Question. What progress has been made to eliminate Malathion aerial
sprays to control Medflies and other exotic fruit flies?
Answer. APHIS in cooperation with Agricultural Research Service
(ARS) and State scientists are developing alternatives to Malathion
aerial sprays including more environmentally-acceptable chemicals. In
April 1999, APHIS applied for a quarantine exemption for Spinosad, a
``natural'' pesticide, which research indicates may achieve eradication
when used in conjunction with sterile releases. Suredye, another more
environmentally-acceptable pesticide, also shows promise and is being
field tested in Guatemala and Hawaii.
The public, however, will likely have concerns about aerial
applications of any pesticide in urban areas. To address this concern,
APHIS and cooperators continue to enhance the sterile insect release
technology. New, more efficient male-only genetic strains were used in
eradication programs for the first time in 1997 in Florida and in 1998
in California. There have been positive preliminary results of tests of
biocontrol agents in combination with sterile Medflies for Medfly
control in Guatemala. However, additional development is needed before
this technology is ready for program use. Also, APHIS is planning to
modify and enhance our Waimanalo rearing facility to produce new
genetic strains of Medfly and incorporate current and future advances
in genetic transformations to control Medfly.
fruit fly exclusion and detection--suredye
Question. It is my understanding that USDA has evaluated a product
called ``SureDye'' for use in Medfly Control. What is the status of
these evaluations? Has the product been approved?
Answer. USDA has evaluated several photoactive dyes for control of
Medfly and other fruit flies. Various formulations of two of these
dyes, phloxine B and uranine, have been sold under the trade name
SureDye by PhotoDye International. These dyes are a promising potential
alternative to Malathion for fruit fly control, but they have not yet
been approved by the EPA which is responsible for pesticide
registration.
Question. Has the ARS evaluated this product?
Answer. Yes. The Agricultural Research Service is very active in
the development and evaluation of photoactive dyes for fruit fly
control.
Question. How would you describe APHIS' relationship with the
manufacturer of ``SureDye,'' PhotoDye International?
Answer. APHIS has been a client of PhotoDye International since
1995 and has purchased SureDye for use in field trials.
Question. Please compare the safety of ``SureDye'' versus other
control methods. Is ``SureDye'' essentially the same product used as a
food additive?
Answer. Phloxine B and uranine, sold by PhotoDye International
under the trade name SureDye, are available as dyes approved by the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.
However, FDA approval does not imply that these products are safe for
use as pesticides. The EPA is responsible for evaluating the risks of
pesticides. EPA has not yet registered SureDye.
Question. It is my understanding that APHIS conducted a very small
test of the ``SureDye'' bait last fall. Please provide a brief summary
of the test size, protocols used, and test results.
Answer. In November 1998, APHIS conducted two tests in Guatemala
using field cages. ARS developed the procedures for these tests to
evaluate the efficacy of photoactive dyes under field conditions.
The first test compared SureDye against Malathion and a nontoxic
control. Each test consisted of 100 insects in a field cage with 30 ml
of SureDye on a coffee bush. No additional food or water was provided
for the test insects. Exposure to the SureDye began at 9 a.m. and
mortality was measured every 2 hours until 4 p.m. and then again the
next morning at 9 a.m. The test ran six replicates. The SureDye showed
low percent kill when compared to Malathion and was only marginally
better than the nontoxic control.
A second test, using the same protocol, was conducted to compare
the SureDye with previous formulations of photoactive dyes tested in
Guatemala. This test confirmed the relative efficacy of the previous
photoactive dye formulations and the lack of efficacy of the SureDye
provided by PhotoDye International.
Question. Describe the difference between an ``8-hour test
protocol'' used by APHIS and a ``72-hour test protocol'' preferred by
the makers of ``SureDye.'' Given the toxicity of Malathion, why is one
test protocol preferred over the other?
Answer. APHIS does not use an ``8-hour test protocol.'' In
laboratory tests of photoactive dyes, the test insects are placed in
small Plexiglas cages, provided food and water, exposed to measured
amounts of photoactive dyes or other test pesticides, and observed for
up to 72 hours. Photoactive dyes, unlike normal pesticides, can take
much longer to kill the test insects. In the November 1998 tests, APHIS
used a 24-hour field cage test developed by ARS to evaluate the
efficacy of photoactive dyes in field conditions. Although observations
in these cages were limited to the daytime periods between 8 a.m. and 4
p.m., when light conditions are optimal, observations were made over a
24 hour period. Observations did not extend beyond 24 hours due to the
lack of alternative food or water for the test insects.
karnal bunt
Question. Dr. Reed's statement indicates that over $33 million has
been provided to mitigate producer and handler losses from Karnal bunt
since the program began in March 1996. How much of this money has been
distributed to Arizona wheat producers for their economic loss for the
1997-1998 crop due to Karnal bunt? Have rules been published regarding
the economic compensation of these farmers? If not, when do you expect
them to be published? Why has the agency not submitted a plan for
deregulation of Karnal bunt in Arizona as the Conference Report
accompanying the fiscal year 1999 Appropriation Act directs?
Answer. The $33 million figure does not include any payments for
losses for the 1997-98 crop due to Karnal Bunt. The final rule will
make compensation available to these farmers for the 1997-98 crop
season and we expect this final rule to be published soon. Concerning
deregulation, we submitted our initial plan on November 15, 1998, and
continue to meet regularly with representatives of the Arizona wheat
industry and Arizona regulatory agencies. For the 1999 harvest season,
we have published a proposal in the Federal Register in which we would
greatly reduce the size of the existing regulated areas and allow the
planting of wheat in plowdown, traceback, and bunted kernel fields. We
intend for a final rule based on that proposal to be published in time
to provide relief for the crop that will be harvested in May, June, and
July.
accelerated pseudorabies eradication plan
Question. It has been reported that by mid-January, USDA's
accelerated pseudorabies eradication plan has had only 65 hog producers
enroll totaling nearly 104,000 hogs. In mid-January, USDA reported that
1.9 million head of hogs are infected with pseudorabies. Why has there
been little enrollment in this eradication program? When do you expect
that the sign-up for this program will be finished?
Answer. As of April 9, 1999, 344 herds have been depopulated,
involving 412,803 hogs. APHIS expects approximately 50 more producers
to participate. Some producers chose not to enroll in the accelerated
program because they are under contract with slaughtering plants to
provide a certain number of hogs in a certain time period. Legislation
in some States requires that their facilities be kept inactive for a
period of 30 days following cleanup and disinfection. This requirement
could interfere with their ability to fulfill their contract. These
producers feel that breaking their current contracts may jeopardize
their ability to secure such contracts in the future. Other producers'
herds are close to pseudorabies-free because of the mandatory testing
and removal standards developed by the cooperative APHIS/State/industry
pseudorabies program. If only finishing hogs (which go to slaughter)
and not breeding hogs are infected, they are reluctant to lose their
investment in the genetics of their herds by participating in the
accelerated eradication. They feel that their herds will soon be
pseudorabies free without participation. Also, hog prices have risen
since the original crisis, reducing the economic incentive for
producers to participate in the voluntary program. Despite these
obstacles, the accelerated program continues to reduce the number of
known pseudorabies infected herds.
Producers will be able to sign up for the accelerated eradication
program until July 15, 1999. APHIS expects that the vast majority of
producers who decide to participate will sign up by the end of April
1999.
u.s.-panama screwworm commission
Question. How is the Joint U.S.-Panama Commission for the
Eradication of Screwworm funded?
Answer. Eighty-five percent of the Joint Commission's funding comes
from contributions made by the United States Government. The remaining
15 percent is supported by contributions made by the government of
Panama. In 1994, USDA signed an agreement with the Panama's Ministry of
Agriculture and Livestock Development to create the Commission, to
initiate operations in Panama, and to construct and operate a sterile
fly facility to maintain a permanent biological barrier.
Question. Will the U.S. cooperative share be funded through the
APHIS budget?
Answer. Yes. The U.S. share is funded through the APHIS screwworm
line item.
national farm animal identification and records project
Question. What is the cost of each fiscal years 1999 and 2000 of
the National Farm Animal Identification and Records (FAIR) pilot
project? Which industry groups are working with APHIS on this pilot
program? How were the States participating in this program chosen?
Answer. APHIS is contributing $500,000 in fiscal year 1999 for the
F.A.I.R. pilot project. A similar amount is projected for fiscal year
2000. APHIS is working with the Holstein Association, the Dairy Herd
Improvement Association, and the National Association of Animal
Breeders on this pilot project. The project also has the support of the
United States Animal Health Association and the Livestock Conservation
Institute. The States of California, New York, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin were chosen because of the significant dairy industries in
these states and the ability of the states to control animal movements
(through the use of limited slaughter markets and establishments).
brucellosis
Question. How much additional funding is USDA and the Department of
Interior (DOI) using to develop a safe and effective brucellosis
vaccine for wildlife?
Answer. For fiscal year 1999, APHIS expects to fund one brucella
vaccine research study for $20,000. The study involves RB51 field
trials in feral swine in South Carolina. APHIS is also aware of several
ongoing ARS brucella vaccine research studies. The USDA and DOI are
scheduled to meet in the last half of fiscal year 1999 to establish a
consolidated approach to prioritizing and funding brucella vaccine
research needs. In addition, ARS has included an increase of $1,000,000
in the fiscal year 2000 President's budget to develop a vaccine for
brucellosis in wildlife.
Question. Please update the Committee regarding the construction
and operation of the bison quarantine facility.
Answer. Discussions are currently taking place between the State of
Montana and APHIS regarding the location of the bison quarantine
facility in Yellowstone. A final decision on the location is pending
the outcome of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS
includes seven separate alternatives for managing bison in the park.
The National Park Service (NPS) is expected to make a final decision on
the EIS in June 2000.
wildlife services
Question. Dr. Reed's statement indicates that the gray wolf
recovery program has succeeded beyond expectations. Is there a
possibility of overpopulation? If yes, how is the agency addressing
this problem?
Answer. Gray wolf populations in the United States continue to
expand. In August 1974, the Eastern Gray Wolf was classified as an
endangered species. At the time, the Minnesota wolf population was
estimated at 500-1,000 animals and occupied a range of approximately
19,000 square miles. The Minnesota wolf population is increasing at an
annual rate of 3 to 5 percent and expanding its range considerably. By
1996, the population reached an estimated 2,200-2,300 wolves which had
expanded their range to more than 39,000 square miles. APHIS' Wildlife
Services (WS) verified 145 incidents of wolf predation on domestic
animals in Minnesota in fiscal year 1998 and captured 166 wolves.
Presently, the wolf population in Minnesota has reached such
proportions that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is
considering removing the wolf from the endangered species list.
In Wisconsin, FWS may also remove the gray wolf from the endangered
species list because the population is increasing to the point where
the State Wildlife Agency is preparing management plans. WS
investigated 32 complaints of wolf depredations in fiscal year 1998, an
increase of almost 100 percent from fiscal year 1997, and captured 3
animals.
Gray wolves began moving back into northwestern Montana from Canada
in the mid-1980s. This naturally occurring population of wolves is well
established and its size has approached 100 animals at various times.
Some wolves have been removed from the population after they repeatedly
killed livestock. The population currently consists of about 45
animals. In addition to this naturally occurring population, the FWS
captured 29 wolves in Canada in 1995, 37 wolves in 1996, and released
them into Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. These wolves are
considered nonessential experimental populations, and both are
increasing. There are now well over 100 wolves in each area. In the
next few years, the wolf population in the Northern Rockies area may
also reach population levels that will warrant FWS consideration for
removal from the endangered species list.
Formal rules and plans direct that WS will deal with wolves that
damage livestock. WS verifies wolf damage to livestock, captures
depredating wolves as directed by the FWS, mediates conflicts between
agencies and resource owners, disseminates information to the livestock
community and the general public, and provides training to people who
work with wolves that damage livestock.
Wolf recovery in Montana and reintroduction into Idaho and Wyoming
have impacted WS' ability to conduct routine livestock protection
activities. Restrictions on the use of traditional methods of control
where wolves may exist have hampered APHIS' ability to manage coyote
damage to livestock. There has been a significant increase in work to
verify potential cases of wolf predation and to deal with instances of
confirmed wolf damage. The fiscal year 1999 Congressional directive of
$175,000 did not include new money.
In addition to this $175,000, another $72,000 is expected to be
needed in fiscal year 1999 due to the increasing wolf populations in
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, and related dispersal activities. A wolf
from Idaho recently dispersed into Oregon, and its presence impacted WS
ability to conduct routine wildlife damage management activities in
that State. WS biologists expect more wolves to disperse from both the
Idaho and Yellowstone recovery areas later this spring. Oregon
livestock producers are concerned about their ability to protect their
livestock. WS expects a significant increase in work load in Wyoming,
Montana, Idaho, and Oregon associated with these dispersals.
The presence of naturally occurring populations and introduced
experimental populations in the same general area with the potential
for intermixing also creates difficulty for livestock owners and WS
field personnel. The damage management control for each of these
populations is governed by different regulatory requirements; the
inability for WS personnel to distinguish between these two populations
may make it difficult to provide services to ranchers and farmers in
the area.
In Minnesota, where wolf control work is conducted solely with
APHIS funding of about $250,000 per year, APHIS spent an additional
$30,000 in fiscal year 1998, and total costs in this State are expected
to be $380,000 in fiscal year 1999. In addition, wolf expansion into
Wisconsin is projected to cost approximately $15,000 in fiscal year
1999 due to increasing populations.
animal welfare
Question. Please breakdown all costs associated with the
implementation of the Animal Welfare Act. Please indicate shortfalls in
this area?
[The information follows:]
AWA Implementation Costs
Inspection Activities (Includes Travel Expenses)d]
Dealer Inspections........................................$3,394,291
Research Inspections...................................... 1,523,968
Exhibitor Inspections..................................... 1,731,781
Carrier/Handler Inspections............................... 277,085
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal................................................ 6,927,125
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Licensing/Record Keeping.................................. 619,313
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Other Activities:
Enforcement Action........................................ 203,570
Search Unlicensed/Unregistered............................ 77,357
Educational Services...................................... 1,347,635
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal................................................ 1,628,562
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 9,175,000
Since 1992, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) appropriation has remained
constant. Inspections to ensure minimal standards of care has declined
from 17,764 in 1992 to 10,709 in 1998, without any reduction in the
number of animals or number of animal sites (approximately 10,400)
requiring inspection oversight.
Every facility needs at least one annual inspection to ensure
minimal standards are met and to remind the licensee/registrants of
their responsibilities under the AWA. Past history suggests that over
45 percent of the facilities will have some degree of noncompliance
observed during an inspection, with some of these needing reinspection
to ensure correction of problems that have, or are likely to have, a
detrimental effect on the well-being of the animals. Several of the
problem facilities may require up to 4 inspections per year just to
ensure correction of life threatening situations. With 10,400 sites
(7,773 facilities) to inspect, it is estimated that AC needs to conduct
at least 17,120 inspections per year to ensure minimal standards of
care.
Sites requiring one inspection................................ 10,400
45 percent of the 10,400 sites will have violations and
require at least 1 more inspection. 10 percent of the
10,400 sites will require 2 or more inspections........... 6,720
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total number of inspections that should be conducted.... 17,120
With a current short fall of 6,411 inspections at an approximate
cost of $551 per inspection, Animal Care needs an additional $3.5
million to ensure minimal levels of animal well-being at the facilities
currently regulated under the AWA.
Question. How many inspectors are currently conducting inspections
in fiscal year 1999?
Answer. There are 69 inspectors in fiscal year 1999.
Question. How many facilities are they inspecting per year?
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, there were approximately 10,709
compliance inspections and 1,579 pre-license inspections conducted at
7,773 facilities.
Question. How many facilities should be inspected at least
annually?
Answer. There are 7,773 facilities that APHIS should be conducting
16,000 compliance inspections and 1,600 to 2,000 pre-license
inspections per year. For maximum compliance, each facility should
average two inspections per year. Facilities with greater number of
violations need up to four inspections per year while those with no
violations can be inspected every other year.
Question. How many field inspectors are supported by the fiscal
year 2000 proposed budget?
Answer. The proposed fiscal year 2000 budget supports 69 field
inspectors.
Question. Should the agency rule that rats and mice bred for use in
research and birds be treated like other animals, will more inspectors
be needed to enforce the ruling?
Answer. Yes, it is estimated that APHIS will need to hire an
additional 34 veterinarians and 16 animal health technicians, to
conduct inspections of facilities that deal with rats, mice, and birds.
swim with the dolphins
Question. When does the agency expect to fully implement the
provisions of the final rule regarding the swim-with-the-dolphin
regulations?
Answer. As a result of the continuing concerns expressed by several
regulated parties over multiple components of the final rule to
regulate human dolphin interactive programs, including wading programs,
the Agency has initiated the process to suspend enforcement of the rule
and solicit additional public comment prior to moving ahead with any
new rulemaking for these programs.
horse protection
Question. Please explain the modifications made to the current
Horse Protection Strategic Plan after working with the six Horse
Industry Officials.
Answer. The Horse Protection Act (HPA) Operating Plan for the 1999
Horse Show Season (Operating Plan) was issued on February 12, 1999, to
expand on the procedures outlined in the Horse Protection Strategic
Plan. The Operating Plan is organized into nine components and covers
items such as APHIS and HIO responsibilities; certification of HIO
designated qualified person (DQP) programs; inspections; compliance
with 9 CFR 11.3 (the scar rule); HIO sanctions for HPA violations;
conflict resolution; and regulatory changes.
APHIS through the Strategic Plan transferred the initial
enforcement responsibility to the various DQP programs. However in
doing so, APHIS has not relinquished its authority for enforcing the
HPA. APHIS will conduct inspections at HIO sanctioned events to
determine whether or not the DQP's are successfully detecting sore
horses and other violations of the Horse Protection Regulations. The
HIO's will be responsible for demonstrating that the DQP programs are
properly identifying these violations and applying appropriate
penalties. APHIS will review, evaluate, and certify the DQP programs.
Because confusion has arisen between the DQP programs and APHIS
regarding the proper detection of violations of HPA based on 9 CFR 11.3
(the scar rule), APHIS has also included procedures in the operating
plan for the detection of noncompliance with the scar rule.
Violations of the HPA and the regulations are under the
jurisdiction of the Hearing Committee of each HIO. The Hearing
Committee will enforce the schedule of penalties in the operation plan
for violations. APHIS will encourage employees to resolve conflicts
with DQPs at the local level. Disagreements that cannot be resolved at
the local or regional level will be elevated to the HIO Chair or
President and the APHIS Deputy Administrator for Animal Care. APHIS
will provide a final decision to the HIO within 60 days.
APHIS has asked each HIO to develop reasonable plans for
eliminating scarring. If this cannot be accomplished, APHIS may
consider proposing an amendment to 9 CFR 11.3 that would provide that
any horse exhibiting active, visible bilateral evidence of abuse on any
foot area above the hoof shall be deemed to be ``sore'' under the HPA.
In this scenario, APHIS would exempt all horses born before 1998 that
exhibit old scar tissue.
national monitoring and residue analysis laboratory
Question. Please list the other USDA agencies and entities with
which the (National Monitoring and Residue Analysis Laboratory (NMRAL)
in Gulfport, Mississippi does reimbursable work. Please list the
reimbursements received by each. Will any other agency programs be
located at this facility in Gulfport? If not, what will be done with
the additional space available since relocation of agency employees to
North Carolina has occurred? What amount of funding is proposed for
fiscal year 2000 for NMRAL?
Answer. This year at NMRAL, we expect to receive approximately
$50,000 from the Boll Weevil Eradication Foundations for analyzing
environmental samples for insecticides used in the eradication program.
In addition, we expect to receive approximately $100,000 from the Farm
Service Agency for analyzing samples from a variety of commodities and
approximately $8,500 from the Agricultural Marketing Service for
analyzing soybean samples. Our imported fire ant methods development
program is conducted at the Gulfport facility as well. Also, we are
currently evaluating the feasibility of increasing staffing in the
methods development unit to perform work on agricultural quarantine
inspection technology. Approximately $1.6 million is proposed for
fiscal year 2000 for NMRAL.
aphis y2k systems
Question. At the first of January APHIS reported that 2 systems,
the Licensing of the Registration Information System and the Integrated
Systems Upgrade Project, are behind in the Y2K government-wide goals.
Please provide an update of the agency's activities to prepare these
two systems for the year 2000.
Answer. The Licensing and Registration Information System has been
remediated, tested, and implemented in the three Regional Offices of
the Animal Care Program. APHIS certified the system as Y2K compliant on
March 31, 1999. The Integrated Systems Upgrade Project was certified as
Y2K compliant on April 29, 1999. After reporting that these systems
were falling behind schedule, the Agency allocated additional in-house
and contractor resources to both efforts to accelerate progress.
safety of aphis personnel
Question. In the 2000 budget request, how does the agency address
the safety of personnel at state and field offices?
Answer. APHIS has taken and continues to undertake a wide range of
activities to address and ensure the safety of personnel at State and
field offices. Safety is a serious matter for APHIS, in light of the
event that occurred in Oklahoma City in 1985, in which APHIS lost seven
employees, as well as several other incidents including fire bombings
in Washington State, and office break-ins and takeovers in New Mexico
and Arizona. In accordance with the Department of Justice (DOJ) report,
Vulnerability Assessment of Federal Facilities, the APHIS National
Security Program (NSP) team is surveying all APHIS offices to ascertain
vulnerability risks, and to determine appropriate security measures for
each existing location as well as future ones. To date, over 250 APHIS
field offices have responded to the self-assessment survey which are
being evaluated by the NSP team. The APHIS-NSP team is currently
involved in several major agency wide projects including assisting in
the development of an emergency management preparedness plan; an
emergency management operations center; a workplace violence prevention
program; an Agency-appointed bioterrorism coordinator, and an Agency-
wide Continuity of Operations plan.
agricultural quarantine inspection user fees
Question. What is the current balance of the Agricultural
Quarantine Inspection user fee reserve program?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 beginning-of-year total balance of the
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection user fee reserve account was $30.5
million. Of this total, $14.7 million was unencumbered. However,
current projections estimate an end-of-year unencumbered balance of
$3.9 million for fiscal year 1999.
contingency fund
Question. What is the current balance of the Contingency Fund?
Answer. As of April 9, 1999, the balance of the Contingency Fund is
$3,710,306.
johne's disease
Question. What threat is Johne's Disease to the U.S. dairy cattle
industry? How much funding in the fiscal year 2000 budget request is
proposed for the establishment of a certification and control program
for Johne's?
Answer. Johne's disease is a contagious bacterial disease of the
intestinal tract. The disease occurs in a wide variety of animals but
most often in ruminants, especially dairy cattle. The risk to dairy
cattle is high because the transmission of the disease favors the close
quarters of the animals. Cattle infected with this disease usually
develop diarrhea, rapid weight loss, and a loss in milk production.
Johne's disease is estimated to cost dairy farmers $1.5 billion
annually in reduced milk production. In northern States such as
Minnesota, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, it
has been estimated that 30 percent of the dairy cattle herds are
infected with this disease. The fiscal year 2000 President's budget
includes $1.5 million for a Johne's disease certification and control
program.
national animal health emergency management system
Question. Please outline the agency's proposal to create the
national animal health emergency management system program and provide
a breakdown of the fiscal year 2000 budget request of $1.2 million for
this program.
Answer. The proposed program is designed to enhance USDA's primary
responsibility to protect the Nation's food supply and animal
populations from disease events, both accidental or intentional, that
could negatively impact the economic status of the food supply and/or
the livestock and poultry industries.
APHIS is requesting $1.2 million to develop an infrastructure to
better position APHIS to provide the public and animal industry with a
counter-terrorism force; developing disease detection and reporting
systems; and promoting and strengthening partnerships with other
Federal and State Agencies including the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Approximately $500,000 will be used to support 6 program positions.
Another $300,000 will be used for systems development, software, and
computer equipment. The remaining $400,000 will be used to conduct
training courses on biological warfare and decontamination procedures
and to provide funds for cooperative research efforts.
asian long-horned beetle
Question. Will the fiscal year 2000 budget request of $2.1 million
for the eradication program of the Asian Long-horned Beetle (ALB) be
sufficient to meet the needs of the program in Chicago and New York? If
this requested amount is not sufficient, how much additional funding is
required?
Answer. The $2.1 million request will certainly help us control
this devastating pest and prevent its further spread. We expect to
remove all known infected trees by May 1999. If no additional infected
trees are found, this amount is likely to be sufficient.
invasive alien plants
Question. What need is there for a new national rapid assessment
and response system for invasive alien plants in the U.S. and how will
the fiscal year 2000 budget request of $1.7 million be used to create
this system?
Answer. The development of a national early warning and rapid
response system would be a critical component in our efforts to
minimize the economic and ecological impacts of introduced invasive
plants under the new presidential executive order on invasive species.
In addition, it would be crucial to the establishment of an effective
noxious weeds prevention and control strategy for the United States. We
will use the $1.7 million increase to begin establishing a Federal
Interagency Rapid Response Weed Team; an APHIS Regional Weed Team team
to determine Agency priorities regarding weed prevention and
eradication; State-level Interagency invasive species councils to
establish invasive plant prevention, eradication, and management
priorities in each State, as part of an overall State strategy for
invasive species; and State Weed Detection and Reporting Networks in
association with the State Councils. The extent to which the national
early warning and rapid response system will be implemented in fiscal
year 2000 will be based in large part on State cooperation in
developing local, State, and Regional partnerships to facilitate
interagency action on invasive species.
Question. The Committee has consistently expressed concern about
the growing problem associated with fish-eating birds which cause
economic damages to farm-raising catfish operations. Please provide a
detailed summary of the extent and scope of this problem, including the
progress that is being made toward addressing the issues identified.
Has the agency identified additional needs which are not currently
being addressed, in terms of confronting bird depredation problems in
the farm-raised catfish industry?
Answer. Aquaculturists report that fish-eating birds cause
significant economic losses, with some operations reporting one year
losses in excess of $200,000. In the lower Mississippi Valley,
cormorants cause losses of more than $17 million to catfish operations
each year. With cormorant populations increasing throughout their range
at the rate of approximately 8 percent per year, these losses can be
expected to increase. Cormorants have also been found nesting in the
lower Mississippi Valley, adding to the potential impacts to
aquaculture operations.
APHIS' Wildlife Services (WS) provides assistance to aquaculture
producers in Alabama, Florida, and Mississippi. WS biologists conduct
on-site evaluations to assess damage and make control equipment
available to producers. If exclusionary and scaring techniques fail to
reduce losses, producers may now take limited numbers of birds by
lethal means under authority of a cormorant depredation order,
developed by the Fish and Wildlife Service with WS cooperation. WS was
an active participant in the roost dispersal program conducted to move
roosting sites from producing areas to sites along the Mississippi
River. Last year's efforts resulted in the dispersal of 70 percent of
cormorants from catfish producing ponds.
WS is aware of the need for increased wildlife damage assistance
for catfish farmers in the southern United States and has a research
field station in Starkville, Mississippi, which conducts studies to
improve current control methods and develop new ones. Catfish
production areas in southern Georgia and northern Florida are
experiencing increased levels of depredation by fish-eating birds,
including herons and egrets. Many of these production facilities are
small farms and are unable to sustain heavy operating losses due to
wildlife damage. Additional WS personnel are needed to establish an
active presence and to provide on-site technical assistance and develop
cormorant damage management plans.
Question. The Committee believes that interagency coordination
should increase between USFWS and APHIS. How can these two agencies
address bird problems in a more orderly, effective, and ecologically
responsible manner?
Answer. A major step in the coordination between APHIS and FWS was
the effort to develop and implement a cormorant depredation order,
which provides a more effective and efficient method of allowing
producers to implement control actions. Both Agencies cooperate on
research studies on the ecology, behavior, food habits, and migratory
patterns of various fish-eating birds, which includes ongoing surveys
to determine population status and trends on fish-eating birds
migrating and nesting in the Mississippi River valley. Further progress
can be made by cooperating in the development and implementation of a
cormorant management plan that includes cormorant population dynamics
from the upper Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico and the relationship
to cormorant population status and trends in the Northeast. APHIS will
work with FWS in the northeast to identify areas that experience
difficulties with fish-eating birds. A review of activities in the
northeast should include a consideration of the possibility of
expanding the current cormorant depredation order to include states
beyond the Southeast.
In addition, APHIS continues to provide technical and on-the-ground
support to the public under the constraints imposed by the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act. APHIS is currently working with FWS to streamline the
resident Canada goose permitting process to assist our customers in
receiving more efficient and cost effective support from FWS, which is
the permitting Agency. APHIS provided FWS with information on damage
caused by resident geese. FWS developed an environmental assessment and
asked for public comment on a special purpose, resident Canada goose
permit. Based on the results of this environmental analysis, FWS
proposed a modification of permit regulations to allow a more liberal
approach by State wildlife agencies for controlling resident goose
damage. In the absence of a migratory bird permitting process for
Federal agencies, APHIS continues to consult with FWS before
implementing wildlife damage management control activities for resident
Canada geese. In addition, APHIS continues to work with FWS on the
development of a long-term, flyway based strategic plan for resident
goose management which will address resident goose damage nationwide.
brucellosis
Question. Last year the Department anticipated that all 50 states
would reach a brucellosis Class ``Free'' status by the end of 1998.
Have all 50 states achieved this status? Which states have not achieved
this status? How have the bison carrying brucellosis which wander
beyond the boundaries of the Yellowstone affected this goal?
Answer. The established program goal was to have no affected herds
and all states qualifying for Class Free status by the end of 1998.
APHIS nearly reached this goal with only four affected cattle herds and
one affected bison herd. In addition, 43 states had achieved Class Free
status and 4 States (Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma) were in
the qualifying stage for Class Free status. The remaining three States,
Missouri, South Dakota and Texas, were expected to be in the qualifying
stage for Class Free status by the end of fiscal year 1999. Due to a
newly affected herd being discovered in March 1999, the State of
Oklahoma must reenter the qualifying stage and be disease free for one
full year before they can reach Class Free status. The YNP bison have
not affected this goal.
national poultry improvement program
Question. How much does the fiscal year 2000 budget propose for the
National Poultry Improvement Program? How does this compare to the
fiscal year 1999 appropriated level?
Answer. The budget request contains approximately $260,000 for the
National Poultry Improvement Program. Funding for fiscal year 1999 is
at a similar level.
biotechnology
Question. How much is proposed in the fiscal year 2000 budget for
the Biotechnology Products Regulatory Division of APHIS? Is this amount
adequate to fulfill the unit's statutory responsibilities? How many new
crop variety approvals did the agency approve in 1998? How many
applications are estimated for approval in 1999?
Answer. Our fiscal year 2000 budget request includes approximately
$5 million for biotechnology regulatory activities. Although this
amount should be adequate to fulfill our statutory responsibilities, an
ever-increasing demand for our services will create significant
challenges for us as we struggle to keep pace with the projected
continuous, rapid growth of biotechnology in agriculture. In fiscal
year 1998, we regulated the field testing of two new crop plant
varieties and expect to regulate the introduction of four new varieties
this year. The addition of four new plant varieties will bring the
total number of different genetically modified varieties of plants
field tested in the U.S. to 56. Of greater importance, though, is that
we made 1,799 regulatory decisions on genetically engineered crops.
Included in this figure is 1,073 release notifications and permits that
we issued at over 5,000 sites nationwide. These release notifications
and permits represent over 25 percent of all field releases ever made.
Also in fiscal year 1998, we processed several more petitions for
determination of regulatory status than in fiscal year 1997. Processing
these petitions is the last USDA regulatory step for the
commercialization of genetically modified crop plants. Adding to this
increased workload is the ``determination extension process'', which
will significantly increase the document handling workload by fiscal
year 2000. This streamlined petitioning process involves deregulating
an organism which is similar to but not identical to an organism that
has previously been deregulated. To help fund our costs associated with
the expected workload increase, we have proposed user fees in the
amount of $5.36 million. This proposal is designed to achieve full cost
recovery for our biotechnology activities associated with the
permitting process, field inspections, and the increase proposed for
the biotechnology permits unit. Since service being provided by this
activity benefits a limited and clearly defined group of people, it is
appropriate that they rather than the general taxpayer pay for these
services through a user fee.
management and overhead expenses
Question. APHIS does not receive a separate appropriation for its
management and overhead expenses. How are these costs funded? Please
provide an accounting of management and overhead expenses for fiscal
year 1998.
Answer. Because APHIS does not receive a separate appropriation for
management and overhead expenses, funding for these costs are allocated
to the various line items available to the agency, including
appropriations, user fees, reimbursements, and trust fund receipts. As
shown in the following table, management and overhead expenses totaled
$77.7 million in fiscal year 1998, with total availability from all
sources of approximately $613 million. APHIS' support costs fall into
two categories: Agency support and program support. Agency support
includes budget, finance, personnel, procurement, contracting,
Congressional relations, public information, rulemaking, planning,
policy development, program evaluation, civil rights enforcement and
compliance, equal employment opportunity counseling, and Central
Services which include National Safety and Health Council, headquarters
security, labor, and copier maintenance services. Agency support costs
are assessed to each budget line item on a proportional basis, except
for the Information Systems Acquisition Project, the contingency fund,
emergency transfers, and the Buildings and Facilities appropriation,
which are exempted. Program support costs are funded by each individual
unit from within its available funds, and may include regional offices
in the field and an office of the Deputy Administrator and Resource
Management Support at headquarters.
MANAGEMENT AND OVERHEAD COSTS--FISCAL YEAR 1998
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program
Cost Center Agency Support Support Total funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant health programs........................................... .............. 17,881 17,881
Animal health programs.......................................... .............. 13,252 13,252
Wildlife Services............................................... .............. 4,553 4,553
International Services.......................................... .............. 3,635 3,635
Animal Care..................................................... .............. 1,574 1,574
Investigative and Enforcement Services.......................... .............. 783 783
Office of the Administrator Staff............................... 2,181 .............. 2,181
Civil rights Enforcement and Compliance......................... 1,138 .............. 1,138
Equal Opportunity Employment Counseling......................... 527 .............. 527
Information technology support.................................. 167 .............. 167
Congressional relations and public information.................. 3,445 .............. 3,445
Budget, finance, personnel, procurement, and contracting........ 16,678 .............. 16,678
Employee development and training............................... 3,795 1,400 5,195
Policy, program planning and evaluation, regulatory support..... 5,510 .............. 5,510
Headquarters Central Services................................... 1,148 .............. 1,148
-----------------------------------------------
Total, APHIS................................................ 34,589 43,078 77,667
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Excludes approximately $7.2 million in available funds and support costs performed for Agricultural
Marketing Service and Grain Inspection and Packers and Stockyears Administration on a reimbursable basis.
pink bollworm
The National Cotton Council, along with growers in Arizona, are
proposing an eradication program for the pink bollworm to begin in 2000
and complete in 2004. They are requesting an increase for APHIS of $5
million over the fiscal year 1999 level to facilitate increased
production of sterile moths at the Phoenix facility and to allow APHIS
to provide important technical oversight of the program.
Question. Why does the fiscal year 2000 President's budget not
propose an increase to instigate a pink bollworm eradication program?
Answer. Current budget constraints and more pressing program needs
prevented us from doing so. However, we remain confident that this type
of program can succeed, particularly with the increased use of Bt
cotton, and may consider it again along with other program priorities.
Question. Is this increase adequate to support the work that the
National Cotton Council has proposed?
Answer. A $5 million increase, together with contributions from
cotton growers, would be adequate to support this work. Our
contribution would represent 30 percent of the total projected first
year costs and the growers' contribution would represent 70 percent.
Question. Is it possible to eradicate the pink bollworm as they
have proposed in their plan?
Answer. Yes, it is. This strategy has yielded extremely promising
results in smaller scale projects; we would expect similar results from
an area-wide program.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Burns
brucellosis
Question. The APHIS budget was cut by $9 million in the fiscal year
2000 budget. APHIS is responsible for numerous important projects to
the State of Montana. Funding for the brucellosis vaccine research is
among those projects. Brucellosis remains a threat to the health and
well-being of livestock in the bordering Yellowstone National Park
(YNP). YNP will continue to serve as a reservoir for brucellosis unless
it can be adequately managed or appropriate measures are taken.
Considering that over 1.5 million people visit YNP annually and come
into close proximity to wildlife and wildlife secretions, brucellosis
poses an obvious threat not only to livestock and bison, but is also an
issue of human biosafety. How does USDA expect to solve this problem
when the APHIS budget is cut?
Answer. One of APHIS' greatest achievements has been the success of
the brucellosis program. Through cooperative efforts between Federal
and State governments and industry and careful herd management, the
last pockets of infection are being eliminated from domestic livestock.
At the end of fiscal year 1998, only 8 herds remained under quarantine.
As a result of this success, the Agency will be able to reduce disease
management activities in domestic cattle in fiscal year 2000 including
tracebacks, investigations, vaccinations, and depopulation. The
reduction in the brucellosis management program should not impact the
Agency's activities in YNP.
As long as wildlife in YNP continues to serve as a reservoir for
brucellosis, there will always be concern that the disease could be
reintroduced in the country's livestock population. For this reason,
APHIS will continue to conduct monitoring and surveillance activities
from the Agency's animal health monitoring and surveillance program.
This continued surveillance and testing will allow APHIS to detect and
quickly eliminate the disease should it spread into the livestock
population.
Public health issues, including educating Park visitors to the
threat of brucellosis, have been addressed in the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). The EIS includes seven separate alternatives that
could be implemented by the National Park Service (NPS) in the
management of bison in YNP. Until a final decision is made on the EIS,
APHIS' long-term role in managing brucellosis in YNP will remain
undetermined.
wildlife services
Question. APHIS also serves as the agency for Wildlife Services
which is extremely important to livestock producers in the state of
Montana. $175,000, which was earmarked for the purchase of a new
helicopter for Wildlife Services, was cut out of the APHIS budget. How
will USDA restore this valuable funding to Montana livestock producers
depending on it for the welfare of their animals?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 Congressional directive of $175,000
for wolf control in Montana was not accompanied with additional
appropriated funds. APHIS is addressing the directive through a
contingency fund release.
______
Agricultural Marketing Service
Questions Submitted by Senator Cochran
pesticide data program
Question. The budget proposes an increase of $911,000 for the
development of a program that monitors pesticide residues in meat,
poultry, eggs and drinking water. Is this data collection currently
conducted by any other federal agency? What jurisdiction or
responsibility does USDA have to monitor drinking water? Why is this
not done by the EPA? How does this program differ from the pesticide
data program?
Answer. The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has
regulatory authority over meat, poultry, and egg products. FSIS'
compliance program is oriented towards enforcement of tolerances
(maximum allowable pesticide residues in or on foods); therefore, their
data, although appropriate for enforcement, have limited usefulness in
population-based evaluations. FSIS' data are not statistically
representative of the overall residue situation for a given slaughter
class, pesticide, or region. Sampling for compliance programs is
usually biased to take into account factors such as commodities or
places of product origin with a history of violations. FSIS uses mostly
multi-residue methods and no verification of findings is required
unless a tolerance violation is suspected. These methods can detect
pesticides at tolerance levels which in some cases are too high to be
useful for accurate pesticide risk assessment.
EPA requested monitoring data for drinking water. These data will
be obtained by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), under
authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, using the
Pesticide Data Program (PDP). Currently available drinking water data
are very limited and are collected through the EPA's Public Water
System Supervision Program by delegated States and tribes. Limitations
of these data include lack of consistency in sampling and testing
protocols, and an extensive array of data reporting formats which make
it difficult to compile or derive national estimates. The U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) collects data for ground and surface water but
does not sample drinking water. USGS monitors vulnerable bodies of
water in areas of intense agricultural production, such as the corn
belt region. Both the EPA and USGS programs focus on monitoring for
compliance with Maximum Contaminant Levels of various chemicals,
including selected pesticides. These programs do not provide data for
all pesticides needed by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs to meet
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) requirements that exposures through
drinking water be included in dietary risk assessments. AMS is working
with EPA to develop a sampling and testing program for drinking water
on a national scale.
If EPA does not have reliable residue values for food and water,
they use assumptions or models which tend to overstate risk. PDP data
have been of great value in providing sound data to EPA. This proposal
would extend the PDP program to meat and water--important components of
children's diets. Because FQPA requires EPA to consider all non-
occupational exposure in the establishment of tolerances, assumed high-
end exposures from meat, poultry, eggs, and drinking water can fill the
``risk cup'' and leave little or no room for critical agricultural
pesticide needs. Sound data and realistic assessments of exposure are
critical for maintaining critical agricultural use of some pesticides.
Because of the PDP experience, partnership with States, and
existing infrastructure, adding to the scope of the current program is
the most cost-effective way to generate the data needed to support
agricultural pesticide needs.
In contrast to existing data sources for drinking water, PDP uses
statistically-reliable, unbiased random sampling procedures to provide
objective and comprehensive residue data to produce national estimates
of pesticide residues. PDP collects samples as close to point of
consumption as possible. For water, samples would be collected at water
treatment facilities. State population figures are used to assign the
number of samples collected per month. This number is constant for each
commodity if the commodity is available in the marketplace. Generally,
at least 600 samples of a commodity are obtained in a year. PDP uses
refined multi-residue methods capable of detecting levels much lower
than tolerances. These methods are resource-intensive and require
various steps to allow for detection of residues at trace levels and
verification of positive results. All PDP data are supported by
rigorous quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) procedures.
Approximately 30 percent of the analytical resources are in the QA/QC
system to provide data integrity and uniformity. PDP uses a uniform
reporting system and requires strict adherence to data reporting
procedures. PDP's database allows for remote data entry and electronic
transmission of data, and can be queried to provide customized reports
for EPA.
AMS will modify PDP methods to incorporate meat, poultry, eggs, and
drinking water, beginning with poultry. Analysis of these foods
requires acquisition of equipment and new technologies, and
reengineering of PDP's data system for processing of these data. These
data will be provided to EPA and FSIS. EPA will use the data for FQPA
risk assessments, and FSIS for mitigation and risk management
activities. For the poultry program, AMS staff are working with FSIS
personnel to develop procedures for sampling based on statistically-
reliable protocols, with FSIS assuming responsibility for the sampling,
handling, and shipping portion of the program. The National
Agricultural Statistics Service is providing the statistical
consultation for this endeavor. Poultry was selected as the first of
these products to monitor in fiscal year 2000. Meat and egg products
will be introduced into the program in subsequent years.
For the drinking water testing program, PDP is working with EPA to
develop sampling and testing protocols to collect drinking water data
on a national scale. Additional funds will be needed to begin sampling
and analysis of drinking water. The estimated cost to accomplish this
work is $2.0 million.
microbiological data program
Question. The budget proposes an increase of $6,185,000 to initiate
a microbiological data program for food-borne pathogens. Is this data
collection currently conducted by any other federal agency? How is this
program to be coordinated with other agencies involved in this program,
especially the Food and Drug Administration? Are other agencies
contributing to the cost of this program?
Answer. Data collection of this magnitude and with statistical
validity has not been conducted by any other Federal agency. At
present, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is doing a survey of 10
imported products, with the purpose of detecting those levels of
contamination that might result from a failure to follow adequate Good
Agricultural Practices and Food Manufacturing Practices. The purpose of
the Microbiological Data Program is to perform a statistically valid
assessment of the contamination level of raw produce available to the
American consumer. The FDA will be informed of test results and has
assigned a research supervisor to act as liaison to work with AMS on
this project. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will also
be informed of MDP's test results. The National Agricultural Statistics
Service will contribute directly to the program by providing the
statistically-reliable sampling plans and associated laboratory testing
quality control measures. The Agricultural Research Service has
expressed a desire to receive isolated cultures which can be tested for
antibiotic resistance, and arrangements will be made with Federal or
university laboratories to perform serotyping. No funds will be
received from any other agency for the execution of this project.
summary of fees by activity
Question. Dr. Figueroa's testimony indicates that 75 percent of AMS
funding is derived from fees charged for services provided. Please
provide an estimate of fees collected and disbursements by activity for
fiscal years 1999 and 2000.
Answer. AMS funding is approximately 72 percent user fee funded in
fiscal year 1999. If the budget requests are approved, the percentage
in fiscal year 2000 will be 68 percent. The following is a table
reflecting the summary of fees by activity.
SUMMARY OF FEES BY ACTIVITY
[Dollars in thousands]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
1999 200 2000
unobligated Earned Percent Program unobligated Earned Percent Program unobligated
beginning revenue Obligations beginning revenue Obligations ending
balance balance balance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
User Fee........................... $42,473 $60,730 25 $60,730 $42,473 $60,730 23 $60,730 $42,473
Trust Fund......................... 20,860 106,122 43 106,122 20,860 106,122 41 106,122 20,860
PACA \1\........................... 6,347 6,783 3 8,607 4,523 6,894 3 8,718 2,699
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PACA = Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act Program.
Note: This table does not include reimbursements to appropriations of approximately $3.7 million which represents approximately 1 percent in both fiscal
year 1999 and fiscal year 2000.
organic certification program
Question. Dr. Figueroa's testimony also indicates that $770,000 is
requested for final implementation of the National Organic Standards
program. When will the final regulation be published? When will it
become effective? What will the additional staff position be used to
do? Will the completion of the final rule not allow shifting of staff
responsibilities to accomplish these tasks?
Answer. AMS staff has reviewed and analyzed the nearly 300,000
comments which were submitted in response to the proposed rule and
subsequent issue papers. Based on this input, a revised rule is being
prepared. Development of a final rule will commence after the comments
have been received and thoroughly analyzed. Once the final rule is
published there is an 18-month period during which full implementation
will occur.
The additional position being requested is needed to augment
existing staff. Functions which will be performed include assistance in
developing international standards, accrediting both private and State
certifying agents, determining equivalency of foreign programs,
obtaining and disseminating relevant export data, monitoring State
programs for compliance, developing a system to prevent fraudulent
labeling, and extensive outreach efforts. While completion of the final
rule will enable staff to shift responsibilities, it will not preclude
the need for this additional staff position.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Burns
export funding and producer education
Question. I am pleased that the Agricultural Marketing Service
budget was increased by nearly $12 million. With the increase in
funding for this important program, how will USDA utilize these funds
for increases in exports and producer education for marketing?
Answer. Some of the additional funding for Marketing Services will
be used by the Microbiological Data Program to facilitate the global
marketing of domestically produced fruits and vegetables. This program
will provide information on the contamination level of fresh fruits and
vegetables for domestic risk assessment which can be used by exporters
to market these commodities.
The Market News Program will use some of the additional funding to
expand the number of foreign countries currently reported and to
develop new reports on international trade and exports. Improving
market awareness of conditions in the world market will increase export
opportunities.
The additional funding requested for Wholesale Market Development
will enable a number of direct marketing initiatives to be implemented
for small producers, including educational outreach efforts on issues
such as improving product quality, diversifying products, expanding
markets, and developing market strategies.
______
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyard Administration
Questions Submitted by Senator Cochran
Question. Mr. Secretary, over the last few years we have heard a
lot about the prices livestock producers have been receiving for their
cattle and hogs. Many people have explained this situation as normal
economic cycles in livestock production. Others have pointed to
industry consolidation as the problem. Still others have claimed that
country of origin labeling for meat and poultry products and mandatory
price reporting of boxed beef would have provided relief. This
committee has funded numerous GIPSA investigations into the meat
packing industry. Can you share with the committee what the results of
these investigations have yielded? Would mandatory country of origin
labeling or mandatory price reporting have prevented these fluctuations
in prices? Do you have additional studies underway? If so, please
describe their focus and cost.
Answer. In addition to the Concentration study, GIPSA has used
additional funds provided by this committee to fund a cooperative
agreement with prominent economists from the University of Nebraska and
Iowa State University to complete an econometric study of the data
obtained in the Texas panhandle investigation. That study, as well as
the investigation itself is currently undergoing professional peer
review. Funds have also been used to recruit and hire additional
economists for the regional offices and hire investigators with legal
expertise, to undertake more complex investigations. These hiring
efforts have allowed GIPSA to respond quickly to complaints of
anticompetitive behavior, such as a recently completed investigation of
a feedyard boycott that is likely to result in further action, as well
as a complaint issued by GIPSA against Excel Corporation alleging
unfair and deceptive pricing practices in the procurement of carcass
merit hogs. GIPSA will continue to investigate and monitor all aspects
of the livestock industry. Current efforts underway include follow up
work from the Texas Panhandle investigation for cattle as well as a
plant closing investigation and a comprehensive review of current
procurement contracts for hogs. Additionally, the Department is
conducting a study on mandatory country of origin labeling and has a
legislative proposal on mandatory price reporting and will be reporting
on both issues to Congress.
Question. Can you provide the committee with the status of the
GIPSA price reporting investigation of the meat packing industry
mandated by Public Law 105-277?
Answer. A framework for conducting the Congressionally mandated
price reporting pilot investigation has been developed by GIPSA.
Project options that can be completed with the available funding have
been identified. The anticipated date for commencing with the
information collection is May 1, 1999.
Question. Public Law 105-277 also directed the Department to
conduct a study on the effects of mandatory country of origin labeling
for meat and poultry products. Can you share with the Committee the
status of that study? Who in the department is conducting the study and
when can we anticipate seeing the final report?
Answer. The Conference Report of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill
directed the Secretary to conduct a comprehensive study on the
potential effects of mandatory country of origin labeling of imported
fresh muscle cuts of beef and lamb. The Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) of USDA is preparing this report. The report is expected
to address the impact of such requirements on imports, exports,
livestock producers, consumers, processors, packers, distributors, and
grocers. The report is also to address any additional costs to the
federal government which would be incurred as a result of mandatory
country of origin labeling of imported fresh muscle cuts of beef and
lamb.
Question. Recommendation B. 15 of USDA's Advisory Committee on
Agricultural Concentration calls for the reporting of more timely and
accurate trade data. Public Law 105-277 provided clear direction to the
Department to move forward and develop an electronic export
certification reporting system. It is believed that such a system would
provide important trade information to producers within a matter of one
or two weeks instead of the current three-month delay. Can you share
with the committee the development status of this electronic export
certificate program.
Answer. Public Law 105-277 provides for a pilot investigation of a
``streamlined eletronic system for collecting export data, in the least
intrusive manner possible'' for meat products. We understand that
representatives of the U.S. meat industry are working to clarify their
needs regarding price and export data reporting. Once these
consultations between the producers and packers have concluded and we
have their recommendations, we will reevaluate our work to ensure we
develop systems compatible with the guidance provided by Congress.
Question. Farmers across the South were plagued with significant
infestation of aflatoxin in the 1998 corn crop. What testing capability
does GIPSA have for aflatoxin? Farmers were also plagued with
inconsistent testing. Does GIPSA set standards for aflatoxin testing?
Does GIPSA have the authority to do so? What funds are included in the
budget request or would be required to establish such a program?
Answer. GIPSA provides aflatoxin testing service as official
criteria for corn, sorghum, wheat, and soybeans, as official criteria
under the Unites States Grain Standards Act (USGSA). Testing is also
provided for rice, popcorn, corn meal, corn gluten meal, corn/soy
blend, and other processed products governed by the Agricultural
Marketing Act (AMA). Additionally, all corn exported from the United
States is required to be tested for aflatoxin. Aflatoxin testing
services are available nationwide, upon request and for a fee, as
either a qualitative (screening above or below a threshold determined
by the customer) or as a quantitative (actual results in parts per
billion) service using several different types of test kits approved by
GIPSA. The GIPSA approved test kits use enzyme linked immunosorbent
assay (ELISA), monoclonal antibody affinity chromatography, or
fluorescence technology. To further assist the grain industry, GIPSA
also provides, on a limited basis, a complex chemical testing method,
High Pressure Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) testing for aflatoxin. All
official aflatoxin testing is performed as prescribed in the GIPSA
directive by authorized employees of GIPSA or licensed delegated/
designated agency personnel.
GIPSA has established sampling and testing procedures for GIPSA and
official agency personnel to follow for aflatoxin testing. Official
personnel receive extensive training on the official procedures and
must be authorized or licensed by GIPSA to perform aflatoxin testing.
Other inspection laboratories and commercial businesses that measure
aflatoxin levels in corn may or may not follow GIPSA procedures.
In addition to the official mycotoxin training and testing program,
GIPSA has a program in place to evaluate equipment used in the official
system. Test kits used in the official system must meet certain GIPSA
specifications and pass a rigorous testing program. Test kits sold for
commercial use in the United States are not regulated by USDA,
therefore do not require GIPSA approval. Commercial businesses may or
may not use GIPSA approved test kits.
GIPSA has the authority to set standards for aflatoxin testing only
in the official inspection system.
Aflatoxin testing represents a user fee service under the
Inspection and Weighing Program. In essence, revenue for this service
is generated from fees charged by GIPSA and no additional funds are
required to be appropriated.
Question. Please distinguish between the roles of GIPSA and the
Justice Department in investigating competitive practices.
Answer. GIPSA has responsibility for enforcing the Packers &
Stockyards (P&S) Act, including investigating competitive practices,
trade practices and ensuring financial protection for producers in the
livestock industry. The Justice Department, along with the Federal
Trade Commission, has primary responsibility for enforcing the
antitrust statutes, including the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.
GIPSA has a close working relationship with both of these agencies on
matters of mutual interest and expects that relationship will continue.
During the course of a GIPSA investigation, if it is determined that
the conduct being investigated may be criminally prosecuted, the
investigation is referred to the Justice Department, with GIPSA
providing information and assistance, as required.
The Department of Justice has primary responsibility for mergers
and acquisitions but has generally looked to GIPSA for broad industry
information and concentration ratios. GIPSA has generally investigated
most complaints alleging anticompetitive practices in the meat packing
industry.
Question. Increased funding has been provided to GIPSA over the
past few fiscal years to carry out recommendations of the Agricultural
Concentration Committee. Please provide a detailed accounting for each
of fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999 on the use of these funds. How
will the increased funding requested for fiscal year 2000 be used?
Answer. For fiscal year 1997, GIPSA received $800,000 of additional
funding to increase investigations of deceptive and fraudulent
practices that affect the movement and price of meat animals and their
products, and for increased analysis of industry structure and
performance to monitor the competitive implications of behavioral
practices in the meat packing industry and to support legal actions
that require complex economic and statistical analysis.
During that year, GIPSA completed a comprehensive investigation of
the procurement of slaughter cows in the Northwest region of the
country and began a broad investigation of fed cattle procurement in
the Texas panhandle. It also began conducting an investigation of
slaughter hog procurement in the Central United States, and began an
investigation involving slaughter lamb procurement in the Western
United States. GIPSA also entered into cooperative research agreements
to examine the effects of meat packing concentration on prices paid for
fed cattle.
During fiscal year 1997, GIPSA began planning the restructuring of
its P&S program areas to strengthen its ability to investigate industry
structure and competitive practice issues, and to provide greater
flexibility and efficiency in enforcing the trade practice and payment
provisions of the P&S Act.
For fiscal year 1998, GIPSA received $800,000 of additional funds
to recruit and integrate more economic, statistical, and legal
expertise into investigative units that will conduct investigations
involving anticompetitive practices. It also requested additional
funding to increase its poultry compliance activities but none were
appropriated.
During fiscal year 1998, GIPSA began the reorganization of P&S by
consolidating and strengthening its field offices and by reorganizing
its headquarters staff. P&S hired new economists and legal specialists
for its Denver and Des Moines field offices and additional economists
for its headquarters staff. It established a toll-free complaint hot
line for producers and the public to file complaints and report market
abuse. GIPSA began planning a peer review process for major
investigations that will evaluate whether GIPSA asked the right
questions, collected the right data, and conducted sound analyses using
appropriate models. The Agency also completed or continued the
investigations begun in fiscal year 1997 into procurement practices in
the fed steer and heifer, cow, hog, and lamb markets, and conducted
numerous investigations of live poultry dealers.
For fiscal year 1999, GIPSA received $397,000 of increased funding
to increase staffing to pursue more aggressively and more
comprehensively investigations into anticompetitive practices related
to industry concentration without this work coming at the expense of
its programs designed to protect individual producers from unfair
practices and provide financial protection. In addition, GIPSA received
$2.5 million to complete the restructuring of the P&S program.
During fiscal year 1999, GIPSA has continued to hire economists and
legal specialists for its field offices and headquarters staff. It has
also initiated the investigation peer review process, and the peer
review panel is examining the investigations of fed cattle procurement
in the Texas panhandle conducted by GIPSA staff and by cooperative
university researchers. The funds received for reorganization are being
used to relocate employees who are being displaced as a result of the
reorganization. The increased funding and personnel are also being used
to continue major investigations of potential anticompetitive
procurement practices and detailed analyses of the slaughter steer and
heifer, slaughter cow, slaughter hog, and slaughter lamb markets.
The requested budget increase of $1,386,000 for fiscal year 2000 is
critical in expanding the Agency's capability to monitor and
investigate the competitive implications of structural changes and
behavioral practices in the meat packing and poultry industries. The
Advisory Committee on Concentration recommended increased monitoring
and enforcement of antitrust and regulatory policy and, specifically
the antitrust enforcement of current regulations under the Packers and
Stockyards Act be stepped up.
Question. Fiscal year 1999 funding of $2.5 million has been made
available for one-time relocation costs associated with the
restructuring the Packers and Stockyards Administration. Please give
the Committee an update on the restructuring of the Administration and
the use of these funds.
Answer. The three new regional offices have been established at
Denver, Colorado; Des Moines, Iowa; and Atlanta Georgia, and all field
employees now report to one of these offices. We are still in the
process of relocating employees to the new regional offices and are
positioning resident agents in outlying locations where they will
conduct compliance investigations and provide routine services from
home-based offices or one of three suboffices. The funds are being used
for employee relocation; outplacement services; severance pay;
equipment transfer and office setup; and to hire additional economists
and other staff to conduct investigations of potential anticompetitive
behavior in the cattle and hog industries. We expect our restructuring
to be completed by June 1999.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Burns
Question. The budget cut for funding of GIPSA was cut by nearly
$18.5 million. Currently, four packers control nearly 80 percent of the
meat market. Livestock producers have no transparency in the market and
not enough avenues to market their commodity. The grain industry is
also highly consolidated and the effects of this concentration is
hurting farmers immeasurably. Mergers and concentration within the
agricultural industry play a huge role in the demise of farmers and
ranchers. At a time when the agricultural economy is at a 30 year low,
How does USDA justify cutting the budget of GIPSA, the agency
responsible for monitoring the actions of packing and grain companies?
Answer. The President has requested authority for GIPSA to collect
licensing fees to recover the cost of administering the P&S Act and for
Standardization Activities under the United States Grain Standards Act
in lieu of appropriated funding. The proposal would amend the P&S Act
to provide authority to collect license fees to cover the cost of the
program. It would also provide authority to initiate user fees for
standardization activities including the developing, reviewing, and
maintaining of official U. S. Grain standards used by the entire grain
industry. Converting to license and user fees is consistent with the
Administration's overall effort to shift funding for programs to the
beneficiaries of such programs.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Cochran
Question. The fiscal year 1999 Senate report indicates that the
Committee expects the Secretary to use his authority to collect,
assimilate, and make available information regarding the boll weevil
eradication program to agencies and entities that use this information
concerning acreage planted to cotton. Has the Secretary made this
information available? If not, why?
Answer. We are aware of the Senate language. However, OMB has not
approved the collection of land use information for FSA. Because the
collection information for bollweevil eradication and other areawide
pest control programs is not legislatively mandated, OMB considers this
is a voluntary submission by producers.
Question. The fiscal year 1999 appropriations act blocks the
availability of the $60 million available for the Fund for Rural
America for fiscal year 1999. Since these funds are available for two
years, the fiscal year 2000 budget restores these fiscal year 1999
funds and then proposed to block their availability in fiscal year 2000
but to restore $60 million in annual increments beginning in fiscal
year 2001.
Since the Administration did not support the action taken by
Congress to block the availability of fiscal year 1999 funding for the
Fund for Rural America, is the budget proposal to block these funds the
second year and restore them in increments in the outyears simple one
to offset discretionary spending.
Answer. The proposal to make fiscal year 1999 funding for the Fund
for Rural American available in the years after fiscal year 2000 was
one of several budget proposals used to ensure that the Department met
its tight discretionary budget target for fiscal year 2000.
Question. Of the fiscal year 1997 funding for the Fund for Rural
America, the budget indicates that $26.1 million was allocated for the
``core initiative,'' $7.8 million for the secretary's initiative and
$2.2 million for Telecommunications Infrastructure Research. For each
of these categories, please provide a description of each project/grant
funded, the amount of funds allocated to it, a brief description of the
project, who carried out the work, and an evaluation of benefits of the
work undertaken.
Answer. A description of the project funded by the Fund for Rural
American of CSREES is provided to the subcommittee. Because the grants
were made in the past 12-18 months, and the nature of the projects
involved, it is too soon to provide an evaluation of the benefits of
the work undertaken. It is expected that CSREES will be able to
initiate assessment of impacts at the end of fiscal year 2000. Some
assessment may occur prior to that time from annual reports that are
submitted for each project, and the first set of annual reports was
just recently received.
[The information follows:]
Fund For Rural America
Core Initiative......................................... $22,659,800
Secretary's Initiative.................................. 5,471,000
Agriculture Telecommunications.......................... 2,112,000
Planning Grants......................................... 886,900
Center Grant............................................ 1,585,026
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal, Grants Awarded.......................... 33,714,726
Federal Administration.................................. 1,444,000
Small Business Innovation Research...................... 453,600
Peer Panels............................................. 487,674
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 36,100,000
secretary's farmworker initiative
Question. What is the ``Secretary's Farmworker Initiative?''
Answer. The Secretary's Farmworker Initiative is to establish a
Farmer/Rancher Coordinator position to develop policy, establish
relationships with community-based farm work organizations, and develop
and participate in the development of initiatives with other Federal
agencies and non-Government organizations. Recent examples of improving
conditions for farmworkers have been to (a) partnership with the
Department of Labor (DOL), Migrant and Seasonal Labor, (b) exchange
models for DOL ONE STOP and USDA Service Centers for purpose of
including farm workers in programs or services which are going to be
provided by both Federal Agencies, (c) partnership with Health and
Human Services (HHS) to explore health service for migrant workers
through the USDA Rural Housing Service program, (d) meet with Farm
Worker organizations in the Northeast corridor from New Jersey to
Florida to identify program needs of the farm workers, and (e) creating
working relations with the National Farm Worker unions UAW and FLOC.
Question. Please list, by USDA agency and appropriations account/
activity, the funds available for fiscal year 1999 and requested in the
fiscal year 2000 budget to implement the following: (1) the Civil
Rights Action Team (CRAT) report; (2) the National Commission on Small
Farms Report, (3) the Secretary's Farmworker Initiative; (4) the Global
Change Research Program; (5) the Clean Water Action Plan; (6) the Debt
for Nature initiative; and (7) the Climate Change Technology
Initiative.
[The information follows:]
[Budget Authority in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
1999 Fiscal year
Program appropriation 2000 budget
BA BA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECRETARY'S CIVIL RIGHTS INITIATIVE
DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION:
Fund Civil Rights Activities, including $17.8 $21.1
Office of Outreach....................
Grants & Cooperative Agreements to 3.0 10.0
improve Outreach to USDA customers &
socially disadvantaged farmers &
ranchers..............................
----------------------------
Subtotal, DA....................... 20.8 31.1
============================
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL: Civil Rights 0.9 0.9
Division..................................
============================
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND
EXTENSION SERVICE:
Fund Small Farms Initiative............ ............. 4.0
Address Disparities in Funding of
Institutions of Higher Ed:
1890 Facilities Programs........... 8.4 12.0
Extension Services at 1994 2.1 3.5
Institutions......................
Research at 1994 Institutions...... ............. 0.7
Hispanic Serving Institutions 2.9 3.2
Education Grants..................
Increase Extension Indian Reservation 1.7 5.0
Program...............................
Pesticide Applicator Training.......... ............. 1 5
----------------------------
Subtotal, CSREES..................... 15.1 29.9
============================
FARM SERVICE AGENCY:
Farm Ownership & Farm Operating Loans:
Farm Ownership..................... 12.8 4.8
Loan Level..................... (85.6) (128.0)
Farm Operating..................... 50.1 29.3
Loan Level..................... (733.8) (500.0)
Farm Labor Housing Program:
Farm Labor Housing Loans........... 10.4 11.3
Loan Level..................... (20.0) (25.0)
Farm Labor Housing Grant Level..... 11.4 15.0
Rural Rental Assistance Payments... 10.0 15.0
----------------------------
Subtotal, FSA.................... 94.7 75.4
============================
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE: ............. 1.6
Address the Needs of Farmworkers: Fund
Pesticide Use Survey......................
============================
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE:
Debt for Nature:
Financial assistance to ............. 4.0
historically underserved for land
stewardship.......................
Technical assistance............... ............. 1.0
----------------------------
Subtotal, NRCS................... ............. 5.0
============================
TOTAL, Secretary's Civil Rights 131.5 143.9
Initiative......................
============================
SMALL-SCALE FARM PROGRAMS IN THE NATIONAL
COMMISSION ON SMALL FARMS REPORT
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND
EXTENSION SERVICE:
Sustainable Agriculture Research and 8.0 8.5
Education (BARE)......................
Sustainable Agriculture Extension...... 3.3 3.3
1862 and 1890 Formula Funding for Small 2.2 2.2
Farmers...............................
Renewable Resources Extension.......... 3.2 3.2
----------------------------
Subtotal, CSREES..................... 16.7 17.2
============================
RURAL HOUSING SERVICE: Farmworker Housing 31.4 40.0
Loans and Grants..........................
============================
RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICE:
Appropriate Tech Transfer for Rural 1.3 2.0
Areas (ATTRA).........................
Rural Cooperative Development Grants... 2.0 5.0
----------------------------
Subtotal, RBS........................ 3.3 7.0
============================
DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION: Outreach and 3.0 10.0
Technical Assistance (See 2501)...........
============================
FARM SERVICE AGENCY:
Direct Farm Ownership Loans:
Subsidy appropriation (non-add).... (12.8) (4.8)
Loan program level................. 85.6 128.0
Direct Farm Operating Loans:
Subsidy appropriation (non-add).... (50.1) (29.3)
Loan program level................. 733.8 500.0
----------------------------
Subtotal, FSA Loan Levels........ 819.4 628.0
============================
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE:
Federal State Market Improvement 1.2 1.2
Program (FSMIP).......................
National Organic Standards............. 0.9 1.7
----------------------------
Subtotal, AMS........................ 2.1 2.9
============================
GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS
ADMINISTRATION:
Packers and Stockyards: livestock 1.2 1.8
industry analysis.....................
Packers and Stockyards: poultry ............. 0.8
industry analysis.....................
----------------------------
Subtotal, GIPSA...................... 1.2 2.6
============================
FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE: WlC/Farmers 15.0 20.0
Market Nutrition Program..................
============================
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE: 16.3 ............
Forestry Incentives Pro- gram............
============================
FOREST SERVICE:
Forest Stewardship..................... 28.8 28.8
Stewardship Incentives................. ............. 5.0
----------------------------
Subtotal, FS......................... 28.8 33.8
============================
Fund for Rural America..................... ............. 60.0
============================
Subtotal............................. 937.2 821.5
============================
Other Small Farm Activities:
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION
AND EXTENSION SERVICE:
Small Farm Initiative.............. ............. 4.0
National Research Initiative....... 5.0 7.0
----------------------------
Subtotal, CSREES................. 5.0 11.0
============================
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE.......... 11.8 11.7
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE: 2.2 2.6
Wholesale Market Development..........
============================
Total, Small-Scale Farms Program..... 956.2 846.8
============================
SECRETARY'S FARMWORKER INITIATIVE
Salaries and Expenses (Coordinator)........ ............. 0.1
============================
GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM
Agricultural Research Service.............. 26.0 34.0
Cooperative State Research, Education and 9.0 16.0
Extension Service.........................
Economic Research Service.................. 1.0 2.0
Forest Service............................. 17.0 23.0
Natural Resources Conservation Service..... 2.0 14.0
----------------------------
TOTAL, Global Change Research Program 55.00 89.0
============================
CLEAN WATER ACTION PLAN
Agricultural Research Service.............. 1.0 5.0
Natural Resources Conservation Service:
EQIP................................... 174.0 300.0
Partnership Grants..................... ............. 20.0
Monitoring............................. ............. 3.0
Animal Feeding Operations Strategy..... ............. 20.0
----------------------------
Subtotal, NRCS....................... 174.0 343.0
============================
Forest Service............................. 280.0 369.0
----------------------------
TOTAL, Clean Water Action Plan....... 455.0 717.0
============================
DEBT FOR NATURE INITIATIVE
DEBT FOR NATURE INITIATIVE................. ............. 5.0
============================
CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE
Agricultural Research Service.............. ............. 7.0
Forest Service............................. ............. 6.0
Natural Resources Conservation Service..... ............. 3.0
----------------------------
TOTAL, Climate Change Technology ............. 16.0
Initiative..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please explain the reason for the increase from the
fiscal year 1999 level proposed in the Office of the Secretary ``Other
Services'' object class.
Answer. The Office of the Secretary requested an increase for the
Biobased Products Coordination Council in fiscal year 2000. The Council
is chaired by the Under Secretary for Research, Education and
Economics. Among the major activities that would be started or carried
out in fiscal year 2000 by the Under Secretary are the development,
publication and maintenance of a biobased products list as directed in
Executive Order 13101, education activities, such as training and
conferences to inform the public and Government agencies about biobased
products, demonstration projects to create awareness of and demand for
biobased construction materials, support for the Office of the
Environmental Executive, support for technology transfer activities
through our research agencies, and outreach to land-grant universities
involved in biobased research, education and extension. The amount for
this requested increase of over $1 million is reflected in Other
Services.
______
Agricultural Research Service
Questions Submitted by Senator Cochran
fiscal year 1999 appropriations
Question. Please provide a status report on the execution of each
of the following funding increases provided to ARS for fiscal year
1999:
--Emerging Plant Diseases, Albany, CA, $250,000;
--Emerging Plant Diseases, Beltsville, MD, $250,000;
--Emerging Plant Diseases, Frederick, MD, $250,000;
--Emerging Plant Diseases, College Station, TX, $250,000;
--Emerging Plant Diseases, Montpellier, France, $250,000;
--Emerging Plant Diseases, Logan, Utah, $200,000;
--Fusarium Head Blight (consortium of 12 land grant universities),
$3,000,000;
--Exotic Infectious Animal Diseases, Athens, GA, $500,000;
--Exotic Infectious Animal Diseases, Ames, IA (NADC), --$1,000,000;
--Exotic Infectious Animal Diseases, Beltsville, MD, $500,000;
--Exotic Infectious Animal Diseases, Pullman, WA, $600,000;
--Exotic Infectious Animal Diseases, Laramie, WY, $500,000;
--Environmental Quality/Natural Resources, Bioactive compounds,
Gainsville, FL, $250,000;
--Environmental Quality/Natural Resources, IPM/Areawide, Beltsville,
MD, $250,000;
--Environmental Quality/Natural Resources, IPM/Areawide, Columbia,
MO, $400,000;
--Environmental Quality/Natural Resources, IPM/Areawide, Stoneville,
MS, $250,000;
--Environmental Quality/Natural Resources, IPM/Areawide, College
Station, TX, $250,000;
--Environmental Quality/Natural Resources, Livestock management
systems, $1,000,000;
--Everglades Initiative, Canal Point, FL, $250,000;
--Everglades Initiative, Miami, FL, $250,000;
--Everglades Initiative, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, $250,000;
--Food Safety, Preharvest, Athens, GA, $250,000;
--Food Safety, Preharvest, Ames, IA, $250,000;
--Food Safety, Preharvest, West Lafayette, IN, $250,000;
--Food Safety, Preharvest, Beltsville, MD, $250,000;
--Food Safety, Preharvest, Clay Center, NE, $600,000;
--Food Safety, Preharvest, College Station, TX, $250,000;
--Food Safety, Postharvest, Safety/Quality of Fruits/Vegetables,
$1,000,000;
--Food Safety, Postharvest, Food Safety Engineering, Purdue Univ.,
$1,000,000;
--Genetic Resources, Palmer, AK, $100,000;
--Genetic Resources, Columbia, MO, $700,000;
--Genetic Resources, Leetown, WV, $1,000,000;
--Human Nutrition, Little Rock, AR, $750,000;
--Human Nutrition, San Francisco, CA, $250,000;
--Human Nutrition, Boston, MA, $250,000;
--Human Nutrition, Beltsville, MD, $250,000;
--Human Nutrition, Grand Forks, ND, $250,000;
--Human Nutrition, Houston, TX, $500,000;
--Pfiesteria, $719,000;
--Alternative Fish Feed, Aberdeen, ID, $250,000;
--Appalachian Fruit Research Station, Kearneysville, WV, $250,000;
--Aquaculture research, AK, $1,100,000;
--Biological control of Western weeds, Albany, CA, $300,000;
--Biomedical materials in plants, $500,000;
--Cereal crops research, Madison, WI, $250,000;
--Cotton ginning, Stoneville, MS, $250,000;
--Endophyte research, $200,000;
--Fish diseases, Auburn, AL, $750,000;
--Fish Farming Experiment Laboratory, Stuttgart, AR, $750,000;
--Floriculture and nursery crop research, $1,000,000;
--Horticulture, Ft. Pierce, FL, $500,000;
--Forage crops, Woodward, OK, $250,000;
--Garden Unit, National Arboretum, Washington, DC, $250,000;
--Golden Nematode, Ithaca, NY, $150,000;
--Grape Rootstock, Geneva, NY, $300,000;
--Grasshopper research, AK, $750,000;
--Grazinglands research, El Reno, OK, $250,000;
--Honeybee research, Baton Rouge, LA, $300,000;
--Lettuce geneticist/breeding, Salinas, CA, $250,000;
--Lyme disease (Tick Control Project), Beltsville, MD, $200,000;
--Manure handling and disposal, Starkville, MS, $500,000;
--Meadowfoam research, Peoria, IL, $200,000;
--Mycoplasma research, Starkville, MS, $250,000;
--National Warmwater Aquaculture Center, Stoneville, MS, $1,100,000;
--National Agriculture Library, $250,000;
--Natural products research, MS, $750,000;
--New England Plant, Soil and Water Lab, Orono, ME, $250,000;
--Non-chemical control of pecan insect pests, Byron, GA, $250,000;
--Peach varieties research, Byron, GA, $150,000;
--Peanut quality research, Dawson GA/Raleigh, NC, $1,000,000;
--Pear Thrips, Ithaca, NY, $100,000;
--Potato Breeder, Aberdeen, ID, $150,000;
--Range research, Burns, OR, $250,000;
--Rice research, Stuttgart, AR, $1,400,000;
--Rice research, Davis, CA, $250,000;
--Rice research, Beaumont, TX, $200,000;
--Root diseases of wheat and barley, Pullman, WA, $500,000;
--Small fruits research, Poplarville, MS, $250,000;
-- Small fruits research, Corvallis, OR, $250,000;
--Soil tilth research, Ames, IA, $500,000;
--Soybean and corn research, Stoneville, MS, $750,000;
--Subtropical Animal Research Station, Brooksville, FL, $500,000;
--Subtropical Horticultural Research Station, Miami, FL, $300,000;
--Sugarbeet research, Ft. Collins, CO, $200,000;
--U.S. Plant Stress and Water Conservation Laboratory, Lubbock, TX,
$500,000;
--Vegetable research, East Lansing, MI, $200,000;
--Wild rice research, St. Paul, MN, $100,000;
--Wind erosion research, Manhattan, KS, $250,000.
Answer. ARS is in the process of releasing each of these program
increases added by Congress in fiscal year 1999 in the amounts and for
the purposes authorized in accordance with the fiscal year 1999
Appropriations Act. A detailed listing of the distribution of these
increases will be provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION OF FISCAL YEAR 1999 PROGRAM INCREASES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status of New
Funding research Amount Research location Status/purpose Scientist(s)
Position(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerging Plant Diseases........ $250,000 Albany, CA........ Funds have been New scientist
released and work in position not
underway on new and required.
emerging invasive
weeds in the Western
U.S.
250,000 Beltsville, MD.... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and work is are underway to
underway on taxonomy hire a Botanist.
of bunt and smut of
fungi.
250,000 Frederick, MD..... Funds have been New scientist
released and work is position not
underway for required.
research on karnal
bunt.
250,000 College Sta., TX.. Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and work is are underway to
underway for hire a Plant
research on sorghum Pathologist.
ergot.
250,000 Montpellier, FR... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and work is are underway to
underway to develop hire a Plant
exotic microbial Pathologist.
biological control
agents in eurasia.
200,000 Logan, LT......... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and work is are underway for a
underway on research Veterinarian
on poisoning of Pharmacologist.
livestock by
larkspur.
Fusarium Head Blight........... 3,000,000 Headquarters...... Negotiations have Not Applicable.
been completed and
specific cooperative
agreements are being
entered into with
the 12 State
Consortium.
Exotic Infectious Animal 500,000 Athens, GA........ Funds have been Recruitment actions
Diseases. released and work is are underway for a
underway on highly Veterinary Medical
pathogenic avian Officer.
influenza and exotic
newcastle disease.
1,000,000 Ames, IA.......... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway for a
research is underway Veterinary Medical
on Johne's disease, Officer.
bovine tuberculosis
and emerging enteric
diseases of swine.
500,000 Beltsville, MD.... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire an
on parasitic Immunologist and
immunology. and Animal
Microbiologist.
600,000 Pullman, WA....... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Molecular
on prion diseases Biologist and an
and anaplasmosis. Entomogist.
500,000 Laramie, WY....... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Entomologist/
on vesicular Microbiologist.
stomatitis an
arthropod-borne
disease of livestock.
Environmental Quality/Natural 250,000 Gainesville, FL... Funds have been Recruitment actions
Resources. released and are underway
research is underway actions are
for the development underway to hire a
of bioactive Chemist.
compounds that
attract natural
enemies of insect
pests.
250,000 Beltsville, MD.... Funds have been Recruitment action
released and is underway to hire
Recruitment research an Molecular
is underway to Biologist/Botanist/
develop technologies Entomologist
for management of
gypsy moth with
entomophaga maimaiga.
400,000 Columbia, MO...... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire an
to develop methods Entomologist.
of in vitro
proagation of
beneficial insects
for biological
control.
250,000 Stoneville, MS.... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire an
to develop mass Engomologist.
propagation
technologies for
beneficial insects
(lygus bugs/leafy
spurge).
250,000 College Sta., TX.. Funds have been Recruitment actions
released andresearch are underway to
is underway to hire an
developnew and Entomologist.
improved areawide
IPM technology in
support of the boll
weevil eradication
program.
Livestock Mgt.................. 1,000,000 Ames, IA.......... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released to are underway to
establish a program hire the Research
at the National Leader. Recruitment
Swine Research actions are
Center on livestock underway for three
management. animal scientists.
Everglades Initiative.......... 250,000 Canal Point, FL... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Soil
on soil microbiology Microbiologist.
as it relatees to
water quality.
250,000 Miami, FL......... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released an research are underway to
is underway to hire an Agronomist.
develop a computer
model on the impact
of the Everglades
Nat'l Park
Restoration Plan on
the sustainability
of agriculture in
south Florida.
250,000 Ft. Lauderdale, FL Funds have been A selection is
released an research pending to hire an
is underway for the Entomologist.
development of
melaleuca biological
control..
Food Safety, Preharvest........ 300,000 Athens, GA........ Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway for a
research is underway Microbiologist.
for treatment of
poultry manure to
prevent pathogen
transmission.
300,000 Ames, IA.......... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire a
to prevent pathogen Microbiologist.
contamination in
animals particularly
swine.
300,000 West Lafayette, IN Funds have been Recruitment action
released and is underway to hire
research is underway an Animal
to prevent pathogen Scientist.
contamination in
animals particularly
swine.
600,000 Beltsville, MD.... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire a
for animal waste Microbiologists and
handling systems to an Animal
prevent pathogen Scientist.
transmission.
300,000 Clay Center, NE... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to a
research is underway hire a
to prevent zoonotic Microbiologist.
pathogen
transmission in
cattle.
600,000 College Stn., TX.. Funds have been Recruitment actions
released research is are underway to
underway to prevent hire two
antibiotic Microbiologists.
resistance.
Food Safety, Postharvest....... 1,200,000 Albanay, CA....... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire two
to develop knowledge Microbiologists.
pathogens on various One Microbiologist
fruits and has been hired.
vegetables.
1,000,000 Purdue Univ....... Funds have been Not Applicable.
released and a
specific cooperative
agreement has been
executed with Purdue
Univ.
(Note: Final distribution of
Food Safety increases by
location is different from
those listed in question.)
Genetic Resources.............. 100,000 Palmer, AK........ Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Curator.
on arctic plant
germplasm storage,
regeneration,
evaluation and
documentation at
Palmer, AK.
700,000 Columbia, MO...... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Research
on soybean and Geneticist and a
genomic research. Molecular
Biologist.
1,000,000 Leetown, WV....... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway
research is underway actions are
on trout genome at underway for two
the National Center Trout/Animal
for Cool and Cold Scientists.
Water Aquaculture.
Human Nutrition................ 750,000 Little Rock, AR... Funds have been New scientist
released and position not
research is underway required.
on nutrient-gene
interactions.
250,000 San Francisco, CA. Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Human
on nutrient-gene Nutritionist.
interactions.
250,000 Boston, MA........ Funds have been New scientist
released and position not
research is underway required.
on diet and
degenerative
diseases in the
aging.
250,000 Beltsville, MD.... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Human
on diet and Nutritionist.
flavonoid function.
250,000 Grand Forks, ND... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Immunologist/
on the role of trace Chemist.
minerals in gene
expression.
500,000 Houston, TX....... Funds have been New scientist
released and position not
research is underway required.
on nutrition and
child development.
Pfiesteria ($719,000).......... 300,000 Beltsville, MD.... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Soil
on the relationship Scientist.
between agricultural
practices and
pfiesteria in the
Chesapeake Bay and
its tributaries.
100,000 Auburn, AL........ Funds have been New scientist
released and position not
research is underway required.
on pfiesteria.
250,000 New Orleans, LA... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Plan
on pfiesteria. Physiologist.
69,000 Florence, SC...... Funds have been New scientist
released and position not
research is underway required.
to protect water
quality through
effective mgt. of
agricultural
nutrients.
Alternative Fish Feed.......... 250,000 Aberdeen, ID...... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire a fish
on cereal grains and geneticist.
fish.
Appalachian Fruit Research 250,000 Kearneysville, WV. Funds have been New scientist
Station. released and position not
research is underway required.
on diseases of
apples and pears.
Aquaculture Res. in Alaska..... 1,100,000 Albany, CA Funds have been Recruitment actions
(Fairbanks, AK). released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Chemical
on aquaculture Engineer/Food
research in Alaska. Technologist.
Research is being
conducted in
cooperation with the
Univ. of Alaska.
Biological Control of Western 300,000 Albany, CA........ Funds have been Recruitment actions
Weeds. released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Research
on biocontrol of Entomologist.
yhellow starthistle
and other non-
indigeneous plant
pests in the western
U.S.
Biomedical Materials in Plants. 500,000 Beltsville, MD.... Funds have been Not Applicable.
released and
research is
underway. A specific
cooperative
agreement ($300,000)
has been executed
with the Biomedical
Foundation, Inc.
Cereal Crops Research.......... 250,000 Madison, WI....... Funds have been New scientist
released and position not
research is underway required.
on barley and oak
quality.
Cotton Ginning................. 250,000 Stoneville, MS.... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire an Engineer.
on cotton ginning.
Endophyte Research............. 200,000 Booneville, AR.... Funds have been No Applicable.
released and
negotiations are
underway with the
Universities of AR,
MO and Oregon State
Univ.
Fish Diseases.................. 750,000 Auburn, AL........ Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Aquatic
on fish health. Pathologist.
Selection has been
made to hire a new
Microbiologist.
Fish Farming Experiment LAB.... 750,000 Stuttgart, AR..... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Physiologist
on aquaculture and a Fishery
production systems, Biologist.
therapeutics
evaluation and
chemical
registration.
Floriculture and Nursery Crop 600,000 Headquarters...... Funds have been Not Applicable
Research ($1,000,000). released and
negotiations are
underway for
specific cooperative
agreements..
400,000 Wash., D.C. Funds have been Recruitment actions
(Arbore- tum). released and are underway for a
research is underway Plant Pathologist.
on floriculture and
nursery crops.
Horticulture................... 500,000 Ft. Pierce, FL.... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Plant
on vegetable Pathologist and a
virology and Horticulturalist.
irrigation
management.
Forage Crops................... 250,000 Woodward, OK...... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire an Agronomist.
to accelerate forage
improvement.
Garden Unit, Natl. Arboretum... 250,000 Washington, DC.... Funds have been New scientist
released for position not
increased staffing required.
for the Gardens Unit
at the National
Arboretum.
Golden Nematode................ 150,000 Ithaca, NY........ Funds have been New scientist
released and position not
research is underway required.
on golden nematode.
Grape Rootstock................ 300,000 Geneva, NY (w/s Funds have been Recruitment actions
Ithaca). released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Geneticists.
on grape rootstock
evaluation of pest,
disease resistance
and stress tolerance.
Grasshopper Research........... 750,000 Sidney, MT Funds have been Recruitment actions
(Alaska). released and are underway to
research is underway hire two
on IPM for Entomologist.
grasshopper control
in the Delta
Junction region of
Alaska.
Grazinglands Research.......... 250,000 El Reno, OK....... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire an Agronomist
for the development that will be
of pasture stationed at
management systems Langston Univ.
that enhance
productivity and
water quality in the
Southern Great
Plains.
Honeybee Research.............. 300,000 Baton Rouge, LA... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire an
for the control of Entomologist.
parasitic bee mites.
Lettuce/Geneticist Breeding.... 250,000 Salinas, CA....... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Geneticist/
for the control to Breeder.
develop new lettuce
varieties and
improved product
quality.
Lyme Disease................... 200,000 Beltsville, MD.... Funds have been Not applicable.
released to support
the NE Regional Lyme
Tick Project.
Manure Handling and Disposal... 500,000 Ms State Funds have been Recruitment actions
(Starkville), MS. released and are underway to
research is underway hire an Engineer.
on procedures for
poultry manure and
disposal with
emphasis on reducing
the amounts of
phosphorus in litter
and the environment.
Meadowfoam Research............ 200,000 Peoria, IL........ Funds have been New scientist
released and position not
research on required.
meadowfoam is
underway.
Mycoplasma Research............ 250,000 MS State, Funds have been Recruitment actions
(Starkville) MS. released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Molecular
on mycoplasma Biologist.
gallisepticum.
Nat'1 Warmwater Aquaculture 1,100,000 Stoneville, MS.... Funds have been Recruitment actions
Ctr.. released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Molecular
on warmwater Biologist and a
aquaculture. Half of Microbiologist.
these funds will be
added to the
existing specific
cooperative
agreement with
Mississippi
Agricultural and
Forestry Experiment
Station (MAFES).
Nat'1 Agriculture Library...... 250,000 Beltsville, MD.... Funds have been Final selection of a
released and will be Librarian/Technical
used to purchase Information
periodicals, enhance Specialist is in
preservation process.
efforts, and improve
electronic retrieval
capacity, including
the information
centers.
Natural Products Research...... $750,000 Oxford, MS........ Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Molecular
on natural products. Biologist.
Half of these funds
will be added to the
existing specific
cooperative
agreement with the
University of
Mississippi.
New England Plant, Soil, and 250,000 Orono, ME......... Funds have been Recruitment actions
Water Lab. released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Soil
on nutritient Biochemist/
management in NE Microbiologist.
cropping systems.
Non-chemical Control of Pecan 250,000 Byron, GA......... Funds have been Recruitment actions
Insect Pests. released and are underway to
research is underway hire an
on nonchemical Entomologist.
alternatives to the
use of chemical
pesticides to
control fruit and
foliar pests of
pecans.
Peach Varieties Research....... 150,000 Byron, GA......... Funds have been New scientist
released and position not
research is underway required.
on new peach
varieties.
Peanut Quality................. 1,000,000 Dawson, GA/ Funds have been Recruitment actions
Raleigh, NC. released and on are underway to
peanut quality. A hire a Systems
fpecific cooperative Engineer/Economist.
agreement is being
negotiated with
Auburn University.
Pear Thrips.................... 100,000 Ithaca, NY........ Funds have been Not Applicable.
released to support
a specific
cooperative
agreement with the
Univ. of VT.
Potato Breeder................. 150,000 Aberdeen, ID...... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Geneticist/
to develop new Breeder.
potato germplasm
with improve
processing & fresh
market qual. with
resistance to pests/
diseases.
Range Research................. 250,000 Burns, OR......... Funds have been A selection has been
released and made to hire
research is underway Rangeland
to develop new Scientist.
grazing management
approaches that have
positive effects on
rangeland plant
communities.
Rice Research.................. 1,400,000 Stuttgart, AR..... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Plant
on the genetic Pathologist, Plant
improvement of rice. Physiologist and
Molecular
Biologist.
Selection of a new
Cytogeneticist has
been made.
Rice Research.................. 250,000 Davis, CA......... Funds have been New scientist
released and position not
research is underway required.
on the rice
germplasm.
Rice Research.................. 200,000 Beaumont, TX...... Funds have been New scientist
released and position not
research is underway required.
on the rice
germplasm
improvement.
Root Diseases of Wheat and 500,000 Pullman, WA....... Funds have been Recruitment actions
Barley. released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Plant
on the root diseases Pathologist.
of wheat and barley.
Small Fruits Research.......... 250,000 Poplarville, MS... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Plant
on the root diseases Pathologist.
of what and barley.
Small Fruits Research.......... 250,000 Corvallis, OR..... Funds have been New scientist
released and position not
research is required.
underway. Specific
cooperative
agreements are being
negotiated ($160,000
for pest and
diseases control and
the development of
agricultural systems
for northwest small
fruits productions.
Soil Tilth Research............ 500,000 Ames, IA.......... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire to
on effective soil Agronomists.
and water management
practices.
Soybean and Corn Research...... 750,000 Stoneville, MS.... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Plant
to increase farm Geneticists, Plans
profits through the Physiologist and
use of corn and Plant Molecular
soybeans in rotation Biologist/
with cotton and to Geneticists.
expand research on
plant molecular
genetics.
Subtropical Animal Research.... 500,000 Brooksville, FL... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Nutritionist/
on beef cattle. Biological Systems
and a Geneticists.
Subtropical Horticultural 300,000 Miami, FL......... Funds have been Recruitment actions
Research Station. released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Geneticist/
on subtropical/ Curator.
tropical ornamental
plant germplasm.
Sugarbeet Research............. 200,000 Ft. Collins, CO... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway to
research is underway hire a Plant
on diseases of Pathologist.
sugarbeet.
U.S. Plant Stress and Water 500,000 Lubbock, TX....... Funds have been New scientist
Conservation Lab. released and position not
research is underway required.
on plant required
stress factors in
the High Plains
region.
Vegetable Research............. 200,000 Lansing, MI....... Funds have been New scientist
released and position not
research is underway required.
on vegetable crops.
Wild Rice Research............. 100,000 St. Paul, MN...... Funds have been Not Applicable.
released and added
to the existing
specific cooperative
agreement with North
Central Ag. Expt.
Station.
Wind Erosion................... 250,000 Manhattan, KS..... Funds have been Recruitment actions
released and are underway for a
research is underway Soil Scientist/
on wind erosion in Agricultural
Manhattan, KS. Engineer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fiscal year 2000 budget request
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes an increase of $76.4
million for new and expanded research programs and an increase of $9.9
million for pay costs, partially offset by a proposed decrease of $35
million for ongoing research projects. As the Department's materials
indicate, many of the projects proposed for termination have
contributed to solving important agricultural problems. While the
budget indicates that this research is proposed for termination because
it has been deemed less critical than the higher priority research the
Administration proposes, it is also apparent that the proposed
terminations include only research the Congress initiated or has
continued to support. Please tell the Committee how the Administration
determined that each of these research projects was ``less critical''
than those the President's fiscal year 2000 budget proposes increased
funding to support.
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget for the
Agricultural Research Service is $836,868,000. This recommendation
recognizes the importance of the Department's in-house science program
and its capacity to solve a multitude of problems affecting production
agriculture, the environment, human health and safety, utilization
research, trade, and rural development. This budget provides an
increase for new and expanded research programs of $51.4 million as
well $9.9 million for authorized pay raises. Additionally, the Agency
is requesting $44.5 million for ongoing laboratory modernization and
construction projects.
These increase recommendations are made under the very tight
funding limitations established for the fiscal year 2000 budget. This
Administration has proposed and continues to support a number of
critical initiatives, such as food safety, global climate change, and
human nutrition. Given the spending constraints of the fiscal year 2000
budget, and the urgency this Administration places on the research
initiatives proposed, it was necessary again to request the termination
of a number of ongoing research projects. Some of these projects were
identified in prior budgets as less critical to the overriding issues
of national importance, such as food safety for all Americans. While
important, such projects as wild rice breeding, turf grass evaluation,
development of feeds for aquaculture, floriculture research, Hops
genetics research, etc. were deemed to be of lesser priority than the
initiatives advanced in this budget. All the projects are evaluated
within the ARS research portfolio. Decisions are based on the following
criteria: the relevance of the research project, the availability of
sufficient resources to conduct the research, and the overall impact of
research on American agriculture.
The overall reduction and redirection requested represents four
percent of the total research program authorized and funded by the
Congress. The $35 million would essentially be reallocated to these
national research priorities. These initiatives are supported by the
Congress, agricultural stakeholders and others who have interests in
food, nutrition, and environmental programs. Infectious and zoonotic
diseases of livestock, wheat and barley scab, bioinformatics, genetic
engineering in major crops, invasive weeds, pathogen control in
slaughtering, nutrition and chronic diseases, IPM, understanding the
carbon cycle in global change--these are some of the new projects
requested and are considered to be of greater critical importance to
the Congress and the Nation than those projects recommended for
termination.
Question. Please prioritize the research program and operational
increases requested for fiscal year 2000.
Answer. ARS' program and operational increases proposed for fiscal
year 2000 listed in order of priority will be provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
Agricultural Research Service
[Proposed Increases Listed in Priority Order]
Pay Costs............................................... $9,930,000
Emerging Diseases and Exotic Pests of Plants and Animals 8,133,000
Food Safety............................................. 11,720,000
Human Nutrition Initiative.............................. 20,250,000
Food Quality and Protection Act Implementation.......... 3,167,000
Sustainable Ecosystems.................................. 11,100,000
Agricultural Genome..................................... 2,750,000
Global Climate Change................................... 15,300,000
Air Quality............................................. 2,000,000
Agricultural Information................................ 2,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 86,350,000
Question. For each of the research program increases proposed for
fiscal year 2000, please provide the current (base) level of funding
available to support the research, a brief description of the research
work and where the research will be conducted.
Answer. The current base level funding, a brief description of the
research work and location for fiscal year 2000 increases will be
provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
Agricultural Research Service Fiscal Year 2000 Proposed Increases
sustainable ecosystems--$11,100,000 ($112,074,000 available in fiscal
year 1999)
Implement the CENR (Committee on Environment and Natural Resources)
Research and Monitoring Framework--$600,000
Tucson, AZ, $300,000.--Expand Semi-Arid Land-Surface-Atmosphere
(SALSA) project in the Southwest.
Miami, FL, $300,000.--Expand projects on integrated crop and animal
production systems in the Southeast.
Advance Ecological Science for Sustainable Livestock Management
Systems--$900,000
Ames, IA, $300,000.--Develop improved storage, handling, and
treatment systems for swine manure.
Brooksville, FL, $300,000.--Develop best management practices for
effective use of manure nutrients from cattle.
University Park, PA $300,000.--Initiate a national effort to
develop Park, PA the relationship between soil phosphorus and movement
of phosphorus to surface waters in major soils of the U.S.
Predict Impacts and Restore the Viability of Damaged Riparian Zones and
Coastal Habitats.--$1,100,000
Tifton, GA $300,000.--Develop management practices to maximize the
ability of riparian zones to protect water quality in the Coastal
Plains.
Oxford, MS, $300,000.--Develop methods to protect water quality in
the Mississippi Delta.
Florence, SC, $250,000.--Determine the effectiveness of removal of
nutrients and pathogens from liquid animal waste.
Baton Rouge, LA $250,000.--Develop guidelines and procedures to
protect water quality in the Louisiana Bayous.
Conduct Integrated Ecosystem Risk Assessments--$600,000
Ft. Collins, $300,000.--Develop models and decision support CO
tools to assess stresses and effects of Great Plains farming practices.
Temple, TX, $300,000.--Develop models to forecast ecosystem
responses to multiple stresses related to agricultural production
practices and systems.
Prevent and Control Invasive Weed Species for Ecosystem Management--
$600,000
Prosser, WA $300,000.--Develop and implement weed IPM, with a focus
on weeds of irrigated crops for ecosystem management.
Albany, CA, $300,000.--Conduct foreign exploration for new weed
biological control agents for ecosystem management.
Develop and Implement Biologically-Based Integrated Pest Management
Systems for Invasive Weeds and Other Pests--$2,700,000.
Davis, CA, $300,000.--Develop biologically-based weed management
with emphasis on integration of biological control agents.
Logan, UT $300,000.--Develop biologically-based weed IPM with
emphasis on invasive weeds.
Morris, MN, $300,000.--Develop biologically-based weed IPM with
emphasis on crop weeds.
Frederick, $300,000.--Conduct foreign exploration MD for new
pathogens of exotic weeds.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL, $300,000.--Conduct foreign exploration for new
FLbiological control agents of exotic weeds.
Newark, DE, $300,000.--Conduct foreign exploration for new insect
natural enemies of horticultural crop pests.
Stuttgart, AR, $300,000.--Develop and implement biological controls
to manage invasive weed and problematic algal species.
Beltsville, MD $300,000.--Develop attractants for invasive pest
species such as Asian Longhorned Beetle.
Kearneysville, WV $300,000.--Develop and implement non-chemical
pest management of tree fruits and small fruits.
Prevent and Control Eutrophication, Harmful Algal Blooms, and Hypoxia--
$4,100,000
Oxford, MS, $300,000.--Develop alternative practices and systems to
reduce storm water runoff and runoff of manure and fertilizer nutrients
in coastal waterways.
Lincoln, NE, $300,000.--Develop guidelines and decisionmaking tools
that establish sound levels of manure and fertilizer nutrients in the
Midwest and the hypoxia problem in the Gulf of Mexico.
Ames, IA, $300,000.--Establish a center for hypoxia research in the
Midwest.
Beltsville, MD, $300,000.--Expand projects for improved soil,
water, and air quality in the Chesapeake Bay.
Stoneville, MS, $500,000.--Develop techniques to better monitor and
manage water quality, off-flavor components, and wastes in aquaculture
production systems.
University Park, PA, $300,000.--Develop guidelines and
decisionmaking tools on sound levels of phosphorus and other animal
manure nutrients to reduce eutrophication and toxic algal blooms in the
Mid-Atlantic region.
Columbus, OH, $300,000.--Expand projects to capture, treat, and
recycle drainage water in the Midwest.
Watkinsville, GA, $300,000.--Expand projects for improved soil,
water, and air quality in the Southeast.
Tifton, GA, $300,000.--Expand projects to enhance the use of
wetlands and riparian zones for fish and wildlife habitat.
Bushland, TX, $300,000.--Expand projects for improved soil, water,
and air quality on the High Plains of the Southwest.
Kimberly, ID, $300,000.--Expand projects for improved soil, water,
and air quality in the Northwest.
Ames, IA, $300,000.--Determine processes controlling the
effectiveness of biofilters in Midwest agricultural drainage areas.
Florence, SC, $300,000.--Develop best management practices for
effective use of swine manure nutrients.
Predict Ecological Impacts of Extreme Natural Events--$500,000
Lubbock, TX, $250,000.--Develop technology for seasonal and
interannual weather predictions based upon El Nino forecasting to
decisionmaking by dryland farmers.
El Reno, OK, $250,000.--Develop weather forecasting capabilities to
climate variability and forecasts in time scales relevant to
agricultural operations.
air quality--$2,000,000 ($4,923,000 available in fiscal year 1999)
Research on Particulate (PM) Emissions and Controls--$1,500,000
Fresno, CA, $800,000.--Understand processes of agricultural PM
emissions during field operations (equipment usage and burning).
Lubbock, TX, $400,000.--Understand processes of PM emissions by
cattle feed yards, and swine facilities.
Pullman, WA $300,000.--Develop understanding of emission of PM by
agriculture (emphasis on high wind-induced emissions, but also with
attention to burning).
Research on Emission and Control of Odors--$250,000
Clay Center, NE, $250,000.--Determine the influence of cattle diet
on the formation of odor-causing compounds.
Research on Protection of Agricultural Crops from the Effects of
Tropospheric Ozone--$250,000
Raleigh, NC, $250,000.--Develop understanding of the biophysical
processes by which ozone causes crop damage.
global change research--$15,300,000 ($25,806,000 available in fiscal
year 1999)
U.S. Global Change Research Program, Carbon Cycle Research Initiative--
$5,000,000
Ft. Collins, CO, $600,000.--Develop a balance sheet approach to the
modeling and prediction of agricultural emissions and sequestrations of
greenhouse gases at the national scale.
Auburn, AL, $600,000.--Determine the extent of sequestration of
greenhouse gases in cropland soils associated with tillage systems.
Cheyenne, WY, $600,000.--Determine the rate, sources, fate,
seasonal timing, and depths of deposition of organic carbon in cropland
and grazingland soils.
El Reno, OK, $600,000.--Develop methods and establish long-term
monitoring of changes in the carbon balance of various forage
production systems.
Temple, TX, $600,000.--Document rates of storage of atmospheric
greenhouse gases in clay soils.
Athens, GA, $500,000.--Develop and apply new technology for
monitoring methane emissions from cattle, livestock waste lagoons, and
other agricultural sources.
Mandan, ND, $300,000.--Develop data bases suitable for modification
and validation of models which quantify rates of carbon storage in
grazinglands soils.
Pendleton, OR, $300,000.--Develop simple, easily-used models which
accurately predict rates of change in organic carbon content of
cropland soils.
Morris, MN, $300,000.--Document the effects of tillage and other
management options for cold, wet soils with carbon storage.
St. Paul, MN, $300,000.--Develop new technology for accurately
measuring fluxes of carbon dioxide above crops and cropland soils.
Ames, IA, $300,000.--Determine which of the many kinds of microbes
present in cropland soils are most important in altering soil carbon
content.
Mitigating Climate Change Impacts on Food Availability--$2,000,000
Phoenix, AZ, $600,000.--Determine how the availability of water and
plant nutrients interact with rising temperatures and atmospheric
carbon dioxide levels.
Gainesville, FL, $600,000.--Identify the physiological,
biochemical, and genetic mechanisms by which rising temperatures reduce
seed yield and quality of sensitive crops.
Beltsville, MD, $500,000.--Identify germplasm of major crops that
is tolerant of high temperatures, limited availability of water or
nutrients, and elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
Temple, TX, $300,000.--Determine how the effects of rising
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will alter the productivity and water
relations of rangelands.
Impacts of Atmospheric and Climate Change on Alaskan Agro-Ecosystems--
$1,000,000
Fairbanks, AK, $1,000,000.--Initiate research on the effects of a
changing climate and rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels on
Alaskan agriculture.
U.S. Global Change Research Program National Assessment Activities--
$300,000
Headquarters, $300,000.--Participate in developing integrated
assessment of global change impacts on agriculture, food and water
availability, and other relevant resources and sectors of the U.S.
economy, as required by the Global Change Act of 1990.
New Technology for Predicting and Adapting to Global Change Impacts--
$4,000,000
Tucson, AZ, $600,000.--Develop basin-scale simulation models of
soil- vegetation-atmospheric fluxes of water and energy suitable for
prediction of climate change impacts.
Beltsville, MD, $600,000.--Develop models to predict and assess
impacts of weather variation and a changing climate on soil water
availability.
Burns, OR, $600,000.--Develop data bases documenting long term
effects of greenhouse-induced changes in amounts and patterns of
precipitation on the productivity and species composition of rangeland
vegetation.
El Reno, OK, $600,000.--Develop and apply new genetic improvement
of forage cultivars tolerant to elevated temperatures, limited
availability of water, and other extreme environmental conditions.
Boise, ID, $600,000.--Develop and refine simulation models which
accurately predict effects of climate change on the availability of
water from snowmelt in the West.
Raleigh, NC, $600,000.--Develop data bases to describe effects of
rising atmospheric carbon dioxide on population dynamics and damage
inflicted on major crops by insect pests.
Urbana, IL, $400,000.--Develop the molecular technology required in
understanding the ``sucrose transporter gene''.
New Technologies for Improving and Expanding Biomass for Energy--
$3,000,000
Lincoln, NE, $600,000.--Develop improved varieties and management
practices for producing switchgrass and other promising grass species.
Madison, WI $600,000.--Develop processes and machinery for
harvesting, transporting, and storage of crop residues and dedicated
energy crops, for biomass separation.
St. Paul, MN, $600,000.--Develop improved varieties and management
practices for producing alfalfa and other promising legume species.
Tifton, GA, $600,000.--Develop more productive varieties and
improved management practices for switchgrass and other grasses.
Miss. State, MS, $600,000.--Develop persistent and productive
legume/grass mixtures for biofuel production.
agricultural genomes--$2,750,000 ($44,936,000 available in fiscal year
1999)
Genomic Approaches for Improving Economically Important Traits in
Livestock, Poultry, and Fish that Affect Animal Health and
Economic Yield--$300,000
Beltsville, MD, $300,000.--Identify genetic basis for mammary gland
resistance to mastitis and productivity.
Bioinformatic Tools, Biological Databases, and Information Management
Technology--$1,100,000
Clay Center, NE, $500,000.--Develop methods to compare and analyze
large numbers of DNA sequences for livestock genes, affecting
production traits.
Beltsville, MD, $300,000.--Enhance the interconnection and
interoperability of the GRIN and genome databases.
Columbia, MO, $300,000.--Develop software to improve the
statistical precision of mapping genes and locating QTLs.
Genomic Approaches to Characterizing and Improving the Productivity of
Microbes of Industrial or Medicinal Importance--$650,000
Peoria, IL, $350,000.--Apply genomic tools to discover genotypes of
fungi, bacteria, actinomycete used to produce medicine or industrial
products by fermentation and other biochemical processes.
Beltsville, MD, $300,000.--Develop knowledge of the genomes of the
plant pest nematode, soybean cyst nematode, and of the swine pest
nematode, Ascaris.
Characterize Genome of Insects which are Pollinators, Either Beneficial
or Pests of Crops--$300,000
Baton Rouge, LA, $300,000.--Apply genomic tools to develop bees
with resistance to mites and disease.
Functional Genomic Approaches to Manipulating the Function of Important
Genes in Crops--$400,000
Albany, CA, $400,000.--Investigate the congruence of patterns in
gene expression (as measured by mRNA occurrence).
food quality protection act implementation--$3,167,000 ($90,992,000
available in fiscal year 1999)
Areawide IPM Programs Demonstrating Alternatives to At-Risk
Pesticides--$1,000,000
Headquarters, $1,000,000.--Develop increased areawide IPM programs
focused on replacements for at-risk pesticides.
Support for USDA Office of Pest Management Policy--$1,500,000
Headquarters, $1,500,000.--Support for the USDA Office of Pest
Management and Policy (OPMP).
Develop IPM Component Technology for Fruits and Vegetables Treated with
Organophosphates and Carbamates and for Pests Under Large-Scale
Action Agency Eradication or Control Programs--$667,000
Ft. Pierce, FL, $300,000.--Manage vegetable disease by control of
vectors and disease transmission.
College Station, TX, $367,000.--Develop IPM technologies to replace
malathion for boll weevil control and eradication.
emerging and exotic diseases, and pests of crops--$8,133,000
($127,702,000 available in fiscal year 1999)
Wheat and Barley Scab--$900,000
St. Paul, MN, $300,000.--Conduct research on spring wheat genetics
for resistance to wheat scab.
Fargo, ND, $300,000.--Conduct research on durham wheat and barley
for resistance to Fusarium head blight.
Peoria, IL, $100,000.--Conduct research on control of vomitoxin and
biocontrol of wheat scab.
Madison, WI, $75,000.--Conduct research on the molecular biology of
wheat transformation.
Albany, CA, $50,000.--Conduct research on wheat genetics for
resistance to wheat scab.
Raleigh, NC $75,000.--Conduct research on wheat scab epidemiology
in the Southeastern U.S.
New Emerging and Exotic Diseases--$600,000
Charleston, SC, $300,000.--Develop biologically-based control
measures for management of nematodes and insects of vegetable crops.
Fort Pierce, FL, $300,000.--Develop improved methods for detection,
identification, and control of whitefly-transmitted plant viruses.
Emerging and Exotic Weeds/Plant Pests--$2,033,000
Headquarters, $733,000.--Support scale-up pilot tests for areawide
IPM implementation.
Montpellier, FR, $300,000.--Plant ecology and molecular taxomony-
based foreign studies on the biology, genetics, and natural control of
insect and weed pests in sites of origin.
Sidney, MT, $700,000.--Develop biologically-based weed IPM with
emphasis on using plant pathogen agents for rangeland and crop weeds.
Miami, FL, $300,000.--Conduct biological control research in
support of APHIS' exotic pest control programs in the Caribbean Basin.
Systematics of Invasive Weeds and Other Pests--$500,000
Beltsville, MD, $500,000.--Develop the systematics and taxonomy of
key invading pest species and biological control agents for weed pests.
Rapid Identification, Prevention, and Control of Emerging Exotic
Infectious Diseases of Livestock and Aquaculture--$1,300,000
Orient Point, NY, $1,300,000.--Compare the pathogenesis of new
variants of classical swine fever (hog cholera) viruses from recent
Western hemisphere and European outbreaks.
Rapid Identification, Prevention, and Control of Emerging Domestic
Infectious and Zoonotic Diseases of Livestock--$900,000
East Lansing, MI, $300,000.--Develop DNA sequence databases and the
needed diagnostic tools for investigations of the genetic diversity of
the retrovirus, avian leukosis subgroup J.
Ames, IA, $300,000.--Determine how chronic wasting disease is
transmitted through environmental contamination or animal contact on
the range.
Beltsville, MD, $300,000.--Investigate mechanisms of drug
resistance in coccidia in poultry.
Develop Vaccines for Brucellosis in Wildlife--$1,000,000
Ames, IA, $1,000,000.--Develop vaccines for brucellosis of
wildlife.
Livestock Pests--$900,000
Lincoln, NE, $300,000.--Determine larval breeding sites, and IPM
strategies to control stable flies.
Gainesville, FL, $300,000.--Develop wide area projects to control
fire ants.
Weslaco, TX, $300,000.--Develop methods to control the small hive
beetle.
food safety--$11,720,000 ($69,868,000 available in fiscal year 1999)
Pathogen Control in Fruits and Vegetables--$2,100,000
Beltsville, MD, $600,000.--Investigate the ecology of foodborne
pathogens on fresh cut produce to optimize varieties of fruits and
vegetables.
Wyndmoor, PA, $900,000.--Develop methods of inhibiting pathogens on
whole and fresh-cut fruits and vegetables, using irradiation, and steam
pasteurization.
Albany, CA, $600,000.--Quantify effects of phytochemicals and
environmental conditions on growth and survival of E. coli O157:H7,
salmonella and campylobacter on the surface of fruits and vegetables.
Pathogen Control During Slaughter and Processing--$700,000
Athens, GA, $700,000.--Develop system for on-line detection of
unwholesome poultry in slaughter plants.
Investigate Antimicrobial Resistance--$1,620,000
Wyndmoor, PA, $900,000.--Develop molecular characterization methods
to facilitate identification of the resistant pathogens detected in
food.
Peoria, IL, $720,000.--Establish culture collections of resistant
and nonresistant bacterial and fungal pathogens.
Manure Handling and Distribution--$2,500,000
Miss. State, MS, $600,000.--Develop practical and economical
pathogen reduction process methods to handle and treat manure in
poultry production operations.
Ames, IA, $400,000.--Develop practical and economical pathogen
reduction process methods to handle and treat manure in swine
production operations.
Clay Center, NE, $300,000.--Develop practical and economical
pathogen reduction process methods to handle and treat manure in swine
production operations.
Lincoln, NE, $300,000.--Develop practical and economical pathogen
reduction process methods to handle and treat manure in swine
production operations.
Bushland, TX, $600,000.--Develop practical and economical pathogen
reduction process methods to handle and treat manure in cattle
production operations.
Phoenix, AZ, $300,000.--Determine the identity and amounts of
viable, bacterial, and parasitic, and zoonotic pathogens associated
with the use of municipal wastewater when used in irrigation of crops.
Antibiotic Resistance--$1,800,000
Athens, GA, $600,000.--Determine factors favoring the acquisition
and dissemination of resistance genes among pathogens and nonpathogens,
particularly for poultry.
Ames, IA, $600,000.--Determine the factors or conditions favoring
the acquisition and dissemination of resistance genes among pathogens
and nonpathogens, particularly in relation to cattle and swine.
College Station, TX, $600,000.--Develop basic information, using
chemostat model systems, on the time and dose dependency of various
antibiotics.
Risk Assessment--$2,400,000
Athens, GA, $600,000.--Develope data for use in assessing risk on
the contamination of poultry presented for slaughter.
West Lafayette, IN, $600,000.--Assess the risk of various swine
production practices, and transportation systems on contamination of
the animals as they are presented for slaughter.
Clay Center, NE, $600,000.--Develop data for use in assessing risk
on the contamination of cattle as they are presented for slaughter.
Beltsville, MD, $600,000.--Develop predictive models for the risk
of transmission of zoonotic parasites through farm management systems,
animal manure and water runoff.
Reduce Fungal Toxins--$300,000
Athens, GA, $300,000.--Develop methods to prevent the occurrence of
endophytic fungi in corn and grasses, in particular those fungi
producing the fumonisins and ergot alkaloids.
Reduce Zoonotic Disease Risk--$300,000
Fayetteville, AR, $300,000.--Develop knowledge of diseases in
chickens and turkeys to prevent the serious manifestations of
osteoporosis, anoxia, and ascites.
human nutrition--$20,250,000 ($69,121,000 available in fiscal year
1999)
phase 3 of the president's human nutrition research initiative--
$20,250,000
Update the National Nutrient Database--$2,200,000
Beltsville, MD, $2,200,000.--Analyze the nutrient content of those
key foods that supply the bulk of the important nutrients in the
American diet.
Development of Food Composition Methods--$1,200,000
Beltsville, MD, $1,200,000.--Develop robust analytical methods to
determine the concentration of nutrients in foods.
Determination of Healthy Body Weight--$2,500,000
Beltsville, MD, $600,000.--Investigate energy restriction and
physical activity as they relate to tissue metabolic activity and body
composition.
Houston, TX, $600,000.--Identify the alterations in biochemical and
neuropsychological regulators of energy intake, energy expenditure and
appetite that relate to childhood obesity.
San Francisco, CA, $700,000.--Assess detrimental energy effects
including reduced immune response, diminished short term memory and
reduced energy needs.
Little Rock, AR, $600,000.--Study the interaction of diet with the
long term physical and cognitive indicators of health in older
children.
Role of Nutrition in Bone Growth and Maintenance--$3,600,000
Boston, MA, $1,200,000.--Assess the requirements for nutrients
critical to bone health and the prevention of osteoporosis in aging
adults.
Houston, TX, $1,200,000.--Determine factors that affect the ability
of rapidly growing children to absorb and utilize minerals from animal
and vegetable sources for the formation of bone.
Grand Forks, ND, $600,000.--Assess the role of mineral elements and
their interactions relative to bone growth.
Little Rock, AR, $600,000.--Determine the effects of early dietary
factors on long-term consequences of bone growth.
Development of Biomarkers of Nutritional Status--$3,500,000
Beltsville, MD, $700,000.--Study the relationship between immune
competence and diet.
Houston, TX, $600,000.--Study the effects of colostrum and other
dietary factors on skeletal muscle protein in the rapidly growing
neonate.
San Francisco, CA, $1,200,000.--Identify sensitive biomarkers that
are indicative of health promotion.
Grand Forks, ND, $1,000,000.--Identify the regulatory genes of
importance that are responsive to trace minerals in the diet.
Cognition and Brain Function--$3,450,000
Boston, MA, $500,000.--Assess dietary factors that alter vascular
reactivity and brain function in the elderly.
Grand Forks, ND, $600,000.--Study the relationship between mineral
nutriture and cognitive function including reasoning, memory and visual
perception.
Little Rock, AR, $1,700,000.--Study cognitive and social
development of growth delayed in malnourished infants and children.
Little Rock, AR, $650,000.--Determine the precise relationship
between nutrients in the diet and the development of cognition in
children.
Diet and Immune Function--$2,100,000
San Francisco, CA, $900,000.--Define the relationship between
nutrition and the induction of the synthesis of immunoglobulins.
Boston, MA, $300,000.--Determine changes in the immune response
that occur throughout the aging process.
Beltsville, MD, $500,000.--Expand studies of the effect of
nutritional status of a host on viral pathogen.
Little Rock, AR, $400,000.--Determine foods in the diets of young
children that have a positive effect on growth and development.
Role of Nutrition Throughout the Life-Cycle--$1,300,000
Houston, TX, $800,000.--Define the relationship of nutritional
status at various stages of childhood.
Boston, MA, $500,000.--Develop measures which help delineate the
relationship between diet and the development of vascular dementia in
the elderly, and between diet and the rate of physical form and
function in the elderly.
Enhanced Dietary Survey Methodology--$400,000
Beltsville, MD, $400,000.--Continue development of telephone
technology for use in dietary surveys with the aim of reducing cost and
improving accuracy.
agricultural information--$2,000,000 ($19,948,000 available in fiscal
year 1999)
Information Services for Rural America--$2,000,000
NAL, $2,000,000.--Develop enhanced methods to communicate critical
agricultural information to rural America.
TOTAL ALL PROGRAM INCREASES: $76,420,000
Question. An increase of $8.1 million is proposed for fiscal year
2000 for research on emerging diseases and exotic pests. Provide a
summary of total ARS funding for emerging diseases and exotic pests for
each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999 and that requested for fiscal year
2000, along with a brief description of the project and where the
research is currently being conducted, or is proposed to be conducted.
Answer. The Agricultural Research Service devoted $109,772,700 in
fiscal year 1998, $127,701,500 in fiscal year 1999, and proposes
$148,273,000 in fiscal year 2000 for research on emerging diseases and
exotic pests. A description of the current research and the locations
where the research is being conducted is provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
Location/Research Description Fiscal year 1999 funds
Auburn, AL (Aquaculture diseases, diagnosis and
prevention)......................................... $1,913,700
Fayetteville, AR (Food safety/pathogen reduction in
poultry)............................................ 293,800
Albany, CA (Food safety/pathogen reduction in fruits and
vegetables/yellowstar thistle/salt cedar ).......... 6,180,900
Davis, CA (Control of diseases of perennial crops)...... 70,600
Fresno, CA (Alternatives to Methyl Bromide)............. 762,300
Funds Riverside, CA (Food safety/pathogen reduction in
fruits, vegetables, beef and poultry/animal manure/
alternatives to Methyl Bromide)..................... 734,100
I89 Salinas, CA (Alternatives to Methyl Bromide)........ 428,700
Fort Collins, CO (Diseases of sugar beets).............. 242,100
Washington, DC (Control of diseases of ornamentals/
alternatives to Methyl Bromide)..................... 952,600
Newark, DE (Quarantine clearance, biology and ecology).. 1,018,300
Canal Point, FL (Control of sugarcane diseases)......... 123,400
Fort Lauderdale, FL (Control of wetland and aquatic
weeds).............................................. 749,700
Gainesville, FL (Control of arthropod pests of livestock
and humans)......................................... 5,633,400
Orlando (Ft. Pierce, FL) (Alternatives to Methyl
Bromide)............................................ 939,900
Athens, GA (Food safety/pathogen reduction in poultry).. 10,058,400
Byron, GA (Control of nematodes and diseases of peaches) 209,700
Griffin, GA (Quarantine clearance/disease
identification)..................................... 82,800
Tifton, GA (Integrated nematode management on irrigated
crops and control of diseases of forage and turf)... 633,000
Ames, IA (Zoonotic diseases such as brucellosis,
leptospirosis, tuberculosis and infectious diseases
of cattle and swine/food safety/pathogen reduction
in cattle and swine)................................ 20,570,100
Peoria, IL (Infectious diseases of livestock/biological
control of root and tuber diseases)................. 1,238,900
Urbana, IL (Control of Soybean Cyst Nematode)........... 112,000
West Lafayette, IL (Food safety/pathogen reduction in
swine).............................................. 296,400
New Orleans, LA (Control of diseases and insects in
sugarcane).......................................... 219,300
Beltsville, MD (Systematics, biology, ecology and
management of plant diseases and pests/parasitic
diseases/mastitis/food safety/pathogen reduction in
swine, fruits and vegetables)....................... 18,852,900
Frederick (Ft. Detrick, MD) (Pathogen quarantine
clearance, biology and ecology)..................... 1,414,400
East Lansing, MI (Tumorigenic viruses of poultry)....... 2,088,600
St. Paul, MN (Control of forage disease)................ 52,900
Columbia, MO (Stress in pigs)........................... 617,600
Mississippi State, MS (Control of mycoplasmosis in
poultry)............................................ 544,900
Oxford, MS (Biological control of pests and diseases)... 277,700
Funds Stoneville, MS (Application technology and
bioherbicides/control of Soybean Cyst Nematode)..... 248,600
Sidney, MT (Control of rangeland weeds)................. 694,900
Raleigh, NC (Control of diseases in wheat).............. 146,100
Fargo, ND (Food safety/toxins/leafy spurge)............. 296,400
Clay Center, NE (Herd health/food safety/pathogen
reduction in cattle)................................ 5,191,600
Lincoln, NE (Control of livestock pests)................ 1,031,200
Ithaca, NY (Control of potato nematodes and diseases/
small grain viruses/grape rootstocks................ 1,496,100)
Orient Point, NY (Highly infectious exotic animal
diseases)........................................... 9,678,300
Wooster, OH (Pesticide application technology/control of
corn virus diseases)................................ 271,600
Stillwater, OK (Control of Russian Wheat Aphid)......... 196,600
Corvallis, OR (Control of diseases in nursery crops,
ornamentals and small fruits)....................... 1,448,600
Wyndmoor, PA (Food safety/pathogen reduction in animal
products, fruits and vegetables).................... 8,692,900
Charleston, SC (Control of nematodes and diseases of
vegetables)......................................... 486,600
College Station, TX (Food safety/pathogen reduction in
poultry, swine and cattle/application technology/
control of cotton disea-
ses)................................................ 4,407,500
Kerrville, TX (Integrated pest management of ticks and
biting
flies).............................................. 4,338,500
Lubbock, TX (Food safety/pathogen reduction of cattle).. 281,600
Temple, TX (Biological control of salt cedar and musk
thistle)............................................ 147,200
Weslaco, TX (Integrated production systems)............. 594,600
Logan, UT (Food safety/poisonous plants effect on
livestock).......................................... 63,600
Prosser, WA (Potato variety improvement)................ 384,200
Pullman, WA (Control of smut diseases of grains/
tickborne diseases/transmissible spongiform
encephalopathy)..................................... 3,277,600
Wenatchee, WA (Control of diseases of tree fruits)...... 344,000
Kearneysville, WV (Fruit production and disease control) 677,200
Laramie, WY (Vector-borne diseases of livestock)........ 3,454,700
Buenos Aires, Argentina (Foreign exploration, biology,
ecology, testing, and shipment)..................... 507,000
Montpellier, France (Foreign exploration, biology,
ecology, testing and shipment)...................... 1,051,000
Panama City, Panama (Screwworm eradication)............. 980,200
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 127,701,500
A description of the proposed research and the locations where the
research is being proposed to be conducted which is included in the
fiscal year 2000 Emerging Diseases and Exotic Pests increase is
provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
Emerging diseases and exotic pests
Emerging exotic infectious diseases of livestock: Orient
Point, NY--Hog cholera pathogenesis and vaccines..........$1,300,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Emerging domestic infectious and zoonotic diseases of
livestock:
E. Lansing, MI--Avian Leukosis J virus diagnosis and
vaccines................................................ 300,000
Ames, IA--chronic wasting disease control................. 300,000
Beltsville, MD--drug resistance in coccidia of poultry.... 300,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal................................................ 900,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Vaccines for brucellosis in wildlife: Ames, IA--brucellosis
vaccines for wildlife..................................... 1,000,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Livestock pests:
Lincoln, NE--integrated pest management of stable flies on
cattle.................................................. 300,000
Gainesville, FL--fire ants control........................ 300,000
Weslaco, TX--control of small hivebeetle (pest of bees)... 300,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal................................................ 900,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Emerging and exotic plant pests/weeds:
Headquarters--areawide IPM implementation................. 733,000
Montpellier, FR--plant ecology and molecular taxonomy..... 300,000
Sidney, MT--biologically-based weed IPM................... 700,000
Miami, FL--biological control of pests in Caribbean Basin. 300,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal................................................ 2,033,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
New emerging and exotic plant diseases:
Charleston, SC--biological control of nematodes and
insects................................................. 300,000
Fort Pierce, FL--whitefly-transmitted plant viruses....... 300,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal................................................ 600,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Wheat and barley scab:
St. Paul, MN--spring wheat genetics for wheat scab........ 300,000
Fargo, ND--fusarium head blight........................... 300,000
Peoria, IL--vomitoxin and biocontrol of wheat scab........ 100,000
Madison, WI--molecular biology of wheat transformation.... 75,000
Albany, CA--wheat genetics................................ 50,000
Raleigh, NC--wheat scab epidemiology...................... 75,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal................................................ 900,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Systematics of invasive weeds/pests: Beltsville, MD--
systematics and taxonomy.................................. 500,000
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 8,133,000
Question. What has been accomplished through research on emerging
and exotic pests?
Answer. Key accomplishments of ARS research on emerging and exotic
pests and weeds include establishment of nine biological control agents
against leafy spurge, a major weed that costs ND, SD, MT and WY alone
$144.4 million/year. Biological control with co-evolved natural enemies
is the only option for affordable, sustainable, and environmentally
compatible leafy spurge management. For example, the introduced flea
beetles (Aphthona spp.) cause 80 percent reduction of leafy spurge at
release sites. A TEAM Leafy Spurge group has been formed to manage ARS'
newest areawide pest management program (AWPM), against leafy spurge.
Biological, chemical and cultural control of leafy spurge is managed as
part of the ARS-funded ($4.5 million over five years) TEAM Leafy Spurge
project, which involves other Federal agencies and States.
Another major accomplishment is the establishment of a weevil
against the Australian plant melaleuca, a major wetlands invasive
exotic weed in the Florida Everglades. Early damage on melaleuca by the
weevil is significant. Melaleuca has changed the drainage in a large
part of southern Florida: it spreads at the rate of 50 acres/day, and
occupies 500,000 acres of native wetlands. Biological control is the
only option for long-term, affordable, environmentally compatible
management of melaleuca, and several other natural enemies are slated
for release over the next several years.
Waterhyacinth, an invasive floating aquatic weed from South
America, has been managed by the introduction of two weevil species,
saving the southeastern U.S. millions of dollars, and reducing pressure
on native aquatic and wetlands plants. This technology has been
transferred to other countries (e.g., Australia and Africa) to help
manage waterhyacinth.
Many other invasive weed species infest large portions of the U.S.,
causing loss of productivity and biological diversity, displacement of
native vegetation, and job loss. There are annual losses of $13 billion
from weeds in the U.S.
Pests such as codling moth, corn rootworm, stored grain insects,
corn earworm/tobacco budworm, Russian wheat aphid, Colorado potato
beetle, boll weevil, sweetpotato whitefly, and fruit flies are targets
of the successful ARS AWPM programs. As with the leafy spurge AWPM
program, these projects are funded at about $1 million/year for five
years, about half of which funds work by partners in other Federal
agencies and States. As examples of accomplishments of the ARS AWPM
program, details of two of these projects follow.
Codling moth is a serious pest of apples and pears in the U.S. In
1994, before the AWPM program was initiated, only 11,000 acres were
treated with mating disruption technology in Washington State. By 1998,
there were more than 44,000 acres using the technology throughout
Washington, Oregon, and California. A result of the diminished use of
hard pesticides has been a resurgence in the natural enemy populations
that have exerted almost complete control of secondary pests, and
further reduced the costs of insect control on apples and pears in this
three-state area. Populations of codling moth were reduced to almost
undetectable levels at some of the 17 project sites. The cost of the
control was less in the mating disruption treated orchards than in
orchards treated with conventional organo-phosphate pesticides.
Corn rootworm populations can be reduced by 85 to 95 percent with
less than 10 percent of the chemicals used in current corn rootworm
control regimes by using adult attracticide baits developed by ARS and
now marketed by industry. This technology is the basis for the AWPM
program on corn rootworm in the midwestern U.S. and Texas, which
includes more than 25,000 acres in the research demonstration project.
The ARS research on invasive pests has led to a better
understanding of the ways that these pests are introduced into the U.S.
(leading to better exclusion techniques), eradication of incipient
populations before they become pests, and management of established
populations through biologically based integrated pest management. ARS
plans and implements management of invasive species by closely working
with customers and partners such as the USDA-Forest Service, USDA-
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, universities and State
departments.
Question. What new threats of plant and animal diseases and pests
has the agency identified and what new and expanded research
initiatives are proposed to address these problems?
Answer. Plant Pests.--New invasive species are discovered every
month in the U.S. ARS has proposed several new initiatives to control
these threats as they occur. Recently, for example, giant salvinia was
discovered in Louisiana and Texas. This invasive floating weed from
Brazil was successfully managed in Australia, Papua New Guinea and
Africa by introduction of a small weevil in a biological control
program. A USDA-State team is in the process of developing an
integrated weed management program for the U.S.
The Asian gypsy moth, a close relative of the gypsy moth, is
periodically discovered in the U.S. This species could further
devastate trees in the U.S. However, rapid detection and eradication by
USDA and States has prevented its establishment.
Programs are developed in advance of threats of invasion by key
pest species. For example, ARS and APHIS, together with international
colleagues, implemented a biological control program for the pink
hibiscus mealybug in the Caribbean that resulted in management of this
pest. Should the mealybug arrive in the U.S., the biological control
technology is already available to quickly manage the pest.
New threats from other invasive weeds such as salt cedar, mile-a-
minute weed, kudzu, Chinese tallow, tropical soda apple and other
related species, and miconia, and insects such as the Asian longhorned
beetle, giant whitefly, etc., continue to invade the U.S. Research
initiatives concentrating on learning more about the basic biology,
systematics, and ecology of these invasive species, leading to
implementation of biologically based integrated pest management
programs have been proposed for each region of the country.
ARS has approximately 70 projects at 29 locations conducting basic
and applied research directly related to integrated pest management
(IPM). Current and planned future IPM studies in support of the
Department's IPM goal are tailored to each pest and designed to be
sustainable over time.
Animal Diseases.--Changes in animal production practices, climate
change, and increased international trade and travel are creating new
opportunities for the reemergence and spread of infectious diseases and
pests. Control of diseases is needed in both domestic and wild animals,
as the latter are reservoirs of disease. Emerging threats have been
identified from avian leukosis, chronic wasting disease of cervids,
drug-resistant coccidiosis, wildlife brucellosis, and stable flies.
New and expanded program thrusts include:
Research to develop a new generation of biochemical and DNA based
diagnostic tools for sensitive and rapid detection of exotic pathogens
and to develop new vaccines.
Identification, prevention, and control of emerging domestic
infectious and zoonotic diseases of livestock and aquaculture,
including avian leukosis, chronic wasting disease, and coccidiosis.
Development of vaccines for brucellosis in wildlife.
Control of livestock pest flies through biologically based IPM
strategies.
pay costs
Question. ARS is requesting $9,930,000 to finance pay costs for
fiscal year 2000. Is this the total required to meet the cost of
mandatory pay requirements? If not, what additional amount would be
required to meet these costs? If the full amount is not being provided,
what will the impact of absorbing these mandatory pay requirements?
Answer. The $9,930,000 represents half of the total required to
meet the cost of the mandatory, pay requirements in fiscal year 2000.
An additional $8,768,000 is required to fully finance pay cost needs of
$18,698,000. These funds are critical to support an effective and
responsive USDA in-house research capability. Absorption of the pay
costs will result in further erosion of the Agency's capacity to
maintain viable research programs. To cover these anticipated pay
increases, resources will have to be shifted from other research
requirements such as: travel, equipment, supplies, contracts, etc.,
thereby impacting the productivity of many ARS locations. Continuing
absorption of these costs consequently reduces the number of scientists
and support personnel who can be supported with ARS funds. These
individuals are needed to carry out the USDA in-house research mission
and objectives.
Question. Provide a table showing historical data for each fiscal
year from 1992 to 2000: (1) ARS pay cost requirements; (2) the funding
requested in the President's budget to meet these requirements; and (3)
the amount appropriated to meet these costs.
Answer. The information you requested is provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
[Pay cost history]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency President's
Years Requirements Budget Request Appropriated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000............................................................ $18,698,000 $9,930,000 ..............
1999............................................................ 14,805,000 12,201,000 ..............
1998............................................................ 17,021,000 6,407,000 ..............
1997............................................................ 11,745,000 6,576,000 ..............
1996............................................................ 9,703,000 9,091,000 ..............
1995............................................................ 11,119,000 4,201,000 $4,202,000
1994............................................................ 19,705,000 8,628,000 ..............
1993............................................................ 17,328,000 7,387,000 ..............
1992............................................................ 16,281,000 16,042,000 16,042,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Provide a short explanation for each of fiscal years 1995
to 1999 of how pay costs were absorbed by the agency and the
consequences of absorption of these costs on agency operations and
activities, including research productivity and the hiring of
scientists.
Answer. As indicated in the preceding table, ARS has absorbed some
$60 million of costs associated with mandatory Federal pay raises from
1995 through 1999. These costs were absorbed by every ARS research
laboratory throughout the Agency. Each laboratory was required to
finance the costs of increased salaries and benefits within its
operating budget. Financial plans for each year reflected reductions in
other important research expenditures to accommodate these increased
costs. Expenditures pursuant to research--travel, scientific equipment,
cooperative agreements, research supplies, hiring of full-time and
temporary personnel, and post-doctoral support--have been reduced to
pay the higher personnel compensation due to pay raises. Research
productivity is seriously eroded under these circumstances.
Because program increases are generally directed to specific
locations, most ARS locations and research units do not benefit from
annual appropriation increases and are facing tight financial
situations.
In order to hire replacement scientists ARS must have the assurance
that the funding will be available to fully support scientist needs
required in attaining their research mission. Because of these
absorptions, many research units have not been able to fill scientific
and technical positions. Research units cannot effectively hire
scientists and provide the adequate funding necessary for essential
laboratory and operating costs. Research is curtailed; productivity at
the bench is diminished; and benefits postponed.
ars role in counter-narcotics/anti-bioterrorism research
Question. For fiscal year 1999, $23 million in emergency
supplemental appropriations, along with an additional $4.5 million
transfer of funds from the Office of National Drug Control Policy
(ONDCP) has been made available to the ARS for counter-narcotics
research. Provide a detailed description of the research work this
funding is being used to support, the amount of funds allocated to each
project, and who will conduct this work. Please show the allocation of
the $4.5 million transferred from the Office of National Drug Control
Policy separately from the allocation of the $23 million emergency
appropriations.
Answer. Of the allocation of $23 million, $10 million was earmarked
for an external contract for the biological control of coca, opium and
cannabis; $5 million to ARS for herbicidal and biological control
research; $5 million to ARS for alternative crop research; and, $3
million to ARS for research on illicit narcotic plant chemistry, remote
sensing and illicit crop estimation.
Specific allocations are as follows:
Herbicidal and Biological Control of Narcotics, $5,000,000
Frederick, MD: $2,000,000 to investigate augmentative biological
control of poppy
Stoneville, MS: $1,000,000 to investigate augmentative biological
control of coca and cannabis
Albany, CA: $1,000,000 to investigate classical biological control
of poppy, coca and cannabis
Headquarters: $1,000,000 for cooperative agreements on foreign
exploration, host specificity testing, and mass rearing of biological
control agents for narcotic plants
Alternative Crop Research, $5,000,000
Beltsville, MD: $500,000 to determine Phytopthora resistance in
potato and cacao
Miami, FL: $300,000 to develop DNA markers of cacao resistance to
Crinipellis, Phytopthora and Moniliopthora
Ft. Pierce, FL: $300,000 to develop disease resistance in tropical
tree fruit crops
Mayaguez, PR: $500,000 for breeding resistance in tree crops,
including cacao and banana, mango, mangosteen and papaya
Starkville, MS: $300,000 to develop coffee berry borer artificial
diet for biological control purposes
Organization of American States: $666,667 for field trials in Peru for
the biological control of cacao pests
USDA/APHIS: $100,000 for assistance in tropical crop export
promotion in Peru
University of Mississippi: $194,444 for biocontrol of cannabis
CABI Biosciences, U.K.: $888,889 to conduct cacao breeding,
resistance field trials and biological control assessments
University of Maryland: $1,250,000 to develop predictive models of
the epidemiology of tropical crop diseases in Colombia
Narcotic Plant Biochemistry and Identification, $3,000,000
Beltsville, MD: $500,000 to develop test models for relating opium
gum yield to capsule size for worldwide opium production estimates
Beltsville, MD: $1,500,000 to develop molecular markers that
characterize coca, opium poppy and cannabis populations, species and
cultivars in their different native and introduced areas
Beltsville, MD: $1,000,000 to test and refine yield models of
narcotic crops, gather data to enhance model performance, combine
models with weather and topographic data for predictive data, examine
multispectral data for remote sensing of narcotic crops
Biological Control Contract, $10,000,000
Contract: $10,000,000 for a contract for product development,
environmental testing, registration, production, aerial distribution,
evaluation of product effectiveness and modification of biological
control agents of coca, opium poppy and cannabis.
The allocation of $4.5 million was provided through the ONDCP to
ARS by means of an interagency transfer of funds. Specific allocations
are as follows:
Beltsville, MD: $2,337,000 for construction and instrumentation of
containment greenhouse facilities
Beltsville, MD: $166,000 for equipment associated with containment
greenhouse operations and a research field site at the University of
Hawaii, Kauai
Beltsville, MD: $166,000 for postdoctoral position to work on
mycoherbicides and alternative crops
Stoneville, MS: $222,000 for a cooperative agreement with
University of Mississippi on the use of fungi to control cannabis
production
Starkville, MS: $333,000 for a cooperative agreement with
Mississippi State to work with Colombian counterparts on coffee berry
borer parasatoids as biological control agents for coffee pests
Miami, FL: $166,000 for cooperative agreement with University of
Florida to identify genetic markers for resistance to crinipellis in
cocoa
Centro Internationale Agropecuria Tropicale, Colombiam: $277,000 to
evaluate market growth potential for cocoa, oil palm, and field trials
for temperate and tropical tree fruit crops
U.S. Department of State, Bureau of International Narcotics:
$500,000 for a cooperative agreement with the United Nations Drug
Control Program for monitoring biological control tests overseas
Bozeman, MT: $333,000 for cooperative agreement with Montana State
University to enhance the efficiency, yields, alkaloid extraction and
processing capability of the licit opium industry in Turkey
Question. Because the fiscal year 1999 funding made available to
the ARS for counter-narcotics research is one year emergency funding,
what is ARS doing to make sure that this funding does not increase the
agency's base requirements for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. Without an increase in base funds, we will not implement
the program with an increase in permanent staff. Of the $23 million,
Congress earmarked $10 million for a biological control contract. Once
awarded, the contract will be self-sustaining and will not increase ARS
base resource requirements. The balance of the funds ($13 million) is
earmarked for $5 million in alternative crop research, $5 million in
illicit crop eradication research and $3 million for narcotic plant
chemistry, remote sensing, illicit crop detection and worldwide illicit
crop estimates. In addition to some purchases for equipment, the
research will primarily be carried out through extramural agreements
and limited-term, in-house, post-doctoral appointments. Extramural
agreements will run for a period of five years and then expire; post-
doctoral appointments for two years.
Question. Does the Department believe the Agricultural Research
Service should be involved in counter-narcotics research? If so, what
should be its role?
Answer. ARS should be involved in counter-narcotics research. The
agency serves in a research support role to federal and international
action agencies. ARS has unique expertise which makes the agency well-
qualified to work in the plant sciences, which includes narcotic crops.
For example, our expertise in plant pathology allows us to support
programs in the development of biological control technologies for
narcotic crops and research into diseases which affect tropical
agriculture, specifically, alternatives to narcotic crop cultivation.
Similarly, plant genetics are applied to improving varieties of coffee,
cocoa and tropical tree crops, essential to developing the economies of
many Andean and Central American economies. The agency has significant
experience in spectral imaging of vegetation in mixed environments, as
well as crop modeling, which is directly applicable to illicit crop
estimation and detection. Our experience in weed science and herbicide
application technology has direct impact upon the eradication programs
for coca and opium, currently being implemented in Colombia.
ARS has a long history in narcotic plant research beginning with
assisting the United Nations and Drug Enforcement Administration in
evaluating strategies for the eradication of illicit narcotic crops and
developing alternative crops, primarily in Thailand. Currently, our
mission continues to be one of support of U.S. and international action
and policy agencies, including the Office of National Drug Control
Policy, the Department of State, United Nations Drug Control Program,
and the U.S. intelligence community.
Question. Is the Agricultural Research Service involved in the
Administration's bioterrorism initiative? If so, what is the role?
Answer. While ARS has no specific line item appropriation in
support of the Administration's bioterrorism initiative, the Agency is
actively involved in this program. The agricultural sector must play an
integral part in the development of a coordinated, comprehensive
national strategy to protect the security of the nation's food supplies
in the event of a bioterrorism emergency. To this end, ARS has worked
vigorously to have food and agriculture recognized as a critical
infrastructure. In this regard, the Agency is posturing itself to
engage this issue more directly, both internally and externally in
terms of program and infrastructure requirements.
Naturally occurring pathogens and pests which could be used as
biological agents against agriculture are widely available in foreign
countries. Also, technologies, expertise, and delivery platforms
related to many types of biological and chemical weapons are commonly
employed in normal commercial agricultural practice world wide.
ARS' ongoing mission is highly relevant to the Administration's
bioterrorism initiative. The research to protect crops and livestock
from the farm gate to the consumer's table is a priority concern. ARS
research on emerging exotic diseases of livestock carried out at the
Plum Island Animal Disease Center and the National Animal Disease
Center are central to this effort. Research carried out at other ARS
laboratories on wheat scab, for example, is pertinent to the
bioterrorism concern. Invasive species of agricultural crops is also
central to this issue. The ARS infrastructure is of critical importance
in assessing vulnerabilities to bioterrorism. The upgrade and
modernization of ARS laboratories is also essential to this program. In
fact, biocontainment capabilities at a number of ARS research
locations--including the Plum Island Animal Disease Center to the
National Animal Disease Center--can serve as the primary means for
supporting the characterization of biological weapons-related pathogens
in the event of a bioterrorism incident.
management
Question. ARS does not receive separate appropriations for its
management and overhead expenses. How are these costs funded?
Answer. ARS program and administrative management activities
include the Administrator's Office; National Program Staff; Civil
Rights Staff; Information Staff; Office of Technology Transfer; Budget
and Program Management Staff; Eight Area Directors' and Administrative
support; Human Resources Management; Information Technology Division;
Procurement and Property Division; Extramural Agreements Division;
Financial Management Division and Facilities Division. In addition to
support of these internal management organizations, ARS finances its
share of departmental assessments for such operations as the National
Finance Center, computer centers, central supply, telephone services,
security, etc. ARS, like a number of other agencies in the Department
of Agriculture, does not have a line item or direct appropriations to
finance costs associated with the program and administrative management
activities necessary to support the Agency's mission. Historically,
management costs in ARS have been financed through the assessment of
research programs carried out by the agency. Costs associated with the
support of program and administrative activities represents about 10
percent of the Agency's annual appropriated funds.
Question. Please provide an accounting of management and overhead
expenses for fiscal year 1998.
Answer. The information you requested is provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
Program and Administrative Management Costs
Fiscal Year 1988
Organization/Functions Obligations
Office of the Administrator (Immediate Office, Office of
Technology Transfer, Civil Rights Staff, Budget and
Program Management Staff)........................... $5,276,250
Information Staff....................................... 3,211,598
National Program Staff.................................. 7,356,599
Administrative and Financial Management (Office of
Deputy Administrator, Human Resource Management,
Financial Management, Facilities Division, Contracts
and Extramural Agreements, Information Technology,
and Procurement and Property Administration)........ 18,805,349
Area Program and Administrative Management (Area
Directors, Associated Administrative Staffs)........ 16,396,600
USDA Central Charges (NFC, Computer Center, Central
Supplies, Telephone Service, Security, etc.)........ 9,871,968
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 60,918,364
Question. How does the ARS cover indirect research costs? Please
show an accounting of these costs for fiscal year 1998.
Answer. ARS indirect research assessment provides for program and
management of ARS's national and international research mission. These
costs represents approximately 10 percent of the Agency's
appropriations. The ARS program and management costs are reviewed
annually and the indirect support rate represents a viable assessment
needed to administer the ARS mission. An accounting of these costs is
reflected in the previous response.
Question. How much money budgeted for positions was due to
``lapse'' at the end of each of fiscal years 1997 and 1998?
Answer. Fiscal year 1997 and 1998 lapsed salaries totaled
$7,850,700 and $11,791,100, respectively. This represents 60 percent of
the total lapse salary accrual which was managed from ARS Headquarters.
The 40 percent balance of the accrued lapsed salaries were retained and
used by local managers.
Question. How were the funds projected to ``lapse'' spent in each
of fiscal years 1997 and 1998? Please provide a list of items funded
and the amount provided for each, by fiscal year and location.
Answer. The fiscal year 1997 lapsed salaries were spent as follows:
Research Equipment:s Funds
Akron, CO................................................. $75,000
Ames, IA.................................................. 296,800
Auburn, AL................................................ 70,000
Beltsville, MD............................................ 570,000
Boston, MA................................................ 20,000
Brookings, SD............................................. 35,000
Brooksville, GA........................................... 75,000
Clemson, SC............................................... 40,000
College Station, TX....................................... 44,500
Columbia, MO.............................................. 96,100
Columbus, OH.............................................. 9,300
Coshocton, OH............................................. 15,500
Davis, CA................................................. 70,000
Dawson, GA................................................ 41,300
E. Lansing, MI............................................ 17,000
Fargo, ND................................................. 172,000
Ft. Collins, CO........................................... 91,000
Grand Forks, ND........................................... 30,000
Ithaca, NY................................................ 50,300
Lincoln, NE............................................... 56,000
Lubbock, TX............................................... 97,600
Madison, WI............................................... 74,500
Miles City, MT............................................ 29,500
New Orleans, LA........................................... 178,000
Orient Pt., NY............................................ 74,300
Oxford, MS................................................ 60,000
Peoria, IL................................................ 332,200
Raleigh, NC............................................... 30,000
Stillwater, NC............................................ 46,600
St. Paul, MN.............................................. 44,000
Temple, TX................................................ 6,500
Tifton, GA................................................ 178,000
Tucson, AZ................................................ 150,000
Urbana, IL................................................ 8,000
Weslaco, TX............................................... 69,000
Wooster, OH............................................... 84,100
W. Lafayette, IN.......................................... 80,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Research Equipment................................ 3,417,100
Facilities Repair & Maintenance/Upkeep:
Beckley, WV............................................... 85,000
Brookings, SD............................................. 25,000
College Station, TX....................................... 12,000
Columbia, MO.............................................. 43,000
Durant, OK................................................ 46,500
Fargo, ND................................................. 158,000
Ithaca, NY................................................ 72,000
Manhattan, KS............................................. 30,000
Greenport, NY............................................. 1,142,300
Peoria, IL................................................ 51,000
Pullman, WA............................................... 35,000
Riverside, CA............................................. 138,000
Yakima, WA................................................ 221,000
National Agricultural Library............................. 75,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Facilities Repair & Maintenance/Upkeep............ 2,133,800
Operating Expenses:
Ames, IA.................................................. 35,000
Athens, GA................................................ 377,200
Auburn, AL................................................ 15,000
Beltsville, MD............................................ 577,500
Brooksville, GA........................................... 30,000
Canal Pt., FL............................................. 9,000
Durant, OK................................................ 50,000
Griffin, GA............................................... 26,300
Honolulu, HI.............................................. 9,500
Ithaca, NY................................................ 50,900
Logan, UT................................................. 35,000
Lubbock, TX............................................... 47,000
Madison, WI............................................... 14,000
Phoenix, AZ............................................... 54,900
Prosser, WA............................................... 26,500
Pullman, WA............................................... 49,000
Sidney, MT................................................ 27,500
Stoneville, MS............................................ 50,000
Stillwater, OK............................................ 70,000
Stuttgart, AR............................................. 35,000
Tifton, GA................................................ 48,000
Weslaco, TX............................................... 10,000
National Agricultural Library............................. 119,900
Headquarters.............................................. 532,600
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Operating Expenses................................ 2,299,800
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Total fiscal year 1997 Use of Salary Lapse...........\1\ 7,850,700
\1\ This represents 60 percent of the total lapse salary accrual which
was managed from ARS Headquarters. The 40 percent balance of the accrued
lapsed salaries were retained and used by local managers to directly
support research programs and operating needs. The primary uses of these
funds were for research equipment, employee relocations, facilities
repair and maintenance, safety and health improvements, and
unanticipated operating needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fiscal year 1998 lapsed salaries were spent as follows:
Research Equipment:s Funds
Akron, CO................................................. $71,200
Albany, CA................................................ 245,500
Ames, IA.................................................. 355,500
Athens, GA................................................ 88,000
Auburn, AL................................................ 52,000
Beaumont, TX.............................................. 46,400
Beckley, WV............................................... 204,900
Beltsville, MD............................................ 991,500
Brooksville, GA........................................... 17,600
Byron, GA................................................. 75,000
Columbus, OH.............................................. 55,000
Coshocton, OH............................................. 56,000
Cheyenne, WY.............................................. 12,000
College Station, TX....................................... 174,500
E. Lansing, MI............................................ 55,900
Fargo, ND................................................. 16,600
Fayetteville, AR.......................................... 14,000
Frederick, MD............................................. 49,800
Ft. Collins, CO........................................... 92,000
Gainesville, FL........................................... 62,000
Grand Forks, ND........................................... 288,000
Laramie, WY............................................... 26,000
Lincoln, NE............................................... 98,000
Little Rock, AR........................................... 93,500
Logan, UT................................................. 25,000
Lubbock, TX............................................... 27,400
Madison, WI............................................... 36,000
Mandan, SD................................................ 27,500
Manhattan, KS............................................. 117,000
Miami, FL................................................. 75,000
Miss. State, MS........................................... 50,000
New Orleans, LA........................................... 35,000
Orlando, FL............................................... 134,000
Oxford, AL................................................ 354,500
Peoria, IL................................................ 159,000
Phoenix, AZ............................................... 50,500
Poplarville, MS........................................... 25,000
Pullman, WA............................................... 83,900
Raleigh, NC............................................... 24,000
Stillwater, OK............................................ 50,000
Stoneville, MS............................................ 295,000
Temple, TX................................................ 75,100
Tucson, AZ................................................ 140,000
Wyndmoor, PA.............................................. 172,000
Yakima, WA................................................ 48,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Research Equipment................................ 5,244,800
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Facilities Repair & Maintenance/Upkeep:
Akron, CO................................................. 20,000
Albany, CA................................................ 83,300
Athens, GA................................................ 7,500
Beltsville, MD............................................ 470,800
Booneville, AR............................................ 100,000
Canal Point, FL........................................... 162,400
Cheyenne, WY.............................................. 101,700
College Station, TX....................................... 31,500
Fargo, ND................................................. 78,400
Florence, SC.............................................. 28,000
Honolulu, HI.............................................. 73,500
Ithaca, NY................................................ 17,200
Logan, UT................................................. 65,100
Lubbock, TX............................................... 40,000
Mandan, ND................................................ 64,100
Manhattan, KS............................................. 58,400
Miles City, MT............................................ 35,000
New Orleans, LA........................................... 60,000
Orient Pt., NY............................................ 200,000
Phoenix, AZ............................................... 104,000
Poplarville, MS........................................... 28,000
Pullman, WA............................................... 149,000
St. Paul, MN.............................................. 31,200
Stillwater, OK............................................ 40,000
Stoneville, MS............................................ 80,000
Tifton, GA................................................ 65,000
University Park, PA....................................... 126,500
Washington, DC............................................ 40,000
Woodward, OK.............................................. 321,500
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Facilities Repair & Maintenance/Upkeep............ 2,682,100
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Operating Expenses:
Albany, NY................................................ 225,300
Ames, IA.................................................. 152,000
Beckley, WV............................................... 46,000
Beltsville, MD............................................ 75,200
Brookings, SD............................................. 31,000
College Station, TX....................................... 116,000
Columbia, MO.............................................. 150,000
Fargo, ND................................................. 50,000
Florence, SC.............................................. 115,000
Fresno, CA................................................ 100,000
Ft. Collins, CO........................................... 211,700
Honolulu, HI.............................................. 175,000
Ithaca, NY................................................ 50,000
Kearneysville, WV......................................... 130,000
Madison, WI............................................... 58,600
Peoria, IL................................................ 158,000
Raleigh, NC............................................... 50,000
Stoneville, MS............................................ 165,000
St. Paul, MN.............................................. 13,000
Washington, DC............................................ 150,000
Weslaco, TX............................................... 24,200
Woodward, OK.............................................. 34,000
Wyndmoor, PA.............................................. 63,300
National Agricultural Library............................. 265,500
Headquarters.............................................. 1,082,500
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Operating Expenses................................ 3,691,300
==============================================================
____________________________________________________
Total Fiscal Year 1998 Use of Salary Lapse.......\1\11,618,200
\1\ This represents 60 percent of the total lapse salary accrual which
was managed from ARS Headquarters. The 40 percent balance of the accrued
lapsed salaries were retained and used by local managers to directly
support research programs and operating needs. The primary uses of these
funds were for research equipment, employee relocations, facilities
repair and maintenance, safety and health improvements, and
unanticipated operating needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
aquaculture
Question. Aquaculture continues to be one of the fastest-growing
sectors of U.S. agriculture. What level of funding is included in the
fiscal year 2000 request for research to support this growth industry?
How does this compare with the fiscal year 1997, 1998, and 1999 levels?
Answer. The funding levels are provided for the record.
Fiscal year 1997 funds.................................. $10,184,800
Fiscal year 1998 funds.................................. 11,686,400
Fiscal year 1999 funds.................................. 17,330,300
Fiscal year 2000 funds.................................. 14,071,000
Question. Please list those locations involved in aquaculture
research, their specific programs and mission, and current funding and
staffing levels. Please list future funding and staffing requirements,
by location.
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 aquaculture research funding, programs
and mission, and staffing levels, by location, as well as future
funding and staffing requirements, are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Total
Location Program and mission Fiscal year 1999 Total funds scientists
1999 funds scientists required required
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Auburn, AL..................................... Diagnosis and control of diseases and parasites of cultured fish..................... $1,913,700 7.0 $1,913,700 7.0
Pine Bluff, AR................................. Aquaculture production and processing technology..................................... 531,400 2.0 531,400 2.0
Stuttgart, AR.................................. Research on therapeutics evaluation and culture systems for farm-raised fish......... 2,448,600 9.0 3,590,000 11.0
Albany, CA (Fairbanks, AK worksite)............ Processing technology to convert fishery byproducts into feed........................ 1,086,800 1.0 1,086,800 1.0
Albany, CA (Hilo, HI) Oceanic Institute........ Tropical aquaculture feeds and culture technology development........................ 1,583,800 ........... 1,583,800 ...........
Aberdeen, ID................................... Development of alternative, grain-based diets for aquaculture species using genetic 123,500 1.0 373,500 2.0
enhancement of grains and aquaculture species.
New Orleans, LA................................ Improve flavor quality of farm-raised catfish........................................ 745,900 2.4 1,005,100 3.4
Beltsville, MD................................. Detection Methods for Cryptosporidium................................................ 29,600 ........... 29,600 ...........
Beltsville, MD (NAL)........................... Aquaculture Information Program provides the public with information on all aspects 34,000 ........... 250,000 ...........
of aquaculture.
Oxford, MS..................................... Catfish off-flavors.................................................................. 277,800 1.0 277,800 1.0
Stoneville, MS................................. Improve production efficiency, including breeding, genetics, nutrition, health, 4,681,900 8.0 5,298,600 8.0
harvesting, and product quality of catfish.
Wyndmoor, PA (Dover, DE, Worksite)............. Food safety of farm-raised shellfish................................................. 541,900 2.0 541,900 2.0
College Station, TX............................ Food safety of catfish............................................................... 358,800 ........... 358,800 ...........
Kearneysville, WV.............................. Water Quality control and intensive culture of fish.................................. 1,737,600 1.4 1,737,600 1.4
Leetown, WV.................................... Cool and cold water aquaculture research............................................. 1,235,000 4.0 4,000,000 12.0
---------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... ..................................................................................... 17,330,300 38.8 22,578,600 50.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fiscal year 2000 budget includes a proposed increase of
$180,000 at Stoneville, MS for research related to harmful algal
blooms, eutrophication, and hypoxia. In addition, reductions totaling
$3,439,300 are proposed at Auburn, AL; Stuttgart, AR; Albany, CA (Hilo,
HI); Aberdeen, ID; Stoneville, MS; and Leetown, WV.
lower mississippi delta nutrition intervention research initiative
Question. Please provide the Committee with an update on the status
of the Lower Mississippi Delta Nutrition Intervention Research
Initiative.
Answer. The Lower Mississippi Delta Nutrition Intervention Research
Initiative (NIRI) is conducted by a consortium of seven partners:
Alcorn State University, Arkansas Children's Hospital Research
Institute, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Southern University
and A&M College, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, University of
Southern Mississippi, ARS, and a Coordinating Center at Westat. Each
partner participates in attaining the objectives of the Initiative by
representation of the Steering and Research Committees. Research
proposals and protocols are developed by the Research Committee
utilizing expertise from each of the partners in specific Working
Groups.
Question. What progress has been made to date?
Answer. The Delta NIRI Consortium has completed two major research
projects: the Key Informant Survey (to determine the perceptions of
community leaders in 36 counties in AR, LA, and MS relative to food,
nutrition and health related problems and interventions) and the Foods
of Our Delta Study (FOODS). The latter was a validation and pilot study
conducted in three counties, one each in AR, LA, and MS. The validation
study was to determine if the telephone methodology could be used for
collection of food and nutrition survey data. The consortium has
published in the Scientific literature and published a monograph,
Nutrition and Health Status in the Lower Mississippi Delta of Arkansas,
Louisiana, and Mississippi: A Review of Existing Data. Capacity has
been built in each partner through the employment of additional
scientists and workshops on statistical sampling, nutritional
epidemiology, intervention strategies, and evaluation of nutritional
status.
Question. What activities are planned for each of fiscal years 1999
and 2000?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, the partners propose: the first phase
of a comprehensive nutritional assessment survey (collection of
dietary, food security, and health perceptions data) will be completed
in the thirty-six counties in AR, LA, and MS delta area; planning for
the second phase of the survey which will include biochemical,
anthropometric, and dietary data, and partner institutions will
complete and begin to implement their strategic plans for continuing
the research activities of the Initiative. Extensive field surveys will
be based on the results of preliminary assessments in 1998. The
partnership will focus on data collection and analysis. Extensive
collaborative field work will be required. Post fiscal year 1999,
research will depend on prior outcomes but will include initial
planning, implementation, and validation of targeted nutritional
interventions. In fiscal year 2000 the data collection of the above
studies will be completed and data analyses will be completed.
Protocols for the assessment of community food security will be
piloted; protocols for nutrition interventions will be finalized;
additional research will be planned based on results of data analyses,
especially in the area of food security. Individual partners will
assume responsibility for specific research proposals of the initiative
(for example: through the development of telephone survey centers,
dietary data analyses, overall data analysis, and community outreach).
Question. What is the current level of funding for this initiative
and what is the fiscal year 2000 request?
Answer. A total of $3,147,700 is the current level of funding for
the Lower Mississippi Delta Nutrition Intervention Project. A total of
$3,147,700 is budgeted for fiscal year 2000.
Question. Will fiscal year 2000 funding continue to be split
equally among the seven partners of the consortium conducting this
initiative?
Answer. The funding of $3,147,700 for fiscal year 2000 will
continue to be shared equally among the seven partners.
ginning research
Question. Please provide the level of resources available in each
of fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and included in the fiscal year 2000
request for the ginning labs at Mesilla Park, NM; Stoneville, MS; and
Lubbock, TX.
Answer. Resources for each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 for
ginning research is provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
Location 1998 Estimated 1999 Estimated 2000 Estimated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stoneville, MS.................................................. $1,190,900 $1,423,400 $1,423,400
Las Cruces, NM.................................................. 1,062,800 1,049,900 1,049,900
Lubbock, TX..................................................... 1,262,000 1,246,700 752,700
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 3,515,700 3,720,000 3,226,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please describe the importance of the work being carried
out by ARS at each of these locations and whether there are presently
any unfunded facility or program requirements.
Answer. Cotton ginning remains an important area for improving the
efficiency and profitability of the industry. The process of separating
fiber from seed, removing trash, and drying often degrades the quality
of the lint, making it less valuable and reducing the return to
producers. With cotton prices very low, the cotton industry has called
for research to improve profitability by 10 cents per pound of lint
produced. Much of this shortfall can be captured by improved ginning
efficiency, which both decreases costs and improves the quality and the
price of the product.
Some recent important advances from these ARS laboratories include
computerized process control for improved lint quality and better
profitability; technology for reduced dust emissions from gins to
improve air quality; online moisture sensors and control systems for
improved drying efficiency, energy conservation, and decreased lint
damage; seed coatings that reduce the need for delinting with dangerous
acids; technology that reduces seed coat fragmentation and nep (fiber
entanglements) formation during ginning; and combined drying and
ginning operations to improve efficiency.
Equipment at all three laboratories is aging and some of it is
outdated, with an estimated cost of up to $500,000 per laboratory for
upgrading. Facility repair and upgrading is required to support ongoing
research as well as to allow transition to new program initiatives. New
program needs not currently being addressed include improved harvesting
and processing equipment for ultra narrow- row production; technology
to reduce use of defoliants and other harvest aid chemicals; value-
added products from gin waste; and integration of gin management with
production management and with the changing needs of the textile
industry. At Lubbock, ARS has a good cooperative relationship with
Texas Tech University and is in a position to develop the linkage to
textile manufacturing, in part through collaboration with the
University's International Textile Center, and with collaborative
contributions from the other ginning laboratories and ARS laboratories
in New Orleans and Clemson, and in partnership with State institutions.
Question. What are the unique capabilities of each of these labs
and how does ARS ensure there is no duplication of effort among them?
Answer. The ginning laboratories are a unique resource in the
United States, with no other facilities serving a similar purpose. The
three laboratories have complementary roles. They are located in
different cotton-producing regions of the U.S., each with greatly
different cotton production systems and therefore with differing cotton
processing and ginning needs. In part, the mission of each laboratory
is to address problems of cotton harvesting, processing, and ginning
that are specific to its region. These functions are, by their very
nature, not duplicative. In Stoneville, ginning research addresses the
needs of upland cotton producers in a humid production zone. In
Lubbock, the research is focused on harvesting and ginning needs of
short-season stripper-harvested cotton. The laboratory in Mesilla Park
concentrates on high-quality long and extra-long staple cottons
produced in the Irrigated West, which require different equipment and
methods to preserve the inherent quality.
ARS provides national oversight and management of research through
its National Program Staff, which determines priorities through
interactions with customers and stakeholders; allocates funding to
different research objectives consistent with the intent of the
Congress and the needs of ARS customers; and coordinates activities
among laboratories. Much of this management occurs through 23 recently
established National Programs. The three ginning laboratories all
participate in the same National Program (New Uses, Quality, and
Marketability of Plant Products), which provides a venue for the
scientific staff to plan, carry out, and report cooperative,
coordinated, research. Because of this coordination, the existence of
three different labs with complementary activities actually strengthens
cotton ginning research, because it serves customers in all regions
without wasteful duplication and without gaps.
Question. The National Cotton Council has asked the Committee to
instruct the ARS not to reprogram fiscal year 1998 funds provided to
the Lubbock lab. Is the Administration contemplating such a
reprogramming request? Are there any unused fiscal year 1998 funds
available?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes the reduction
of $494,000 appropriated for the Lubbock ginning laboratory. The funds,
which were first added by Congress in 1998, are proposed to be
redirected into areas of highest national priority, such as food
safety, emerging and exotic diseases and pests, agricultural plant
genomes, impact of FQPA implementation, and sustainable ecosystems. A
total of $35 million in proposed reductions and terminations are being
used to finance these proposed, high priority increase. Prior to the
proposed redirection, the funds were used to hire two engineers who
have already joined the staff of the laboratory in Lubbock. There are
no unused fiscal year 1998 funds available, but ARS is committed to
providing alternative employment opportunities to its scientific staff
displaced by redirection of funds.
aflatoxin
Question. The Committee is aware of extensive problems which
occurred during 1998 in southern corn production. In particular,
aflatoxin in corn has adversely impacted the prices received by farmers
and the markets for southern corn production. What steps are being
taken to enhance and expand research to address this problem? Is there
adequate focus being placed on this problem, especially in view of the
fact that current farm policy has resulted in the rapid growth of
southern corn production?
Answer. The ARS has taken steps to enhance and expand research to
address the aflatoxin problem in southern corn. The Southern Regional
Research Center (SRRC) of the ARS sponsored an ``ARS Workshop on
Aflatoxin Prevention in Southern Corn'', January 27, 1999 in New
Orleans, LA. There were 67 attendees comprising ARS and university
aflatoxin researchers, corn growers and corn industry representatives
with an intense interest in research aimed at eliminating aflatoxin.
The workshop provided a forum by which corn industry representatives
could discuss the conditions under which contamination occurred in
1998, and the state-of-the-art technology being developed by
researchers to control aflatoxin contamination.
The workshop developed a plan to further focus and enhance
resources aimed at the elimination of aflatoxin in corn before harvest
using the extensive input from researchers and workshop participants.
The goals of the plan are to:
Identify additional sources of resistant corn germplasm. Use marker
assisted breeding to combine resistance traits for prevention of fungal
infection, aflatoxin contamination, and insect injury in corn;
Elucidate the effects of drought on biochemistry, physiology,
aflatoxin accumulation and fungal pathology in kernels of resistant
corn genotypes;
Transform corn with ``up-regulated' versions of disease and/or
drought resistant genes;
Continue investigation on cultural practices and crop management
techniques that may minimize aflatoxin contamination before harvest;
and
Develop a toxigenic A. flavus technology for aflatoxin control on
corn grown in the southern U.S. (Research experience has demonstrated
that this technology is effective in preventing aflatoxin in cotton
grown in Arizona.)
ARS has extensive resources devoted to solving the southern corn
aflatoxin problem at several locations throughout the southern U.S.,
including Mississippi State, MS; New Orleans, LA; and Tifton, GA.
Because of their research we have made significant advances in
understanding how aflatoxin is produced and potential effective
strategies for reduction. These research advances are as follows:
Delineated the effects of cultural practices and pest management on
the accumulation of aflatoxins in corn.--ARS research has elucidated
both the ``life cycle'' of A. flavus, the preharvest process by which
aflatoxin contamination occurs, and the effects of cultural conditions
and insects pests on aflatoxin contamination. Several factors can be
manipulated which can affect the level of aflatoxin contamination--the
corn hybrid utilized and its adaptability to the geographic region,
choice of fields, soil fertility, planting and harvest dates, planting
density, irrigation, harvest methodology, tillage and crop rotation and
management of insect pests (for example, with the advent of new Bt
transformed lines of corn resistant to insects). Generally,
optimization of cultural and management practices in the particular
growing region to produce healthy corn partially alleviates (or at
least does not exacerbate) aflatoxin contamination.
Genetic and Biochemical Resistance Factors Identified in Corn.--ARS
research has produced four germplasm releases (one release occurring in
1999) with useful levels of aflatoxin resistance, thus showing
substantial progress in developing a genetic based resistance. Markers
which could be useful in marker assisted breeding and/or genetic
engineering of corn have been putatively identified in corn. Selection
for these genetic and biochemical factors/traits could further help
increase resistance in certain corn varieties to A. flavus, aflatoxin
and insect attack (which can predispose corn to fungal infection).
Several putative resistance factors were characterized at the
protein level and shown to comprise fungitoxic proteins, enzymes,
enzyme inhibitors and peptides. Also identified were kernel pericarp
properties (wax thickness and antifungal properties) in a resistant
corn genotype that may either prevent the physical entry of A. flavus
into kernel tissues or kill the fungus directly. Corn genotypes will be
selected to maintain production of these resistance compounds even
under suboptimal conditions for kernel health and development (such as
drought stress or insect injury).
Identification and Successful Deployment of a Biocontrol Agent in
Large Scale Cotton Field Trials.--A biological control formulation was
invented by ARS scientists for use in aflatoxin prevention in
cottonseed grown in the Yuma Valley, Arizona. The formulation is made
from non-toxic strains of A. flavus previously discovered in Arizona
cotton fields. When applied to cotton fields in large scale trials, the
formulation reduced aflatoxin below the FDA mandated level of 20 ppb in
cottonseed. In parallel work by ARS scientists, non-toxic strains of A.
flavus/parasiticus were used in biocontrol of aflatoxin in peanut. This
technology may also be effective for large area control of aflatoxin in
corn grown in the southern US, however EPA approval is needed for each
individual type of application.
Genetic Engineering of Plants with Resistance Genes Encoding
Proteins Inhibitory to A. flavus.--Using genetic engineering resistance
genes from corn and other sources, encoding antifungal proteins
(effective against A. flavus) have been moved into tobacco plants and
cotton callus where they showed high in vitro expression of antifungal
activities. With the development of new efficient corn transformation
protocols and identification of potent antifungal genes, the potential
for genetically engineering corn for resistance to A. flavus becomes
very feasible.
Molecular Basis for Aflatoxin Biosynthesis Elucidated.--A cluster
of genes was found which encodes enzymes catalyzing aflatoxin formation
in Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus. Previously, a ``master
switch'' gene was discovered which could be targeted essentially to
switch off aflatoxin production. Reporter genes consisting of portions
of aflatoxin gene regulatory DNA or growth related genes linked to the
GUS reporter gene were engineered into A. flavus. These reporter genes
could help identify plant factors affecting levels of aflatoxin, which
in turn could be used as selectable markers in breeding for resistance.
Question. The Department recently announced that ARS researchers
have created a new corn line which is highly resistant to aflatoxin and
could be an important step toward the long-term goal of commercial
hybrids with strong aflatoxin resistance. Would you please tell us more
about this major research advancement.
Answer. Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists at
Mississippi State, Mississippi, have recently developed and released
corn germplasm which is highly resistant to Aspergillus flavus, the
fungus that infects grain and produces the toxic substance, aflatoxin.
Because corn hybrid seeds are all developed and marketed by the
private sector, incorporating the A. flavus resistance into
commercially available hybrids requires that ARS transfer the
technology to hybrid seed corn companies. To do so, Cooperative
Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) have been established with
two such companies.
Question. What is the current level of funding and staffing levels
for aflatoxin research and at which ARS locations is this work
conducted?
Answer. The current level of funding and staffing levels for
aflatoxin research, including ARS locations at which this work is
conducted are as follows:
[Fiscal Year 1999]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Funds Scientists
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albany, CA.............................. $1,788,900 6.7
Dawson, GA.............................. 745,600 2.9
Tifton, GA.............................. 544,200 1.5
Peoria, IL.............................. 827,300 2.9
New Orleans, LA......................... 2,832,700 10.9
Miss. State, MS......................... 669,100 2.8
Headquarters............................ 861,200 0.0
-------------------------------
Total............................. 8,269,000 27.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What additional funds are required for aflatoxin research
to expand projects implementing the biocontrol management technology
and increasing funds for grants to translate our best knowledge into
practical systems to help farmers?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget does not request additional
funds for aflatoxin research. ARS continues to meet with stakeholders
and customers to ascertain their important research needs, including
implementing biocontrol management technology and increasing the
translation of our best research knowledge into practical systems to
help farmers. The additional priorities for aflatoxin research will be
met by redirection, or by future agency budget requests.
cotton nematode
Question. The Committee is concerned that cotton yields have been
stagnant and even declined in some cases over the past decade in the
Midsouth area. Among other problems affecting this situation, I
understand that scientists at the Midsouth Research Center have
detected a contributing factor to be the growing problem of cotton
nematodes. In view of the rising cost of production for cotton farmers
and the statistical plateau in Midsouth cotton yields, what is USDA
doing to aggressively seek solutions to problems such as the cotton
nematode. Are research needs being met to provide an adequate level of
scientific support for solving cotton nematode problems?
Answer. The origins of the cotton ``yield plateau'' are complex,
with a major source being the narrow genetic base of commercial cotton
varieties. In the Mississippi Delta region and in some other areas,
there is also a growing problem with nematodes. These pests are forcing
many growers to look for the first time to rotation crops that are non-
hosts for nematodes. Corn and rice have proved to be good rotation
crops for soybeans and cotton in the Mississippi Delta.
ARS maintains a strong national research program that is focused on
controlling or managing nematodes with environmentally friendly
methods. In Beltsville, MD, ARS studies the fundamental biology of
these pests and uses that information to develop new avenues to disrupt
their life cycles and protect crops. Elsewhere, ARS research is
targeted specifically at nematodes that affect specific crops. Cotton
nematode work is carried out at College Station, TX (improved
management, biological control, and host plant resistance); Stoneville,
MS (cotton production systems that minimize pest damage from
nematodes); and Mississippi State, MS (identification of new genes for
nematode resistance, and using them to breed resistant cotton
germplasm). ARS research has resulted in the development and release of
nematode-resistant germplasm for use in breeding programs, including a
variety which has been widely used in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of
Texas.
The current ARS program has effectively targeted the most feasible
ways to bring cotton nematodes under control. Promising approaches
include genetic host plant resistance and biological control using
fungi. Additional funding would allow a broader approach to nematodes
and could intensify the ARS effort in selected areas where the pest
pressure is increasing, such as the Mississippi Delta.
BASE FUNDING FOR COTTON NEMATODES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
1998 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
College Station......................... $370,700 $370,700
Stoneville.............................. 45,100 45,100
Mississippi State....................... 610,100 610,100
-------------------------------
Total............................. 1,025,900 1,025,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------
red imported fire ant
Question. Where is the site of ancestral origin for the red
imported fire ant, and how did it enter the United States?
Answer. Red imported fire ants originated from the Paraguay river
drainage basin in Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil. The mode of entry
into Mobile, Alabama, in the mid 1930s is unknown but probably was the
result of contaminated ship ballast or agricultural products associated
with soil arriving from Argentina or Brazil.
Question. What is the present and projected geographic range of the
red imported fire ant in the United States?
Answer. Presently, this pest is distributed in about 310 million
acres in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida,
Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma
and Puerto Rico. Recently it has been detected in limited areas of New
Mexico, Arizona, California, but appears to be established in all but
Arizona. Projected distributions, based on temperature limits, would
allow expansion into the tidewater area of Virginia, the eastern shore
of Maryland, and most or all of Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee and North
Carolina. Conditions also are favorable in the irrigated urban and
agricultural regions of the western states including most of California
(80 percent), and sections of Arizona (70 percent), Nevada (10 percent)
and New Mexico (30 percent). Coastal regions in particular are
vulnerable throughout California, in Oregon, and possibly Washington.
Question. What is unique about the red imported fire ant that
allows it to be an urban, agricultural, wildlife, and industrial pest?
Answer. The red imported fire ant is virtually ubiquitous in the
southeast and is characterized typically by 75-100 colonies (mounds)
per acre with each colony containing half a million stinging ants.
Thus, there can be 40-50 million imported fire ants per acre. The
imported fire ants out-compete and replace native ants (including
native fire ants) which reach about 1000 in number per colony and 1-2
million per acre. Fire ants are far more aggressive than the native
ants and readily sting animals and humans when disturbed. Unlike native
ants which move away from the disturbed areas, the red imported fire
ants explore and thrive in disturbed habitats caused by human
activities that include agricultural operations, urbanization,
transportation infrastructures (roads, sidewalks, airports) and
utilities. They produce hundreds of thousands of winged queens per acre
that may disperse several miles and establish new colonies that mature
within months, and release additional winged queens. In comparison,
native ants produce up to 1,000 queens and do not spread as well. The
red imported fire ant is inadvertently moved in agricultural and
horticultural products in soils, and easily becomes established at
final destinations.
Question. What is the economic impact of the red imported fire ant
to the nation?
Answer. Nationally, imported fire ants are estimated to cause 0.5
billion to several billion dollars in damage every year. Exact figures
are difficult to determine because economic impact is so diverse and
widespread. Losses are incurred in agriculture, human health, damage to
infrastructure, damage to wildlife and farm animals, and in the costs
to manage this pest. This excludes the pain and aggravation associated
with fire ant stings, or the environmental damages to biodiversity and
the ecosystem. Fire ants kill newly hatched offsprings and reduce the
populations of several wildlife species, including bob white quail,
other ground-nesting birds, and others with few defenses, such as
tortoises, tree snails, marsh hares, amphibians, and reptiles.
Question. What is the economic impact of the red imported fire ant
to Mississippi?
Answer. The economic impact of the red imported fire ants to
Mississippi is, according to the Mississippi Department of Agriculture,
somewhere between 75 million and 200 million dollars per year.
Question. Describe the damage caused by the red imported fire ant
in urban areas by stinging; in agricultural areas where livestock are
attacked, plants damaged, and crop care and harvest interfered with; in
wildlife areas where other invertebrates and ants are displaced and
recreational activities interfered with; and in industrial areas where
the ant causes malfunctions by tunneling and nesting near electrical
conduits and communication systems.
Answer. The red imported fire ants are a major medical concern to
approximately 0.5 million people who are severely allergic to even a
single fire ant sting (1 percent of the population), and to millions of
young children who are repeatedly stung by hundreds of fire ants when
they accidentally step onto the mounds. People who are allergic or very
sensitive to fire ant stings often need to limit outdoor activities
because fire ants are found virtually everywhere except in dense
forests.
Fire ants cause a wide variety of agricultural problems. They lower
soybean harvests by 10-30 percent by killing seedlings, and from the
need to raise the Combine cutting bar to avoid mounds. They frequently
girdle and kill young citrus trees. They attack and kill corn and
sorghum seedlings. They can damage a wide variety of vegetables from
okra and potatoes to watermelon and strawberries. They inhibit
harvesting of many nuts, fruits, and vegetables that are picked by
hand, or when the crop is shaken to the ground for subsequent
collection. Their mounds mechanically jam or damage harvesting
equipment. Fire ants also injure or kill young livestock and poultry.
Foraging activity of fire ants commonly short circuits outdoor
electrical equipment such as air conditioners, power transformers, and
telephone boxes. Their tunneling and mounding activities loosen or
removes soil from beneath roadways, causing these to collapse under
weight of vehicles.
Fire ants are also a major environmental concern because they
substantially reduce the biodiversity of native ants and other ground-
dwelling arthropods. They also reduce populations of many native
vertebrates such as quail, lizards, water birds, mice, and even deer. A
number of rare and endangered animals such as gopher tortoises, sea
turtles, alligators, butterflies, tree snails, grasshopper sparrows,
and the least tern may also be negatively affected by fire ants.
Question. Why have U.S. federal, state, and private sector
researchers failed in their efforts to develop technologies for
stopping the spread of the red imported fire ant?
Answer. ARS was instrumental in the development of a chemical,
mirex which provided 99 percent control level. In the early 1960s,
large-area eradication tests with toxic baits (mirex) were conducted in
several states, including northeastern Mississippi (256,000 acres),
Tampa, Florida (626,000 acres), and Savannah, Georgia (2.13 million
acres). Although mirex was very effective in controlling fire ants (99
percent control), it subsequently was removed from the market, because
of the environmental and economic concerns. Consequently, in the late
1960s these field tests with mirex were terminated. Alternative
materials that replaced mirex were less environmentally damaging, but
not as effective in area-wide control, and provided only temporary
relief.
To develop new and improved fire ant control technologies, the ARS
laboratory in Gainesville, Florida focused on developing poison baits
for controlling fire ants in small but high public-usage and livestock
production areas, such as yards, parks, schools, hospitals, and
feedlots. These newer bait materials, such as AMDRO and LOGIC are very
effective, but give only temporary control in such areas that
ultimately become reinfected. Consequently, since 1995, ARS has focused
its research on the development and evaluation of an integrated long-
term methods, including the release of classical biocontrol agents that
have the potential of permanently reducing fire ant populations over
large portions of their range. The goal is to help slow or stop the
expansion of imported fire ants into uninfested areas. Small-scale
field test releases have been initiated in 1998 in one-quarter acre
plots in several states. Given the necessary resources, ARS plans to
conduct research on mass propagation of selected biocontrol agents, and
conduct large-area field evaluation and demonstration tests.
Currently, additional technologies may be needed to halt the
expansion of fire ant populations. The biology of this pest is such
that natural spread is difficult to prevent without a concerted,
coordinated large-scale application of multiple control measures.
Because it is so widespread environmentally (not limited to specific
crops or plant types), and exists underground (largely unexposed), it
is neither environmentally nor economically feasible to use toxic
pesticides.
Question. What plans does ARS have for research to: (1) stop the
spread of the red imported fire ant; (2) suppress it in infested areas;
and (3) eradicate the fire ant at the local level, statewide (including
in Mississippi), and nationwide?
Answer. The ARS laboratory in Gainesville, Florida has ongoing
cooperative projects with states to evaluate its biologically-based
approach, including: (1) cooperative projects between ARS and APHIS to
stop the spread of fire ants through nursery stock. A new attractant
has been developed and patented to assist in rapid assessment of
infested material while still in nursery facilities; (2) current ARS
research on suppression in infested areas is focused on the development
and field evaluation of an integrated long-term approach. This approach
relies on the use of biologically-based technologies to reduce overall
population levels, combined with blanket applications of emerging bait
formulations that are followed by precision-targeted treatments of high
risk local areas (schools, health care facilities, parks, tourism, and
recreation) with emerging bait technologies; and (3) two of the three
biological control agents developed by the ARS laboratory in
Gainesville, Florida are being evaluated in several pilot tests. In
this effort, ARS is partnering with the National Fire Ant Task Force of
the Southern Legislative Conference (SLC) of the Council of State
Governments to develop proposals for pilot tests in several states. For
example, ARS is proactively involved in developing a cooperative
research project with the Mississippi State University and APHIS
(Gulfport) to test integrated control measures for a 300-acre health
care facility in Mississippi. In addition, ARS is conducting
cooperative projects with APHIS at field sites near Gulfport, and with
the Mississippi National Guard/Nature Conservancy on managing fire ants
at Camp Shelby. That effort is specifically addressing the issue of
fire ant impact on gopher tortoises. Other pilot test sites in
partnership with SLC include, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia and
Tennessee have been selected. However, current constraints in state and
federal resources preclude large-scale field evaluation and
implementation of the integrated approach.
Question. Which ARS locations have been directed to conduct
research on the red imported fire ant and in each case what is the
level of effort in terms of dollars and scientists? Is there any
research on the fire ant being conducted in Mississippi?
Answer. ARS research on imported fire ants is conducted at the
Center for Medical, Agricultural, and Veterinary Entomology in
Gainesville, Florida ($1,311,800/5.9 SYs), with cooperative projects at
the South America Biocontrol Laboratory at Hurlingham, Argentina
($101,400/.2 SYs). ARS research in Mississippi consists of cooperative
projects with APHIS at field sites near Gulfport, and in a cooperative
project with the Mississippi National Guard/Nature Conservancy on
managing fire ants at Camp Shelby. That effort is specifically
addressing the issue of fire ant impact on gopher tortoises.
Question. What is the level of Federal funding currently obligated
by ARS, CSREES, and APHIS for research, education, and regulatory
activities? How much funding is contributed by State and private
organizations?
Answer. The level of Federal funding currently obligated for
research, education, and regulatory activities for red imported fire
ants is $1,413,200 for ARS; $76,300 for CSREES; and $1,330,000 for
APHIS. Funding contributed by State and private organizations includes
non-federal funds of $742,000 for CSREES and $1,139,959 for APHIS. ARS
receives no funding from State and private organizations for red
imported fire ant research.
national plant germplasm system (npgs)
Question. Are there materials in the National Plant Germplasm
System (NPGS) that are at risk for loss and that will remain at risk
under the Administration's budget request?
Answer. Duplicate germplasm samples and duplicate copies of
databases maintained in at least two physically-separate locations
represent perhaps the most effective safeguards against the risk of
catastrophic loss from weather- related causes, other natural
phenomena, equipment failure, and human activity, be it intentional or
unintentional.
The Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) in Beltsville,
MD, which maintains key data associated with NPGS germplasm, is
duplicated by mirroring, i.e., there are two copies of the database on
disk. One weekly duplicate copy of the database is maintained off-site
locally on tape and one duplicate is sent monthly to National Seed
Storage Laboratory, (NSSL) Ft. Collins, CO. The Administration's budget
requests an increase of $600,000 for additional data safeguards, such
as incorporating into GRIN evaluation and characterization data that
are still on local databases, and continual hardware and software
upgrades to help safeguard database integrity.
At present, ca. 104,000 (ca. 26 percent of total) seed samples and
32,000 (ca. 85 percent of total) clonally-propagated samples in the
NPGS are not duplicated, and consequently are at a higher risk of
catastrophic loss than are the duplicated samples. Some of the samples
that are not duplicated within the NPGS are duplicated in other nations
or at International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs). But, with
fiscal shortfalls at other institutions, the NPGS cannot assume that
duplicates of ``lost'' germplasm can be readily obtained elsewhere. As
the preceding data indicate, the risk is greatest for clonally-
propagated germplasm. With many clonal crops, long-term ``backup''
methods (e.g., cryopreservation) do not exist; more funds are needed
for NPGS researchers to develop this technology.
Germplasm may also be at risk from slower, more insidious processes
such as gradual loss of viability, loss of genetic integrity,
infectious disease, etc., that deteriorate the quality of germplasm and
associated data. The following list illustrates some NPGS germplasm
potentially at risk:
(1) Griffin, GA: At least 20 percent (17,000 + accessions) of the
seed samples at Griffin are greater than 20 years old, or are original
seed lots with few seeds. With the few funds available for operations
(ca. 6 percent of total fiscal year 1999 location budget), relatively
few accessions can be regenerated at present.
(2) Ithaca, NY (Geneva, NY worksite): About 30 percent (ca. 4,000
accessions) of the seed-propagated germplasm accessions are at risk
because of low or unknown viability, or low seed numbers. With the few
funds available for operations (ca. 10 percent of total fiscal year
1999 location budget), relatively few accessions can be regenerated at
present.
(3) Mayaguez, PR: Without additional funds for clonal propagation
and virus eradication, 30 percent of the plantain and banana clones at
this site may die of virus infection.
(4) Ft. Collins, CO: More than 20 percent of the duplicate seed
accessions in long-term storage at NSSL have not been tested recently
for their viability, and consequently may be at risk. No funds are
available to hire more technical staff to conduct germination tests.
(5) College Station, TX (Brownwood, TX worksite): Approximately 60
percent of the pecan accessions there are represented by only one tree,
and none of the accessions are backed-up at another site. No funds are
currently available to improve this situation.
(6) Ames, IA: Approximately 4,500 seed-propagated accessions with
low seed number, and low germination percentages (9.5 percent of the
total) are at risk because there are no funds to regenerate them. Funds
are also unavailable to conduct applied research to regenerate and
monitor seeds of species for which standard management protocols have
never been developed.
(7) Corvallis, OR: Under the Administration's fiscal year 2000
budget request, $27,400 of the base funding for the Corvallis genebank
will be eliminated. Those funds support the hop (a key ingredient for
brewing) germplasm maintenance, regeneration, and viral eradication
program. If the preceding funds are not reinstated, this site will be
unable to maintain and distribute the collection in pathogen-negative
(virus, fungus, and bacteria-free) status.
Question. With current resources, is the agency able to manage the
materials that are in the quarantine centers in a manner that
successfully fulfills the demands of the users? Have materials died in
quarantine centers? Are the materials made available to the requesters
in a timely manner?
Answer. In general, the Plant Germplasm Quarantine Office/National
Plant Germplasm Quarantine Center (PGQO) in Beltsville, MD can manage
the plant germplasm in quarantine successfully, provided the amount of
germplasm in the PGQO does not exceed current capacity, which is
determined primarily by the funding available for personnel,
operations, and facilities. To ensure that its capacity is not exceeded
by demand, the PGQO is establishing annual quotas for each type of
germplasm. These will be communicated to germplasm users in May 1999
and put into effect for fiscal year 2000. The quotas will vary somewhat
over years based on factors such as the germplasm in the quarantine
testing ``pipeline'' at the beginning of the year, changes in testing
protocols, and changes in program goals.
No significant germplasm losses have occurred in the potato, sweet
potato, rice, or sugarcane held by the PGQO. In the past, fruit tree
accessions in the PGQO orchards were lost because of inadequate care,
and insufficient attention to matching the work load with the resources
available to tend to this germplasm. These problems were addressed and
loss has been minimal during the last three years of orchard testing.
Some replicates of accessions have been lost to herbicide injury but,
in these cases, a sufficient amount of backup material was available to
repeat the tests as necessary. Occasionally, replicate samples of
blackberry, raspberry, or currant perish from winter damage in the
screenhouses. But, these samples are ``backed up'' so the accession is
not lost, but its release from quarantine is delayed because the tests
must be repeated. Losses from winter kill have been minor during the
past two years because of mild weather, and improved horticultural
care.
The stone fruit (cherry, peach) quarantine program is conducted
entirely in greenhouses and screenhouses, where germplasm loss is
relatively rare, but does occur occasionally because of several factors
that are not unique to PGQO: (1) the inherent difficulty of maintaining
trees in pots for years; (2) cherry and peach accessions received by
PGQO as budwood are often difficult to propagate, especially after days
in international transit, and may die before they are established.
Germplasm is made available (``released'') from quarantine as
rapidly as quarantine regulations and/or ``pathogen clean up'' permit.
The only crop with a backlog of accessions awaiting quarantine testing
is rice, with a 4,000 accession backlog:
(1) Pome fruits (apples, pears, quince) are now released
``provisionally'' within one year if the first round of testing is
negative and if the propagative material is available. Under the
``provisional release policy,'' germplasm users can propagate and
evaluate the germplasm prior to its final release from quarantine. This
policy has been very popular with germplasm users, and is feasible
because of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for phytoplasmas.
Final release still requires at least 3-5 years because test trees must
produce fruit for evaluation of symptoms: there is no technological
substitute for the fruit evaluation.
(2) Stone fruits (cherry, peach) are also provisionally released
after one year, but full release requires at least 3-5 years for
germplasm imported as budwood. But germplasm imported as seed can be
released sooner (12-18 months) because less testing is required.
(3) Sugarcane imported from other nations requires 18-24 months in
quarantine, whereas sugarcane shipped interstate (e.g. Louisiana to
Florida) requires 12-18 months. Current molecular technology will
probably not accelerate the release time, although the former may
improve the accuracy of test results.
(4) Rice cannot be released from quarantine until it sets seed,
which can require 100 to 240 days, depending on the specific germplasm.
Notably, quarantine testing could be conducted entirely from in vitro
tissue culture and germplasm released in 30 days but, because it would
be distributed in the form of tissue-cultured plantlets, rather than
true seed, the user community has not been interested in this method.
(5) The quarantine process for potatoes and sweet potatoes requires
18-24 months; tests require one year and are repeated. The testing
required for true potato seed is substantially less than for potato
tubers.
(6) The quarantine process for currants and gooseberries requires
3-5 years, necessitated by waiting for plants to fruit so they can be
evaluated for the reversion virus. There is a PCR-based test for the
reversion virus but APHIS has not accepted it, although Agriculture
Canada has done so. The PCR test could enable provisional release after
one year, if the propagative material is available.
(7) The quarantine process for raspberries requires about 3 years.
Question. With current resources, are you able to take advantage of
modern molecular techniques to accelerate the rate of quarantine
testing for crops such as rice, apples, cherries, sweet potatoes, and
others?
Answer. Molecular diagnostic techniques alone may not accelerate
the finalrelease of germplasm from quarantine but they may accelerate
the provisional release of germplasm, as described above for pome and
stone fruits. The tests will detect target pathogens that have been
thoroughly characterized genetically, but not other ``exotic''
pathogens which are often essentially unknown scientifically, except
for symptoms on the plant or fruit. Thus, molecular diagnostic tests
will not completely replace the time-consuming visual observations of
plants currently required by APHIS regulations. Consequently, the speed
of the entire quarantine process may be more closely related to
principles of scientific risk assessment and/or the field and
greenhouse capacity, rather than to modern molecular technology.
Despite the preceding factors, the current resources at the Plant
Germplasm Quarantine Office (PGQO) do not enable the staff to take full
advantage of molecular diagnostic techniques. Additional resources in
the form of a senior technical assistant and additional supplies could
hasten the implementation of molecular technology which would
facilitate provisional germplasm releases. Additional resources are
needed to hire additional technical staff to fully utilize the new
greenhouse and screenhouse space at the PGQO, and accelerate the rate
whereby germplasm can be released from quarantine.
(1) Pome (apple, pear) and stone fruits (cherry, plum, peach): The
PCR-based test for phytoplasmas and molecular hybridization assays for
viroids have enabled provisional quarantine release within one year,
providing adequate budwood is available. Half-time technical assistance
is needed to fully utilize new greenhouse and screenhouse space,
implement more fully this molecular testing program, and further
accelerate the quarantine process.
(2) Stone fruits: Implementation of a PCR-based test for sharka
(plum pox) could supplement to plant graft testing on indicator
species, but would require an additional resources for implementation,
and half-time technical assistance to fully utilize new greenhouse and
screenhouse space.
(3) Sugarcane: Current quarantine testing relies on observations of
symptoms on greenhouse-grown plants, which is not ideal for sugarcane.
Molecular tests for Fiji virus (Oceania) and sugarcane mosaic gemini
virus (Africa) are under development at PGQO. Implementing these tests,
which might result in provisional quarantine release, will require
additional resources for the PGQO.
(4) Rice: Molecular techniques are not required to accelerate
pathogen diagnostic testing with rice, because the key pathogens are
readily culturable bacteria. Half-time technical assistance is needed
to fully utilize new greenhouse and screenhouse space for the rice
quarantine program.
(5) Currants and gooseberries: A PCR-based assay for the reversion
virus in these plants should be implemented, but this will require
APHIS approval and additional resources for PGQO.
(6) Potatoes and sweet potatoes: A PCR-based test for phytoplama
should be implemented to improve the accuracy and reliability of the
potato/sweet potato pathogen detection, but would not necessarily
accelerate the rate whereby germplasm is released from quarantine.
Half-time technical assistance is needed to fully utilize new
greenhouse and screenhouse space and to bolster this molecular testing
program.
Question. Have the germplasm materials at the Griffin, GA, and
Pullman, WA, facilities been tested for viability?
Answer. 18,781 (28 percent) of the 67,394 germplasm accessions at
Pullman, WA have undergone germination testing at Pullman during the
10-year period of 1989-1998. Most of the germination tests (15,481/
18,781, or 82 percent of the total tested) were conducted during the
last 5 years (1994-1998).
During the last 10 years, 331 (.04 percent) of the more than 78,000
seed-propagated accessions at Griffin, GA have undergone germination
testing. There are 1,100 clonally-propagated sweet potato accessions at
Griffin that are regularly checked visually for health and vigor.
Duplicate samples of 72 percent of the seed-propagated accessions
from Griffin and 85 percent of the accessions from Pullman have been
deposited at the National Seed Storage Laboratory, Ft. Collins, CO. The
viabilities of many, but not all, of these duplicate samples were
tested by NSSL before being deposited in long-term storage and the
germination information made available to curators at Griffin and
Pullman.
Question. What percentage of the NPGS collection requires timely
regeneration to maintain its genetic integrity?
Answer. In our response, we assume that 1) ``timely'' means
``during the next 2-5 years'' (consistent with the 1997 GAO study of
the NPGS), and 2) ``regeneration'' is relevant for the 400,000 + seed-
propagated NPGS germplasm accessions. Because of the variable quality
and quantity of data available, the accuracy and precision of the
following percentages vary. Across the NPGS, the median percentage of
collections that require regeneration during the next 2-5 years seems
to be about 30 percent.
Estimated Percentage Requiring Refeneration During the Next 2-5 Years
Selected NPGS collections Percentage
Tomato genetic stock (Davis).................................. 20-50
Soybean (Urbana).............................................. 55
Cotton (College Station)...................................... 50-60
Seed-propagated fruits and nuts (Corvallis)................... 50
Seed propagated accessions at Ames............................ 20
Seed propagated accessions at Griffin......................... 31
Seed propagated accessions at Geneva.......................... 30
Small grains (Aberdeen)....................................... 10
Seed propagated accessions at Mayaquez........................ 10-50
Seed propagated accessions at Pullman......................... 10-25
National Seed Storage Laboratory (Ft. Collins)................ 30
Question. With current resources, and at the current rate of
regenerating accessions, how long would it take ARS to regenerate those
accessions?
Answer. Regeneration rate is determined not only by fiscal
resources available for that activity, but also strongly by the
biological properties of each crop (breeding system, genetic
constitution, growth rate, duration, etc.). Therefore, information for
representative individual seed-propagated crops is presented. Because
of the variable quality and quantity of data available, the accuracy
and precision of the following figures vary. Across the NPGS, the
median period required to regenerate these accessions seems to be more
or less 10 years. But, importantly, for a substantial proportion of
these accessions, especially of wild species (e.g., tomato, potato),
research and development will be required to first develop methods for
successful regeneration. Selected NPGS collections
Estimated Years Required to Regenerate Accessions
Selected NPGS collections Years
Tomato genetic stock (Davis).................................. 2-5
Soybean (Urbana).............................................. 5
Cotton (College Station)...................................... 10-15
Seed-propagated fruits and nuts (Corvallis)................... ( \1\ )
Seed propagated accessions at Ames............................ 10-23
Seed propagated accessions at Griffin......................... 12-15
Seed propagated accessions at Geneva.......................... 1-32
Small grains (Aberdeen)....................................... 5-10
Seed propagated accessions at Mayaquez........................ 10
Seed propagated accessions at Pullman......................... 7-10
National Seed Storage Laboratory (Ft. Collins)................ ( \2\ )
\1\ No resources are currently available for regenerating those
accessions.
\2\ Regeneration of base collection is conducted at active sites.
Question. What percentage of NPGS germplasm is not in long-term,
back-up storage?
Answer. At present, ca. 104,000 (ca. 26 percent of total) seed
samples and 26,000 (ca. 93 percent of total) clonally-propagated
samples in the NPGS are not in long-term, backup storage at the
National Seed Storage Laboratory, Ft. Collins, CO. Some of the samples
that are not duplicated within the NPGS are duplicated in non-NPGS
germplasm collections in the U.S., or in collections in other nations,
or at International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs). But, with
budgetary cuts at universities, the IARCs and in developing nations,
the increasing complications to international germplasm exchange
associated with the Convention for Biological Diversity and other
international germplasm legislation, the NPGS cannot assume that
specific germplasm samples can always be secured on demand from
international sources.
Question. If germplasm is lost due to the lack of regeneration, is
it always possible to replace it?
Answer. No, it is not always possible to replace germplasm samples
that are lost due to lack of regeneration when they are not duplicated
within the NPGS, obtainable from other germplasm collections or
genebanks within the U. S. or internationally, currently grown by
farmers or produced by seed companies or nurseries, or if they are
extinct in nature, as is the case with some wild species. Some of the
genetic components of the ``lost samples'' may be conserved in other,
genetically closely-related samples. But the degree of genetic
redundancy between genetically closely-related samples may be quite
variable and unpredictable. Consequently, germplasm managers in general
do not assume that genetically closely-related samples necessarily
contain precisely the same genetic components of the ``lost samples,''
some of which may be key to current and future genetic improvement of
crops.
Question. What percentage of the NPGS budget is spent on
maintenance and regeneration?
Answer. Of the total $22.7 million allocated to the NPGS about 65
percent ($15 million) is devoted to germplasm conservation and
preservation, which includes the activities of maintenance and
regeneration. The remainder of the NPGS budget is allocated to
germplasm acquisition, characterization, and agronomic assessment. At
specific NPGS sites (e.g., plant introduction stations, crop- specific
collections of grains, oilseeds, etc.) that both maintain and
regenerate germplasm, the budgetary percentage devoted to maintenance
and regeneration is often 75 percent or higher.
Question. If there is not a substantial increase (on the order of
$20 million) in the NPGS budget within the next couple of years, what
are some of the forecast ramifications?
Answer. The ramifications of a static NPGS budget for fiscal year
2000- fiscal year 2004 can be forecast from both a fiscal and a
programmatic standpoint. From a fiscal standpoint, consider the current
budget of $22.7 million, and assume the following: 1) inflation reduces
purchasing power at a rate of 3.3 percent per year (a ten-year mean of
the non-pay/inflation factor used by USDA for planning); and 2)
personnel costs increase by 3.2 percent per year (a ten-year mean of
the pay factor used by USDA for planning). Given the preceding figures,
and a static budget, during fiscal year 2000-2004, the purchasing power
of the NPGS budget would decrease by 18 percent from inflation. During
the same period, the current percentage (13 percent) of the NPGS budget
devoted to non-salary items (equipment, operations, travel) would
decrease by 17 percent to 11 percent. Adjusted for inflation, the non-
salary budget would effectively be reduced to less than 10 percent of
the total NPGS budget. And, at certain NPGS sites, that percentage
would be substantially less than 10 percent.
A static budget during fiscal year 2000-fiscal year 2004 would have
severe programmatic ramifications throughout the NPGS. Funding at many
sites would be insufficient not only for salaries of temporary
employees, but also of some permanent curatorial staff. At many sites,
no funds would be available for utilities, travel, operations, facility
repairs or expansion, supplies, or equipment. Position vacancies would
be abolished to provide funds for operations.
With a static budget during fiscal year 2000-2004, the NPGS would
by necessity focus nearly exclusively on providing security for
databases and for germplasm stored in coldrooms, greenhouses, and field
plantings. Acquisition of endangered germplasm would slow or cease, as
would evaluation of germplasm for agronomically or horticulturally
valuable traits. The rate of duplicating (backing-up) germplasm and
testing it for health, viability, or genetic integrity would slow or
cease. Germplasm would move through the quarantine process more slowly,
or not at all. Germplasm currently at risk would perhaps be endangered
further, whereas additional germplasm might also be endangered. As the
funds available for maintaining each accession shrank, the supply of
germplasm would shrink, which would limit germplasm distribution, and
impede the progress of important research and breeding programs. Should
additional funds become available in later years, they would initially
be devoted to restoring the NPGS to its state in fiscal year 1999,
rather than to progress on new initiatives.
A static budget would preclude the NPGS from exploiting the new
tools of genomics and biotechnology to develop more effective and
efficient means of maintaining and regenerating germplasm. The
ramifications would be especially severe for clonally-propagated crops,
many of which cannot now be preserved by long-term tissue culture or
cryopreservation.
Lastly, there is currently more public interest in conserving
genetic diversity and in exploiting it for crop improvement than at
anytime in the past. For example, soybean farmers through the United
Soybean Board and state checkoffs have been and still are investing
millions to exploit soybean germplasm. Researchers are already finding
new genes for improved levels of disease resistance and yield. Genomic
technology is identifying loci important for yield, seed composition,
disease resistance and other economical important traits in soybean and
other crops. The major funding increases for plant genomic research at
NSF will generate many new specialized genetic stocks for the NPGS to
manage. For example, NSF-funded research will generate at least 50,000
new maize (corn) genetic stocks, which would more than double the size
of the NPGS maize stock center. Just when researchers can use germplasm
more effectively and efficiently than ever before, just when its
clientele is demanding more from the NPGS, and just when the NPGS, if
sufficiently funded, could deliver more than ever before to its
customers, the NPGS will struggle just to maintain staff, facilities,
and germplasm.
biology and management of temperate fruit flies
Question. The United States cherry and apple industry has brought
to the Committee's attention the pressing need to develop effective
pest control strategies for temperate fruit flies that minimize the use
of chemical insecticides while adequately addressing the quarantine
concerns of our industry's current and potential export markets. Do you
agree that there is an unmet research need in this area and that the
addition of a full-time entomologist at the Yakima, WA, research
laboratory is required to conduct research on the biology and
management of temperate fruit flies?
Answer. The most promising controls for temperate fruit flies,
including the cherry fruit fly and the apple maggot, in the United
States is by the use of Integrated Pest Control (IPM) programs.
However, an important component of the IPM program is pesticides that
have an uncertain future resulting from provisions of the recently
passed Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The registrations for some
of the most useful of these pesticides may be dropped for horticultural
crops including apples and cherries. This could result in greatly
increased fruit fly problems including invasion of the apple maggot
into areas currently declared free of apple maggot. This would not only
present a problem for production of high quality cherries and apples
but would also raise quarantine issues for apples and cherries that
could halt their export to states and countries where these fruit flies
do not occur. ARS assigns high priority to research to study the
biology and management of temperate fruit flies. Additional funding for
an entomologist would be an important boost for this research.
potato research
Question. Is the ARS working with the National Potato Council on
how funds available for potato research can best be used to address
research priorities?
Answer. Yes, ARS works closely with the leaders of the potato
industry and the National Potato Council in developing research
priorities and allocating funds.
Question. Does the ARS agree that there is a need to continue
research on site-specific management and to focus on the biology of
potato production and that the addition of an agronomist to supplement
the soil science and pathology research would greatly strengthen the
potato program in Orono, Maine?
Answer. Yes, potato production in northern Maine has shown a
significant decline in recent years. This trend will, however, be
reversed with the construction of a new potato processing facility in
Maine by McCain Foods. It is estimated that 15,000 acres will be
returned to potato production. The current ARS research program has
included a search for alternative crops that could be used in a potato
rotation. Potatoes are grown in three-year rotations with soybean,
canola, green bean, sweet corn, and barley/clover. An interdisciplinary
team of two scientists is evaluating cropping system impacts on soil
nutrient dynamics and soilborne pathogen ecology. A third scientist is
being recruited to assess crop management system interactions with
potato late blight. The addition of an agronomist to supplement the
soil science and pathology research will greatly strengthen the potato
program in Maine. Estimated cost is $300,000/year.
Question. Do you agree that an agronomist position (in addition to
the weed and soil scientist for which recruitments are currently in
process) to integrate the soil, weed, pathology and entomology
information on potato production into a more effective system and
achieve better quality as well as improved yield is needed at Prosser,
WA, to continue research on site-specific management and to focus on
the biology of potato production?
Answer. Yes, the site-specific management research team at Prosser,
WA is in the process of rebuilding after the loss of several
scientists. A new soil scientist has been selected and will be on-board
soon. Recruitment is underway for a new weed scientist. The objective
of this team is to develop site-specific management strategies based on
knowledge of the biology of the potato crop and its interactions with
pests, pathogens, and the aboveground and below-ground environment. The
resulting management systems will be more efficient in the use of
resources, improve yield and quality of the crop, and reduce the risk
of negative impacts on groundwater quality. To accomplish these goals,
an agronomist to lead the research on potato biology and water
management should be added to the Prosser group. Just as the plant
integrates biological, chemical, and physical factors to determine
yield and quality, the agronomist will be the point of integration for
knowledge of potato biology, pathology, entomology, soil science, and
weed science into an effective management system that is acceptable to
growers. The estimated cost is $300,000/year.
pasture-based beef systems for appalachia initiative
Question. Please describe the cooperative agreement between the
USDA ARS station in Beaver, WV; the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University; and West Virginia University for support of the
Pasture-Based Beef Systems for Appalachia initiative.
Answer. A cooperative agreement between the USDA ARS in Beaver, the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and West Virginia
University does not formally exist. The three institutions have
actively collaborated in the development of a cooperative research
initiative for a Pasture-Based Beef System for Appalachia that
capitalizes upon the complementary capabilities of the three
institutions. This initiative will develop innovative concepts/
practices to enhance the efficiency, profitability and sustainability
of pasture-based beef production systems in Appalachia. Systems for
each of the different phases of cattle production and marketing will be
compared. The initiative will be a long- term, multi-disciplinary/
multi-institutional regional effort that will impact and benefit small
farms. The net result will be increased economic viability of small
livestock producers, enhanced economic development of Appalachia and
enhancement of the environment.
Question. What level of effort, both in terms of dollars and
scientific support, is ARS currently provided for this initiative and
what increase is required to provide full ARS support for the
initiative?
Answer. At the present time, the initiative is unfunded though some
effort at each institution is relevant to the objectives of the
initiative. An increase of $2.5 million will be needed to effectively
implement this project. Of this, $1.5 million annually would be shared
equally between the three institutions to provide the critical mass of
disciplines and infrastructure needed to sustain the program. The
remaining $1 million will be used to meet special disciplinary/
resources requirements of the project to be distributed on a
competitive basis among the three institutions. The annual request for
proposals will be developed by consensus of the member institutions and
will be based on the particular needs and stage of the project.
fusarium head blight (wheat/barley scab) research
Question. The fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Act provides
increased funding for fusarium head blight research. Please describe
the current level effort, both in terms of dollars and scientists, for
the ARS base program and the ARS consortium with 12 land-grant
universities, as compared with that in fiscal year 1998, and summarize
research accomplishments to date.
Answer. The current efforts for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year
1999 are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 1998 Fiscal Year 1999
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scientists Dollars Scientists Dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In-House........................................ 3.0 (SY) $773,500 4.7 (SY) $1,188,400
Consortium...................................... .............. 500,000 .............. 3,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent accomplishments within ARS include: the identification and
maintenance of resistance genes from wild wheat relatives into wheat
germplasm, the development of molecular markers for resistance genes,
release of a scab- tolerant wheat variety for the upper Midwest,
identification and isolation of genes that inactivate the toxin
produced by the head blight fungus and incorporation of these genes
into wheat and barley, and identification of anti- fungal genes that
appear to inhibit the fungus.
Question. Please describe the budget proposal for fiscal year 2000
funding to address fusarium head blight or scab. What research
enhancements are proposed for ARS? Is any increase in funding requested
to support the consortium?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes a $900,000 increase to
fund fusarium blight research at St. Paul, Minnesota; Fargo, North
Dakota; Peoria, Illinois; Madison, Wisconsin; Albany, California; and
Raleigh, North Carolina. Research topics to be addressed include:
genetics of resistance in spring and durum wheat, transformation of
wheat and barley for fungus resistance and control of vomitoxin,
biological control of the fungus, and disease epidemiology. The fiscal
year 2000 budget does not request additional funding to support the
consortium.
Question. Describe the Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative. What parts
of the plan have been implemented with the funding provided to date?
What additional funding will be required to fully implement the
research plan?
Answer. The U.S. Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative is a consortium
of representatives of the wheat and barley industries and university,
ARS, and private researchers. Activities include research on all
aspects of the disease, especially enhancement of genetic resistance to
head blight in wheat and barley, disease epidemiology, and disease
management strategies. The funding plan developed called for $5,125,000
per year for 5 years, and the Wheat and Barley Protection Act of 1997
authorized $5.2 million per year for a partnership between land grant
universities and the federal government to address scab in wheat and
barley. In fiscal year 1999, $3.5 million was appropriated to partially
address each of the objectives. Full funding would require an
additional $1.7 million per year.
Question. The Committee has been asked ``to limit to no more than 5
percent, the overhead charges'' deducted from ARS grants to land grant
universities for the Scab Initiative. Please explain what percentage is
taken from each of these grants and why it is taken.
Answer. Universities typically charge an ``overhead'' or
``indirect'' cost to extramural grants to partially defray in-house
infrastructure costs of conducting the research. The percentages taken
by the land grant universities for the grants in fiscal year 1999 were:
University Percent
North Dakota State University...........................................
University of Minnesota........................................... 5
Michigan State University......................................... 14
South Dakota State University..................................... 10
Ohio State University............................................. 5.5
University of Illinois............................................ 10
Purdue University.......................................................
University of Missouri............................................ 5
Kansas State University.................................................
University of Nebraska..................................................
North Carolina State University.........................................
University of Maryland..................................................
Cornell University......................................................
University of Kentucky..................................................
University of Arkansas..................................................
Virginia Tech...........................................................
University of Georgia............................................. 10
Louisiana State University..............................................
Washington State University....................................... 14
Question. The Committee has learned that despite the fact that the
Upper Midwest has been devastated by several serious plant disease
epidemics over the past ten years caused by stem rust and fusarium head
blight, there are currently no ARS scientists working on fungal
diseases of barley in the region. Is this true? If so, does the ARS
agree that federal support in combating serious disease in the region
is desirable? What level of effort, in terms of dollars and scientists,
would be required to do this?
Answer. It is not true. Currently, ARS researchers in Madison,
Fargo, and St. Paul are conducting research on fungal diseases of
barley, including fusarium head blight, stem rust, and powdery mildew.
Research areas include genetics of host plant resistance, genetic
variability of pathogens, host- pathogen interactions, and enhancing
host-plant resistance through conventional and biotechnological means.
turkey research
Question. Please provide the Committee with a status report on ARS
Poult Enteritis Mortality Syndrome (PEMS) research.
Answer. During fiscal year 1999, the following has been
accomplished:
--Initial studies showed that turkey poults exposed to PEMS-infected
tissues exhibited immunosuppression prior to the enteritis and
this had a direct impact on the immune system, specifically the
thymus gland.
--Turkeys exposed to thymus gland tissue from infected birds
developed a PEMS- like disease with mortality, severe growth
depression, enteritis, immunosuppression, and tissue atrophy.
--A new virus has been isolated from the thymus of PEMS-infected
birds--a ''Small Round Virus'' (SRV). A culture system was
developed to grow and purify the virus. Initial experiments
indicated SRV can cause disease in turkey poults similar to
PEMS in the field. The virus is not identified by diagnostic
tests for common turkey enteritis viruses.
Question. How soon will a diagnostic test be available for the
rapid identification of the likely presence of the PEMS virus?
Answer. Current studies are in progress to produce experimental
antisera for development of diagnostic tests for use in the field. The
antisera will be available for initial tests in 3-4 months. The ARS
Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory (SEPRL) has committed to
providing the antisera for initial testing at North Carolina State
University, College of Veterinary Medicine and Purdue University
Diagnostic Laboratory. Development and release of a commercial
diagnostic kit is 12-18 months to the future.
Question. Based on the fiscal year 2000 request for ARS funding for
PEMS research, when do you estimate a vaccine will be developed? Would
the hiring of a post-doctoral fellow to concentrate solely on PEMS
vaccines and other therapeutic treatments reduce the time necessary to
develop a vaccine? By how much would this additional research support
reduce the time needed to develop a vaccine?
Answer. Estimates based on current personnel and financial
resources suggest a vaccine would be available within 3-5 years.
Although the hiring of a post- doctoral fellow would allow a full-time
person to work on the vaccine development alone, the prospect for an
effective vaccine would be greater with the recruitment of a permanent
scientist. This would require an additional $300,000 in permanent
funds. This additional person would free the current personnel to work
on the identification of the Small Round Virus, define its role in
production of PEMS and development of the diagnostic tests. This could
reduce the estimated time to vaccine development from the current 3-5
years to a 1-3 years.
Question. Avian pneumovirus is a new disease posing a potential
serious threat to the turkey industry. The industry and the State of
Minnesota have allocated more than $500,000 to pneumovirus research in
the past year and are seeking a federal contribution to efforts to
further refine diagnostic tests, improve disease containment
procedures, and accelerate vaccine development. Is ARS currently
involved in the University of Minnesota project? Is ARS performing any
research related to this disease? What level of participation in the
University of Minnesota project would be appropriate if resources were
made available to the ARS to participate in this research effort?
Answer. No direct or indirect involvement has been requested by the
Minnesota Turkey Federation or the University of Minnesota. ARS has
offered to assist in the Minnesota research effort, but such offers
have not been accepted. Recently, several Minnesota pneumoviruses were
sent to SEPRL for molecular analysis. This was the first occurrence of
cooperation between ARS and the Minnesota state research effort on
pneumoviruses.
In fiscal year 1998, the National Veterinary Service Laboratory,
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA, requested assistance
from SEPRL, ARS, in avian pneumovirus research, especially in analysis
of the Colorado virus. In fiscal year 1999, pneumovirus research was
incorporated into existing research efforts at SEPRL.
ARS has conducted molecular epidemiologic evaluation of the initial
avian pneumovirus from Colorado, making appropriate comparisons to the
avian pneumoviruses Subtypes A and B of Europe and Africa. The findings
indicated that the U.S. Colorado pneumovirus was a new subtype of
pneumovirus distantly related to the European viruses and most likely
not introduced from Europe or Africa. Other studies in progress include
development of DNA-based tests for diagnostics, determining the
reservoir and original source of the pneumoviruses in North America and
understanding the disease and its control, including vaccines.
ARS could assist in poultry experimental studies to determine the
role of individual viruses in the field disease. Currently, APHIS has
limited in vivo experiments to biological containment facilities which
are lacking in Minnesota. SEPRL could provide additional assistance and
coordination in molecular analysis and vaccine development.
eurasian avian influenza
Question. The Senate report accompanying the fiscal year 1999
appropriations Act encourages ARS scientists at Athens, GA, to provide
technical assistance and to collaborate with other leading virologists
and ornithologists to develop and assess baseline data on Eurasian
birds as an influenza reservoir and their migration habits between
Southeast Asia and North America and their breeding grounds in Alaska.
Have ARS scientists assisted in this effort to assess the threat
viruses from Eurasian birds migrating to the United States?
Answer. The Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory (SEPRL), Athens,
Georgia, has provided technical assistance, in the form of virus
isolation, identification and characterization, to the University of
Alaska since the summer, 1998. Additional assistance has been provided
to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Hong Kong on Asian
Influenza. Currently, SEPRL has two Specific Cooperative Agreements
with universities for establishing baseline data on Eurasian birds as
influenza reservoir and their migration habits between Asia and Western
North American (Cooperator: University of Alaska) and between Europe
and Eastern North America (Cooperator: University of Georgia).
Question. Do findings from surveillance efforts to date call for an
increase in this screening effort? How many Eurasian avian influenza
positives were found as a result of surveillance efforts last year?
Answer. The findings to date cover only fall 1998 and winter 1999
sampling and such data represents only 6 months of effort. Patterns of
influenza ecology and identification of reservoirs can only be
established from sampling over multiple years in wide geographic areas.
Four avian influenza viruses were obtained from the 700 samples
tested from Alaskan birds and 34 influenza viruses from 400 samples
from the Midwest and Eastern US wild birds. The infected samples are
being evaluated in studies to determine the genetic origin and
relationships to Asian, European and North American avian influenza
viruses. However, additional isolates need to be obtained from both
locations in order to make the epidemiologic study viable by multi-year
sampling.
Question. What additional funding would be required for the Athens
ARS laboratory to collaborate with the University of Alaska and the
University of Georgia to further develop and assess these baseline
data, specifically to increase the number and diversity of wild bird
samples obtained and analyzed.
Answer. The SEPRL will provide the virologic and molecular biologic
components of both collaborative research projects. An additional
$100,000 would allow the hiring of a post-doctoral research associate
and the purchase of reagents to be used in the isolation and
identification of the influenza viruses from a greater number of more
diverse samples. Both university cooperators will provide the
ornithologic expertise and obtain the diagnostic samples from wild
birds in the field, and in the case of the University of Georgia, the
initial virologic isolations from the Midwest and Eastern USA. The
cooperators would need an additional $100,000 each to continue and
enhance their field sampling activities. The total required funds would
be $300,000.
national sedimentation laboratory
Question. Please provide the fiscal year 1998, 1999 and proposed
2000 funding levels for the National Sedimentation Laboratory.
Answer. The fiscal year 1998, 1999 and proposed 2000 funding levels
for the National Sedimentation Laboratory are respectively; $5,424,000,
$5,424,000, and $5,964,000.
Question. What level of funding is available for the Laboratory to
conduct research on sources and causes of water impairment in the Yazoo
River Basin and to seek economically feasible Best Management Practices
for attaining new water quality goals (Total Maximum Daily Loads) at
field, farm, watershed, and basin levels?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, the Laboratory will have $3,297,200
available to conduct research on the sources and causes of water
impairment in the Yazoo River Basin, and to develop economically
feasible Best Management Practices for attaining new water quality
goals in the Yazoo River Basin and Mississippi Delta. This does not
include the $1,246,900 in financial support that the National
Sedimentation Laboratory currently provides the University of
Mississippi's Center for Computational Hydroscience and Engineering and
National Center for Physical Acoustics. The fiscal year 2000 budget
will provide the Laboratory with an additional $540,000 that will be
used to expand the current research effort on water quality in the
Yazoo River Basin, and to assess the performance and reliability of a
broad spectrum of farming and resource management practices for
attaining new water quality goals at farm, field, watershed, and basin
levels.
genome research
Question. Please describe the animal and plant genome research
programs being carried out by ARS and the importance of that research.
Answer. Plant Genome Research. The ARS' Plant Genome Research
Program began in fiscal year 1990, and now has several major
components: 1) development, enhancement, and maintenance of a genome
database system for managing gene mapping and sequence information, and
integrating the former information with knowledge of biological
function and other attributes within and among crop species; 2)
research that elucidates crop genome structure and organization, and
that interrelates the preceding information to biological function so
as to facilitate the manipulation of genomes to improve crops; 3)
development of research tools, such as DNA libraries, molecular probes,
and primers; and 4) development of bioinformatics software tools for
characterizing and integrating complicated plant genome data. To date,
this program has stressed the development of individual genome
databases for several major crops (e.g., maize, wheat, soybeans) and
software development and database management.
ARS is currently allocating $3.9 million to plant genomic research
for several major crops. New crop genome research and database support
positions have been established at Ithaca, NY, in association with
Cornell University, and at the Western Regional Research Center,
Albany, CA. The ARS-Cornell partnership has been strengthened by
establishing a joint center for comparative genomics and
bioinformatics.
The VA-HUD Bill (Public Law 105-65) in fiscal year 1998 approved
$40 million to be allocated by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to
a National Plant Genome Initiative focused on ``economically
significant plants.'' In the first competition for these funds, nine
ARS scientists were Principal Investigators or co-Principal
Investigators on proposals that were funded. ARS is striving to ensure
that its institutional genome research and database development efforts
are coordinated with and effectively complement research funded by the
new NSF program, and other crop genome initiatives.
Importantly, the USDA/ARS Plant Genome Research program contributes
to solving many of USDA/ARS's priority research problems. It addresses
environmental deterioration (e.g., global change, water quality),
promotes sustainability and profitability of crop production, improves
the quality of food, fiber, feed, ornamentals, and industrial products
by facilitating the development of new crops and crop varieties. These
new crops and crop variants will use inputs more efficiently, and yield
products with higher quality and higher value. This research program
will also contribute to the optimal conservation and utilization of
crop genetic resources.
Animal Genome Research.--ARS initiated a program on animal genome
mapping in 1988. In 1994, ARS scientists published the first genetic
linkage maps in the world for livestock and was a key participant in
the first genetic linkage map for poultry. Second generation linkage
maps in cattle, swine, poultry and sheep were published in 1997. They
are the most complete genetic maps for this livestock species available
in the world. ARS scientists have established cooperative efforts in
genome mapping and databases with scientists in State Agriculture
Experiment Stations, other countries, and agribusiness companies.
The USDA/ARS is currently allocating $9.1 million to animal genome
research. ARS has programs on the identification of genes of importance
for animal production, gene mapping, and gene characterization in
cattle, sheep, swine, poultry, and fish at the U.S. Meat Animal
Research Center, Clay Center, NE, Avian Disease and Oncology
Laboratory, East Lansing, MI, Animal Physiology Research Unit, Athens,
GA, National Animal Disease Center, Ames, IA, Beltsville Area Research
Center, Beltsville, MD, and the Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture
Research Unit, Leetown, WV. The improved genetic linkage maps permit
ARS to direct research efforts to identify genes that regulate growth,
lactation, reproduction, carcass traits and disease resistance. These
efforts will improve production efficiency, resistance to diseases and
parasites, and quality and safety of products, and keep U.S.
agriculture competitive in international markets.
Question. How will the increased funding requested for fiscal year
2000 enhance this research effort?
Answer. The Administration's budget for fiscal year 2000 requests
an increase of $800,000 for animal genome research and $700,000 for
plant genome research. The new funding for animal genome research will
enable the Agency to augment its efforts to: 1) identify the genetic
basis for productivity in dairy cattle and mammary gland resistance to
mastitis (Beltsville, MD; $300,000); and 2) develop high throughput
methods for comparing, analyzing, and storing large numbers of DNA
sequences and gene variants (polymorphisms) so as to identify
economically important genes in cattle and swine (Clay Center, NE;
$500,000). The new funding for plant genome research will enable the
Agency to augment its efforts to: 1) apply new genomic approaches to
manipulating agriculturally important genes in crops (Albany, CA;
$400,000); and 2) develop new bioinformatic tools, biological
databases, and information management technology to generate, store,
locate, arrange, interrelate, analyze and communicate the voluminous
data produced by plant genomic sequencing, mapping, and other genomic
research (Columbia, MO; $300,000).
human nutrition research
Question. Two years ago, the Administration proposed an ARS Human
Nutrition Research Initiative. Please distinguish research performed as
a result of this initiative from the agency's ongoing nutrition
education and research program at each of the Human Nutrition
laboratories?
Answer. The research performed as a result of the Human Nutrition
Research Initiative can be distinguished from the agency's ongoing
nutrition education and research program at each of the Human Nutrition
Center's will be provided for the record.
The ARS Human Nutrition Research Centers do not have a nutrition
education program. However, Children's Nutrition Research Center at
Baylor College of Medicine has a nutrition specialist person that is
employed by USDA's Cooperative Research, Education, and Extension
Service.
The Initiative strengthens ARS' integrated, multi-disciplinary
human nutrition research program by using new approaches to elucidate
the fundamental interrelationships between diet, genetics, and health,
and by applying and validating strategies to stimulate healthy food,
nutrition, and lifestyle behaviors. Specifically, it has allowed the
ARS Human Nutrition Research Centers to focus on the following five
vital concerns: food, phytonutrients and health; healthy body weight to
avoid diabetes and other diseases; brain function and resistance to
mental decline; bone growth and protection from osteoporosis; and foods
and nutrients' roles in preventing infectious disease. This funding has
allowed the Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center to examine the
role of trace minerals in gene expression; the Human Nutrition Research
Center on Aging was able to examine the influences of diet on loss of
immunocompetence and other functions during aging, including examining
the relationship between diet, adult-onset Type 2 diabetes, functional
disabilities, and food security in a Hispanic population; the
Children's Nutrition Research Center at Baylor has examined how fetal
nutriture affects later human development and functioning, specifically
how in-utero nutrition may alter the course of human development and
produce permanent consequences for the child after birth; the Western
Human Nutrition Research Center has examined the molecular links
between gene expression, dietary intakes, individual nutrient
requirements, and risk of disease; the Arkansas Children's Nutrition
Center has examined the molecular basis for nutrient effects on
cognitive development of children, in addition, they are examining
phytonutrient compounds extracted from soybean (components part of soy-
based infant formulas) and how they might reduce the risk of various
cancers; and the Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center was able to
establish a new ARS project for research on diet and flavonoid (a major
constituent of fruits and vegetables) function, which is to determine
the bioavailability of flavonoids and their role as biomarkers of
health status.
Question. What has been accomplished to date from increased funding
made available for the Human Nutrition Research Initiative?
Answer. Some of the accomplishments to date will be provided for
the record.
Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts
University, Boston, Massachusetts
Dietary Antioxidants and Aging.--High dietary intakes of
antioxidant vitamins and phytochemicals are associated with better
maintenance of physiologic function and a lower prevalence of many
degenerative conditions in older adults. Understanding how antioxidants
reduce oxidative stress and impact the pathogenesis of chronic disease
present opportunities for health promotion. There is a compelling body
of scientific evidence that suggests that free radical pathology is
associated with many of the chronic diseases that are common among
older adults, e.g., cancer, heart disease, and degenerative eye
disorders. It has been found that the food matrix in which carotenoids
are found affects their bioavailability. Chicken eggs may serve as a
rich dietary source of bioavailable lutein and zeaxanthin, two common
carotenoids, possibly due to the lipid matrix of the yolk in which they
are located. Antioxidant status as assessed by measuring plasma
antioxidant capacity can be with increased consumption of fruits and
vegetables. This is the first time anyone has demonstrated that
antioxidant status can be altered with increased fruit and vegetable
consumption.
Nutrition, Aging and the Immune Response.--The long recovery period
and pathology associated with infectious disease has a debilitating
effect on functionality and quality of life in elderly; and infectious
diseases are among the leading causes of death in this age group.
Nutrients play an important role in regulation of the immune response
and host defense against infectious diseases. Understanding the
mechanism of nutrient modulation of the immune response during aging
will help in designing effective interventions. Consumption of up to
800 IU/day for six months of vitamin E had no adverse effect in healthy
elderly and significantly improved their immune response. One of the
mechanisms by which vitamin E contributes to the reduction of risk of
atherosclerosis and cancer is through modulation of immune and
endothelial cell interaction, production of several chemokines, pro-
inflammatory cytokine and modulation of angiogenesis. Green tea
flavonoids showed similar but more potent inhibitory effects on
angiogenesis compared to that observed with vitamin E.
Bone Health in the Elderly.--The current RDA does not appear to
support optimal functioning of vitamin K-dependent proteins in bone.
These observations are of concern because vitamin K has recently been
identified as a potentially important nutrient that can affect bone
mineral density and the risk of hip fracture. A sub-clinical deficiency
of vitamin K showed significant increases in abnormal forms of vitamin
K-dependent proteins. These investigations showed a direct evidence
that dietary depletion of vitamin K has a detrimental impact on bone
metabolism in humans. Repletion of vitamin K restored function of
vitamin K-dependent proteins, and bone resorption levels returned to
baseline.
Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center, Grand Forks, North Dakota
Micronutrients.--Copper deficiency can lead to anemia, low white
blood cell count, bone loss, poor growth, and some forms of heart
disease. ARS researchers have identified a link between copper
deficiency during pregnancy and neurological defects in the offspring
of laboratory animals. Mice fed diets lacking adequate copper
throughout pregnancy and for a few weeks after delivery; had altered
observed enzyme levels in the brains of pups and changes in protein
kinase C, an enzyme involved in the development of the nervous system.
These findings may have implications for human mothers by showing the
importance of an adequate copper intake during pregnancy.
The major signs of copper deficiency found in depleted men and
women resemble the most common characteristics that can predict risk of
ischemic heart disease in people. Although official recommendations
about desirable amounts of dietary copper have been made, no
Recommended Dietary Allowance has been assigned. In addition to the
link of low dietary copper to ischemic heart disease there has been a
recently identified link between heart disease and osteoporosis.
Adequate dietary copper is required for health of both hearts and
bones. Mice deficient in copper had fragile bones.
Strong evidence was found supporting the view that glycation, the
undesirable binding of sugar to proteins, is enhanced in dietary copper
deficiency. Because glycation is a process that is increased in
diabetes and aging, the present finding suggests that reduced copper
intake may worsen the consequences of these two conditions.
Zinc is essential for growth and early development, but the
relationship between zinc and cognition in later development is largely
unknown. ARS scientists determined that short-term supplementation with
zinc combined with other micronutrients may improve some aspects of
cognitive function of school-aged Mexican-American children, who are at
increased risk for zinc deficiency primarily because of high intakes of
dietary phytate.
Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Beltsville, Maryland
Bioavailability, Transport and Antioxidant Activity.--ARS
scientists have been able to demonstrate that lesser known carotenoids
in tomato, phytofluene and phytoene, are much more bioavailable from
tomato juice than is the dominant tomato carotenoid lycopene. The
mechanism of protection of tomato products dies not appear to be
related to immune function as judged from a T-lymphocyte proliferation
assay. ARS plant scientists and nutritionists have developed a variety
of tomato that is rich in phytofluene and phytoene. They have shown
that the carotenoid content of colon cells is markedly increased in
humans consuming carotenoid-rich vegetables, thus relevance to colonic
cell mutagenesis is likely.
Diet and Infectious Disease.--Nutritional interactions may play a
significant role in the etiology of several chronic degenerative or
acute infectious diseases. ARS scientists have shown that dietary
oxidative stress increases viral virulence apparently by changing the
genetic nature of the virus as it replicates with the host. Nutritional
status of an individual, especially in vitamin E and selenium, appears
to affect virulence and genetic structure of the virus.
Children's Nutrition Research Center, Baylor College of Medicine,
Houston, Texas
Calcium Intakes in Girls.--Most of the calcium found in the body is
in teeth and bone. The remaining small percent plays a role in
mediating vascular constriction and vasodilation, muscle contraction,
nerve transmission and glandular secretion. Calcium reference intake
values must be set at levels associated with maximum retention of body
calcium. ARS scientists showed that girls must increase their calcium
intakes at the earliest onset of puberty, rather than previously
accepted ages, since peak mineral accumulation occurs at an early age.
Body Composition.--Obesity affects 20-30 percent of the U.S.
population. Obesity is an increasing problem in children. Children and
adolescents expend less energy and become more sedentary as the social
encounters revolve around electronic devices. Dieting has not been
successful for the long-term control of obesity. Consequently, a
thorough knowledge of the metabolic and endocrine factors controlling
fat deposition is needed in order to rationally modify the current
trends. A complete body composition profile has been obtained in
children ages 3-18 representing white, black and Hispanic populations.
Preliminary analyses indicate that new standards are needed and that
these must be ethnic and gender specific.
Growth and Neurodevelopment.--Breastfeeding optimizes brain
development and reduces infections and allergy. Understanding how milk
is made, and understanding what controls how much milk is made, will
tell us what we need to know to improve milk quantity and composition
and promote breastfeeding. ARS scientists were able to identify the
possibility of genetic factors related to calcium absorption and
utilization. They showed that GLUT1 glucose transporter is responsible
for transferring glucose, the major sugar in the mother's blood, to the
place where milk sugar is made in breast cells. This is significant
because the amount of milk sugar the breast cells make determine how
much milk is produced.
Western Human Nutrition Research Center, San Francisco, California
Diet, Antioxidants, and Optimal Health.--Studies have shown that
vegetables rich in beta-carotene protect against heart disease and
cancer. The amount of beta-carotene that it takes to prevent chronic
disease is not known. In well-controlled carotenoid depletion studies
ARS scientists examined the effective range of beta-carotene in the
antioxidant defense system of healthy women. They found that maximal
protection occurred at low, physiological concentrations of beta-
carotene. They are identifying groups of people that have low beta-
carotene status and might need targeted nutritional guidance on beta-
carotene.
Healthy Body Weight: Influences of Nutritional, Biological and
Environmental Factors.--The conditions of overweight and obesity are
leading nutritional problems in the U.S. National surveys indicate that
97 million American adults or 55 percent of the population are
overweight or obese, and the prevalence is escalating. Thus, achieving
and maintaining a healthy body weight is a concern of many Americans.
ARS scientists demonstrated that during a prolonged period of dietary
energy restriction in women, the levels of plasma leptin, a protein,
were predictive of sensations of hunger. This is the first report
linking leptin to long-term appetite regulation in humans. Iron status
declined in about half of the women subjects during the energy
restriction. The inability to sustain attention may be an early
cognitive indicator of developing iron insufficiency in these women.
Bone mineral content of obese women did not decline after a 3-month
period of energy restriction. However, in premenopausal women, those
who chronically restrained their dietary intake for the purpose of
weight control had significantly lower bone mineral density.
Arkansas Children's Human Nutrition Research Center, Little Rock,
Arkansas
Soy-based Infant Formulas.--The same protein extracted from
soybeans and used as the exclusive protein source for over 95 percent
of the world's soy-based infant formulas will reduce the risk of
various cancers when fed to animals. In addition, the factors
associated with these proteins circulating in the human body after
consumption are being examined.
Question. Please describe the nutrition education and research
program at each of the ARS Human Nutrition labs. Provide the fiscal
year 1998 and 1999 levels of funding and staffing (FTE) for each lab.
Answer. The ARS Human Nutrition Research Centers do not have a
nutrition education program. However, Children's Nutrition Research
Center at Baylor College of Medicine has a nutrition extension
specialist that is employed by USDA's Cooperative Research, Education,
and Extension Service. The research carried out by each of the ARS
Human Nutrition Research Centers will be provided for the record.
Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Beltsville, Maryland.--
defines the role of food and its components in optimizing health and
reducing the risk of nutritionally related disorders in the diverse
American population. To accomplish this mission, the Center develops
new methods of food analysis; determines the role of nutrients and
their interactions in maintaining health; monitors nutritional intakes
and maintains the database of the nutrient content of foods; studies
the expenditure of energy by using direct and indirect calorimetry; and
investigates the consequences of altered nutrient intakes in free-
living humans.
Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts
University, Boston, Massachusetts.--defines safe and adequate nutrient
intakes and identifies factors that may contribute to degenerative
processes associated with aging. To accomplish this mission, the Center
determines factors related to prevention of age-related loss of bone
density leading to osteoporosis and fracture, and the preservation of
muscle strength; identifies dietary factors critical in slowing or
preventing cataract development; determines the relation of antioxidant
food components to heart disease and immune function; and explores
relationships between vitamins and brain function, stroke, and
dementia.
Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center, Grand Forks, North
Dakota.--determines nutrient needs for humans with an emphasis on
mineral element requirements that prevent disease and promote health
and optimal function throughout life. To accomplish this mission, the
Center determines the importance of mineral elements at the molecular
level with an emphasis on chronic disease; identifies detrimental
functional changes, especially in bone, brain, cardiovascular and
reproductive systems, that occur in the U.S. population because of
improper mineral element nutriture; identifies and validates
biochemical and physiological status assessment indicators for use in
the study of populations at risk from inadequate mineral element
nutrition; and defines the impact of environmental, dietary,
physiological and psychological stressors on specific mineral
requirements.
Children's Nutrition Research Center at Baylor College of Medicine,
Houston, Texas.--defines the nutritional needs of pregnant and
lactating women and of their infants and children from conception
through adolescence. To accomplish this mission, the Center establishes
nutrient requirements to prevent low birth weight babies, particularly
in pregnant adolescents; elucidates nutrient-gene interactions that
regulate metabolism and disposition of nutrients; determines nutrient
requirements for growth and development of school-aged and adolescent
children; and establishes nutritional relationships to acute and
chronic childhood diseases.
Western Human Nutrition Research Center, San Francisco,
California.--determines the impacts of dietary, environmental,
behavioral, and genetic factors on nutrient requirements and functions.
To accomplish this mission, the Center establishes markers of
nutritional status in relation to maintenance of healthy body weight,
nutrition, infection and immune disorders; and protective factors in
foods.
Arkansas Children's Nutrition Research Center, Little Rock,
Arkansas.--determines the role of nutrition in cognitive and behavioral
function, and the health consequences of infant consumption of dietary
factors (phytochemicals) such as phytoestrogens on endocrine and
metabolic development and prevention of chronic diseases.
The funding and staffing for the ARS Human Nutrition Research
Centers and related programs for fiscal years 1998, and 1999 will be
provided below for the record.
[The information follows]:
HUMAN NUTRITION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Location (FTE) 1998 estimated SY's 1998 estimated SY's
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas Children's Hospital Research Institute, Little Rock, $2,769,500 ....... $3,519,500 .......
AR...........................................................
Western Human Nutrition Research Center, San Francisco, CA.... 5,537,500 11 5,717,200 12
Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, 14,909,000 3 15,159,000 3
Boston, MA...................................................
Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center, Beltsville, MD.... 18,645,200 36 19,609,900 37
Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center, Grand Forks, ND.. 8,204,400 12 8,351,700 12
Children's Nutrition Research Center, Houston, TX............. 11,191,700 4 11,691,700 4
National Agricultural Library................................. 675,000 ....... 675,000 .......
Lower Mississippi Delta Intervention Research Initiative, (LA, 3,147,700 ....... 3,147,700 .......
AR, MS)......................................................
Other Locations............................................... 1,265,000 5 1,249,300 5
Headquarters (Special CSFII Samples for Children, FQPA)....... 5,000,000 ....... .............. .......
-------------------------------------------------
Totals.................................................. 71,345,000 71 69,121,000 73
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Is ARS conducting any nutrition education and research
outside of the Human Nutrition labs? If so, please describe the
education and research being conducted and where it is being conducted.
Answer. The nutrition education and research conducted outside of
the ARS Human Nutrition Research Centers will be provided for the
record.
ARS does not conduct nutrition education at any of the nutrition
laboratories outside the ARS Human Nutrition Research Centers.
The Lower Mississippi Delta Nutrition Intervention Research
Initiative (NIRI) is conducted by a consortium of seven partners:
Alcorn State University, Arkansas Children's Hospital Research
Institute, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Southern University
and A&M College, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, University of
Southern Mississippi, and ARS. The mission of the Delta NIRI is to
evaluate the nutritional health in the Lower Delta, to identify
nutritionally responsive problems, and to design and evaluate
interventions which may be sustained at the community level and
implemented on a larger scale in similar areas of the United States.
The research conducted by the U.S. Plant, Soil and Nutrition
Laboratory, Ithaca, New York, has a human nutrition component that
examines the absorption and utilization of organic and mineral
constituents of plant foods. ARS scientists are identifying and
depicting dietary and physiological factors that interact to affect
absorption, distribution and utilization of organic and inorganic
constituents in plant foods.
Human nutrition research conducted at the ARS National Center for
Agricultural Utilization Research, Peoria, Illinois has examined the
effect of triglyceride structure and dietary fat composition on fatty
acid and lipid metabolism in humans.
integrated pest management
Question. How has ARS research to date contributed to progress made
toward the Administration's goal of implementing integrated pest
management (IPM) programs on 75 percent of the Nation's crop acreage by
the year 2000?
Answer. During the past 15 years, USDA agencies, including ARS,
have developed research, education, and extension programs to support
the policy of implementing IPM programs on 75 percent of the Nation's
crop acreage by the year 2000. Of
course, strong interagency coordination and cooperation with the
Departmental Agencies, including CSREES, AMS, ERS, and NASS and other
public and private sector organizations is vital if IPM is to be
implemented in the United States and the year 2000 goal is to be
achieved. The USDA has developed a Strategic Plan, completed in 1993,
for implementation of USDA's Integrated Pest Management Initiative.
Under the plan, specific strategies to attempt to meet the year 2000
goal have been formulated for each Agency. ARS currently carries out a
program, using base funding, that conducts research to meet the needs
of the policy. ARS has approximately 70 projects at 29 locations
conducting basic and applied research directly related to IPM. Current
and planned future IPM studies in support of the Department's IPM goal
are tailored to each pest and designed to be sustainable over time.
Emphasis of the ARS IPM program is placed on biological, cultural,
and other biorational technologies. In addition, special programs are
underway to facilitate the transfer of new IPM technologies from small-
scale research studies to producers, which typically require large-
scale tests. An area-wide IPM program initiative has been developed by
ARS in collaboration with other federal and state agencies, as well as
private entities. An area-wide pest management pilot study using mating
disruption for codling moth on tree fruits in the Pacific Northwest was
fully implemented in fiscal year 1995, followed by full implementation
of another area-wide program using an adult attracticide against the
corn rootworm in the midwestern United States in fiscal year 1997. A
third area-wide IPM program was initiated by ARS in 1997 and is
directed at the leafy spurge weed in Montana, North and South Dakota,
and Wyoming, using primarily a natural insect predator. The numerous
other ARS IPM research projects in support of the Department's IPM
initiative emphasize traditional biological control, host-plant
resistance, behavior-modifying chemicals (e.g. pheromone mating
disruptors), resistance management, cultural practices, improved
pesticide application technologies, and other related control
technologies. Target pests include a multitude of insects, mites and
ticks, plant pathogens and nematodes, and weeds.
The Agency's IPM and area-wide programs are involved with the
development of potential substitutes to the 95 organophosphate and
carbamate pesticides currently on the EPA priority list of pesticides
to be reviewed and possibly terminated for grower use under FQPA. For
example, pheromone mating disruption of codling moth in apples and
pears will substitute for azinphos-methyl. A semio- chemical
attracticide bait will substitute for methyl parathion and carbaryl in
the control of corn rootworms; the leafy spurge predatory insect,
Apthona, will substitute for certain herbicides on the EPA list; kaolin
clays could substitute for methylchlorpyrifos, methyl parathion and
other chemical insecticides in the control of orchard pests; and
photoactive compounds in a bait matrix could substitute for
chlorpyrifos and diazinon for imported fire ant control. These examples
are only a small sampling of substitutes of the more than 90
technologies that ARS has in the developmental pipeline currently to
help address the impact of FQPA.
Much progress has been made by ARS in generating pest management
technologies for use in the Nation's IPM systems to meet the year 2000
goal, and only a select few are mentioned here:
As a result of the area-wide codling moth management program,
mating disruption technology is being used widely in the apple and pear
growing areas of the western U.S. In 1994, before the area-wide program
was initiated, only 11,000 acres were treated with mating disruption
technology in Washington State. During 1997, more than 30,000 acres
were treated with mating disruption technology, almost tripling the
usage in 3 years. There were more than 44,000 acres using the
technology throughout Washington, Oregon, and California in 1997 and
1998. A result of the diminished use of hard pesticides has been a
resurgence in the natural enemy populations that have exerted almost
complete control of secondary pests. This has further reduced the costs
of insect control on apples and pears in this three-state area.
Populations of codling moth were reduced to almost undetectable levels
at some of the 17 project sites. The cost of the control was less in
the mating disruption treated orchards than in orchards treated with
conventional organo-phosphate pesticides. The number of pesticides
sprays were reduced in all orchards under the area-wide program and
were entirely eliminated at most of the project sites. Because of the
overwhelming success of the program, thus far, numerous other growers
in these states have indicated their desire to be included in this
large-scale IPM program.
Corn rootworm populations can be reduced by 85 to 95 percent with
less than 10 percent of the chemicals used in current corn rootworm
control regimes by using adult attracticide baits developed by ARS and
now marketed by industry. This technology is the basis for the area-
wide IPM program on corn rootworm in the midwestern U.S. and Texas.
More than 25,000 acres are included in the research demonstration
project. This technology could ultimately become the treatment of
choice on the 20 million acres of U.S. cropland currently treated with
corn rootworm insecticide, in combination with transgenic corn.
ARS scientists imported and developed a black flea beetle for
control of the weed, leafy spurge, in the Midwest during 1988. By 1995,
leafy spurge was virtually eliminated at the release sites in North
Dakota and Montana. This technology is one of the major strategies
being used in the area-wide program on leafy spurge in the northern
plains of the U.S., which includes the States of Montana, Wyoming, and
North and South Dakota.
This past year, extensive fundamental, ecological, biological, and
IPM research on the silverleaf whitefly and its natural enemies
produced strategies for an ecologically-based management system. Some
crop management and community- oriented farm decision-based practices,
such as water-use patterns, and proximity of alternate host crops; and
spatial considerations have been implemented in an effort to provide
overall silverleaf whitefly population reductions. Area-wide,
community-based IPM approaches covering infested crops were implemented
across the southern tier of the U.S., and growers now have available
cotton cultivars, which are less susceptible and have reduced losses
from whiteflies. New commercial safer pesticides have been tested and
made available, and new biological control agents have become available
on the market, such as a natural fungus agent that was discovered and
developed by ARS, and a number of parasites.
ARS developed a nematode biological control agent, Steinernema
riobravis, for control of pink bollworm, corn earworm, and fall
armyworm, among others. Biosys, Inc. started selling the nematode-based
product commercially in 1994-95 for use in IPM systems. Photodyes have
been developed for use in fruit fly IPM systems for control and for
possible use in eradication of these pests from Hawaii and the
mainland. ARS scientists have found that releasing large numbers of the
boll weevil parasite, Catolaccus grandis, on infested cotton can kill
up to 95 percent of the weevils. This biocontrol agent has great
potential when used in an IPM system or eradication scheme for boll
weevils.
A new pear variety has been developed by ARS that resists fire
blight disease and will reduce chemical pesticide use and improve
export markets. Sugarbeet cultivars have also been developed and
released with resistance to leafspot and root and crown rot.
Other projects that contribute to the overall IPM program include a
community-based field trial study for control of the deer tick and lyme
disease in the northwestern United States, the management of Colorado
potato beetles and aphids with biological control systems and cultural
practices to lessen the need for chemical insecticides, and the
management of cotton plant bugs in post-boll weevil eradication zones.
The anticipated outcome of these projects will be the adoption of
the component technologies by end-users into IPM and sustainable
agriculture system with a concomitant reduction; in chemical pesticide
use and increased worker and food safety. Most of these projects are
using alternative technologies that will substitute for at-risk
chemical pesticides and which could be lost as a result of the Food
Quality Protection Act. The ARS, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS), and the Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service (CSREES), in cooperation with other USDA agencies and
local and regional organizations and producers will continue to
cooperatively implement IPM research, education, and proactive
technology transfer programs to help growers to adopt new IPM
practices.
Question. An increase of $3.17 million is requested for fiscal year
2000 for the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) research initiative.
Please describe this initiative more fully. What resources is ARS
currently committing to this initiative and where is the research being
conducted?
Answer. Department policy places high priority on funding,
development, and testing of safe substitute technology for currently
used pesticides at risk of being phased out after review by EPA under
FQPA, including the development of area-wide pest management programs
using biointensive IPM approaches, biological control agents, and other
IPM components technology.
Research funded by the proposed increase will allow ARS to expand
support for its area-wide IPM research demonstration programs based on
the use of biorational and biologically-based strategies for control of
key pests where organophosphate and carbamate pesticides are used
primarily as management agents. New projects selected for
implementation will be chosen through a scientific review process with
a major criteria tied to replacement technology for at-risk pesticides.
ARS also needs to expand its IPM component research for pests of fruits
and vegetables treated with organophosphates and carbamates, as well as
for pests under large-scale action agency eradication or control
programs, such as boll weevil and the silverleaf whitefly, a vector of
crop diseases. These programs will specifically help U.S. agriculture
adjust to changes resulting from implementation of FQPA and the cost of
chemicals currently used against these pests.
Finally, the increase in funds will be used to support the USDA
Office of Pest Management and Policy (OPMP). The Office functions to
improve USDA's ability to address FQPA by improving integration and
coordination of pest management and pesticide data programs and by
strengthening communications with the existing network of grower
organizations and crop specialists at land-grant institutions. The
activities coordinated by OPMP will help increase USDA's responsiveness
to the pest management needs of the agricultural community. Overall,
OPMP has been designated as USDA's lead office on pest management
policy and will coordinate USDA's interface with EPA, FDA, growers, and
interested groups on pest management and pesticide-related issues. OPMP
will be directly responsible for developing and implementing the
Department's overall pest management strategy to adequately meet the
needs of growers throughout the FQPA implementation process.
The current location and funding for the Food Quality Protection
Act research initiative for fiscal year 1999, as addressed by the
Agency's IPM research programs, will be provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
Location Fiscal year 1999 funds
Fresno, CA.............................................. $991,200
Salinas, CA............................................. 535,900
Shafter, CA............................................. 226,700
Ft. Lauderdale, FL...................................... 1,265,200
Gainesville, FL......................................... 1,414,500
Miami, FL............................................... 1,463,100
Byron, GA............................................... 195,800
Tifton, GA.............................................. 849,900
Ames, IA................................................ 142,400
West Lafayette, IN...................................... 84,800
Manhattan, KS........................................... 358,800
New Orleans, LA......................................... 86,400
Beltsville, MD.......................................... 2,926,500
Morris, MN.............................................. 223,600
Columbia, MO............................................ 88,400
Stoneville, MS.......................................... 2,018,800
Sidney, MT.............................................. 1,386,200
Raleigh, NC............................................. 146,100
Lincoln, NE............................................. 274,900
Ithaca, NY.............................................. 123,400
Stillwater, OK.......................................... 194,500
Charleston, SC.......................................... 524,900
Brookings, SD........................................... 1,944,200
College Station, TX..................................... 841,600
Kerrville, TX........................................... 409,900
Weslaco, TX............................................. 904,500
Prosser, WA............................................. 142,000
Pullman, WA............................................. 222,700
Yakima, WA.............................................. 2,747,300
Washington, DC.......................................... 250,200
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 22,984,400
Question. Why is USDA's Office of Pest Management Policy being
funded by the ARS? What is the role of this office and when was it
established? Please provide the level of resources, in terms of dollars
and full-time equivalent staff years, allocated for this office for
each fiscal year.
Answer. Because of the central role of ARS laboratories and field
research facilities in crop production and pest management research,
housing the Office in ARS provides the Office of Pest Management Policy
(OPMP)with ready access to a large existing network of scientific
resources and expertise. These resources are fundamental to the OPMP
mission of better informing EPA's decision processes and, when
necessary, leading efforts to develop strategies to transition to lower
risk pest management tactics. OPMP has assumed the responsibilities of
the NAPIAP program and it is reasonable to maintain funding in ARS and
follow the NAPIAP model of drawing upon other Departmental resources as
necessary. OPMP works cooperatively with CSREES to maintain and fully
utilize the network of crop production in the land grant system.
The OPMP was created in response to the demands of the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) for the Department to better integrate and
coordinate numerous programs related to pesticides and pest management.
In addition, OPMP serves as the primary contact point for EPA and
agricultural producers on pesticide matters. Deputy Secretary Rominger
announced the Office in September of 1997 and it became effective in
February, 1998.
The resource level has remained constant and equal to the former
ARS-NAPIAP budget of $1.192 million in 1998 and $1.089 million in 1999.
This level of funding supports approximately ten full time equivalent
staff members. Additional funding is sought in fiscal year 2000 to meet
the demands of the FQPA and to develop strategies allowing agricultural
producers to transition away from pest management chemicals that have
been targeted by the EPA risk assessment process.
food safety
Question. What food safety research will ARS conduct in fiscal year
1999, and what is proposed for fiscal year 2000? Provide a brief
description of each research project.
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, ARS is undertaking $69,867,600 food
safety research specifically in the areas of detection and prevention/
control of foodborne hazards; antimicrobial/antibiotic resistance; risk
assessment; and food handling, distribution and storage, consisting of:
40 projects ($14.2 million) in detection of foodborne pathogens; 70
projects ($37.9 million) in prevention and control of pathogens; 7
projects ($2.2 million) in anti-microbial/antibiotic resistance; 9
projects ($4.9 million) in risk assessment; and 18 projects ($10.6
million) in food handling, distribution and storage.
In fiscal year 2000, ARS plans to undertake $11,720,000 in
additional food safety research to expand work on the following:
detection of foodborne pathogens ($700,000); prevention and control of
pathogens ($4,750,000); antimicrobial/antibiotic resistance
($3,420,000); risk assessment ($2,400,000); and food handling,
distribution and storage ($450,000).
A listing of the fiscal year 1999 projects is provided for the
record.
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Research title Location 1999 funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detection of Foodborne Pathogens
Food Safety Pathogen Reduction... Headquarters........... $110,000
Agriculture vs Natural Habitats Beltsville, MD......... 42,100
as Sources of Cryptosporidium
Parvum.
Epidemiology and Control of Beltsville, MD......... 353,400
Toxoplasma, Trichinella and
Related Parasites.
Prevention and Therapy for Beltsville, MD......... 245,700
Protozoan Parasites.
New Technologies to Improve and Beltsville, MD......... 344,700
Assess Meat Quality and Safety.
Develop Detection Methods for Beltsville, MD......... 296,400
Cryptosporidium.
Methods of Analysis for Residues Beltsville, MD......... 310,300
in Meat and Agric. Products.
New Handling Systems and Pathogen Beltsville, MD......... 59,300
Decontamination Technology for
Fruits.
New Handling Systems and Pathogen Beltsville, MD......... 59,300
Decontamination Technology for
Fruits.
Detection of Pathogenic Bacteria Wyndmoor, PA........... 1,141,000
by Biosensors.
Advanced Technologies for the Wyndmoor, PA........... 1,093,600
Analysis of Contaminants in
Foods.
Rapid Pathogen Diagnostic and Wyndmoor, PA/Purdue 541,900
Detection Methods. University.
Stress Adaptation and Virulence Wyndmoor, PA........... 328,300
Expression of Pathogens in Food.
Food Safety Engineering Univ. Of Wyndmoor, PA........... 988,000
Purdue: Biosensor Technology.
Microbial Germplasm Collection Peoria, IL............. 378,800
for Agricultural and Industrial
Uses.
Supercritical Fluid Techniques Peoria, IL............. 434,100
for Food Safety and Nutrient
Analy- sis.
Detection, Identification, and Peoria, IL............. 826,100
Surveillance of Mycotoxins in Ce-
reals.
Prevention of Loss from Ames, IA............... 284,300
Colibacillosis/E. coli O157:H7
in Cattle and Swine.
Prevention in Livestock of Ames, IA............... 487,000
Potential Human Foodborne
Pathogens.
Treatment/Handling of Animal Riverside, CA.......... 148,200
Manure to Prevent Pathogen
Transmission.
Control of Pathogens on Surfaces Albany, CA............. 478,100
of Poultry and of Fruits and
Vegetables.
Adhesion of Human Pathogens to Albany, CA............. 538,500
Surfaces of Poultry, Fruits and
Vegetables.
Removal of Aflatoxin Albany, CA............. 215,000
Contamination from Human Foods
in Real-Time by Imaging
Techniques.
Treatment of Animal Manure to Albany, CA............. 148,200
Prevent Pathogen Transmission.
Pinus and Gutierrezia Species: ....................... 53,700
Toxicoses and Abortion in Live-
stock.
Astragalus and Oxytropis Logan, UT.............. 63,600
Poisoning in Livestock.
Livestock Poisoning by Logan, UT.............. 43,800
Pyrrolizidine Alkaloids and
Other Hepatotoxic and
Teratogenic Plants.
Poisoning of Livestock by Logan, UT.............. 53,700
Larkspur (Delphinium) Species.
On-Line Verification and Clay Center, NE........ 436,500
Intervention Procedures for
HACCP in Slaughter/Processing
Systems.
Control of Salmonella and E. coli Clay Center, NE........ 783,400
0157:H7 in Livestock/Preharvest.
Prevent the Occurrence of Toxins Fargo, ND.............. 296,400
in Water/Protect Food and
Environment.
Methodology Development for Rapid College Station, TX.... 797,000
Analysis of Drug and Pesticide
Residues in Food Animal Products.
Mississippi Center for Food Mississippi ST, MS..... 358,700
Safety and Postharvest
Technology.
Determine Isoflavonoid Induction New Orleans, LA........ 206,200
in Legumes and Their
Phytoestrogenic Effects in
Animal Systems.
Post-Mortem Muscle/Meat Changes Athens, GA............. 414,100
That Affect Product Safety and
Quality.
Reduction of Fusarium Mycotoxins Athens, GA............. 166,500
in Agricultural Commodities.
Rapid Pathogen Diagnostic and Athens, GA............. 245,500
Detection Methods.
Reduction of Biofilms Related to Athens, GA............. 297,600
Bacterial Contamination and
Pathogen Load During Poultry
Processing.
Prevent Pathogen Transmission in Athens, GA............. 74,100
Animal Manure.
Treatment of Poultry Manure to Athens, GA............. 74,100
Prevent Pathogen Transmission.
-------------
TOTAL...................... ....................... 14,217,200
=============
Prevention and Control of
Pathogens
Preharvest Control of Aflatoxin.. Headquarters........... 861,200
Food Safety Pathogen Reduction... Headquarters........... 105,700
Assessment of Agricultural vs Beltsville, MD......... 168,500
Natural Habitats as Sources of
C. Parvum.
Epidemiology and Control of Beltsville, MD......... 342,700
Toxoplasma, Trichinella and
Related Parasites.
Strategies to Control Swine Beltsville, MD......... 766,600
Parasites Affecting Food Safety.
Prevention and Therapy for Beltsville, MD......... 245,600
Protozoan Parasites.
Animal Waste Handling Systems to Beltsville, MD......... 592,800
Prevent Pathogen Transmis- sion.
Fate and Environmental Impact of Beltsville, MD......... 350,800
Agricultural Nutrients in
Sustainable Production Systems.
The Effect of Plant Genetics and Beltsville, MD......... 218,200
Zinc on Cadmium Concentration
and Bioavailability in Crops.
Composting, Stabilization, and Beltsville, MD......... 790,800
Safe Use of Manure and Mineral
By-Products from Rural/Urban
Areas.
Integrated Soil-Nutrient-Crop- Beltsville, MD......... 240,600
Microbial-Pest-Waste Management
Strategies for Sustainable
Agriculture.
Development of Techniques for Beltsville, MD......... 1,001,800
Inspection of Poultry Carcasses.
New Handling Systems and Pathogen Beltsville, MD......... 177,800
Decontamination Technology for
Fruits.
Quality Maintenance and Food Beltsville, MD......... 545,200
Safety of Fresh and Fresh Fruits/
Vegetables.
Agricultural Approaches to Human Ithaca, NY............. 166,500
Health Through Understanding
Soil-Plant-Human/Animal Food
Systems.
Improving the Nutritional Quality Ithaca, NY............. 149,700
and Stress Tolerance of Food
Crop Species.
Interventions to Improve the Wyndmoor, PA........... 776,000
Microbiological Safety and
Quality of Fruits and Vegetables.
Pathogen Contamination in Food West Lafayette, IN..... 296,400
Producing Swine.
Molecular Approach to Understand/ Peoria, IL............. 852,800
Control Fusarium Infection and
Mycotoxin Contamination of Crops.
Strategies for Developing Maize Peoria, IL............. 222,700
Kernels Resistant to Invasion by
Fusarium.
Control of Fusarium Mycotoxins Peoria, IL............. 1,201,100
and Diseases in Corn and Small
Grains 984,000 Peoria, IL
Integrated Control of
Aspergillus Flavus and Aflatoxin
in the Midwest Corn Belt.
Control and Prevention of Ames, IA............... 415,700
Cryptosporidium Parvum Infection.
Rumen Microbes and Their Ames, IA............... 475,800
Interactions with Secondary
Plant Metabolites.
Prevention of Losses from Ames, IA............... 710,800
Colibacillosis and E. coli
O157:H7 in Cattle/Swine.
Epidemiology and Control of Ames, IA............... 657,200
Salmonella.
Prevent Zoonotic Pathogen Ames, IA............... 592,800
Transmission in Swine.
Prevent Pathogen Contamination in Ames, IA............... 296,400
Food Producing Animals, Swine.
Treatment/Handling of Animal Riverside, CA.......... 444,600
Manure to Prevent Pathogen
Transmission.
Practical Application of Albany, CA............. 327,700
Molecular Genetics for Improved
Potato Cultivars.
Reduction of Aflatoxin in Tree Albany, CA............. 946,900
Nuts and Figs Through Control of
Major Insect Vectors.
Control and Prevention of Albany, CA............. 750,100
Aflatoxin Formation in Tree Nuts.
Control of Pathogens on Surfaces Albany, CA............. 697,200
of Poultry and of Fruits/
Vegetables.
Adhesion of Human Pathogens to Albany, CA............. 517,000
Surfaces of Poultry Fruits/
Vegetables.
Treatment of Animal Manure to Albany, CA............. 444,600
Prevent Pathogen Transmission.
Pinus and Gutierrezia Species: Logan, UT.............. 483,100
Toxicoses and Abortion in Live-
stock.
Astragalus and Oxytropis Logan, UT.............. 572,100
Poisoning in Livestock.
Livestock Poisoning by Logan, UT.............. 394,200
Pyrrolizidine Alkaloids and
Other Hepatotoxic and
Teratogenic Plants.
Poisoning of Livestock by Logan, UT.............. 483,100
Larkspur (Delphinium) Species.
Control of Salmonella and E. coli Clay Center, NE........ 1,081,900
0157:H7 in Livestock During
Preharvest.
Determine the Correlation Between Clay Center, NE........ 296,400
Production and Transportation
Practices in Cattle.
Cytokine-Mediated Modulation of College Station, TX.... 539,500
the Innate Immune Response to
Prevent Salmonellosis in Poultry.
Development of Microbial CEC College Station, TX.... 1,249,900
Methods to Reduce Pathogens in
Swine.
Prevention and Control of College Station, TX.... 1,189,400
Salmonella and Other
Enteropathogens in Poultry
During Growout.
Prevent Pathogen Contamination in Lubbock, TX............ 281,600
Food Producing Animals, Cat-
tle.
Disease Related Problems of Fayetteville, AR....... 293,800
Poultry Production and
Processing.
Enhancing Biotic Pest Resistance Mississippi ST, MS..... 669,100
in Corn Germplasm.
Aflatoxin Control Through New Orleans, LA........ 1,019,900
Targeting Gene Cluster Governing
Aflatoxin Synthesis in Corn and
Cottonseed.
Modification of Fungal Community New Orleans, LA........ 488,600
Structure to Improve Food Safe-
ty.
Aflatoxin Control Through New Orleans, LA........ 1,324,200
Addition of Enhancement of
Antifungal Genes in Corn and
Cotton.
Development of Improved Peanut Tifton, GA............. 267,700
Germplasm with Resistance to
Disease and Nematode Pests.
Genetic Improvement of Corn and Tifton, GA............. 151,700
Sorghum for Resistance to
Insects and Aflatoxin.
Plant Resistance and Germplasm Tifton, GA............. 145,000
Enhancement for Managing Insect
Pests of Southern Crops.
Biochemical, Physical, Dawson, GA............. 745,600
Microbiological Management for
Prevention of Mycotoxin in
Peanuts.
Pathogenesis, Detection, and Athens, GA............. 1,025,400
Control of S. Enteritidis and
Other Salmonellae in Chickens.
Stimulation of Mucosal Immunity Athens, GA............. 371,200
in Chickens to Protect Against
Enteric and Respiratory
Pathogens.
Engineering Innovations and Micro Athens, GA............. 537,500
Developments to Reduce
Contamination of Poultry and
Equipment.
Control of Campylobacter Jejuni Athens, GA............. 1,117,400
in Poultry.
Control of Salmonella During Athens, GA............. 844,400
Poultry Production.
Reduction of Fusarium Mycotoxins Athens, GA............. 666,000
as Concerns in Agricultural
Commodities.
Control and Prevention of Athens, GA............. 1,032,300
Mycotoxin Formation by the Corn
Endophyte Fusarium Moniliforme.
Epidemiology and Ecology of S. Athens, GA............. 327,400
Enteritidis in Commercial
Poultry Flocks.
Food Safety-Pathogen Reduction in Athens, GA............. 237,000
Poultry.
Prevent Pathogen Transmission in Athens, GA............. 222,300
Animal Manure.
Treatment of Poultry Manure to Athens, GA............. 222,300
Prevent Pathogen Transmission.
On-Line Detection Technology: Athens, GA/Inst. Of 439,100
PPQRU RRRC/Institute Technology Tech. Dev.
Development.
Food Safety, Waste Minimization, Raleigh, NC............ 491,800
and Value Enhancement of
Fermented and Lightly Processed
Vegetables.
National Agricultural Library: Beltsville, MD......... 219,600
Food Safety Data Base.
-------------
TOTAL...................... ....................... 37,942,600
=============
Antimicrobial/Antibiotic
Resistance
Assurance of Microbiological Wyndmoor, PA........... 159,900
Safety of Thermally Processed
Foods.
Stress Adaptation and Virulence Wyndmoor, PA........... 506,100
Expression of Bacterial
Pathogens in Food Environments.
Improve Safety and Shelf-Life of Wyndmoor, PA........... 156,700
Meat and Poultry with Ionizing
Radiation.
Epidemiology and Control of Ames, IA............... 295,300
Salmonella.
Development of Microbial CEC College Station, TX.... 588,200
Methods to Reduce Pathogens in
Swine.
Pathogen Reduction in Poultry.... Athens, GA............. 218,800
Antibiotic Resistance Research... Athens, GA............. 296,400
-------------
TOTAL...................... ....................... 2,221,400
=============
Risk Assessment
Epidemiology and Control of Beltsville, MD......... 374,800
Toxoplasma, Trichinella in
Domestic Animals.
New Technologies to Improve and Beltsville, MD......... 344,700
Assess Meat Quality and Safety.
Minimally Degradative Wyndmoor, PA........... 302,900
Pasteurization Processes for
Liquid or Solid Foods.
Assurance of Microbiological Wyndmoor, PA........... 399,900
Safety of Thermally Processed
Foods.
Risk Modeling to Improve the Wyndmoor, PA........... 120,700
Microbiological Safety of
Poultry Products.
Microbial Modeling Components for Wyndmoor, PA........... 1,209,600
Use in Risk Assessments.
Improve Safety and Shelf-Life of Wyndmoor, PA........... 156,700
Meat and Poultry by Irradiation.
Disposition of Beta-Agonists in Fargo, ND.............. 915,300
Farm Animals.
Dioxins and Other Environmental Fargo, ND.............. 1,084,400
Contaminants in Foods.
-------------
TOTAL...................... ....................... 4,909,000
=============
Food Handling, Distribution and
Storage
Develop New Handling Systems and Beltsville, MD......... 59,300
Pathogen Decontamination
Technology for Fruits.
Develop New Handling Systems and Beltsville, MD......... 59,300
Pathogen Decontamination
Technology for Fruits.
Interventions to Improve the Wyndmoor, PA........... 987,600
Microbiological Safety and
Quality of Fruits and Vegetables.
Development of Minimally Wyndmoor, PA........... 959,200
Degradative Pasteurization
Processes for Liquid or Solid
Foods.
Detection of Pathogenic Bacteria Wyndmoor, PA........... 303,300
by Biosensors.
Assurance of Microbiological Wyndmoor, PA........... 239,900
Safety of Thermally Processed
Foods.
Risk Modeling to Improve the Wyndmoor, PA........... 120,700
Microbiological Safety of
Poultry Products.
Stress Adaptation and Virulence Wyndmoor, PA........... 533,400
Expression of Pathogens in Food.
Improve Safety and Shelf-Life of Wyndmoor, PA........... 1,253,800
Meat/Poultry with Ionizing
Radiation.
Quantitative Determination of Wyndmoor, PA........... 966,700
Pathogen Reduction During Animal
Slaughter and Food Processing.
Control of Pathogens on Surfaces Albany, CA............. 816,700
of Poultry and Fruits and
Vegetables.
Adhesion of Human Pathogens to Albany, CA............. 1,098,600
Surfaces of Poultry and Fruits/
Vegetables.
Adv. Technologies for Reduction Albany, CA............. 541,300
of Microorganisms and
Particulate Matter in Food
Processing.
Removal of Aflatoxin Albany, CA............. 215,000
Contamination from Human Foods
in Real Time by Imaging
Techniques.
Control of Pathogenic and Clay Center, NE........ 844,400
Spoilage Bacteria on Red Meat.
Develop On-Line Verification and Clay Center, NE........ 436,500
Intervention Procedures for
HACCP in Slaughter/Processing
Systems.
Engineering Innovations and Micro Athens, GA............. 537,500
Developments to Reduce
Contamination of Poultry and
Equipment.
Reduction of Biofilms Related to Athens, GA............. 604,200
Bacterial Contamination and
Pathogen Load During Poultry
Processing.
-------------
TOTAL...................... ....................... 10,577,400
=============
TOTAL FOOD SAFETY.......... ....................... 69,867,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A listing of the proposed fiscal year 2000 projects is provided for
the record.
[The information follows:]
preharvest
Manure handling and distribution ($2,500,000)
--Ames, IA, $400,000--pathogen reduction
--Miss. State, MS, $600,000--pathogen reduction
--Clay Center, NE, $300,000--pathogen reduction
--Lincoln, NE, $300,000--pathogen reduction
--Bushland, TX, $600,000--pathogen reduction
--Phoenix, AZ, $300,000--identify pathogens associated with water
Risk assessment ($2,400,000)
--Athens, GA, $600,000--poultry contamination
--West Lafayette, IN, $600,000--swine production practices
--Clay Center, NE, $600,000--microbiological models in cattle
--Beltsville, MD, $600,000--zoonotic parasites
Antibiotic resistance ($1,800,000)
--Athens, GA, $600,000--gene resistance for poultry
--Ames, IA, $600,000--gene resistance for cattle and swine
--College Station,TX, $600,000--antibiotics for organisms in food
animals
Fungal toxins ($300,000)
--Athens, GA, $300,000--prevention of endophytic fungi in corn and
grasses
Zoonotic disease risk ($300,000)
--Fayetteville, AR, $300,000--metabolic diseases in chickens and
turkeys
postharvest
Pathogen control during slaughter/processing ($700,000)
--Athens, GA, $700,000--on-line detection of unwholesome poultry
Pathogen control in fruits/vegetables ($2,100,000)
--Beltsville, MD, $600,000--ecology of foodborne pathogens,
development of handling procedures
--Wyndmoor, PA, $900,000--intervention strategies for pathogens on
vegetables
--Albany, CA, $600,000--growth and survival of pathogens inbiofilms
Antimicrobial resistance ($1,620,000)
--Wyndmoor, PA, $900,000--molecular characterization methods
--Peoria, IL, $720,000--culture collections of fungal pathogens
Question. Please indicate how ARS' food safety research agenda for
each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999 was tailored to meet the needs of
the participant agencies in the President's Food Safety Initiative.
What process was used to determine research needs and priorities?
Answer. The following process was used to tailor the ARS' food
safety research agenda for each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999 to meet
the needs of the participant agencies in the President's Food Safety
Initiative, and to determine research needs and priorities:
There was continual dialogue between the agencies conducting food
safety research via meetings between the Chief Scientist at the Center
for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and his staff at the Food and
Drug Administration, the Deputy Administrator for Public Health and
Science and her staff of the Food Safety Inspection Service, and ARS
Food Safety National Program Leaders. The ARS and the FSIS hold a joint
Program Planning Workshop each year where research progress is reviewed
and additional research needs are discussed. Representatives from the
FDA are invited to participate in the workshop, and are often requested
to review specific programs of research. In addition, there was a
comparison of research agendas from each of the agencies conducting
food safety research, that is ARS, CSREES and FDA, and a delineation of
activities in order to eliminate any duplication of effort. These
activities were formalized through an inventory of all food safety
research performed by USDA and DHHS. This document is under preparation
for the Office of the Under Secretary of Research, Education and
Economics. There is continual interaction between agencies on projects
or issues of national importance when required.
alternatives to methyl bromide
Question. Please give us an update on the status of the agency's
research efforts to find alternatives to the use of methyl bromide.
Answer. ARS continues to conduct an aggressive research program to
identify and develop effective, practical and cost effective
alternatives to methyl bromide for use by U.S. farmers, postharvest
commodity handlers and processors, exporters, and others impacted by
the 2005 ban.
The ARS methyl bromide alternatives research program encompasses a
wide range of approaches. For soil fumigation they include: alternative
chemicals, new technology for pesticide application, resistant plant
varieties, biological control, and cultural practices such as soil
amendments. For postharvest they include: new chemicals, heat and cold
treatments, controlled atmospheres, inert dusts, radiation, systems
approaches and combinations of these.
Research to develop alternatives to methyl bromide to control pests
of stored commodities produced in the western United States is
conducted at ARS laboratories in Fresno, California, and Yakima,
Washington. Commodities being studied include nectarines, cherries,
apples, raisins and other dried fruits, citrus, tree nuts, cotton, and
hay. Also, methyl bromide is currently used to control pests of many of
these crops during storage. Many of these commodities cannot currently
be exported without methyl bromide treatment to eliminate quarantine
pests. Research approaches include alternative fumigants, heat and
cold, modified atmospheres, and combinations of treatments.
At Weslaco, Texas, and at Orlando and Miami, Florida, ARS is
developing alternative quarantine treatments for citrus, vegetables,
and subtropical fruits, as well as studying ways to minimize phytotoxic
effects of these treatments. Emphasis is placed on pest-free zones,
irradiation, heat and cold treatments, and advanced quarantine pest
detection systems.
At the Hilo/Honolulu, Hawaii, ARS laboratory, alternatives are
being developed for tropical fruit infested with fruit flies,
especially Mediterranean and oriental fruit flies, to allow export of
Hawaii-grown fruit to foreign markets and mainland United States, and
to protect mainland United States from introduction of pests present in
Hawaii. This research focuses on irradiation, heat and cold commodity
treatments and on techniques to eradicate fruit flies.
At Manhattan, Kansas, ARS is developing alternatives to use of
methyl bromide to fumigate flour mills, food processing plants, and
other structures for insect infestations. Building heat-ups alone and
in combination with other treatments such as diatomaceous earth are the
approaches being researched.
Research to develop alternatives to soil fumigation with methyl
bromide to control pathogens and weeds is conducted at 15 ARS
locations. Methyl bromide is used to some extent on more than 100
crops, although nearly 80 percent of all the preplant methyl bromide
soil fumigation is used on just four crops--strawberries, tomatoes,
ornamentals/nursery crops, and peppers. Alternatives to methyl bromide
soil fumigation include host plant resistance, biological control,
alternative chemicals, and different cultural practices, either alone
or in combination.
At Washington, D.C., biological control and alternative, naturally-
occurring chemicals are being evaluated as alternatives to methyl
bromide for control of soilborne diseases of ornamentals.
At Beltsville, Maryland, biological control agents are being
identified and their mode of action determined to improve control of
diseases of vegetables.
At Kearneysville, West Virginia, natural plant volatiles are being
evaluated as alternative fumigants and compost and other cultural
methods identified for disease and weed control.
At Fresno, California, integrated strategies are being tested that
involve host plant resistance, biological control and alternative
chemicals for control of disease, nematodes and insects of
strawberries, grapes, tree fruits, and vegetables. The application of
alternative chemicals using irrigation systems is being tested.
At Riverside, California, research is under way to reduce methyl
bromide emission in strawberry and vegetable production and to track
the movement and degradation of methyl bromide and alternative
fumigants.
At Davis, California, work is directed at using host plant
resistance and cultural modifications to manage diseases in tree fruits
and nuts.
At Salinas, California, research is aimed at finding biological and
cultural control methods to manage strawberry and vegetable diseases,
and to characterize the ecology of soilborne pathogens.
At Wenatchee, Washington, disease problems in tree fruit production
are being identified, and strategies for their control are being
sought.
At Corvallis, Oregon, biological controls are being investigated
for diseases of ornamentals and nursery crops, and the role of
beneficial microorganisms in disease and weed management is being
explored.
At Stoneville, Mississippi, biological control agents to control
weeds in vegetables are being identified and characterized.
At Tifton, Georgia, the emphasis is on finding cultural methods and
alternative chemical treatments and integrated strategies for control
of nematodes and diseases on vegetables, and on identifying alternative
herbicides for control of weeds.
At Byron, Georgia, research is aimed at improving cultural
practices and host resistance to manage nematodes and diseases in
peaches and other tree fruits.
At Gainesville, Florida, work is under way to find alternative soil
treatments, such as solarization, flooding, or heating, to control
pests, weeds, and pathogens in vegetables.
At Orlando, Florida, integrated methods involving biological
control, cultural practices, and alternative chemicals are being
developed for control of weeds, nematodes and diseases in tomatoes,
peppers, and other vegetables.
At Charleston, South Carolina, alternative fumigants, host-plant
resistance, and cultural practices are being explored as alternative
disease management strategies in vegetables and fruits. The survival
and spread of soilborne pathogens as influenced by other microorganisms
and the environment is being determined.
In addition, field-scale validation projects that were begun in
fiscal year 1996 were continued in Fresno, California, and Orlando,
Florida, to determine if the most promising experimental alternatives
were effective, economically feasible, and adaptable to commercial
production systems of strawberries, vegetables and perennial crops.
ARS conducted a review of the Florida methyl bromide alternatives
research program in December 1998. Participants included growers and
other commodity representatives and university and ARS scientists. The
objective of that meeting was to get grower input on research needs. A
major outcome of that meeting was a refocusing of the ARS research
effort in Florida to include more research on pesticides such as Telone
as methyl bromide alternatives. A similar meeting is planned for
California in April 1999 to get input from growers and others impacted
by the loss of methyl bromide.
Question. How much is included in the fiscal year 2000 request for
this work and where will this research be conducted?
Answer. Resources and locations for each of fiscal years 1998,
1999, and 2000 for methyl bromide research is provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
Location 1998 estimated 1999 estimated 2000 estimated
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Davis, CA....................................................... $228,800 $226,000 $226,000
Fresno, CA...................................................... 3,542,400 3,485,400 3,485,400
Riverside, CA................................................... 128,200 126,600 126,600
Salinas, CA..................................................... 542,500 535,900 535,900
Washington, DC.................................................. 244,100 241,200 241,200
Gainesville, FL................................................. 215,600 213,000 213,000
Miami, FL....................................................... 1,234,300 1,219,300 1,219,300
Orlando, FL..................................................... 1,616,800 1,597,100 1,597,100
Byron, GA....................................................... 984,900 83,900 83,900
Tifton, GA...................................................... 467,800 462,200 462,200
Hilo, HI........................................................ 1,705,500 1,684,700 1,684,700
Manhattan, KS................................................... 71,700 70,800 70,800
Beltsville, MD.................................................. 1,061,100 1,048,200 1,048,200
Stoneville, MS.................................................. 184,500 182,200 182,200
Corvallis, OR................................................... 493,900 487,400 487,400
Charleston, SC.................................................. 334,600 330,600 330,600
Weslaco, TX..................................................... 1,501,100 1,482,900 1,482,900
Wenatchee, WA................................................... 211,800 209,200 209,200
Yakima, WA...................................................... 261,200 258,000 258,000
Kearneysville, WV............................................... 440,400 435,000 435,000
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL..................................................... 14,571,200 14,379,600 14,379,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Are the agency's research findings being transferred to
producers and others?
Answer. To demonstrate promising methyl bromide alternatives and
provide opportunity for grower involvement of alternatives testing, ARS
conducts numerous tests collaboratively with growers in grower fields.
In addition, ARS provides approximately $500,000 each year from base
funds to university scientists, primarily in California and Florida, to
fund demonstration projects of the most promising methyl bromide
alternatives in grower fields. The USDA co-sponsors the International
Methyl Bromide Alternatives Research Conference each year where
scientists, extension agents, growers, exporters and other members of
the impacted agricultural community discuss the latest methyl bromide
alternatives technology. In addition, ARS scientists work closely with
grower organizations and key farmers to ensure that technology is
transferred in a timely manner.
For example, in California, ARS has methyl bromide alternative
experiments on six commercial growers' land, covering the north to
south (Watsonville to Oxnard) strawberry growing regions, both to
validate the feasibility of possible alternative fumigants and to allow
the growers input and experience in using them in commercial settings.
The growers work collaboratively with ARS scientists and do the land
preparation, planting, and harvesting themselves. ARS then uses grower
observations and field data in planning subsequent trials. Similar
validations have been conducted in Florida on tomatoes and peppers on
six to eight locations from the northern part of the state (Quincy) to
the southern (Homestead).
environmental initiatives
Question. Increased funding is proposed for fiscal year 2000 for
ARS on sustainable ecosystems and air quality. Please describe the
agency's current research programs in each of these areas; what has
been accomplished to date; and the level of resources, both in terms of
dollars and scientists, allocated to these programs.
Answer. Sustainable Ecosystems.--The proposed funding increase on
sustainable ecosystems is in direct response to the National Science
and Technology Council, Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
(CENR), Integrated Science for Ecological Challenges (ISEC) Initiative.
ISEC was initiated by the CENR member agencies in 1998, and a detailed
strategic plan has been completed where key actions have been proposed
for natural resource and environmental challenges in fiscal year 2000
and beyond. The seven areas included in sustainable ecosystems and ARS
involvement are as follows:
--Implement the CENR Research and Monitoring Framework.--ARS is
currently involved in the implementation of the CENR Mid-
Atlantic Pilot, which is an interagency effort that will lead
to improved monitoring and understanding for water quality and
environmental issues in the Delaware River Basin and the
Chesapeake Bay. The Mid-Atlantic Pilot has been used to
establish environmental data comparability as Federal agencies
increase collaboration; and ARS proposes to expand research and
monitoring for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
Initiative in fiscal year 2000. ARS currently provides
$4,848,100 in funding and 15 SYs that are contributing towards
Mid- Atlantic Pilot.
--Prevent and Control Eutrophication, Harmful Algal Blooms, and
Hypoxia.--ARS became involved in eutrophication, harmful algal
blooms, and hypoxia research with a funding increase in fiscal
year 1999 for Pfiesteria research. The Pfiesteria research has
begun to determine the effects of harmful algal blooms in
aquaculture and preliminary results show that land-based
agricultural management practices can protect water quality and
prevent future outbreaks. ARS has $801,600 and 2 SYs currently
for Pfiesteria research. In terms of hypoxia research, ARS
currently has no funding that will provide direct solutions at
the farm and watershed-scale to the problem of increased
nutrient loadings into the Gulf of Mexico.
--Predict Impacts and Restore the Viability of Damaged Riparian Zones
and Coastal Habitats.--ARS has been the primary agency involved
in determining the effectiveness of conservation buffers for
the removal of nutrients, pesticides and other pollutants. The
Clean Water Action Plan calls for farmers to create two million
miles of biofilters adjacent to waterways by year 2002,
construct 100,000 acres of wetlands by 2005 and restore 25,000
miles of stream corridors by 2005 without knowing the
capabilities of these practices in agricultural areas
throughout the United States. ARS has shown that conservation
buffers can remove sediments and contaminants generated by
agricultural activities before they reach surface waters, but
limited data are available on the long-term effectiveness of
conservation buffers for the removal of nutrients, pesticides,
pathogens, and other pollutants. ARS has $1,558,800 and 6 SYs
involved in wetlands and conservation buffers research.
--Predict Ecological Impacts of Extreme Natural Events. ARS currently
conducts weather and climate research at several locations.--
The major thrust of this research is to obtain more reliable
information on the spatial and temporal distributions of
precipitation and temperature for several major physiographic
regions of the country. ARS has developed weather generators
that can assist food and fiber producers and resource managers
in developing strategies for coping with weather variability
and climatic extremes. The funds requested in the budget for
fiscal year 2000 will be used to improve our current ability to
predict the ecological impacts of extreme climatic events
through the development of new and improved techniques for
determining trends in climate and the impacts of oceanic
anomalies, such as the El Nino, on the frequency and severity
of extreme climatic events, such as floods and droughts, at
watershed and river basin scales. ARS has funding of
$14,876,800 and 54 SYs involved in weather and climate
research.
--Advance Ecological Science for Sustainable Livestock Management
Systems.--ARS has recently refocused its manure and byproduct
research to reduce nutrient enrichment of soil and water, to
decrease release of odor causing compounds and greenhouse gases
to the atmosphere, and control pathogens in manure for public
and animal health. The current research has resulted in
information and findings on the extent of manure problems and
new methods for manure handling, storage, and treatment.
Additional research is being conducted to protect surface
waters from build up of excess phosphorous in soils, and future
research is planned on reducing pathogens from animal feeding
operations. ARS has funding of $7,195,400 and 21 SYs involved
in manure and byproduct utilization research.
--Conduct Integrated Ecosystem Risk Assessments.--ARS currently
conducts research on understanding the mechanisms by which
agricultural operations affect natural resources, on control
measures to ameliorate these impacts, and develops models and
decision support systems for comparing different crop and
livestock management systems in terms of effects on natural
resources. ARS has developed models for predicting soil
erosion, water quality impacts at the farm- and watershed-
scales, and crop and livestock response based on different
levels of inputs. However, action and regulatory agencies are
currently being required to conduct risk assessments before and
after conservation management practices are placed on the land.
ARS has funding of $850,100 and 3 SYs involved in the
development of integrated natural resource, crop, and livestock
models.
--Prevent and Control Invasive Weed Species for Ecosystem
Management.--ARS has an extensive weed research program that
addresses conventional weed problems on natural areas,
waterways, croplands, rangelands, and pasture lands; and ARS is
currently conducting some research on a number of invasive weed
species, including the control of invasive weed species such as
melaleuca, leafy spurge, salt cedar, and yellow starthistle.
ARS has shown that integrated pest management (IPM) systems
that include biological control, cultivation, other cultural
approaches, and appropriate herbicide management practices can
be used to prevent and control weed species; however,
prevention and control of invasive weed species is needed for
many agricultural ecosystems. ARS currently provides
$10,137,300 in funding and 34 SYs for invasive weed species
research.
Air Quality.--The Agricultural Research Service conducts air
quality research on issues associated with agricultural emissions of
particulate matter (as dusts or as such volatilized particulate
precursors as ammonia and pesticides) and odors. Research goals are to
understand the physics and chemistry of these emissions, to develop
approaches to reducing emissions, and to develop simulation models to
use in evaluating alternative emission-reduction strategies. Research
is also conducted regarding physiological mechanisms of ozone damage to
crops and the development of measures to reduce crop damage by ozone.
The Agency has developed a technique for analyzing dust particles to
determine sources of origin, the level of differentiation being
sufficient at this time to distinguish between roads, crop lands, and
rangelands. A computer-based predictive model for particulate matter
(PM-10) has been developed for the Columbia Plateau region of
Washington. Co-composting of dairy manure with municipal refuse compost
reduced volatile loss of nitrogen by 90 percent compared with
composting dairy manure alone. The Agency has provided some of the
first evidence that plants' antioxidants (like ascorbic acid or vitamin
C) help protect them from the oxidative damage caused by ozone. The
Agency played a significant role in research and reporting that led to
publication of ``Farming with the Wind--Best Management Practices for
Controlling Wind Erosion and Air Quality on Columbia Plateau
Croplands''. The Agricultural Research Service currently allocates $4.9
million and 18 scientist years to the air quality research initiative,
not counting the odors research. The latter, which is currently carried
out at the $1.3 million level with 5 scientist years, is reported under
an animal wastes research initiative.
environmental initiatives
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes increased ARS
funding for the Administration's global change initiative. Please
describe the agency's current research effort in this area, what is
being accomplished, and the importance of this research to agriculture
in the United States.
Answer. For the past several years, ARS's global change research
has focused on determining the likely effects of global change on: (1)
Ecosystem dynamics, i.e. how will the increasing atmospheric
CO2 concentration and any accompanying climate change affect
the productivity and water requirements of agricultural crops in the
future; (2) Biogeochemical dynamics, i.e. what are the amounts of
greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) being emitted
and stored by agriculture and how are these amounts likely to change in
the future; and (3) Hydrologic processes, i.e. how to improve
predictions of water and energy flows to, within, and from managed
ecosystems and how they will change in the future.
ARS research has determined the rates of storage and emission of
carbon dioxide from soils under various tillage systems and from the
undisturbed soils of rangelands. The emissions of methane and nitrous
oxide from soils and livestock waste lagoons have also been measured.
The responses of several of the most important crops, especially
soybean, rice, cotton, and wheat, to elevated levels of carbon dioxide
and its interactions with other environmental variables have been
observed. Our understanding of the effects on specific plant
physiological processes, such as photosynthesis, has been increased.
From monitoring of experimental watersheds, long-term hydrologic,
climatic, and vegetation databases have been developed that are useful
for documenting change and developing an understanding of hydrologic
processes and climatic effects on crop and livestock production.
One accomplishment from the past year is especially noteworthy. ARS
scientists along with colleagues from Ohio State University and from
the Natural Resources Conservation Service published a keystone book on
The Potential of U.S. Cropland to Sequester Carbon and Mitigate the
Greenhouse Effect. Refinements are needed, but nevertheless, this book
is a major accomplishment that is being used by nearly everyone in and
outside of government who is looking for guidance on the soil carbon
sequestration issue. The authors' calculations suggest there is a huge
potential for sequestering carbon in soils if conservation management
practices are adopted, practices which would additionally reduce
erosion and improve soil tilth.
The importance of global change, and of the research needed to
prepare for it, is very high for agriculture. Agriculture is more
sensitive to weather than any other economic sector, and climate is the
primary determinant of agricultural productivity. Climate change is
expected to influence crop and livestock production, hydrologic
balances, and input supplies. For example, crop and livestock yields
are directly affected by changes in temperature, precipitation, and the
frequency of droughts, floods, and wind storms. Climate change may also
change the types, frequencies, and intensities of various pests, the
availability and timing of irrigation water supplies, and the severity
of soil erosion. Trying to cope with the vagaries of weather is not new
for agriculture. However, the increased carbon dioxide concentration in
the atmosphere adds a new dimension to the issue because it is an
essential plant nutrient for photosynthesis, and higher concentrations
have the potential to actually enhance productivity of agricultural
systems.
Global change research in agriculture is also important for
devising ways to mitigate the increases in greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere. As already mentioned, with improved
management practices on the hundreds of millions of acres of
agricultural land, significant quantities of carbon could potentially
be stored in soils, and methane and nitrous oxide emissions could also
be reduced. Agriculture could potentially also provide biomass as a
alternative to burning fossil fuels.
centers of excellence
Question. Please list the Centers of Excellence receiving ARS
funding for each of fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and the funds proposed
for each Center in the fiscal year 2000 budget request. Please list the
institution, the amount of funding, and describe the research program
funded.
Answer. The location, funding and staffing levels of the ARS
Centers of Excellence for fiscal years 1998, 1999 and proposed for 2000
are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1998 Fiscal year 1999 Fiscal year 2000
Location -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds Scientists Funds Scientists Funds Scientists
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
University of Arkansas Pine Bluff, AR... 537,900 2.0 $531,400 2.0 $531,400 2.0
Delaware State University Dover, DE..... 248,500 1.0 241,400 1.0 241,400 1.0
University of Maryland Princess Anne, MD 244,400 1.0 541,900 1.0 541,900 1.0
Alcorn State University Lorman, MS...... 164,700 1.0 162,700 1.0 162,700 1.0
Langston University Langston, OK........ 199,000 .......... 444,600 1.0 444,600 1.0
Tennessee State University McMinnville, 488,400 2.0 482,500 2.0 482,500 2.0
TN.....................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 1,882,900 7.0 2,404,500 8.0 2,404,500 8.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The research programs at each of the Centers will be provided for
the record.
Swine Production at Alcorn State University.--The objective of the
program is to develop an efficient system for the production of meat
type hogs in the Southern United States. The research includes the
evaluation of breeds of swine suitable for production in Southern
climates, the use of local feeds, and development of feeding systems to
obtain efficient production of pork.
Aquaculture Products at Delaware State University.--This program
will develop rapid detection and monitoring methods for pathogens and
spoilage microorganisms in aquaculture processes and products and
improving the efficiency of purging contaminants in order to prevent
human illnesses.
Grazing Lands at Langston University, Oklahoma.--The objective of
this program is to determine impact of pasture design and grazing
animals on quality of water emerging from watersheds, and develop
pasture management systems that will optimize water quality and
productivity in the semi-arid U.S.
Horticulture at Tennessee State University, McMinnville.--The
objective of the program is to develop new and improved ornamental
trees and shrubs for the U.S. nursery industry. The research includes
development of basic genetic and physiological information related to
nursery crop species; reduce pesticide use and fertilizer runoff during
nursery crop production; develop improved nursery crop propagation
methods; and evaluate existing germplasm or ornamental trees and shrubs
for pest resistance, tolerance of environmental stress, and superior
ornamental value.
Aquaculture at University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff.--The ARS
Aquaculture Systems Research Unit develops and evaluates new or
alternative aquaculture production systems, particularly small scale
systems, and develops new components of these systems to improve the
efficiency of fresh water fish farming. Research also addresses
improvement of cultivation and processing methods to enhance the
quality of farm-raised fish and their products.
Critical Control Points in Model Systems at University of Maryland
Eastern Shore (UMES).--The program seeks to determine the natural
prevalence of bacterial pathogens in poultry grow-out houses,
processing plants, and in distribution channels; to conduct challenge
studies on critical control points in model systems to provide data for
predictive model development; and to develop risk assessment models for
use in hazard management systems. In particular, the laboratory is
developing risk assessment and predictive models to provide the
scientific basis for Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP)
systems in poultry production, processing, and distribution. ARS
research is conducted in close collaboration with the USDA Food Safety
& Inspection Service (FSIS), providing critical research to support
their regulatory mission.
national agricultural library
Question. Please describe in greater detail the $2 million research
initiative the National Agricultural Library (NAL) proposes to improve
information services for rural America, including how information
currently is made available by the library to farmers and rural
communities; how this initiative will improve that information flow;
specifically how the $2 million requested will be spent, and which
universities and ``Centers of Excellence'' will be involved in this
initiative.
Answer. The increase of $2,000,000 is for an Initiative on Digital
Libraries for Rural America. This is a natural extension of current
services provided by the National Agricultural Library (NAL) to the
entire U.S. population. General information services provided by NAL
include reference, online searching, interlibrary loan, and information
products. In addition, NAL provides leadership for the Agriculture
Network Information Center (AgNIC), a collaborative effort of twenty-
three institutions (mostly land-grant universities) to organize and
provide universal access to quality Internet information resources on
agriculture and related sciences. NAL currently provides information to
farmers and rural communities on such topics as: sustainable
agriculture, nutrition, and rural economic development.
NAL recognizes that there is much more information that would be
beneficial to rural communities, but not all that information is
available in electronic format. This initiative will improve
information flow by developing specific electronic information
resources of use to rural America. This new funding will enable NAL, in
partnership with the land-grant community, to assess the information
needs of rural citizens, ensure that needed information is made
available, and facilitate the use of that information by rural citizens
and others involved in rural development.
The $2,000,000 requested will be used to improve the electronic
delivery infrastructure available to rural communities and to add
significant subject content. A portion of the funding will be used at
NAL to enhance delivery infrastructure. The remainder of the funding
will be made available to land-grant universities and other
institutions to augment subject content, features, and services for
rural America. NAL will establish criteria for selecting organizations
to do that work, publicize the subject work to be done, and invite
proposals. Funding will be provided to the institutions best able to do
the work needed.
It is too early to know which universities and ``Centers of
Excellence'' will be involved in this initiative. Over the past decade,
NAL has worked closely with a number of land-grant universities
including, but not limited to, Cornell University, Iowa State
University, Michigan State University, New Mexico State University,
North Carolina State University, Pennsylvania State University, Ohio
State University, the University of Arizona, and the University of
Wisconsin.
Question. The Committee is aware that the NAL serves as a
storehouse for numerous art collections of major historical and
botanical significance to horticulturists, historians, artists, and
publishers from around the world. Please provide a list of the
collections maintained by NAL and describe the importance of each
collection. Also, how much does it cost NAL each year to maintain these
collections, including the cost of making them accessible to historians
and researchers around the world?
Answer. The Special Collections Section of the National
Agricultural Library serves as a storehouse for, and provides access
to, numerous rare and historical collections of artistic interest,
including 15,000 rare books and more than 300 collections of
watercolors, posters, nursery catalogs, photographs, and historic
papers. These collections are consulted by users from throughout the
world who conduct subject-specific research in all fields of
agriculture. A representative list of important collections unique to
NAL includes the following treasures:
--The USDA Pomological Watercolor Collection (1887-1937). This
collection includes hand-painted, detailed, scientifically-
accurate watercolors of fruit and nut species and varieties. It
is the historical record of early research.
--The Nursery and Seed Trade Catalog Collection (1731-1999). This is
one of the largest collections of nursery catalogs in the
world, including some of the earliest U.S. catalogs. It is the
historical record of the U.S. seed industry.
--The Horace J. McFarland Collection (ca. 1900-1940). The papers of
this conservationist and publisher include one-of-a-kind glass
plates documenting the history of landscape architecture and
horticulture, as well as American rose introductions.
--The Forest Service Historical Photograph Collection (1898-1974).
This collection includes 60,000 black and white photographs
documenting rural life in America, forestry practices, and
fire-fighting techniques.
--The Beverly T. Galloway Papers (1891-1933). The papers of the first
Chief of the USDA Bureau of Plant Industry trace the history of
plant pathology, plant exploration, and USDA cooperation with
state universities.
--The Charles Valentine Riley Papers and Memorabilia. The papers of
the Father of Biological Control document early USDA
entomological research and the beginning of biological control.
--The Smokey Bear Campaign Collection (1902-1994). This collection
documents one of the most successful public awareness campaigns
and includes early Smokey posters, illustrations, and
memorabilia.
NAL has an annual budget of approximately $70,000 to provide
limited maintenance of and access to these materials. This level of
funding is clearly inadequate to take proper care of the materials or
to provide the access these collections deserve; it is not even enough
to prevent deterioration of these items. An initial appropriation of $1
million is needed to begin to conserve and provide permanent public
access to rare and irreplaceable materials.
In order to enhance NAL's ability to maintain and provide access to
these special collections, NAL would use approximately 65 percent of
the requested funds to provide access via the Internet and 35 percent
of the requested funds to support initial maintenance and conservation
activities. The seven collections described above represent NAL's top
priorities. Funded activities would include:
Access ($650,000):
--Prepare materials for electronic access. Scan materials into
electronic form.
--Make items available via the World Wide Web (WWW).
--Link full-text and images to AGRICOLA, NAL's database now available
via the Internet.
Collection, Maintenance, and Conservation ($350,000):
--Rehouse materials into preservation quality media.
--Conduct a thorough survey of collections to determine appropriate
conservation treatments and then to perform such activities
that will retard further deterioration.
--Convert extremely fragile paper and photographic materials to
longer lasting media such as acid free paper, slides, etc.
--Improve the storage environment to consistently meet national
standards for temperature, humidity, and security, etc. to
ensure their longevity.
Funding such an integrated program will enable us to enhance NAL's
digital library with a unique and historically significant collections
for use by researchers, students, and the general public.
buildings and facilities
Question. The explanatory notes indicate that the design of the
Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center is scheduled for completion
in the second quarter of fiscal year 2000. Why are construction funds
requested for Phase I of the facility for fiscal year 2000 rather than
fiscal year 2001?
Answer. The design of the Beltsville Human Nutrition Research
Center will be completed in the second quarter of fiscal year 2000.
Construction funds are needed for Phase 1 in fiscal year 2000 in order
to advertise and award a construction contract by the third quarter. If
funds are not received until fiscal year 2001, the construction process
will be delayed and the estimated construction cost will increase due
to inflation.
Question. How many phases are proposed for construction of the new
Human Nutrition Research Center? What funding is required for each
phase of this project?
Answer. Two phases are proposed. Phase I requires $11.4 million in
fiscal year 2000, and Phase II requires $10.8 million in fiscal year
2001.
Question. The fiscal year 2000 request proposes an increase of $4.4
million for modernization of the Eastern Regional Research Center in
Philadelphia, PA. Will this funding be sufficient to complete the sixth
phase of the Chemical Wing Laboratory? Please describe the nine phases
of this project and the additional funding that will be required to
complete this work.
Answer. The funds required to complete the sixth phase of the
Chemical Wing Modernization are $4.4 million.
Phases 1 and 2 of the ERRC modernization renovates the Engineering
Research Laboratory of the Pilot Plant and Service Buildings. The
Chemical Wing construction consists of Phases 3 through 7. Once Phase 7
is accomplished, the Chemical Wing renovation will be complete. Phase 8
includes an addition to the Service Building (Power Plant) to allow for
the higher load of steam and chilled water required for the expanded
laboratory functions. Phase 9 consists of renovation of the Pilot Plant
Wing Engineering Laboratories.
An additional $13 million will be required for Phases 7, 8, and 9.
Question. Provide the proposed schedule for modernization of each
of the other ARS facilities for which funding is requested in the
fiscal year 2000 budget. Include planned project phases, the funding
provided to date, and the additional funding needed to complete the
work scheduled.
Answer.
Western Regional Research Center Chemical Wing
Funding to Date (Chemical Wing):
1990--Design (R&M).................................. $1,938,830
1990--Construction Phases I & II (R&M).............. 5,900,000
1991--Construction Phase III (R&M).................. 3,400,000
1993--Construction Phase IV (R&M)................... 3,000,000
1994--Construction Phase V (R&M).................... 4,900,000
1994--Construction Phase VI (R&M)................... 4,400,000
1994--Construction Phase VII (B&F).................. 1,161,000
1995--Construction Phase VII (B&F).................. 919,000
1997--Construction Phase VII (B&F).................. 4,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 29,618,830
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Additional Funding Needs:
2000--Design Research & Development Facility (RDF),
all phases........................................ 2,600,000
2001--Construct RDF--all phases..................... 19,600,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 22,200,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research
Funding to Date:
1989--Study (R&M)................................... 170,000
1990--Phasing Study (R&M)........................... 56,000
1990--Design Phase I (Infrastructure Upgrade)....... 330,000
1991--Construction Phase I (R&M).................... 2,404,000
1992--Design Phase II, Pilot Plant (B&F) ($1.7
Allocated)........................................ 1,825,000
1993--Design Phase III Chemical Wing (B&F)
(Redirected to Pilot Plant)....................... 1,545,000
1996--Construction Phase II--Segment 1 Pilot Plant
(B&F)............................................. 3,900,000
1997--Construction Phase II--Segment 1 Pilot Plant
(B&F)............................................. 1,500,000
1998--Modernization Phase II--Segment 2 Pilot Plant
(B&F)............................................. 8,000,000
1999--Modernization Phase II--Segment 3 Pilot Plant
(B&F)............................................. 8,200,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total........................................... 27,930,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Additional Funding Needs:
Funding to Date:
2000--Design Chemical Wing--all phases.......... 1,800,000
2002--Construct Chemical Wing--Phase 1.......... 5,900,000
2004--Construct Chemical Wing--Phase 2.......... 7,400,000
2006--Construct Chemical Wing--Phase 3.......... 8,000,000
Future--Design and construct South Wing and
Administration Wing--All phases............... 30,900,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total....................................... 54,000,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Southern Regional Research Center
Funding to Date (Chemical Wing):
1990--Design (R&M).................................. 884,000
1991--Construct Phase I (R&M)....................... 1,400,000
1992--Construct Phase II (R&M)...................... 2,400,000
1992--Construct Phase III, IV (R&M)................. 3,050,000
1992--Construct Phase V (B&F)....................... 1,950,000
1993--Design/Construct Site Repairs (B&F)........... 1,651,000
1994--Construct Phase VI (B&F)...................... 2,667,000
1995--Construct Phase VII (B&F)..................... 2,934,000
1996--Construct Site Repairs, Phase II (B&F)........ 900,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 17,836,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Funding to Date (Industrial Wing):
1998--Design (B&F) All phases....................... 1,100,000
1999--Construct Phase 1 (B&F)....................... 6,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 7,100,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Additional Funding Needs:
2000--Construct Phase 2--Industrial Wing............ 5,500,000
2003--Construct Phase 3--Industrial Wing............ 14,000,000
2005--Construct Phase 4--Industrial Wing............ 5,500,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 15,000,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Plum Island Animal Disease Center
Funding to Date:
1992--Design (Redirected to Consolidation).......... (2,000,000)
1993--Modernization................................. 2,540,000
1993--APHIS Transfer................................ 1,183,000
1994--Modernization................................. 1,475,000
1994--APHIS Transfer................................ 516,250
1995--Modernization................................. 1,168,000
1995--APHIS Transfer................................ 747,000
1996--Modernization................................. 5,000,000
1996--APHIS Transfer................................ 3,200,000
1997--Modernization................................. 5,000,000
1997--APHIS Transfer................................ 3,200,000
1998--Modernization................................. 2,000,000
1998-- APHIS Transfer............................... 3,200,000
1999--Modernization................................. 3,500,000
1999--APHIS Transfer................................ 3,200,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 35,929,250
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Additional Funding Needs:
2000--Modernization................................. 8,200,000
Future.............................................. 45,871,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 54,071,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC)
Funding to Date:
Fiscal year 1988:
Renovate Building 007........................... 2,000,000
Design Building 003............................. 660,859
Renovate Abattoir, Building 204................. 57,446
Renovate Building 303........................... 506,877
Modify HVAC, Building 306....................... 372,270
Water Lines..................................... 1,402,195
Miscellaneous Projects, BARC (under $100,000)... 374,234
Repair Building 307............................. 88,064
Repair Building 467............................. 10,835
Repair Building 264............................. 5,480
Small Animal Facility Contingency............... 271,740
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total......................................... 5,750,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Fiscal year 1989:
U.S. National Arboretum Roof Repairs............ 300,852
U.S. National Arboretum Greenhouse Electrical
Repairs....................................... 273,200
Steam Lines, Phase IV........................... 1,100,000
Oil to Gas Conversion........................... 328,237
Renovate Building 203 (Boar Facility)........... 529,026
U.S. National Arboretum, Relocate Service Road.. 87,643
Hazardous Waste Marshaling Facilities........... 79,662
Waste Water Treatment Study..................... 194,864
Renovate Building 204........................... 354,335
Beltsville Area Security........................ 91,806
Pesticide Handling Facilities................... 441,793
Swing Space..................................... 274,100
Miscellaneous Projects.......................... 44,482
USNA Brickyard.................................. 2,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total......................................... 6,100,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Fiscal year 1990:
Steam Lines, Building 169-179................... 568,752
Steam Lines, Buildings 001-011A................. 1,407,084
Range 2 Modernization........................... 690,574
Waste Water Treatment Facility.................. 1,100,056
Electrical Distribution System.................. 574,157
BARC Roads...................................... 361,027
Animal Parasitology Unit Planning............... 30,282
HVAC System, Building 050....................... 44,598
Repair Embankment Failure....................... 211,135
Powder Mill Road................................ 1,547,588
Swing Space..................................... 103,685
Brooder House................................... 230,000
Renovate Building 043, 046, 047................. 148,591
Annual Painting................................. 200,098
Annual Roofing.................................. 247,582
U.S. National Arboretum Storage Building........ 90,402
U.S. National Arboretum Plastic Greenhouses (3). 235,687
Demolition of Facilities........................ 27,985
Replace Chiller, Building 006................... 103,965
Renovate Building 209........................... 71,693
Renovate Headhouse 16........................... 35,124
Repairs Building 177B........................... 12,465
Repairs Building 211............................ 7,965
Renovate Building 1120.......................... 18,391
Elevator, Building 449/Gas Cyl.................. 50,954
Renovate Building 449........................... 4,865
Key Card Security Gate.......................... 37,002
Small Miscellaneous Projects.................... 625,031
Repairs, Building............................... 15,000
Contingency Steam Lines......................... 297,170
Contingency..................................... 197,604
Replace Roof, Building 012...................... 139,000
Contingency..................................... 424,488
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total......................................... 9,860,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Fiscal year 1991:
Addition, Building 426.......................... 65,000
Conference Room, Building 005................... 435,000
Electrical...................................... 1,500,000
Building 001.................................... 735,000
Plant Sciences Building......................... 1,100,000
Dairy Research Facility......................... 2,186,330
Central Hay Storage............................. 803,670
Repair Building 201............................. 50,000
BARC--East Waste Water Treatment................ 6,534,000
Building 200 Modernization...................... 60,000
Renovate Building 007........................... 1,290,000
Demolition...................................... 198,904
Swing Space..................................... 991,888
Contingency..................................... 50,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total......................................... 15,999,792
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Fiscal Year 1992:
Renovate Range 2 Greenhouse Complex............. 3,100,000
Repair/Replace Waste Water Treatment Facility... 300,000
Construct Plant Sciences Building............... 12,600,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total......................................... 16,000,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Fiscal year 1993:
Range 2 Greenhouse Complex...................... 7,400,000
BARC--West Waste Water Treatment Plant.......... 4,000,000
BARC--East Water System......................... 600,000
Controlled Environmental Chamber Facility....... 586,000
Office/Laboratory Economic Analysis............. 200,000
Animal Space Economic Analysis.................. 230,000
Contingencies................................... 531,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total......................................... 13,547,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Fiscal year 1994:
Modernize Building 001.......................... 9,700,000
Modernize East Potable Water System............. 7,400,000
Design New Animal Building...................... 530,000
Upgrade West Electrical System.................. 1,500,000
Design to Modernize Building 004................ 450,000
Contingencies................................... 120,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total......................................... 19,700,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Fiscal year 1995: Modernize Building 004............ 3,960,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Fiscal year 1996:
Construct Controlled Environment Facility....... 4,700,000
Design/Construct Infrastructure in 300 Area..... 2,000,000
Contingencies................................... 60,000
New Animal Building Design...................... 615,000
Cooling Tower for Building 004.................. 375,000
Renovate Building 001........................... 250,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total......................................... 8,000,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Fiscal year 1997:
Design New BHNRC Building....................... 1,700,000
Infrastructure BARC--East....................... 1,400,000
Fiber Optic Backbone Cabling.................... 700,000
Contingencies................................... 700,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total......................................... 4,500,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Fiscal year 1998:
Construct New Feed Center....................... 1,970,000
Fiber Optic Backbone Cable...................... 850,000
Contingencies................................... 380,000
--------------------------------------------------------
___________________________________________________
Total......................................... 3,200,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Fiscal year 1999:
Design/Construct New Poultry Barn............... 2,200,000
Demolish Facilities............................. 100,000
Contingencies/Miscellaneous Small Projects...... 200,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total......................................... 2,500,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Proposed fiscal year 2000:
Construct BHNRC................................. 11,400,000
Contingencies/Miscellaneous Small Projects...... 1,600,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total......................................... 13,000,000
The balance of funds needed beyond fiscal year 2000 is in excess of
$83.7 million. Due to uncertainty regarding future funding levels, and
potential changes to priority projects, the Agency has not developed a
firm phasing plan beyond fiscal year 2000.
Question. What temporary space arrangements has ARS made to
relocate its staff from the Army research laboratory at Presidio, due
to the expiration of the lease at the end of April 1999?
Answer. On February 2, 1999, ARS executed a short-term lease
agreement with the University of California, Davis, for laboratory and
office space on campus for the temporary relocation of personnel and
programs from ARS' space at the Army research laboratory at the
Presidio, San Francisco. This lease is effective through March 31,
2003, and is renewable on a monthly basis.
Question. When will the agency conduct and complete the further
review of the most cost-efficient size and capacity of the replacement
facility for the water conservation and cotton research program, as
directed by Congress last year? If complete, please provide the
results/findings to the Committee.
Answer. ARS has conducted a review of the needs of its U.S. Water
Conservation Laboratory and Western Cotton Research Laboratory in
Phoenix and reevaluated the space requirements of a replacement
facility. ARS' report is being reviewed by the Secretary's Office and
should be submitted to Congress shortly.
Question. Provide the Committee with a status report on the urgency
of facilities' improvements at the Avian Disease Oncology Laboratory in
East Lansing, Michigan. Has ARS done a cost-benefit analysis on this
facilities modernization project, in terms of the cost of constructing
new facilities versus relocation of the research program? Please
provide the results of that analysis to the Committee.
Answer. Building system components have exceeded their normal life
expectancy and the existing facilities are in need of repair.
Deficiencies include safety and health needs, such as fume hood
upgrades, and ventilation issues in labs; accessibility issues; and
building code compliance issues. These conditions have resulted in a
facility that is costly to maintain and inadequate for present research
programs. A four-phase program involving renovation, new construction,
and demolition is underway. The total appropriations to date for
planning and design are $2.262 million. The remaining need for
construction, construction management, and contingency is estimated to
be $17.2 million.
ARS is presently conducting an analysis of ARS' poultry health and
related facility needs. Results of this study will be provided to the
Committee when completed. The agency is moving forward with the design
for the modernization of this facility which performs research on
domestic diseases of chickens. The design project is expected to be
completed by June, 2000.
Question. When will planning and design work funded over the last
two fiscal years for the Poisonous Plant Laboratory, UT; Biocontrol and
Insect Rearing Laboratory, MS; and Pest Quarantine and Integrated Pest
Management Facility, MT be completed? Why isn't funding to begin
construction of each of these facilities proposed for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The Poisonous Plant Research Laboratory design will be
awarded in the third quarter of fiscal year 1999 and will be completed
in the first quarter of fiscal year 2001. Construction funding will be
required in fiscal year 2001.
The name of the Biocontrol and Insect Rearing Laboratory has been
changed to the National Biological Control Laboratory. The site design
will be completed in fiscal year 1999, with full design of the facility
completed in April 2000. Fiscal year 1998 funding of $900,000 for
planning and design was rescinded by line item veto. The Agency did not
anticipate that this would be reversed. Therefore, no construction
funds were requested for fiscal year 2000. If fiscal year 2000
construction funding is available in the amount of $13.4 million, site
work can be awarded in January 2000, with full laboratory construction
awarded by August 2000.
The Pest Quarantine and Integrated Pest Management Facility design
will be completed in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1999. The
necessary construction funds in the amount of $7.3 million were
appropriated in fiscal year 1999. No further funding is required.
Question. Provide a report on each of the ARS projects for which
funds were provided for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, indicating the
current status of the work funded, and what additional funds will be
required, if any, to complete the project.
Answer.
[The information follows:]
[Millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional
Project Location Appropriated needed Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAC, Mariocpa, AZ...................... 1999--$0.5................ $23.1 Project is on hold pending
determination by the Agency of
the most cost-effective size
for the facility.
HWMRL, Parlier, CA..................... 1998--$23.4............... None Construction will be completed
in the Second Quarter of
fiscal year 2000.
WHNRC, Davis, CA....................... 1998--$5.2................ Design will be complete Davis,
1999--$6.15............... 9.0 in the Fourth Quarter of
fiscal year 2000.
EBCL, Montpellier, France.............. 1998--$3.4................ None Construction will be complete
in the Fourth Quarter of
fiscal year 1999.
PBRC, Hilo, HI......................... 1999--$4.5................ 51.0 Design will be completed in the
Fourth Quarter of fiscal year
2000.
NCAUR, Peoria, IL...................... 1998--$8.0................ Phase II, Segment 2, Pilot
1999--$8.2................ 54.0 Plant construction will be
complete in the Third Quarter
of fiscal year 2000. Segment 3
design will be complete in the
Fourth Quarter of fiscal year
1999 and construction will be
awarded in the Fourth Quarter
of fiscal year 2000.
NADC, Modernization, Ames, IA.......... 1999--$2.957.............. 328.0 Waste Water Treatment Plant
1999--$1.943 \1\.......... modernization design will be
awarded in the Fourth Quarter
of fiscal year 1999.
GRL, Manhattan, KS..................... 1999--$1.4................ 8.25 Construction of Phases 1 and 2
1998--$1.1................ will be awarded by the Third
Quarter of fiscal year 1999.
SRRC, New Orleans, LA.................. 1998--$1.1................ 15.0 Phase I (Industrial Wing)
1999--$6.0................ Design will be completed LA in
the Second Quarter of fiscal
year 1999. Construction will
be awarded in the Third
Quarter of fiscal year 1999.
BARC, Beltsville, MD................... 1998--$3.2................ 96.7 Feed Center design will be
1999--$2.5................ completed in the Second
Quarter of fiscal year 1999.
Poultry Production design will
be awarded in the Third
Quarter of fiscal year 1999.
BHNRC design will be complete
in the Second Quarter of
fiscal year 2000.
NAL, Beltsville, MD.................... 1998--$2.5................ 26.3 Construction of Phase I will be
1999--$1.2................ complete in the First Quarter
of fiscal year 2000.
E. Lansing, MI......................... 1998--$1.8................ 17.2 Design will be completed in the
Second Quarter of fiscal year
2000.
Stoneville, MS......................... 1998--$0.9................ 13.4 Design will be completed in the
1999--$0.2................ Third Quarter of fiscal year
2000.
Sidney, MT............................. 1998--$0.606.............. None Design will be completed in the
1999--$7.3................ Fourth Quarter of fiscal year
1999. Construction will be
awarded in the First Quarter
of fiscal year 2000.
Las Cruces, NM......................... 1998--$0.7................ None Design will be completed in the
1999--$6.7................ Fourth Quarter of fiscal year
1999. Construction will be
awarded in the First Quarter
of fiscal year 2000.
PIADC, Greenport, NY................... 1998--$2.0................ 57.0+ Electrical modernization
1999--$3.5................ construction to be completed
in the Third Quarter of fiscal
year 1999. Sewage
Decontamination Plant design
will be awarded in the Third
Quarter of fiscal year 1999.
Boiler Plant Replacement
design will be completed in
the Third Quarter of fiscal
year 1999.
Grand Forks, ND........................ 1998--$4.40............... None Construction to be completed by
the Third Quarter of fiscal
year 1999.
ERRC, Wyndmoor, PA..................... 1998--$5.0................ 17.4 Phase 3 and 4, construction
1999--$3.3................ will be completed in the First
Quarter of fiscal year 2000.
Phase 5 construction will be
awarded in the First Quarter
of fiscal year 2001.
Charleston, SC......................... 1998--$4.824.............. 14.6 Construction of Phase I will be
completed in the Third Quarter
of fiscal year 2001.
Logan, UT.............................. 1998--$0.6................ 8.6 Design will be awarded in the
1999--$0.030.............. Third Quarter of fiscal year
1999.
Leetown, WV............................ 1998--$6.................. None Construction will be awarded in
1999--$2.................. the Fourth Quarter of fiscal
year 1999 with construction
completion by the Fourth
Quarter of fiscal year 2000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reprogrammed.
Question. Does the Administration have any plans to close the
Tucson laboratory which is conducting honeybee research?
Answer. ARS is considering its options for providing support to the
honey bee industry through its honey bee laboratories. ARS has four
honey bee laboratories that have some overlap in program assignment.
ARS has a partially occupied new facility for honey bee research at
Weslaco, Texas. ARS believes that it would realize increased
operational efficiency through program consolidation that would
strengthen honey bee research. ARS has consulted with the bee industry
and with the University of Arizona on relocation of the program at
Tucson to Weslaco. ARS will not propose a reduction in the number of
scientists or funding for honey bee research.
Question. Please provide a list, by ARS project, of any available
unobligated funds remaining from prior year appropriations.
Answer. The following is a list of available unobligated funds
remaining from prior year appropriations as of 2/28/99:
[In thousands]
Project Unobligated Balances
Albany, CA: Western Regional Research Center.................. $632
Athens, GA: Poultry Disease Laboratory........................ 1,005
Charleston, SC: Vegetable Laboratory.......................... 762
Davis, CA: Western Human Nutrition Research Center............ 5,200
E. Lansing, MI: Avian Disease & Oncology Laboratory........... 655
Ft. Pierce, FL: Horticulture Laboratory....................... 1,495
Grand Forks, ND: Human Nutrition Center....................... 652
Greenport, NY: Plum Island Animal Disease Center.............. 3,822
Las Cruces, NM: Jornada Range Research Center................. 602
Logan, UT: Poisonous Plant Research Laboratory................ 600
Lubbock, TX: Plant Stress Laboratory.......................... 647
Manhattan, KS:
Grain Marketing Research Laboratory....................... 13
Water Conservation Laboratory............................. 396
Montpellier, France: European Biological Control Laboratory... 335
New Orleans, LA: Southern Regional Research Center............ 232
Oxford, MS: National Center for Natural Products.............. 7,000
Parlier, CA: Horticulture Crop Research Laboratory............ 6,604
Peoria, IL: National Center for Agricultural Utilization...... Research
Philadelphia, PA: Eastern Regional Research Center............ 1,707
Riverside, CA: Salinity Laboratory............................ 125
Sidney, MT: Pest Quarantine & Integrated Pest Management...... 495
Stoneville, MS: National Center for Warmwater Aquaculture..... 900
Stuttgart, AR: Rice Research Center........................... 479
Weslaco, TX:
Bee Laboratory............................................ 76
Subtropical Agricultural Research Laboratory.............. 3,141
Leetown, WV: National Center for Cool & Cold Water
Aquaculture............................................. 11,801
Beltsville, MD:
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center................... 5,094
National Agricultural Library............................. 94
Hurricane (Andrew/Iniki) Funds................................ 11,177
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 67,274
Question. Provide a list of the facilities' maintenance and repair
work, by project and location, funded in each of fiscal years 1997,
1998, and 1999 and planned for fiscal year 2000, showing the cost of
each.
Answer. The fiscal year 1997 repair and maintenance budget was
$18.262 million. This amount includes $14.246 million in Agency funds,
$900,000 for the National Agricultural Library, $740,000 for the USNA,
and $2.376 million in BARC Renaissance 1993 funds. Some of the types of
repair and maintenance projects funded in fiscal year 1997 include:
roof repair, HVAC repair, plumbing repairs, upgrade to sewage lines,
electrical repairs, fencing replacement, painting, pavement repair,
asbestos and lead abatement, accessability projects, and replacement of
fire alarm systems.
[The information follows:]
State/Location/Project Amount
AL, Auburn: Install New Roof Bldg 3..................... $50,575
AR, Booneville: Replace Chill Water Air Conditioning
System Bldg 1....................................... 54,880
AR, Stuttgart: Rehabilitate Levies at 27 Acre Reservoir. 18,720
CA, Albany:
Renovate Greenhouse Control & Ridge Vent Systems.... 222,840
Fire Alarms......................................... 24,825
CA, Davis: Resurface Access Road & Driveway............. 71,100
CO, Akron: Concrete Drive & Parking Area................ 151,650
CO, Ft. Collins: Area Energy Audits..................... 7,228
DC, U.S. National Arboretum:
Exterior Lighting................................... 250,000
Paths, Irrigation, Drainage and Lighting............ 300,000
Bonsai Courtyard.................................... 35,000
Auditorium/Lobby Renovation......................... 20,000
Trim and Remove Trees............................... 25,000
Street Signs........................................ 22,000
Miscellaneous Repairs............................... 87,633
FL, Brooksville:
Replace Water Systems............................... 347,333
Replace Grain Storage Bins.......................... 80,000
FL, Canal Point: Remodel Bldg 1......................... 31,030
FL, Gainesville: Replace Fire Alarm System.............. 18,557
GA, Athens:
Replace Sewage Connection Lines..................... 35,947
A&E Services........................................ 3,300
GA, Byron:
Irrigation Well & Flow Meters....................... 257,005
Connect to City Sewer System........................ 40,846
A&E Services........................................ 4,164
ID, Dubois: Feed Distribution System.................... 101,632
ID, Kimberly: Renovate HVAC System, Main Bldg........... 758,307
IL, Peoria:
Energy Audits or Chemical Storage................... 9,897
Replace Fire Alarm System........................... 195,000
IA, Ames: Upgrade HVAC System Bldg 4.................... 1,691,128
KS, Manhattan: Partial Repaint Pilot Plant & Grain
Elevator Bldg....................................... 46,192
MD, Beltsville:
Demolition of Facilities............................ 300,000
Mod Office Salaries................................. 197,327
Inspection.......................................... 51,052
Replace CFC Refrigerants............................ 20,000
Telecommunications East & West (Y2K Upgrades)....... 150,000
Road Repairs........................................ 100,000
Roof Repairs........................................ 100,000
Install Dearator Bldg. 014.......................... 70,000
Replace Storm/Sanitary Lines 3rd St................. 100,000
Convert 10 Boilers to Gas........................... 160,000
Replace Steamlines, Bldgs 307 and 306............... 150,000
Remove Pipe Chase Asbestos, Bldg. 200............... 150,000
Correct Water Leak, Bldg. 008, Rms. 10 and 12....... 20,000
Install Backflow Prevention on BARC................. 175,000
Install Fall Protection at Sites.................... 70,000
Install Fence at Manure Pit......................... 10,000
Install Smoke Indicator, Bldg 309................... 10,000
Repair/Replace Granary Docking/Turnheads............ 15,000
Replace Roof, Bldg. 161............................. 150,000
Replace Roof, Bldg. 301............................. 40,000
Replace Variable Frequency Drives, Bldg. 007........ 30,000
Correct Drainage, Bldg. 50, GH 2/Section 2.......... 10,000
Install O/H Garage Doors, Bldgs 029, 1124, and 1125. 70,000
Replace HVAC System, Bldg. 046...................... 45,000
Contingencies....................................... 182,683
MD, Frederick: Renovate Building 1301................... 30,000
MD, NAL:
Sprinkler System, Phase II.......................... 250,000
Replace Cooling Tower............................... 375,000
Miscellaneous/Emergency Repairs..................... 100,000
Facility Seismic Study.............................. 30,000
Clean air Ducts..................................... 145,000
MN, St. Paul: Upgrade Steam System & Install Boiler..... 28,316
MS, Mississippi State: Repave Roadways and Parking Lots. 225,000
MS, Oxford: Renovation Chemistry Labs................... 9,484
MS, Poplarville Bldgs 1, 2 & 3: Sandblast, Seal & Paint. 40,000
MS, Stoneville: Replace Boilers & Steam Pipes........... 275,000
ND, Grand Forks:
Flood Damage Project................................ 2,244,472
Upgrade HVAC........................................ 563,594
NM, Las Cruces:
Repair Fencing...................................... 18,370
Regravel HQ/Storage Area............................ 3,600
Repair Water Lines.................................. 2,840
NY, Ithaca: Renovate Labs 201, 205, 222, Bldg. 002...... 319,000
NY, Plum Island:
Harbors & Docks..................................... 370,315
Replace East End Exit............................... 199,341
OK, El Reno:
Remove 34 Bldgs..................................... 207,600
Laboratory Renovation............................... 4,464,360
OK, Woodward: Regravel Roads............................ 8,075
OR, Corvallis: Repair Main Air Handler Intake........... 6,403
PA, Wyndmoor: Replace Underground Storage Tank.......... 13,165
PA, University: Renovate Pasture Lab Bldg Park Basement. 143,800
PR, Mayaguez:
Replace Emergency Generator......................... 21,500
Repair Screenhouse.................................. 50,000
TX, College:
Pecan Building Accessibility........................ 14,002
Station Replace Electrical Distribution Panels...... 65,943
Replace Heating Pipes............................... 18,437
Replace Boiler...................................... 93,050
TX, Houston: Install HVAC Motion Sensor................. 9,767
TX, Kerrville: Remove/Replace Rusted Purlins & Roof
Panels.............................................. 126,970
TX, Lubbuck: Greenhouse Repairs......................... 8,772
TX, Temple:
Rework/Replace/Modify Hot Water System.............. 134
Handicap Accessability for Main Bldg................ 36,900
TX, Weslaco:
Building 305 Renovations............................ 85,000
Replace Light Fixtures.............................. 2,340
Retrofit Sprinkler System........................... 2,500
Upgrade Field Drains................................ 2,500
Replace Roof Bldg. 201.............................. 13,672
Install Thermostats................................. 6,680
UT, Logan: Roof Replacement............................. 90,222
WV, Beckley: Construct Centralized Location For Lab Gas
Tanks............................................... 136,338
WY, Cheyenne:
Overlay Pavement.................................... 57,220
Agency Reserve (Uncommitted)........................ 9,986
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 18,262,519
The fiscal year 1998 repair and maintenance budget was $18.262
million. This amount includes $14.246 million in Agency funds, $900,000
for the National Agricultural Library, $740,000 for the USNA, and
$2.376 million in BARC Renaissance 1993 funds. Some of the types of
repair and maintenance projects funded in fiscal year 1998 include:
roof repairs, HVAC repairs, plumbing repairs, electrical repairs, water
system repairs, sewage system repairs, road repairs, greenhouse repairs
and reglazing, fencing replacements, telephone system repairs,
painting, accessability projects, and replacement of fire alarm
systems.
[The information follows:]
State/Location/Project Amount
AZ, Phoenix: Renovate Three Labs........................ $252,794
AR, Booneville:
Replace Greenhouse Doors, Fire Extinguisher......... 2,250
Upgrade Sewage Lagoon............................... 107,590
CA, Albany:
Exterior Manlift/Accessability Issue................ 65,000
Upgrade Mechanical Rooms............................ 303,573
CA, Riverside: Upgrade Electrical Service............... 22,633
CA, Salinas: New Replacement Well....................... 106,000
CO, Fort Collins: Upgrade Security System............... 28,700
DC, U.S. National Arboretum:
Exterior Lighting................................... 207,000
Repair Paths, Irrigation, Drainage, and Lighting.... 310,000
Renovate Bonsai Courtyard........................... 25,000
Auditorium/Lobby Renovation......................... 30,000
Trim & Remove Trees................................. 25,000
Chiller Repairs..................................... 23,000
Replace Street Signs................................ 21,000
Miscellaneous Repairs............................... 99,000
DE, Newark:
Replace HVAC Chiller................................ 31,820
Remove/Replace Greenhouse Benches and Sidings....... 32,937
FL, Brooksville: Repair Concrete Roadway................ 32,681
FL, Canal Point: Repair/Modify Various Buildings........ 336,342
FL, Gainesville: Modernization.......................... 4,336,144
GA, Athens:
RRC Handicap Ramps.................................. 14,850
Construction Management Renovation.................. 57,260
Renovate Laboratory for Handicapped Accessability... 18,053
Renovate Warehouse.................................. 24,543
300KV Energy Generator.............................. 107,743
Repair Sewage System................................ 28,064
Elevator/Stair Construction......................... 75,000
GA, Byron:
Repair Well......................................... 28,432
Repair Electrical Distribution System............... 10,371
GA, Griffin: Replace HVAC in Headhouse/Greenhouse....... 6,628
GA, Tifton: Construction Management Renovation.......... 41,800
GA, Watkinsville: Elevator/ADA Compliance............... 1,705
HQ Nationwide: Seismic Studies.......................... 245,413
ID, Dubois:
Repair Gravel Road.................................. 35,000
Repair 1.5 Miles of Entrance Road................... 248,806
ID, Kimberly: Repair Roof Bldgs 2, 3, 4 & 5............. 213,867
IL, Peoria:
Replace Steam Traps................................. 47,594
Replace Hot Water Tank.............................. 33,788
Upgrade Ventilation Basement, Center Wing, Other
Areas............................................. 65,000
Install Additional Fire Hydrants.................... 141,925
Replace Cooling Water Tower......................... 150,000
IN, West Lafayette:
Fume Hood........................................... 9,700
Install Insulation in Grinding Room................. 17,966
IA, Ames:
NADC Telephone Y2K Upgrade.......................... 279,883
Construct Bldg 5 Improvements....................... 54,563
NADC Master Plan.................................... 617,290
KS, Manhattan: Replace Telephone Switch (Y2K Upgrade)... 25,780
LA, Houma: Construct Handicapped Entrance............... 7,000
MD, Beltsville (BARC):
Annual Demolition................................... 300,000
Replace Refrigerants................................ 9,735
Upgrade Telecommunications (Y2K Upgrade)............ 150,000
Repair Animal Spaces................................ 156,600
Roof Repairs........................................ 100,000
Boiler Conversion................................... 148,019
Replace Expansion Joints for Bldgs 306 & 307........ 25,000
Remove Pipe Chase Asbestos Bldg 200................. 86,682
Correct Water Leak Bldg 008, Rms 10 & 12............ 20,000
Replace Chutes and Doors on Silos................... 123,814
Replace Three Backflow Preventers BARC-W............ 56,508
Install Smoke Indicator Bldg. 309................... 10,000
Repair/Replace Granary Decking/Turnheads............ 15,000
Replace Roof Bldg. 301.............................. 40,000
Replace Overhead Doors Bldg. 029, 1124/1125......... 70,000
Replace HVAC System Bldg. 046....................... 45,000
Renovate Laboratory Bldg. 200....................... 100,000
Renovate Security Section, Bldg. 307................ 15,000
Update Security Alarms.............................. 75,000
Locate Underground Utilities........................ 10,000
Upgrade Telecommunications Equip. Bldg. 050 (Y2K
Upgrade).......................................... 8,000
Paint Fence Bldg. 017............................... 1,900
Replace Windows Bldg. 426........................... 30,000
Replace Gas Boiler Bldg. 26......................... 225,000
Recondition Elevators Bldg. 011A.................... 120,000
Ice Dam Bldg. 007................................... 55,000
Update Telecommunications Equip. Bldg. 002 (Y2K
Upgrade).......................................... 15,000
Paint and Repair Interior Bldg. 005................. 200,000
Replace Storm Drain Poultry Modular Home............ 25,000
Fire Alarm Bldg. 003................................ 25,000
Fire Alarm Bldg. 308C............................... 7,000
Modernization Office................................ 169,845
Replace Carpet Bldg. 003, Rm 20..................... 3,907
Repair Cafeteria Bldg. 003.......................... 500
Miscellaneous Repairs............................... 133,552
MD, NAL:
Sprinkler System.................................... 263,000
Cooling Tower....................................... 386,000
Fifth Floor, HVAC................................... 53,000
Air Handling Unit................................... 14,000
First Floor Renovation.............................. 55,000
Miscellaneous Repairs............................... 129,000
MD, Frederick:
Renovate Labs and Offices........................... 114,873
Upgrade HVAC and Lab Infrastructure Bldg 1301....... 400,000
MI, East Lansing:
Replace Roofs....................................... 34,280
Sewage Disposal Improvements........................ 35,270
MN, Morris:
Install Fire Alarm System........................... 91,562
Upgrade Microbiology Laboratory..................... 45,000
MN, St. Paul:
Glazing on Greenhouse #2............................ 3,930
Repair Structure of Building........................ 210,153
MO, Columbia: Improve Ventilation....................... 224,907
MS, Mississippi State: Replace Telephone System......... 212,222
MS, Oxford:
Renovate Chemistry Labs............................. 148,270
Paint Buildings..................................... 15,450
MS, Poplarville:
Repair Well......................................... 19,915
Replace HVAC Systems and Lights in Bldgs 1 & 2...... 49,194
Add Sheetrock to Interior Walls of Maintenance
Building.......................................... 12,592
Repair Well and Replace Storage Tank................ 19,025
MS, Stoneville:
Maintain Exterior of Building....................... 8,300
Renovate Building 44 and 5.......................... 24,019
Repair Exterior JWRC................................ 34,108
Replace Sewer System JWRC........................... 29,524
Caulk Windows....................................... 5,180
Replace Underground Water Supply.................... 106,682
Renovation of Laboratory/Quarantine Facility........ 100,000
Repair Pond Levees.................................. 84,216
Replace Heating Pump................................ 24,359
Repair/Replace Structural Supports.................. 38,703
Replace Access Ramp................................. 12,089
Modify HVAC System.................................. 19,852
MT, Miles City:
Maintain Windmills.................................. 2,800
Replace Telephone Switch (Y2K Upgrade).............. 25,000
Additional Fencing Materials........................ 33,771
Maintain Waterers................................... 8,600
MT, Sidney:
Upgrade HVAC System................................. 936,380
Asbestos Abatement.................................. 77,636
NC, Raleigh: Replace Chiller............................ 53,842
ND, Fargo:
Renovation Incinerator Building..................... 22,000
Handicap Access..................................... 1,685
Repair Greenhouse................................... 2,150
ND, Mandan:
Re-roof Bldgs 3, 30 and 31.......................... 5,340
Renovate Security Fencing........................... 13,600
Repair Gravel Road and Fencing Supplies............. 22,000
Replace HVAC Motors................................. 4,220
Glyco (HVAC)........................................ 2,000
NE, Clay Center: Replace Telephone Switch (Y2K Upgrade). 42,740
NM, Las Cruces:
Gravel & Seal Coat Parking Lots..................... 5,000
Painting/Roof Repairs............................... 23,420
NY, Ithaca:
Replace Fume Hoods, Fans Stacks..................... 173,339
Repair Air Handling Unit, Main Bldg................. 26,438
Repair Greenhouse & Road............................ 24,100
Construct Stairway Enclosure, Bldg 004.............. 5,281
NY, Plum Island:
Coating Existing Building 100....................... 43,670
Animal Room Painting, Lighthouse Repairs, Cattle
Loading Dock Repairs, Replace Overhead Garage
Doors............................................. 54,730
OH, Coshocton:
Repair Air Exchange System.......................... 36,186
Historic Survey..................................... 9,998
OK, El Reno:
Develop Facilities Historic Preservation Plan....... 185,113
Asphalt East Campus Road............................ 138,651
Renovate Bldg 45.................................... 460,406
OK, Lane Replace: Automated Telephone System (Y2K
Upgrade)............................................ 9,933
OK, Stillwater:
Repair/Renovation of 3 Greenhouses.................. 27,437
Repair Asphalt Parking.............................. 10,200
Facility Condition/Energy Survey.................... 4,626
OK, Woodward:
Design/Analysis for HVAC/Electrical Upgrade......... 74,598
Install UFAS Elevator............................... 30,644
Painting Buildings 2, 7, 9, 11, 12.................. 25,000
Restroom/Elevator Upgrade........................... 50,327
Regravel Roads...................................... 25,000
OR, Burns: Upgrade Access Road.......................... 29,910
PA, Univ. Park
Renovate Grinding Room.............................. 34,061
Renovate Chemical Storage Area...................... 19,375
Upgrade/Replace HVAC................................ 28,943
PA, Wyndmoor:
ERRC Re-Roof........................................ 81,585
Replace Underground Storage Tank.................... 52,525
SC, Charleston: Repair Pavement......................... 21,380
SC, Florence: Replace and Expand Exterior Walls of
Offices............................................. 161,100
TX, Bushland:
Upgrade for Accessability........................... 20,000
Replace 500 SF Gas House............................ 16,585
TX, College Station:
Energy Audit........................................ 20,005
Replace Electrical Distribution Panels Bldgs 11 and
12................................................ 28,650
Renovate Swine Facility............................. 31,000
Comprehensive Roof Evaluation....................... 2,396
TX, Houston:
Comprehensive Energy Audit.......................... 20,000
Roof Design, CNRC................................... 4,958
TX, Kerrville:
Repair Polymer Roof Coating......................... 94,636
R&M Projects........................................ 10,400
TX, Lubbock:
Replace Hot Water Piping............................ 10,440
Retrofit Greenhouse Screening....................... 10,000
TX, Temple:
Upgrade Interior Building Ceiling Light............. 96,070
Asbestos Removal.................................... 42,976
Replace AC, in Seed Building........................ 5,000
TX, Weslaco: Replace Boiler Bldg 203.................... 9,950
WA, Yakima: Upgrade Fire Alarm.......................... 19,789
WI, Madison: Upgrade Building Access.................... 74,511
WV, Beaver: Repair/Replace Exterior Lighting............ 59,467
WV, Beckley:
Master Plan/Deficiency Study/Energy Conservation.... 57,235
Alter Soils Prep Bldg redirected to Update Walk-In
Growth Chamber.................................... 53,330
WV, Kearneysville: Maintain and Repair HVAC............. 37,000
WY, Cheyenne: Corral Poles, Lag Bots and Gravel......... 4,975
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 18,262,338
The fiscal year 1999 repair and maintenance budget was
$18.262 million. This amount includes $14.246 million in Agency
funds, $900,000 for the National Agricultural Library, $740,000
for the USNA, and $2.376 million in BARC Renaissance 1993
funds. Some of the types of repair and maintenance projects
funded in fiscal year 1999 include: roof repairs, HVAC repairs,
plumbing repairs, electrical repairs, water system repairs,
sewage system repairs, road repairs, greenhouse repairs and
reglazing, fencing replacements, telephone system repairs,
painting, accessability projects, replacement of fire alarm
systems, and Y2K upgrades.
[The information follows:]
State/Location/Project Amount
CA, Albany:
WAB Lab Renovation Upgrade Solvent Processing....... $72,000
Facility............................................ 85,000
Sanitary/Storm Sewer Survey......................... 55,000
CA, Riverside: Rescreen Screenhouse..................... 80,000
CA, Salinas: Renovate Greenhouses....................... 222,000
CO, Akron: Replace Roof, Building 1..................... 110,000
CO, Fort Collins:
Upgrade HVAC System................................. 50,000
Upgrade Phone System (Y2K Upgrade).................. 30,000
DC, U.S. National Arboretum:
Repair Lath House................................... 522,000
Replace Exterior Lighting........................... 61,000
Renovation of Lobby and Auditorium.................. 41,000
Restore Outdoor Restroom............................ 25,000
Miscellaneous....................................... 91,000
DE, Newark: Upgrade Quarantine Facility................. 320,000
FL, Canal: Point Laboratory Ventilation................. 161,300
GA, Athens:
Renovate Storage Building........................... 250,000
Sewage Decontamination System....................... 406,977
RRC Modernization Study............................. 800,000
GA, Byron: Secondary Electrical/Fire and Security Alarms 137,500
IA, Ames:
Construct Improvements to Building 5................ 170,000
Renovate Ag Facility Bldg. 3 Design................. 250,000
ID, Dubois:
Repair/Refill Fire Hydrants......................... 25,000
Construct Wheelchair Access......................... 35,000
ID, Kimberly:
Remodel Exterior Walls.............................. 310,000
Repair Roof Bldgs 1................................. 157,000
MD, Beltsville (BARC):
Miscellaneous Small Projects........................ 203,401
Demolition of Facilities............................ 383,798
Upgrade Telecommunications.......................... 150,000
Renovation of GGPL Laboratories..................... 19,007
Bldg 005 Rehab...................................... 70,750
GH Control System................................... 75,000
Repair Roads--1st St/Parking Lots Bldg 006 &
Visitor's Center.................................. 260,000
Replace HVAC Bldg 1180.............................. 30,000
Install Backflow Prevention Bldg 1040............... 1,975
Renovation of Water Tower--across from Bldg 426..... 285,000
Repair Animal Spaces................................ 140,000
Silicone Seal--Bldgs 001/002/003/004/005/006/007/307
& 308............................................. 150,000
Paint Bldg 202...................................... 48,000
MD, Beltsville (BARC):
Correct Erosion Around Water Main--Entomology Road.. 75,000
Minor Renovations Bldg 005.......................... 125,000
Replace Building Control Bldg 050................... 25,000
Install New Fire Alarm System Bldg 1040............. 3,635
Replace Emergency Generator Bldg 014................ 25,000
Replace Steamlines between Bldgs 309 & 310.......... 25,000
Remove Breaching and Asbestos Bldg 014.............. 22,000
Telephone Forprs.................................... 280
Replace Round Door Bldg 010A........................ 10,000
Replace Door Bldg 031............................... 675
Sliding Door (ADA) for Bldg 003..................... 3,511
Small Miscellaneous Projects........................ 100,000
Bridge Inspections.................................. 4,000
Bldg 161 Install Ramp and Renovate Bathrooms (ADA).. 55,000
Steam Tunnel Repair (SAFETY ISSUE) Bldg 200 to Bldg
201............................................... 50,000
Log Lodge Repair.................................... 35,000
MD, NAL:
Clean Air Duct...................................... 170,000
Design AHU (Wings).................................. 175,000
Clean Air Quality Study............................. 10,000
Retrofit Low Volt Circuit Breaker................... 50,000
Clean, Seal & Paint Sub-Basement Floor.............. 30,000
Repair Freight Elevator Doors....................... 20,000
Replace Ceiling, Third Floor........................ 20,000
Annual Calibration High Voltage Equip............... 10,000
Miscellaneous Small Projects........................ 415,000
Replace Air Handling Unit........................... 1,200,000
MD, Frederick: Renovate Lab and Office.................. 300,000
MI, East Lansing:
Upgrade Sewer System................................ 265,000
Replace Roofs....................................... 485,000
MN, St. Paul: Repair/Reglaze Greenhouse................. 180,740
MO, Columbia: Install Controls for Heating/AC........... 12,000
MS, Mississippi: Design Glass and Window State
Replacement......................................... 13,000
MS, Stoneville:
Renovate HVAC System Building 8..................... 235,000
Design Replace...................................... 300
Ton Chiller......................................... 13,600
Elevator Repair Building 1.......................... 160,000
Repair Exterior Building 1.......................... 300,000
MT, Miles City: Design Bridge........................... 50,000
NE, Clay Center: Overlay Road........................... 100,000
ND, Fargo:
Replace Steam Boiler................................ 60,000
Repave Parking Area................................. 210,000
Roof Repair......................................... 130,000
ND, Mandan:
Repipe Chiller, Building 1.......................... 60,000
Upgrade Headhouse/Greenhouse........................ 70,000
OK, El Reno:
Repair and Pave Roadway............................. 52,000
Develop Facilities Historic Preservation Plan....... 100,000
Renovate Bldg. 45, Renovate Sheep Barn Bldg. 40, and
Renovate West Scale House Bldg. 67................ 1,800,000
OK Woodward: Modify Restrooms, Building 6............... 100,000
OR, Corvallis: Repair Screenhouses...................... 140,000
PA, University: Upgrade/Replace HVAC System Park........ 200,000
PA, Wyndmoor: Y2K Upgrades.............................. 59,000
PR, Mayaguez: Replace Vehicle Maintenance Building...... 15,000
TX, College Stn.:
Comprehensive Facility Assessment................... 30,000
Repair Storm Damage to Greenhouses.................. 293,500
Refurbish Interior Building 3....................... 280,000
TX, Lubbock: Renovate Building 8........................ 328,200
WA, Pullman: Upgrade Computer Controls in Greenhouse.... 29,760
WY, Cheyenne: Replace Roofs............................. 31,000
WY, Laramie:
Install Cooling System.............................. 45,000
Incinerator......................................... 100,000
Uncommitted at this time............................ 3,071,391
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 18,262,000
The fiscal year 2000 repair and maintenance budget is anticipated
to be $18.262 million in Agency funds. Some of the types of repair and
maintenance projects anticipated are: roof repairs, HVAC repairs,
plumbing repairs, electrical repairs, water system repairs, sewage
system repairs, road repairs, greenhouse repairs and reglazing, fencing
replacements, telephone system repairs, painting, accessability
projects, replacement of fire alarm systems, and Y2K upgrades.
Question. Please describe the agency's activities and funding
obligations in each of fiscal years 1997 and 1998 under the provisions
limiting construction, alteration, repair and improvements of buildings
in the ARS appropriations language specifying (1) that the cost of
constructing any one building shall not exceed $250,000; (2) head
houses and greenhouses shall be limited to $1,000,000; and (3) no more
than ten buildings can be constructed or improved at a cost not to
exceed $500,000 each.
Answer. The agency's funding obligations in fiscal years 1997 and
1998 under the specified provisions are as follows:
Buildings not exceeding $250,000:
1997 New Storage Building (Pacific West Area)............. $207,000
1997 New Screenhouse Building (Pacific West Area)......... 113,000
1997 New Barn (Midwest Area).............................. 90,000
1998 New Storage Building (Pacific West Area)............. 137,000
1998 New Shop Building (North Atlantic Area).............. 160,000
1998 New Residence (Beltsville Area)...................... 115,000
Head house/Greenhouse not exceeding $1,000,000:
1997 New Greenhouse, Riverside, CA........................ 183,000
1998...................................................... ( \1\ )
Ten Small Buildings not exceeding $500,000:
1997 Administrative Building (Southern Plains Area)....... 455,000
1997 Building A (Southern Plains Area).................... 205,000
1997 Building B (Southern Plains Area).................... 205,000
1998...................................................... ( \1\ )
\1\ None.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Research Activities
Questions Submitted by Senator Cochran
implementation of the agricultural research, extension, and education
reform act of 1998
Question. The Agricultural Research, Extension and Education
Reauthorization Act of 1998 amends the Competitive, Special, and
Facilities Research Grant Act (1) to require grantees to arrange for
scientific peer review of their proposed research and merit review of
their proposed extension and education activities prior to award; and
(2) an annual report of the results of the research, extension, or
education activity and the merit of the results. How are these new
statutory requirements being carried out? Will the new requirements for
scientific peer review of research grants and merit review of proposed
extension and education activities delay the award of funds provided
for fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Prior to the award of a grant by the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service, grantees are required to
arrange for scientific peer review of their proposed research
activities and merit review of their proposed extension and education
activities. The review arranged by the grantee must provide a credible
and independent assessment of the proposed project. A credible review
is one that provides an appraisal of technical quality and relevance
sufficient for an organizational representative to make an informed
judgment as to whether the proposal is appropriate for submission for
Federal support. To provide for an independent review, such review may
include USDA employees, but should not be conducted solely by USDA
employees. A notice of completion of the review must be conveyed in
writing to the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service either as part of the submitted proposal or prior to the
issuance of an award. The written notice constitutes certification by
the applicant that a review has occurred. Annually, within 30 days of
the anniversary date of each award, the recipient must submit a report
describing the results of the research, extension or education activity
and the merit of the results.
Regulations to implement these requirements were published as a
proposed rule in the Federal Register on March 24, 1999. A 30-day
period is provided for submission of public comments to be considered
in the development of the final rule. To meet the statutory
requirements, the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service cannot award fiscal year 1999 Special Grants until the final
rule is published and recipients have certified that they have
conducted reviews in accordance with the provisions of the final rule.
It is anticipated that the final rule will be published in May.
Therefore, the earliest date that Special Grants could be awarded is
June 1999. However, while the rule making process is taking place, the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service is
proceeding with the internal review of proposals and the preparation of
grants for signature to minimize delays in making awards.
thomas jefferson initiative
Question. The Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education
Reauthorization Act of 1998 authorizes the Thomas Jefferson Initiative
for Crop Diversification. The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes no
funding for this program. Does the Administration support the program?
Answer. The Administration does support the Thomas Jefferson
Initiative for Crop Diversification. The Initiative is funded directly
through a Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Fund for
Rural America grant entitled ``Diversifying Cropping Systems to Enhance
Rural Development.'' The Center for Crop Diversification brings
together a critical mass of partners and expertise to catalyze change
in cropping systems and farming communities. The Center works with
locally-led teams to develop new oilseeds, grains, fiber crops, and
horticultural alternatives for targeted areas in the Midwest, Great
Plains, and Pacific Northwest. Partners in this Center include farmers,
non-profit organizations, and land-grant universities including the
University of Missouri, Jefferson Institute, Purdue University, Iowa
State University, University of Nebraska, Colorado State University,
and Oregon State University.
This project proposes to help farmers return to the constructive
practices of diversification. Over a 4-year period the Center will
accomplish several objectives spanning on-farm research, economic
analysis and marketing, and comprehensive education programs.
Activities to enhance rural development include developing teams of
farmers conducting on-farm research on new crop options; supporting the
farmer teams with technical, management, and marketing assistance; and
building local support through workshops, on-farm tours, information
exchange, and leadership development. Additional objectives include:
providing facilities; serving as a central information resource; and
reducing institutional barriers to diversification.
Question. What funding would be needed for fiscal year 2000 to
carry out the Thomas Jefferson Initiative for Crop Diversification?
Answer. No additional funds are needed. The current grant awarded
under the Fund for Rural America program runs through year 2002.
u.s. global change
Question. Please provide the Committee with an update on USDA's
Global Change/UVB Monitoring Program. What is the importance of this
program to U.S. agriculture?
Answer. The Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension
Service, CSREES, is in the process of establishing a network for
monitoring surface UV-B radiation which will meet the needs of the
science community of the United States, and which will be compatible
with similar networks being developed throughout the world. The fiscal
year 1998 grant supports work through September, 1999.
This grant is part of a government-wide initiative. The research is
closely coordinated with other Federal agencies involved in the U. S.
Global Change Research Program Inter-agency UV-Monitoring Network Plan.
The principal researcher believes destruction of the stratospheric
ozone layer, our shield from the full intensity of solar radiation,
continues to increase. This creates a high priority need for
information to document not only the levels of UV-B radiation reaching
the earth's surface, but the climatology of that radiation. The United
States, and the rest of the world, needs to know the strength of the
UV-B radiation reaching the earth and the potential impact on all forms
of life, especially animal and plant life of agriculturally-important
species. The principal researcher believes this research to be of
national as well as regional and local importance.
The USDA UV-B Network is to provide accurate, geographically-
dispersed data on UV-B radiation reaching the surface of the earth and
to detect trends over time in this type of radiation. A primary problem
which had to be overcome in order to reach this goal is the development
of instrumentation adequate to make the measurements required for the
monitoring network.
Colorado State University is managing the operating network, which
when completed will include all regions of the country. At least 30
sites are planned for the climatological network including sites in
Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico in order to provide broad geographic
coverage. Ten sites have been operational with broad band instruments
for up to five years and 26 sites are now operational with new
generation instruments. The research level network began with the first
instrument installed at the Table Mountain, Colorado instrument
intercomparison site and the second to be installed at the Department
of Agriculture Plant Stress Laboratory at Beltsville, Maryland.
Negotiations are underway with the Department of Energy Solar Radiation
site near Ponca City, Oklahoma as part of the Atmospheric Radiation
Measurements field network as a potential site for the third instrument
to be deployed later in 1999.
As with other weather and climate observations, this network will
be an ongoing need for the predictable future. These measurements will
provide information on the nature and seriousness of UV-B radiation in
the United States and will provide ground truth validation to other
predictions of UV-B irradiance. The project has now met it's first
objective of the establishment of a climatological network to monitor
UV-B radiation at the surface of the earth. Years of operation will be
required to measure trends in UV-B radiation and to develop models to
predict the climatology of UV-B radiation.
sustainable agriculture
Question. Provide a list of the Sustainable Agriculture Research
and Education (SARE) research grants awarded for fiscal year 1998,
including a description of the project, who conducted the research, and
the amount of the award.
Answer. The list of the Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Education (SARE) research grants awarded for fiscal year 1998 are as
follows. Projects starting with E are Extension funds.
[The information follows:]
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE RESEARCH AND EDUCATION (SARE) RESEARCH GRANTS AWARDED FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project number Project title Project Coordinator SARE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENC98-028................................ Alternative Information Networking to Support Sustainable John Ikerd........................... $32,950
Agriculture on Small Farms.
ENC98-029................................ Michigan Field Crop Ecology: Training and Field Natalie Bement-Rector................ 47,677
Demonstration.
ENC98-030................................ Marketplace '99............................................ Thomas Hanson........................ 12,600
ENC98-031................................ Revitalizing Community Development in the Dakotas.......... Thomas Hanson........................ 64,700
ENC98-032................................ Planning Sustainable Grazing Systems....................... Mark Boswell......................... 45,740
ENC98-033................................ Developing Advanced Grazing Educational Materials and Henry Bartholomew.................... 60,000
Schools on Sustainable and Profitable Grazing Systems for
the North Central Region.
ENC98-034................................ Introduction to Management Intensive Grazing Systems Deborah Cavanaugh-Grant.............. 32,308
Workshops and Resource Manual for Educators.
ENC98-035................................ Workshops on Land Use and Farmland Policy.................. Kevin Schmidt........................ 48,247
ENC98-036.1.............................. Educate the Agricultural Educators and Bankers on Paul Daigle.......................... 12,500
Profitability, Lifestyle and Environmental Benefits of MIG
for the Livestock Farmers of Central Wisconsin.
ENC98-037.1.............................. Outreach Education for Permaculture as Native Science...... Ann Krush............................ 36,450
ENE98-037................................ How to Keep Agriculture Sustainable: Training Trainers on Julia Freedgood...................... 77,282
Conserving Farmland & Resolving Land Use Conflicts in the
Delmarva Peninsula.
ENE98-038................................ Organic Grain Production Another Way....................... John Hall............................ 90,100
ENE98-039................................ Northeast Training @ Support Network for Agriculture Judy Green........................... 132,392
Development.
ENE98-040................................ Diagnostic Team Approach to Enhancing Dairy Farm William Heald........................ 50,000
Sustainability, Phase II.
ENE98-041................................ Increasing Producer Adoption of Pasture of a Whole Farm Edward Harwood....................... 30,393
System.
ENE98-042................................ Feeding Our Cities: Establishing a Strong Urban/Sustainable Michael T. Keilty.................... 6,500
Agriculture Interface in Southern New England.
ENE98-043................................ Nutrient management Education: Development and Karen L. Gartley..................... 6,500
Implementation of Training Modules on Basic Principles,
Current State of Knowledge and Advances in Research.
ENE98-044................................ Locally Led Farmer Groups for Sustainable Agriculture: The Jim Hanson........................... 6,500
Study Circle.
ENE98-045................................ Re-Inventing the Appalachian Shephard...................... Tom McConnel......................... 6,500
ENE98-046................................ Conducting On-Farm Research: Enabling Farmers to Implement Kathryne L. Everts................... 50,000
Sustainable Change in Agriculture.
ES98-037................................. Oklahoma Master Woodland Owners Program.................... William G. Ross...................... 23,640
ES98-038................................. Motivating Teams for Enterprise Facilitation............... James V. Worstell.................... 96,000
ES98-039................................. Multi Disciplinary Training on Pasture-Based Dairy System-- Steve Washburn....................... 52,578
A Sustainable Alternative for the Region.
ES98-040................................. Grazing Management Training to Enhance the Sustainability Jim Green............................ 31,745
of Pasture-Based Beef Production Systems.
ES98-041................................. Training in Sustainable Systems Approach to Production, William Patton....................... 99,912
Harvesting, Processing and Marketing of Value Added Syrup
Crops in MS and Surround States.
ES98-042................................. Training in Agriculture Program (TAP)...................... Dorothy Barker....................... 17,890
EW98-001................................. Broadening the Audience: Providing Sustainable Agriculture David Chaney......................... 80,100
Education for Pest Control Advisors and Agricultural
Consultants in California and Oregon through Multiple
Information Delivery Systems.
EW98-004................................. Agroforestry Handbooks for Pacific Islands................. Craig Elevitch....................... 57,685
EW98-007................................. Navajo Noxious Weed Training Program....................... Wallace Tsosie....................... 52,542
EW98-008................................. Organic Food Production and Marketing--Educational Resource Miles MeEvoy......................... 19,100
Development.
EW98-009................................. Alternative Crop for Dryland Agriculture in the Edward Adams......................... 67,500
Intermountain Pacific Northwest.
EW98-011................................. Portable Extension Office for Program Literature Exchange Bob Barber........................... 41,360
(PEOPLE).
EW98-012................................. Covering New Ground: Tropical Cover Crops for Improving Richard Bowen........................ 85,400
Soil Quality.
----------
TOTAL, EXTENSION..................................... ..................................... 1,574,791
==========
LNC98-125................................ Feasibility of Agroforestry System using Management Sandra Hodge......................... 48,487
Intensive Grazing in Eastern Black Walnut Plantation.
LNC98-126................................ Marketing Sustainable and/or Organic Products in Small David Watt........................... 41,355
Metro Areas.
LNC98-127................................ County Fair Tomato Cooperative: Developing an Organic Dan Nagengast........................ 67,800
Tomato Processing Cooperative.
LNC98-128................................ Congregationally Supported Agriculture..................... Marvin Freiborg...................... 38,900
LNC98-129................................ Strengthening Farms on the Edge: Developing Rural/Urban Rebecca Cline........................ 29,450
Partnerships.
LNC98-130................................ Educating Consumers About Local, Sustainable Produced Meat. Margaret Krome....................... 23,200
LNC98-131................................ Travelling Food Processing/Educational Trail- er.......... Susan Houghton....................... 41,138
LNC98-132................................ Producer-Owned Cooperative to Process and Market Aaron Heley.......................... 23,590
Sustainably Produced Pork.
LNC98-133................................ Strengthening Links Between Meat Producers, Processors, and Jenifer Buckley...................... 6,000
Consumers.
LNC98-134................................ Perennial Legumes for Sustainable Pasture Systems.......... Craig Sheaffer....................... 99,800
LNC98-135................................ Annual Forages for Integrated Crop and Livestock Systems... Burt Weichenthal..................... 52,000
LNC98-136................................ Addressing Agricultural Practices and Water Quality Issues Marla Reicks......................... 41,498
through Youth-Developed Decision Cases.
LNC98-137................................ Nutrient and Pesticide Loads in Subsurface Drainage from Gregory McIsaac...................... 78,902
Organic and Conventional Cropping Practices.
LNC98-138................................ Soil Fertility Paradigms Evaluated through Collaboration On- Derrick Exner........................ 59,027
Farm and On-Station.
LNC98-139................................ Innovative Tart Cherry Orchard Systems: Design, Evaluation, Charles Edson........................ 75,000
and Demonstration.
LNC98-140................................ Soil Quality Improvement with Cover Crop Mixtures.......... Eileen Kladivko...................... 93,256
LNC98-141................................ Biological Control of Bacterial Diseases of Vegetable Crops Sally Miller......................... 103,580
LNC98-142................................ Heartland Sustainable Agriculture Network.................. Jerry Jost........................... 64,000
LNC98-143................................ Adding Local Value with Community Partnership Strategies... Denise Durham........................ 37,800
LNC98-144................................ Alternative Systems for Livestock in Nebraska.............. Wyatt Fraas.......................... 98,200
LNE98-098................................ Adaptive Nitrogen Management in Orchards: Developing Soil Ian Merwin........................... 153,505
and Groundcover Management Systems that Optimize Nitrogen
Uptake, Retention and Recycling.
LNE98-099................................ Creating a Farmers-Owned Value-Added Production/Processing Joe Detelj........................... 40,000
Facility for Dairy Farmer in Central PA; A Joint Farmer/
Community R&D Project.
LNE98-100................................ Producing Native & Ornamental Wetlands Plants in Brian Maynard........................ 72,840
Constructed Wetland Designed to Reduce Pollution from
Agriculture Sources.
LNE98-101................................ CORE Values Northeast: A Northeast IPM-Apple Consumer Wendy Gordon......................... 45,000
Education & Mkt Development Project.
LNE98-102................................ Sustainable Integrated Management of Weeds of Diseases in a Helene Dillard....................... 140,000
Cabbage Cropping System.
LNE98-103................................ Soil Amendment and Crop Rotation Effects on Productivity Gregory A. Porter.................... 100,126
and Soil Properties within Potato Production Systems.
LNE98-104................................ Controlling Pests of Pastured Livestock on Organic Farms... William Murphy....................... 32,590
LNE98-105................................ Controlling Honey Bee Mites with Essentials Oils........... James Amrine......................... 80,000
LNE98-106................................ Biological Control for Soil-Dwelling Insects & Diseases in Richard S. Cowles.................... 147,557
Strawberries.
LNE98-107................................ Integrated Management of Cranberry Insect, Weed, and Carolyn DeMoranville................. 130,000
Disease pests Using Fall and Spring Floods.
LNE98-108................................ Nutrition and Management of Dairy Sheep and Goats on Bruce Clement........................ 151,190
Pasture.
LNE98-109................................ Resource Kit for Preserving Rural Character................ Jean Conklin......................... 6,000
LNE98-110................................ Development of a Knowledge Base for Site-Specific Harold VanEs......................... 109,968
Applications of Crop Nutrients.
LNE98-111................................ Use of Hoop Structures for Growing-Finishing Swine on the Mark Estienne........................ 32,000
Delmarva Peninsula.
LNE98-112................................ Strengthening CSA in the Northeast: Next Steps............ Kathryn Ruhf......................... 57,733
LNE98-113................................ Alternate Grain/Bean Rotations for Optimized Economic Yield William Brinton...................... 68,604
in Northeast Organic Farming.
LS98-090................................. An Integrated System of Organic Food Production and Urban Anne Barkdoll........................ 142,623
Food Waste Recycling Using On-farm Anaerobic Digestion and
Fertigation.
LS98-091................................. Development of Decision Support Systems for Improvement of Frederick W. Cubbage................. 26,204
Silvicultural Practices on Farm-Based Non-Industrial
Private Forests.
LS98-092................................. Development of Sustainable Cropping Systems for Canola on Udai Bishnoi......................... 124,488
Limited-Resource Farms in Alabama.
LS98-093................................. Accountability at Local, State, and Federal Levels for Dwight Fisher........................ 223,322
Impacts of Agricultural Conservation Practices on Water
Quality.
LS98-094................................. A Model for Long-Term, Large-Scale Systems Research J. Paul Mueller...................... 558,758
Directed Toward Agricultural Sustainability.
LS98-095................................. Intergenerational Educational for Sustainable Agriculture.. Savanah E. Williams.................. 176,240
LS98-096................................. Integrating Farmer-Driven, Value-Added Enterprises into Keith Richards....................... 120,590
Sustainable Agricultural Systems.
LS98-097................................. Introducing Alternative Crops Into Traditional Cotton-Grain Roland E. Roberts.................... 114,279
Farming to Aid Transition To ``Freedom to Farm''
Agriculture.
SW98-006................................. Hybrid Poplars in Natural Buffer Systems for Agricultural Barry C. Moore....................... 157,721
Pollution Reduction and Income Enhancement.
SW98-031................................. Advancing Sustainable Potato Production in the Northwest... Karen Murphy......................... 42,000
SW98-036................................. Indian Range Livestock Production in the West and Robert Katnig........................ 103,000
Southwest: Entering, Enduring, and Emerging from Drought
Conditions.
SW98-041................................. Evaluation of Processing Food Refuse and By-products for Farouq G. Abanni..................... 121,850
Growing Finishing Swine.
SW98-044................................. Cropping Systems for Intensive Desert Vegetable Production. Milt McGiffen........................ 130,672
SW98-058................................. Reducing Chemical Inputs in Arid Climates through Schuyler Seeley...................... 261,044
Sustainable Orchard Management.
SW98-060................................. Acequia Conservation Management............................ Marcario Herrera..................... 49,272
SW98-064................................. Selecting Cattle to Prevent Grazing Distribution Problems.. Derek W. Bailey...................... 115,598
SW98-068................................. Minimum Tillage Systems for Cotton: Reduced Energy, Time Wayne Coates......................... 182,850
and Particulates.
SW98-071................................. Annual Legumes in Fallow as an Integrated Crop/Livestock James M. Krall....................... 173,979
Alternative in the Central Great Plains.
----------
TOTAL, RESEARCH...................................... ..................................... 5,314,586
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Provide a list of the SARE producer grants awarded for
Fiscal Year 1998.
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, 131 producer grants were awarded.
[The information follows:]
PRODUCER GRANTS GRANTS AWARDED FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project number Project title Project Coordinator SARE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FNC98-201................................ Wolf's Native Garden Project............................... Charlie Smoke........................ $4,160
FNC98-202................................ Expanding Partnerships Between Southern Michigan Cash Crop Henry Miller......................... 5,000
Farmers and Northern Michigan Livestock Farmers.
FNC98-203................................ Southwestern Michigan Marketing Plan for Locally-Grown Phillip Prillwitz.................... 10,000
Produce.
FNC98-204................................ On-Farm Market for High Quality, Locally Grown Products and Pamela Bosserd....................... 4,490
an Experience for School Age Children.
FNC98-205................................ Deer Damage Abatement Research Project..................... Gary Mensinger....................... 3,627
FNC98-206................................ Alternative Use for Small Tobacco Acreage in Southeastern Denise Dailey........................ 3,270
Indian.
FNC98-207................................ Biological Control of Pests................................ David Kreutz......................... 2,089
FNC98-208................................ Sustainable Hog Production in Old Farm Buildings........... Dave Serfling........................ 4,770
FNC98-209................................ Enhancing Native Solitary Bee Populations for Pollination.. John Cuddy........................... 4,700
FNC98-210................................ Keep the Cows in the Corn Even During the Winter Storms.... Donald Struxness..................... 4,997
FNC98-211................................ Removal of Infected Fescue with Warm Season Grasses and Von Dole............................. 1,738
Introduction of Legumes.
FNC98-212................................ The Rotational Cutting of Clover Will Increase the Quantity James Harlow......................... 3,347
and Quality of Honey and Bees Within a Specific Habitat.
FNC98-213................................ You Pick for the Handicapped............................... Thomas Robinson...................... 5,000
FNC98-214................................ Alternative Vegetable Crop Irrigation System for Remote Kevin Smyth.......................... 2,110
Areas.
FNC98-215................................ Elixir Farm: Chinese Medicinal Herbs as Field Crops in the Lavinia McKinney..................... 5,000
Ozarks.
FNC98-216................................ The Expansion of the South Dakota Goosemobile Project to Tom Neuberger........................ 9,025
Include Beef, Lamb and Pork.
FNC98-217................................ Alternative Nitrogen Sources for O......................... John Ellis........................... 3,617
FNC98-218................................ Speciality Meats Marketing Project at Sycamore Street Phil Hueneke......................... 9,984
Market.
FNC98-219................................ Interseeding Legumes Into Fescue........................... Tom Mulroy........................... 1,455
FNC98-220................................ Beef Alliance Association to Develop a Premium Market...... Larry Becker......................... 3,650
FNC98-221................................ Creating and Expanding Direct Markets for Sustainable Dennis Rabe.......................... 5,000
Products.
FNC98-222................................ Machinery Link Co.......................................... David Govert......................... 5,000
FNC98-223................................ Establishing On-Farm Management Systems for Grass-Fed Beef. Doug Erickson........................ 4,980
FNC98-224................................ Economically Powered Water Supply Systems for Remote Donn Teske........................... 3,372
Locations.
FNC98-225................................ Creating Value in Pooled Cull Cow Sales.................... Myron Runft.......................... 10,000
FNC98-226................................ Composting Greenhouse...................................... Jan Metz............................. 3,848
FNC98-227................................ Chariton Valley Beef Industry Initiative: Producer Cost Mike Hunter.......................... 9,875
Share for Technology Adoption and Market Access.
FNC98-228................................ Quantifying Seasonal Nutrional Changes in Managed Pastures. Greg Williamson...................... 5,000
FNC98-229................................ Don't Take Grass for Granted............................... Jack Orts............................ 1,977
FNC98-230................................ Results of Alternative Usage of Apistan Strips and Formic Kathy Hawthorne...................... 4,951
Acid for Mite Control in Honeybee Colonies.
FNC98-231................................ Sugar Maple Control and Hardwood Restoration in Central Kevin Green.......................... 5,000
Illinois Woodland.
FNC98-232................................ Swath-Grazing: A Potential Alternative to Hay Feeding for Mark Sip............................. 2,955
Wintering Beef Cows in the Northern Plains.
FNC98-233................................ Organic Livestock Marketing Coop........................... Ronald Rosmann....................... 10,000
FNC98-234................................ Low Environmental Impact Establishment of Hybrid Popular Michael Nohner....................... 2,790
Plantation.
FNC98-235................................ Trout and Walleye Production in Freshwater Springs......... Michael Rahe......................... 4,834
FNC98-236................................ Cover Crops Influence on Soil Quality in No-Till Corn/ Gary Manley.......................... 5,000
Soybean Rotations: The Role of Soil Arthropods.
FNC98-237................................ Expansion of Grape Production.............................. Marchell Baehr....................... 4,940
FNC98-238................................ Honey Bee Varroa Mite Control Research and Langstroth Robert Cessac........................ 4,797
Versus Top Bar Hive Economics.
FNC98-239................................ A Consumer Driven System to Natural Beef Marketing......... Diana Endicott....................... 9,449
FNC98-240................................ Utilizing Alternative Harvesting Methods in Storing Silage. David McCartney...................... 5,000
FNC98-241................................ Sustainable Viniculture for Midwestern Fruit Growers....... Gene Sigel........................... 5,000
FNC98-242................................ Kura Clover Cover Crop Demonstration....................... Dan Barns............................ 1,290
FNC98-243................................ ``Weed and Feed'' Vegetable Transplants with Corn Gluten Renee Randall........................ 4,866
Meal.
FNC98-244................................ Determination of Optimal Application Amounts Needed for Denice Trimmer-May................... 4,996
Weed Control and Soil Amendment Qualities of Corn Gluten
Meal in the Production of Strawberries.
FNC98-245................................ Linking Downstate Illinois Small-Scale Goat and Sheep Les Gioja............................ 2,338
Producers.
FNC98-246................................ Prairie Wetlands........................................... David Zahrt.......................... 2,836
FNE98-190................................ Guinea Foul for Orchard Income and Insect Control.......... Warren Bower......................... 1,820
FNE98-191................................ Training Site for the Micro Process Design 25 Gallon Vat Courtney Haase....................... 5,500
Pasturizer.
FNE98-192................................ Soil Quality Improvement in Field Crops Using Legume John Shearer, Jr..................... 1,725
Overseeding.
FND98-193................................ Farmers Marketing Strategy for Westmoreland City........... Paul Sarver.......................... 6,300
FNE98-195................................ Commercial Organic Hops Production Trial................... Jeffrey Klein........................ 3,512
FNE98-196................................ Establishment of an Herbal Ley: Phase 1.................... Stephen Sheen........................ 1,375
FNE98-197................................ Managed Intensive Grazing.................................. Ray Paddock.......................... 8,353
FNE98-198................................ An Alternative to Flooding for the Winter Protection of Bert-Sid Look........................ 4,938
Cranberries in ME.
FNE98-199................................ Barber Ledge Organic Dairy: Composting..................... Mark Russell......................... 1,535
FNE98-200................................ Organic No-Till Cropping System Farm Evaluation 1998-2000.. Jon Danko............................ 4,200
FNE98-202................................ Evaluating Raised Beds and Various Mulches for Vegetable Ed Armacost.......................... 3,120
Production.
FNE98-203................................ Squash Vine Borer and Cotton Row Covers.................... Bryan O'Hara......................... 1,540
FNE98-204................................ Raspberry Mulch Evaluation................................. Chris Bailey......................... 1,895
FNE98-205................................ Sustainable Aquaculture Waste Management Through Cranberry Wilson Sallum........................ 6,625
Bogs.
FNE98-206................................ Low-input Sustainable Dairy Farming Through Draft Horse Dennis Trainor....................... 1,825
Power.
FNE98-207................................ Development of a Potting Media Utilizing Composted Poultry Jay Martin........................... 1,744
Litter.
FNE98-208................................ Sheep Farmstead Cheesemaking in CT......................... Suzanne Sankow....................... 3,050
FNE98-209................................ Timing and Intensity of Cultivation and Effects on Weed Gerald Fortin........................ 2,770
Control.
FNE98-210................................ Development and Implementation of Marketing Strategies for Dave Randall......................... 4,770
Emu Meat.
FNE98-211................................ Developing Excellence in Grass Hay Farming................. Matthew Beckerink.................... 7,500
FNE98-212................................ Elk Farming................................................ Debra Armstrong...................... 5,610
FNE98-214................................ Goldenseal Production for Sustainable Woodlot Management... Tom Griffin.......................... 4,125
FNE98-214................................ Designing and Establishing a Small-Scale Goat Milk Thomas Clark......................... 1,223
Cooperative.
FNE98-216................................ Integrated Approach in Controlling Japanese Beetles Project George Joseph........................ 4,117
FNE98-217................................ Northeast Livestock Export Program (Phase III)............ Lydia Ratcliff....................... 5,370
FNE98-218................................ Improving the Viability of Lamb Production in VT through Lawrence Faillace.................... 2,766
the Use of Superior Genetics.
FNE98-219................................ Rootswork 1998--A Community-based Research, Demonstration, Linda Faillace....................... 3,393
Education and Participation Project.
FNE98-220................................ Forest Grown Medicinal Plants to Increase Woodlot Income... Charles Baylies...................... 1,545
FNE98-221................................ Effect of Compost Teas in Controlling Late Blight Damage to Donald Kretschmann................... 500
Tomatoes in Pennsylvania.
FNE98-222................................ Improving Air Quality in Diary Barns Using Sodium Bisulfate Mia Lee Morrison..................... 1,690
FNE98-223................................ Apple Pest Management Trial................................ Louis Lego........................... 2,669
FNE98-224................................ Sustainable Fire Pruning on Lowbrush Blueberries with Thomas Ford.......................... 1,895
Recycled Paper.
FNE98-225................................ Year Round Hydroponic Tomato Production.................... Donnie Tenney........................ 2,499
FNE98-226................................ Expanding Local Production of Cage Cultured Hybrid Bass by Fred Hays............................ 4,996
Demonstrating an Integrated Approach with Limited Space
and Equipment and Farmer Cooperation.
FNE98-227................................ The Feasibility of a Growing Organic, Wild Simulated Michael Fillion...................... 5,500
Ginseng in a Northern Maine Climate.
FNE98-228................................ Low-Cost Conversion of Cow Dairy to Sheep Dairy............ Neil Urie............................ 4,625
FNE98-229................................ Research and Development for Existing Cooperative Preorder Jean Paul Courtens................... 4,970
Distribution of Local Foods.
FS98-066................................. Adding Value to Kentucky Grown Produce Through Season Ann Bell............................. 8,670
Extension and Market Development.
FS98-067................................. Feasibility of Indoor Culture and Production of Ornamental Robert Draughon...................... 2,216
Goldfish.
FS98-068................................. Late Blight Suppression in Tomatoes--Using Competing Fungi Tom Elmore........................... 5,800
on Leaf Surfaces.
FS98-069................................. Integrated Goat Management System for Fiber and Meat....... Claud Evans.......................... 10,000
FS98-070................................. Red Plastic Mulch as an Alternative to Insecticides in John Frazier......................... 7,390
Production of Seedless Watermelons.
FS98-071................................. Workshop on Parasite Control Through On-Farm Fecal Studies. Susan Gladin......................... 6,545
FS98-072................................. Microbial Input for Organic Production of Vegetables....... Skip Glover.......................... 9,039
FS98-073................................. Developing a Diary hair Sheep: Assessing the Potentials.... Army Hayner.......................... 4,377
FS98-074................................. Alfalfa Hay Production to Lower Soil Phosphorus Levels Keith Boozer......................... 9,556
Caused by Animal Waste Application.
FS98-075................................. An Intensive Marketing Workshop for Growers and Ranchers... Sue Johnson.......................... 7,561
FS98-076................................. Development of Low Input Sustainable Practices for Rose Jacqueline Jones..................... 2,690
Production.
FS98-077................................. Test marketing and Financial Analysis of Fresh Cut Flowers. Emmett Lowe.......................... 5,416
FS98-078................................. High-Fructose Corn Syrup as a Replacement for Mepiquat to Hubert Morris........................ 2,224
Reduce Vegetative Growth in Cotton.
FS98-079................................. Demonstration of a Low-Input Diversified Small Farm Theodore Nesmith..................... 8,900
Operation.
FS98-080................................. Establishment of a Grazing Management School for Producers. Kenneth Rogers....................... 9,260
FS98-081................................. Soil Nutrient Balancing in Vegetable Produc- tion......... Mark W. Schonbeck.................... 7,325
FS98-082................................. Using Shearing to Control Nantucket Pine Tip Moth in William Slaugher, Jr................. 5,672
Virginia Pine Christmas Trees.
FS98-083................................. Organic Specialty Lettuce Production in Tobacco Greenhouses John Vollmer......................... 7,455
FW98-002................................. Baby Corn-Alternative Crop for Southwest Washington........ Owen Schaffner....................... 3,460
FW98-003................................. Local Feed Production for Tilapia.......................... Nocolas Songsong..................... 4,500
FW98-004................................. The Conversion of Agricultural Waste into Plant and Fish Robert Gann.......................... 3,400
Food.
FW98-009................................. Soil Solarization as a Methyl Bromide Alternative in Touxia Thauxaochay................... 4,000
Strawberries.
FW98-012................................. Solarization for Small Farm ``Specialty Crops''........... Mike Smith........................... 4,000
FW98-019................................. Using a Cultivable Catchment System to Establish a Dryland John Leaf............................ 2,700
Commercial Truck Farm.
FW98-020................................. Testing Alternative Crop Rotations for Traditional Small James Faughnan....................... 3,000
Grain/Fallow System.
FW98-021................................. SDA Community Nutritional Support Group.................... Litani Ahoia......................... 4,646
FW98-024................................. Integrated Weed Management of Musk Thistle with Emphasis on Larry Malschke....................... 2,938
Biological Control.
FW98-025................................. Annual Forage Production for an Intensive Winter Grazing John Haws............................ 2,665
System.
FW98-030................................. Permanent Irrigated Pasture Demonstration Project Reducing Milford Denetolaw.................... 3,100
Irrigation Water Use.
FW98-031................................. Navajo Nation Livestock Disease Survey..................... Glenda Davis......................... 7,000
FW98-032................................. The Sustainable Use of Cover Crops in an Annual Vegetable Don Bustos........................... 4,289
Production System in Northern New Mexico.
FW98-035................................. Annual Forages for Dryland Rotations....................... Vern Pluhar.......................... 1,540
FW98-036................................. Brewster Area-wide Management (BAM)--Low Impact Control of Jim Davis............................ 10,000
Codling Moth and Leafroller in Applies.
FW98-055................................. Onenoa Eel and Tilapia Farm................................ Alosina Toamalatai................... 2,210
FW98-056................................. Piggery Deep Litter System................................. Nikolao Mageo........................ 2,975
FW98-057................................. Beef Cattle Pasture Management Project..................... Ma'ataura Te'o....................... 2,900
FW98-062................................. Free Range Pork Production................................. Samuel Okami......................... 5,390
FW98-063................................. Total Utilization of Swine Waste for Crop and Hog Ronald McKeehan...................... 4,985
Productivity.
FW98-064................................. Propagation of Indigenous Lingonberry Species for Vickie Talbot........................ 5,000
Sustainable Development.
FW98-065................................. Cultures and La Manga Cattlemen's Association Range Dennis Moeller....................... 8,700
Analysis and Improvement Project.
FW98-067................................. Low Cost Vacuum Silage in the Pacific Northwest............ Tim Clark............................ 3,460
FW98-072................................. Goats as a Source of Weed and Brush Control in Forest Aaron Albaugh........................ 5,000
Plantations.
FW98-074................................. Clover Creek Ranch Early Weaning Compari- son............. Ron Jones............................ 2,658
FW98-075................................. High Quality Perennial Forage Peanut (Arachis pintal) Zach Gibson.......................... 5,000
Pastures for Sustainable Cattle Production in Hawaii.
FW98-076................................. Organic Soil Amendments and Fertilization Practices for Woody Deryckx........................ 8,025
Processed Vegetable Crops: A Study in Nitrogen
Mineralization and Soil Quality.
FW98-082................................. Alternative Techniques for Control of Apple Replant Disease Fred Barkley......................... 3,200
FW98-093................................. Cull Potato Composting..................................... Steve McCullough..................... 7,500
FW98-097................................. Fear and Loathing in the Potato Patch: Controlling John O'Connor........................ 9,910
Nematodes with Rape Seed Meal and Green Manures.
FW98-099................................. Wiersema Dairy Agroforestry Project........................ Jim Wiersema......................... 5,000
----------
TOTAL, PRODUCER GRANTS............................... ..................................... 619,480
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
formula funds
Question. What is the rationale for the reductions proposed in
formula grant funding? Why doesn't the Administration consider these
programs a priority?
Answer. As you know, the Administration supports a balanced
portfolio of funding for university-based agricultural research
including formula programs, competitive grants, special grants and
projects, and other programs such as Smith-Lever 3(d).
In fiscal year 1999, formula programs received approximately $540
million, almost five times the funding for competitive grants funded
through the NRI. The Administration believes that the fiscal year 2000
budget proposals, which reduces this imbalance, actually results in
increased funding for formula institutions.
This is because redirecting funds to competitive grant programs
does not have to be at the expense of our land grant partners. In
fiscal year 1998, land grant colleges and universities received
approximately 75 percent of the funds awarded under CSREES competitive
grant programs. If past percentages hold true, the proposed $81 million
increase in the National Research Initiative in fiscal year 2000 may
result in $61 million in additional research to land grant colleges and
universities more than offsetting the proposed decrease in formula
funds and ensuring that federal research, extension and education
programs meet national priorities. The Administration also believes
focusing on competitive programs will allow USDA to leverage research
dollars from other agencies such as NSF, Environment Protection Agency,
and National Institutes of Health to agricultural problems, thereby
increasing the funding opportunities for land grant partners. A broadly
competitive grant program will also ensure that scientific expertise
from outside the land grant system will be brought to bear on
agricultural problems, thereby increasing the potential return to
taxpayers. Through this approach to research funding, the
Administration believes more resources can be devoted to agricultural
problems and we can continue to provide our farmers, ranchers and
consumers with world-class cutting edge research to meet the ever
increasing array of production, processing and nutritional challenges
that face them.
Competitive grants are an important mechanism for achieving
accountability to taxpayers. The Agricultural Research, Extension and
Education Reform Act of 1998 sets specific standards for federally
funded agricultural research activities, including activities resulting
from formula funding programs. Section 101 (a) requires that
agricultural research, extension or education activities address
priority concerns that are of national, multi-state or regional in
significance. The legislation also requires the Secretary of
Agriculture set research priorities after consulting with persons who
conduct or use agricultural, research, extension or education and that
entities receiving formula funds also develop a procedure for receiving
such input into program development. Competitive grant programs provide
an opportunity for the Administration to meet that statutory obligation
to taxpayers. Following extensive consultation with stakeholders
including the National Research, Extension and Education Advisory
Board, the land grant university system, and producer representatives,
the Administration develops a list of national agricultural research
priorities for fiscal year 2000, including food safety, methyl bromide
alternatives, small farms, Food Quality Protection Act implementation
and water quality. Through the competitive grants process, the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)
can ensure that scarce federal resources are used to address these high
priority concerns. States and localities may still choose to invest the
funds they receive through formula programs or other sources to address
issues of immediate state and local concern as identified through their
own stakeholder input process. Since they are free to use those funds,
as well as the funds they receive from formula programs in the manner
they choose, the impact of the proposed fiscal year 2000 budget will
vary from state to state.
Question. How is the increased funding provided for fiscal year
1999 for each formula program being used?
Answer. The laws authorizing Federal formula programs enable the
States to determine how to use their formula allocations for specific
projects or programs to address critical issues facing agriculture in
their States, region, and the Nation. Generally, the areas of research
supported with Hatch Act funding include forest and natural resources;
crop resources; animal resources; people, communities and institutions;
competitions trade, adjustment, price, and income policy; and food
science and human nutrition. The areas of research supported with
McIntire-Stennis funding include timber production; forest land
management; wood utilization; the associated development of new
products and distribution systems; and wildlife, recreation, water,
range, and environmental quality. Evans-Allen funding supports research
emphasizing small-scale agriculture; human nutrition; rural development
and quality of living; crop resources; and animal resources. Animal
Health and Disease funding is dedicated to improving the health and
productivity of animals; protecting human health through control of
animal diseases transmissible to humans; minimizing livestock and
poultry losses resulting from transportation and handling; and
facilitating the effective treatment and prevention of animal diseases.
Funds provided to the States under the Smith-Lever 3(b) and (c)
formula program support base extension programs in Nutrition, Diet and
Health; Natural Resources and Environmental Management; 4-H and Youth
Development; Leadership and Volunteer Development. The base programs
are the foundation of the extension mission, but there are special
emphasis areas that are periodically targeted as National Initiatives
by the Cooperative Extension System. Currently, the National
Initiatives include Food Safety and Quality; Children, Youth, and
Families at Risk; Managing Change in Agriculture; Workforce
Preparation; Healthy People/Healthy Communities; Animal Waste; and
Child Care. Formula funds provided to the 1890 Institutions for
extension activities are used to address the needs of small-scale and
minority agricultural producers and other limited-resource audiences.
management
Question. How does CSREES cover its overhead and management costs?
Please provide an accounting of these costs for fiscal year 1998.
Answer. Funds to administer CSREES' programs are obtained in
primarily two ways: from a percentage set-aside of a program's total
appropriation or from funds appropriated specifically for Federal
administration. An accounting of these costs for fiscal year 1998 are
as follows:
Fiscal Year 1998 CSREES Management Costs
Personnel Compensation:
Total personnel compensation........................ $20,336,340
Personnel benefits.................................. 5,016,930
Benefits for former personnel....................... 728
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Personnel Comp. & Benefits.................. 25,353,998
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Other Costs:
Travel.............................................. 1,647,529
Transportation of things............................ 82,222
Communications, utilities, and misc. charges........ 907,585
Printing and reproduction........................... 988,641
Advisory and assistance services.................... 148,716
Other services...................................... 1,149,181
Purchases of goods and services from Government
Accounts.......................................... 1,041,678
Supplies and materials.............................. 460,279
Equipment........................................... 285,972
Interest for prompt payment......................... 414
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total Other Costs................................. 7,712,217
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Total Fiscal Year 1998 Management Costs........... 33,066,215
Question. How does CSREES cover the indirect costs of research?
Please provide an accounting of these costs for fiscal year 1998.
Answer. The indirect costs of research conducted by land-grant
universities and other recipients of CSREES funding are realized in two
ways. First, a percentage of funds may be charged by recipients against
competitively-awarded research grants to pay indirect costs. The
percentage of funds that can be used to pay indirect costs is subject
to the recipient's Federally-negotiated indirect cost rate and any
statutory limitations on indirect cost recovery. For example, Section
711 of the General Provisions of the fiscal year 1999 appropriations
act, Public Law 105-277, limits the recovery of indirect costs under
research grants awarded by CSREES to 14 percent.
Second, indirect costs of research are borne by land-grant
universities and other recipients under certain situations. For
example, a recipient may elect to waive all or part of the indirect
costs to which they are entitled so that all, or a larger portion of,
the Federal funds provided under an award are used to support the
direct costs of the research. In cases where indirect costs are
statutorily limited, the recipient must use other resources to offset
differences between allowed and actual indirect costs. There also are
some CSREES programs under which no indirect cost recovery is allowed,
such as earmarked Special Research Grants, and the recipient must bear
all indirect costs of the research being conducted.
The fiscal year 1998 funds awarded and indirect costs charged in
those research programs allowing indirect costs are shown below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Funds Indirect Costs
Program Awarded Charged
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Administration.................. $7,833,643 $875,173
Higher Education........................ 4,330,108 342,708
National Research Initiative............ 50,622,574 6,493,936
Special Research Grants (competitively- 5,857,333 617,603
awarded)...............................
-------------------------------
Totals............................ 68,643,658 8,329,420
------------------------------------------------------------------------
competitive grants
Question. The President's fiscal year 2000 budget for the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service indicates
a shift in funding from formula and special research grants to
competitive research. What evidence is there to support that the
competitive process selects higher priority agriculture research of
greater benefit to agricultural producers than research funded through
formula or special grants?
Answer. The Administration believes that the highest possible rate
of return to funds allocated for agricultural research is through a
balanced portfolio of funding for university-based agricultural
research including formula programs, competitive grants, special grants
and projects, and other programs such as Smith-Lever 3(d).
The Administration, under the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 has a statutory mandate to ensure that
agricultural research, extension, and education activities address
national, multi-state, or regional priorities. The Administration sets
these priorities through on-going consultation with the National
Research, Extension, and Education Advisory Board, the land grant
research and extension system, and producer organizations. This
stakeholder input process ensures that competitive grant programs meet
national, multistate, or regional priorities. Competitive grants can
also be a tool to address national issues which have a narrower
regional focus. For instance, the fiscal year 2000 budget contains a
request for $5 million to support competitive grants for Methyl Bromide
alternatives. This program will benefit producers in very specific
areas of the country while addressing a pressing national need. Also,
while competitive grant program areas address broad national
priorities, the individual proposals which are submitted and funded may
represent issues of particular local concern.
The Administration also believes that competitive grant programs,
open to a broad array of scientists, will attract the best scientific
talent to the solution of high priority agricultural problems. In fact,
much of the best talent lies within the land grant college and
university system. In fiscal year 1998, approximately 75 percent of
grants funded under CSREES' National Research Initiative--NRI--went to
institutions in the land grant system. Through competitive programs,
such as the NRI, land grant colleges and universities receive research
support, and taxpayers are assured that scarce funds are addressing
problems of the highest national priority. States and localities may,
of course, use formula fund resources, state funds, and private support
to address the local priorities of their stakeholders, as allowed under
the authorizing statutes for these programs.
Question. For each of fiscal years 1997 and 1998, show who received
funding awards through the National Research Initiative, e.g., the
percent of funds awarded to land-grant colleges and universities, to
the Agricultural Research Service, to other federal agencies, to state
extension agencies, etc.
Answer.
[The information follows:]
NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM GRANTS AWARDED FROM FISCAL YEARS 1997 APPROPRIATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollars Percentage of Dollars Percentage of
Grants awarded awarded in funds awarded Grants awarded awarded in funds awarded
Performing organization in fiscal year fiscal year in fiscal year in fiscal year fiscal year in fiscal year
1997 1997 1997 1998 1998 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual.............................................. 8 $705,000 1 2 $171,000 1
1862 Land-Grant Universities (includes SAES)............ 411 51,045,252 69 71 9,736,473 77
1890 Land-Grant Universities............................ 1 49,772 ( \1\ ) .............. .............. ..............
Other................................................... 2 357,000 ( \1\ ) .............. .............. ..............
Private Non-Profit...................................... 26 3,070,500 4 5 443,800 4
Private Profit.......................................... 2 280,000 ( \1\ ) .............. .............. ..............
Private Universities.................................... 39 5,000,054 7 7 498,583 4
Public Universities..................................... 76 8,367,660 11 16 1,114,292 9
State/Local Government.................................. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
Agricultural Research Service........................... 20 2,841,679 4 2 260,000 2
Forest Service.......................................... 5 471,870 1 2 148,500 1
Veterinary Schools and College.......................... 13 1,859,298 3 2 300,000 2
1994 Institutions....................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
Hispanic Serving Institutions........................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................................. 603 74,048,085 100 107 12,672,648 100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than 1 percent.
NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM GRANTS AWARDED FROM FISCAL YEARS 1998 APPROPRIATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollars Percentage of Dollars Percentage of
Grants awarded awarded in funds awarded Grants awarded awarded in funds awarded
Performing organization in fiscal year fiscal year in fiscal year in fiscal year fiscal year in fiscal year
1997 1997 1997 1998 1998 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual.............................................. 1 $85,000 ( \1\ ) .............. .............. ..............
1862 Land-Grant Universities (includes SAES)............ 304 39,483,187 78 207 $26,948,373 72
1890 Land-Grant Universities............................ .............. .............. .............. 1 49,493 ( \1\ )
Other................................................... 1 14,000 ( \1\ ) .............. .............. ..............
Private Non-Profit...................................... 22 1,410,250 3 6 939,700 3
Private Profit.......................................... .............. .............. .............. 1 81,820 ( \1\ )
Private Universities.................................... 26 3,349,100 7 13 1,585,580 4
Public Universities..................................... 35 3,382,762 7 39 4,209,491 11
State/Local Government.................................. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
Agricultural Research Service........................... 6 855,000 2 8 1,519,946 4
Forest Service.......................................... 1 159,329 ( \1\ ) 3 201,060 ( \1\ )
Veterinary Schools and College.......................... 10 1,673,946 3 \2\ 10 1,523,724 4
1994 Institutions....................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
Hispanic Serving Institutions........................... 1 90,000 ( \1\ ) .............. .............. ..............
Department of Commerce.................................. .............. .............. .............. 1 150,000 ( \1\ )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL............................................. 408 50,622,574 100 289 37,209,187 100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than 1 percent.
\2\ Includes one 1890 Institution.
national research initiative
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget justification indicates a
$43,407,663 carryover into fiscal year 1999 of funds available for the
National Research Initiative. No carryover into fiscal year 2000 is
estimated. What is the reason for the $43,407,663 carryover?
Answer. The no year funding authority for the National Research
Initiative has allowed greater flexibility in awarding grants with
start dates that best suit the needs of the research area. Carryover
funds largely represent grants that were reviewed in the previous
fiscal year, but that have start dates after September 30th. Most of
these grants will start sometime in the fall or early winter of the
following fiscal year. Starting grants later allows investigators who
do field work to start their investigations as necessary to take
advantage of a summer growing season. In addition, being able to
carryover funds from one fiscal year to the next distributes the work
load required to administer awards more uniformly during any given 12-
month period. Without carryover, work load was concentrated during a
short time period at the end of each fiscal year which became
unmanageable under the heavy workload CSREES sustains (over 2000 awards
each year). Carryover funding also provides CSREES with greater
flexibility in funding programs and taking advantage of new research
opportunities by offering new programs and by combining small amounts
of funds from successive years into meaningful programs.
food safety initiative
Question. The conferees on the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Act
directed USDA to consult with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
regarding food safety objectives and recommended that $5 million of the
food safety component of the National Research Initiative be used to
meet those needs. What consultations with FDA occurred and what food
safety objectives were identified? Is $5 million of the NRI food safety
funds being reserved for this research?
Answer. The Conference report of Oct 2, 1998, directed USDA to
consult with the Food and Drug Administration--FDA--regarding food
safety research objectives of that agency and recommended that $5.0
million of the funds provided for the food safety component of the
National Research Initiative--NRI--be used to meet those needs. In
meeting this directive, the NRI program staff developed from
stakeholder meetings and the National Food Safety Conference a list of
research areas that addressed the President's Food Safety Initiative
and supported the public health mission of Federal regulatory agencies.
These food safety research areas were provided to, and a joint meeting
held with, representatives from the FDA's Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition, as well as from agencies within USDA, including the
Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Agriculture Marketing Service,
the Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis, the Economic
Research Service, and the Agricultural Research Service. As a result, a
supplemental NRI program titled, Epidemiological Approaches for Food
Safety, was developed. The program will support research in the
following areas:( a) identification of sources and reservoirs of
pathogenic organisms and their toxins in food, animal feed, and the
environment; (b) determination of the levels of microbial contamination
in finished food products; (c) identification of farm-based production
practices that contribute to increased prevalence of foodborne
pathogens; and (d) identification of potential sites of contamination
in the processing, transportation, retail setting, and consumer use of
food products. Proposals are encouraged that use collaborations and
partnerships among institutions and bring a multidisciplinary approach
to derive innovative approaches to solve problems. Proposals are to
describe how research outcomes will be transferred for implementation.
It is anticipated that some awards will be granted up to $1 million in
fiscal year 2000. The deadline for submission of proposals was April 5,
1999. This research will provide a better understanding of the multiple
factors involved in food safety and provide science-based information
for those who establish public health policy. The information from this
research will help to better identify the sources, incidence, and
control of disease-causing microorganisms in meats, poultry, seafood,
fruits and vegetables, and other food products.
national research initiative
Question. The prepared testimony submitted to the Committee
indicates that the increase requested for the National Research
Initiative (NRI) will ``enable the NRI to attract more of the best
scientists.'' How will a funding increase do this?
Answer. The National Research Initiative is the largest competitive
research grants program in the USDA and is unique because all
scientists throughout the country, regardless of where they work, are
eligible to compete for funds. However, at current funding levels, the
NRI is not positioned to take full advantage of the potential
scientific expertise because inadequate funding discourages many
excellent scientists from participating in USDA programs. Agriculture
needs to attract the best scientists, regardless of where they work, to
address key research problems. This is best done by competitive
programs at adequate levels of funding. Increased funding for the NRI
also means that additional funds would be available for agricultural
research at small and midsized institutions and in states that
typically are less successful in the competitive grants arena. These
funds are provided through the NRI Strengthening Program which targets
10 percent of total NRI funding towards small and midsized institutions
and institutions in USDA EPSCoR states. As funds for the NRI increase,
so do funds for the Strengthening program. Finally, substantial funding
increases would attract beginning investigators into scientific fields
that would benefit the agricultural system by increasing available
funds for postdoctoral fellows and new investigators grants.
extension activities
Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP)
Question. Why is the Administration proposing a $2.348 million
increase in funding for the Smith-Lever 3(d) Food and Nutrition
Education Program for fiscal year 2000 when it proposed to cut the
program by this same amount last year?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, EFNEP and other CSREES programs were
reduced to provide the funding necessary to support Department and
Presidential initiatives and to help eliminate the Federal deficit. In
fiscal year 2000, the budget once again focuses on high priority
research, education, and extension programs including the Expanded Food
and Nutrition Education Program. EFNEP has been and continues to be
very effective in providing low-income families information to increase
nutritional knowledge and improve nutritional practices. The delivery
and use of dietary information is critical to meeting the needs of the
undernourished portion of the population, especially children. This
multi-faceted program addresses many USDA and national goals and
initiatives, including the President's Initiatives on Food Safety and
Child Care.
farm safety and agrability
Question. Why does the Administration propose to discontinue
funding for the Smith-Lever 3(d) farm safety and AgrAbility programs?
Answer. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has determined that
alternative funds from formula programs, State and local governments,
and private sources could be used to support aspects of this program
deemed to be of a high priority at State and/or local levels.
rural health
Question. Please give the Committee an update on the Louisiana and
Mississippi rural health projects funded for the last several years.
Answer. The focus of the Nurse Managed Family Health Care Center
project being conducted by Southern University and A&M College in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana is health promotion and disease prevention for at-risk
populations residing in rural and inner city neighborhoods in south
Louisiana. Quality, cost-effective, community-based primary health care
services are being offered where graduate nurse faculty, nursing
students, and physicians located in community health outreach centers
assist women, children, and the elderly in understanding and utilizing
self-care health practices.
More than 1,300 rural and urban citizens have been served by Nurse
Managed Clinics and the Jag Mobile, a mobile health clinic equipped
with a laboratory, patient processing areas, pharmacy, nurse's station,
examination rooms, and a conference room for teaching. The clients
include senior citizens, homeless individuals and families, refugees,
battered women, and those seeking substance abuse treatment. In
addition, 540 children enrolled in Head Start have received health
services.
Services include: physical examinations; childhood vaccinations;
and height and weight, blood pressure, and vision screenings. Health
education is provided to participants to enhance health promotion and
disease prevention by increasing self-care capabilities. Health
education topics include nutrition, safety, breast self-examination,
dental health, hypertension, and diabetes.
During fiscal year 1997, more than 200 nursing students from
Southern University and A&M College and 44 nursing students from
Southeastern in Hammond utilized the Jag Mobile as a clinical
experience. Eight nutrition education students from Southern University
and A&M College were also assigned to the mobile unit for a clinical
rotation. The Louisiana State Board of Nursing has granted approval for
the Nurse Managed Clinic and the mobile unit to serve as training
facilities for nursing students.
The Mississippi Rural Health Corps is a collaborative effort of the
states' 15 community and junior colleges and Mississippi State
University Extension Service to increase the number of health care
professionals in rural practice. Since Fiscal Year 1993, the project
has provided student loans to nursing and allied health students who
are willing to commit to a period of service in rural Mississippi upon
graduation.
Since the inception of the program, 1,499 students have graduated
from the program. A total of 561 have completed their service
obligation and 580 are currently completing their obligation by working
in rural areas. In fiscal year 1998, 559 Rural Health Corp loans were
awarded to nursing and allied health professional students enrolled in
the community college system and 9 loans were granted to community
college nursing faculty members to pursue advanced degrees.
In addition, statewide health education is provided by Mississippi
State University Extension Service. In fiscal year 1998, the major
focus was on increasing the understanding of medical self-care, breast
cancer prevention, tobacco avoidance, and teen postponement of sexual
involvement. One hundred thousand women were reached with breast self
exam training, 20,000 individuals were taught medical self-care
techniques, and a self-care Web site was created to provide health
education throughout the state.
Mississippi State University Extension Service personnel form
community based healthcare coalitions to expand the health education
outreach. Currently, there are 18 active coalitions. During fiscal year
1998, the coalitions conducted 52 health-related events such as health
fairs, health screenings, and a variety of seminars and workshops.
Last year for the first time, the Rural Medical Scholars program
was started to interest high school students in serving as physicians
in rural Mississippi. Twenty-eight students participated in a 5-week
residential experience at Mississippi State University. The students
completed two pre-med courses, ``shadowed'' physicians, and attended a
lecture series for aspiring physicians. In fiscal year 1999, an
additional week of training will be added. Thirty students will be
selected for this program in fiscal year 1999.
In fiscal year 1999, the Scholars program will also be expanded to
include a Rural Health Explorers component for high school students
with a more general interest in health care careers. The Explorers will
take one course, either anatomy or physiology, tour hospitals, interact
with health care professionals, and talk with community college
representatives about academic requirements for health care careers.
The goal is to have thirty students complete the Rural Health Explorers
program in fiscal year 1999.
1890 facilities
Question. What is the current demand for 1890's facilities funding?
Is the fiscal year 1999 funding sufficient to meet project requests
from the 1890 institutions approved by the agency?
Answer. The availability of adequate agricultural research and
education facilities at the 1890 Institutions currently lags far behind
that of the 1862 institutions. There is a significant need to renovate
buildings and to construct and equip new facilities at the 1890
Institutions to ensure high quality training for future scientists and
educators, the recruitment and retention of faculty, and the needed
infrastructure for the generation and dissemination of agricultural
research and extension knowledge.
The fiscal year 1999 appropriation for Section 1447 is not
sufficient to meet the project needs of the 17 institutions. The fiscal
year 1999 funding allows an average award of less than $475,000 to each
school. Usually a school stockpiles the funds over a period of several
years until they have a critical mass of capital to enter into
subcontracts for renovation or construction or to purchase equipment.
Unfortunately, in situations such as this, the buying power of the
funds are diminished by inflation. In addition, even after five years
of funding at this level many schools are able to address only a
portion of their needs.
Question. Provide a list, by 1890 institutions, of the renovation
and construction projects funded in each of fiscal year 1997 and 1998.
Answer. As mentioned in the above response, projects completed in
any one year may be funded by the accumulation of prior year funds. The
1890 facilities follows.
1980 FACILITIES PROGRAM SUMMARY OF PROGRESS
[Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Institution 1997 1998
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama A&M University, Normal, --Complete initial structural --Obtain modern lab equipment and
Alabama. assessments and architectural other instructional resources to
renderings for the Research support traditional and non-
Extension Conference Center and the traditional learning opportunities
Food Science and Nutrition --Renovate and construct teaching
Laboratories and research training facilities
--The Distance Learning Center is for all program areas
operative --Purchase state-of-the-art research
--The bid materials have been and training equipment for food and
completed for the purchase of agricultural sciences programs
equipment for the farm, plant, food --Improve the coordination among
and animal biotechnology extension, research and academic
laboratories programs by enhancing extension
--Bids have been completed for facilities and equipment, including
replacement windows in the James I. computer networking and distance
Dawson Extension Building. education.
Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, --A schematic drawing and plan of --Renovate and upgrade Milbank Hall
Alabama. work was developed and presented to for research
the University Administration for --Upgrade the Vocation Building as
the renovation of the Woodruff Food an Extension Activity Center
Processing Laboratories --Upgrade gutters and repair
--The asbestos survey was completed Morrison-Mayberry Hall for
and a report was submitted to the extension activity.
University
--The decision was made to renovate
the Vocational Education Building
for extension work
--The construction of the Caprine
Research Facility has been completed
--The roof for Campbell Hall has been
replaced
These facilities will provide updated
extension, research and education
initiatives in food technology and
processing laboratories to conduct
hands-on demonstration for youth,
family and community life
experiences, interdisciplinary
research on ruminants, agro-
forestry, food processing, food
safety and quality, and
environmental quality and waste
management.
University of Arkansas, Pine Bluff, --Purchase data processing equipment --Improve and further develop two
Arkansas. --Partially construct, furnish and farm sites to enhance the quality
equip the Extension complex of research and outreach
--Purchase farm and laboratory --Purchase equipment to support
supplies and equipment research, extension and instruction
--Renovate farm structures --Renovate Woodard Hall, which
--Partially construct a demonstration houses the departments of
fish processing facility Agriculture and Aquaculture
--Partially construct a sheep --Expand the child development
facility. laboratory and playground in Adair-
Greenhouse Hall
--Renovate farm structures including
the S. J. Parker Research Center,
and a fish hatchery.
Delaware State University, Dover, --Complete the construction of the --Construct an animal handling,
Delaware. greenhouse holding and teaching facility
--Begin construction of School of --Construct an office, laboratory
Agriculture herbarium and classroom building to support
--Construct ponds the research, extension and
--Convert dairy barn to a small academic programs and centralize
animal lab. the location of two academic
departments of the School of
Agriculture, Natural Resources,
Family and Consumer Sciences.
Florida A&M University, --Complete construction of a facility --Acquire land to construct a
Tallahassee, Florida. to house research, teaching and facility for research, teaching and
extension demonstration animals extension aquaculture
--Complete construction of --Develop program plans and
teleconference centers on campus and specifications for a multi-purpose
at the University farm site in research, teaching and extension
Quincy, Florida facility
--Purchase furniture and equipment --Monitor program plans for the
for distance education programs construction of the agriculture
--Develop feasibility proposal for multi-purpose research, teaching,
multi purpose research and extension and extension facility
facility --Construct an outreach facility for
--Purchase equipment for a water youth development programs at the
quality lab and a plant farm site
biotechnology lab --Develop environmental science
--Install irrigation wells for animal programs for workshops, seminars,
and vegetable research and conferences, and distance learning
demonstration projects programs for rural and urban youth
--Initiate plans for construction of and families.
farm shop and an equipment shed at
farm site
--Repair a dam and construct a dock
at a two acre pond for acquaculture
and environmental studies
--Renovate an entomology lab for
research programs.
Fort Valley State University, Fort Funds for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 --Construction of a family
Valley, Georgia. have not been awarded pending the development center
submission of proposals by the --Acquisition of laboratory and
University. However, the objectives demonstration equipment.
of the grant for the fiscal years
1993-1995 were for construction of a
small ruminant research and
extension center; a research,
extension education support center;
and a research, extension human
development and family life center.
Kentucky State University, --Repair roof, replace boiler, and --Design, develop, and select a site
Frankfort, Ken- tucky. complete the horticulture and for a research, extension and
entomology labs in the Atwood teaching aquaculture field station
Research Facility to expand the aquaculture program.
--Purchase and install
telecommunication and interactive
video conferencing equipment in the
extension building
--Complete parking lot
--Complete plumbing and electrical
upgrades for the greenhouse
--Initiate pond repair.
Southern University and A&M --Purchase and install equipment --Upgrade equipment in Fisher Hall
College, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. including animal pens, electronic to establish a state-of-the-art
timers, portable bleachers, portable computer-assisted and multimedia
panels, poultry coops instruction facility
--Purchase a small vehicle --Equip a Small Farm Family Resource
--Purchase fire and sound evacuation, Development Center
security and monitoring systems for --Complete the Multi-purpose
the Multi-purpose Livestock Show Livestock Show Arena.
Arena.
University of Maryland Eastern --Design, plan, and construct the --Site planning and design of the
Shore, Princess Anne, Maryland. Food Science and Technology Research Plant Science Teaching and Research
and Extension Center Center and an Ag Tech Center
--Renovate the Lifespan Human --Renovate the interactive teaching
Development Center. lab for the early childhood
education program
--Purchase equipment for research
and teaching programs.
Alcorn State University, Lorman, MS --Construct multi-purpose building University is preparing a proposal
--Renovate research facilities. for fiscal year 1998 funds.
Lincoln University, Jefferson City, --Completed Phase 11 construction of --Construct greenhouse/propagation
Missouri. Allen and Foster Halls for extension facility for research and teaching
and research programs
--Review plans and specifications for --Construct farm equipment/hay
the beef cattle/sheep handling storage facility and mobile
facilities, storage facility, residence for research, teaching,
vehicle storage facility, greenhouse and extension programs
and irrigation unit, and multi-
purpose building.
North Carolina A&T State --Continue renovation and --Wire and connect offices and
University, Greensboro, North construction on Coltrane Hall for classrooms for teaching to fiber
Carolina. extension optic network in Benbow Hall,
--Initiate planning and construction Carver Hall, C. H. Moore Ag
of the Extension/Research Office Research Facility, Webb Hall, and
Building Coltrane Hall
--Initiate planning for renovation/ --Upgrade equipment for School of Ag-
conversion of Farm Barn IV Studio
--Renovate Ward Hall for research --Upgrade computer network equipment
--Renovate Analytical and Food/ and purchase computers for Benbow
Nutrition Labs Hall for research
--Purchase scientific equipment. --Purchase scientific equipment for
Analytical Services Laboratory for
research
--Purchase teleconferencing
equipment for Coltrane Hall for
extension
Langston University, Langston, --Construct/renovate Extension/ --Construct/renovate Research/
Oklahoma. Research Complex. Extension Building
--Construct/renovate greenhouse
--Construct new facility to house
teaching, research and extension
programs
South Carolina State University, --Continue renovation/repair on --Complete construction on Extension
Orangeburg, South Carolina. residential youth camp Office Complex
--Continue construction on Distant --Construct/Renovate Commercial
Learning Foodservice Management Laboratory
--Purchase equipment for Extension Renovate R. L. Hurst Research Center
Office Complex. Renovate Staley Hall for teaching
Tennessee State University --Construct a research and extension --Develop a comprehensive distance
Nashville, Tennessee. facility. learning studio
--Renovate/construct teaching
learning center
Prairie View A&M University, --Purchased some of the equipment --Continue to purchase equipment and
Prairie View, Texas. needed for the Cooperative vehicles for the CARC
Agricultural Research Center (CARC) --Continue to construct H.S. Estelle
--Construct/renovate H.S. Estelle 4-H 4-H and Youth Camp
and Youth Camp --Purchase equipment for
--Renovate dairy goat center, Communications Network
creamery laboratory, meat --Continue renovations for dairy
laboratory, greenhouse, swine goat center, creamery laboratory,
center, feed mill, poultry center, meat laboratory, greenhouse, swine
and human nutrition/food science center, feed mill, poultry center,
laboratories. human nutrition/food science
laboratories
--Renovate Carden-Waller Extension
Building
--Renovate Jesse H. & Mary Gibbs
Jones Building, calf/hay barn, and
farm operations for research
--Renovate teaching labs
--Plan and construct Family
Development Research/Extension
Center
--Construction addition to
Cooperative Extension Office and
Training Facility; multi purpose
pavilion; and Animal Systems
Building
--Install access gates to Extension
parking lots
--Construct greenhouse for research
Virginia State University, --Purchase equipment for plant --Complete purchase of equipment for
Petersburg, Vir- ginia. science and aquaculture research Desktop Publishing and Reference
labs Center
--Purchase equipment for distant --Complete renovations on Animal
education capability in new Science Teaching Laboratory
extension building --Renovate former sheep facility to
--Construct/renovate Poultry Building office and storage facility
--Construct/renovate Pole Barn
Building
--Construct greenhouse (Phase 1)
--Construct service building on
Randolph Farm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994 institutions funding
Question. Is there a need for facilities funding for the 1994
institutions? How does the fiscal year 2000 budget address this need?
Answer. There is a significant need for facilities funding for the
thirty 1994 land grant institutions. Current facilities do not place
these institutions in a strong position to address broad research,
education and extension issues related to the food and agricultural
sciences which are important to the communities and students served by
these institutions. Of critical need is funding for research
facilities. Such funding would enhance the utilization of funds
currently appropriated through the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service for higher
education and cooperative extension programs, and anticipated research
program funding proposed in the President's fiscal year 2000 budget.
Facilities grants to these institutions would be useful to assist in
the purchase of equipment and land, and the planning, construction,
alteration or renovation of buildings to strengthen their capacity to
conduct research in the food and agricultural sciences and the delivery
of relevant research-based information through cooperative extension
programs. In the fiscal year 2000 budget there are no funds to address
facilities funding for the 1994 institutions.
extension indian reservation
Question. The fiscal year 2000 request proposes an increase of
$3,286,000 for the Extension Indian Reservation Program. Which Indian
reservations currently have an extension agent, and which Indian
Reservations will receive an agent if the budget request is approved?
Answer. We currently have Extension agents on 25 reservations in 15
states. These include Alaska--Tanana Chiefs' Conference; Arizona--
Navajo Reservation, Ship Rock and Window Rock, San Carlos Apache
Reservation, Colorado River Indian Tribes Reservation, and Hopi
Reservation; Florida--Seminole Reservation; Idaho--Fort Hall
Reservation; Mississippi--Choctaw Reservation; Montana--Flathead
Reservation, Northern Cheyenne Reservation, Blackfeet Reservation, and
the Fort Belknap Reservation; North Carolina--Cherokee Reservation;
North Dakota--Fort Berthold Reservation; New Mexico--Jicarilla Apache
Reservation and the Zuni Reservation; Nevada--Nevada Indian
Reservations; Oklahoma--Muscogee (Creek) Nation; Oregon--Warm Springs
Reservation; South Dakota--Pine Ridge Reservation and the Rosebud
Reservation; Washington--Chehalis Reservation and the Colville
Reservation; and Wyoming--Wind River Reservation.
We also have previously submitted applications from Alaska--
Kenaitze Nation; Arizona--Navajo Reservation at Crown Point, Tuba City,
Chin Le, and Kayenta; and the Hualapai and Havasupai Reservations;
Colorado--the Southern Ute Reservation and the Ute Mountain
Reservation; Idaho--the Fort Hall Reservation; Kansas--the Kickapoo
Nation; Montana--the Crow Reservation and the Rocky Boy's Reservation;
North Dakota--the Fort Totten Reservation, the Standing Rock
Reservation, and the Turtle Mountain Reservation; New York--the St.
Regis Mohawk Reservation; Rhode Island--the Narragansett Nation; and
South Dakota--the Cheyenne River Reservation. These have not been
funded, nor have they been recently updated. We anticipate new
applications from each of these, should the increase be provided.
We have had recent inquiries from the Menominee Nation--Wisconsin;
the Cherokee Nation--Oklahoma; the Tohono O'odham, Gila River, and
White Mountain Apache Reservations--Arizona; and the Couer D'Alene
Reservation-- Idaho.
If the increase is enacted, we expect to receive applications, or
new applications, from most of the locations listed above and from more
Reservations in Idaho, New Mexico, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and
Washington.
integrated activities
Question. The Administration proposes first-time funding of $73
million for an integrated research, education, and extension
competitive grants program, as authorized by the Agricultural Research,
Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998. Does the authorization
require that a separate appropriations account be created for these
integrated activities?
Answer. Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 authorizes an integrated research,
education, and extension competitive grants program, but it does not
require that a separate appropriations account be created. The account
implements authorizing legislation to break down the artificial barrier
between research and education and extension, as well as to include
initiatives. The Administration is proposing that the new account be
created to enable the agency to more efficiently manage existing
parallel research and extension programs authorized and administered
under separate legislative authorities and separate appropriation
accounts, as well as new programs that promote integrated approaches to
problem-solving. This is not the first year that some of the programs
in this account have been funded. Water quality, food safety, and
pesticide impact assessment were funded under the Special Research
grants and Smith Lever 3(d) programs in previous years. Fiscal year
1999 level was $30 million.
Question. Is the Department providing fiscal year 1999 funding for
integrated activities? If so, please explain.
Answer. The integrated research, education, and extension
competitive grants program is not being implemented in fiscal year
1999. However, as it has for the past several years, CSREES will manage
the fiscal year 1999 Special Research Grants and Smith-Lever 3(d)
funding for the National Pesticide Impact Assessment Program so that
single proposals addressing research and extension issues are submitted
by the States to the agency for review and award. This approach has
significantly streamlined the submission, review, and award process.
Because of the separate authorizations and appropriations accounts, we
have continued to track obligations separately.
Question. How has the Department determined which programs should
be funded under a new integrated authorities account?
Answer. CSREES, which resulted from the 1994 merger of the former
Cooperative State Research Service and the former Extension Service,
has previously administered parallel research and extension programs in
several areas, including the Water Quality, National Agricultural
Pesticide Impact Assessment, and Food Safety programs. These programs
were administered under the separate legislative authorities for
Special Research Grants and Smith-Lever 3(d), and the use of funds
awarded under these programs was limited to only research activities or
only extension activities. The agency determined that it would be
appropriate to include these parallel programs, as well as new programs
promoting integrated approaches to problem-solving, in the new account
so that research, extension, and education activities can be fully
integrated without the artificial barriers resulting from separate
legislative authorities. The integrated authorities account will enable
the agency to more efficiently manage these programs by streamlining
the proposal submission, review, and award processes.
farm*a*syst
Question. Please give us a status report on the Farm*A*Syst funded
through the Water Quality grant program and the level of funding
provided for this program for each of fiscal years 1997, 1998, and
1999.
Answer. Farm*A*Syst has now spread to 47 states, plus Puerto Rico
and the Virgin Islands. More than 80,000 assessments have been
conducted since the program began. Nineteen of these states raised a
total of over $1.1 million in matching funds. An additional $55 million
in private citizen funding has been invested in pollution prevention
measures due to Farm*A*Syst findings. One study in Nebraska showed that
farmers spent an average of $5,400 each in renovations to protect water
supplies. In addition to general farm assessments, the program is
evolving into commodity-specific assessments such as new pilot
assessments in cotton, potatoes, dairy, and beef. In Mississippi, more
than 2,000 properties have been assessed; and over 10,000 youth have
been trained in simple assessments. The Delta Council FARM group uses
materials in their environmental stewardship program. California has
certified over 900 dairy farms to date with this program. In Michigan,
farmers receive a 20 percent insurance premium reduction for
implementing assessment and prevention measures. Several states used
trained volunteers to deliver the program.
For rural homeowners without major agriculture, the Home-A-Syst
program was developed. This program addresses issues such as rural well
and septic maintenance and hazardous waste. This program is now in 31
states; and booklets are in the third printing after distribution of
26,000 copies. Half of these states have raised a total of $510,000 in
matching funds.
Funding for fiscal year 1997 was $197,977; fiscal year 1998 was
$148,483; and fiscal year 1999 is planned for $111,362 to the national
coordinating staff in Wisconsin. An additional $497,000 is available in
fiscal year 1999 for competitive grants to states to strengthen their
programs.
food quality protection act risk mitigation and crops at risk
Question. Please explain how the proposed Food Quality Protection
Act (FQPA) Risk Mitigation and Crops at Risk programs will help
producers meet requirements of FQPA. Which FQPA requirements? Who would
be eligible for these programs? Provide some specific examples of the
activities to be carried out through these programs.
Answer. The new Crops At Risk (CAR) from FQPA Implementation
program is requesting $5.0 million for fiscal year 2000. Many crops and
cropping systems face potentially severe economic constraints as a
result of the impending loss of certain pesticides through
implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). In the short
term, these are mainly small-acreage fruit and vegetable crops due to
the current elimination or restrictions on organophosphate and
carbamate pesticides. However, slightly further down the road, many
more crops, including the large-acreage grain, forage and fiber crops
will be impacted as well. The Crops At Risk (CAR) program is an
intermediate-term research and implementation program designed to keep
the crop or cropping system as the focal point. The goal of this
program is to design and promote the development of new Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) strategies to assist producers transition to new
technologies necessitated by FQPA implementation. Crop Profiles, which
are being developed through the leadership of the Office of Pest
Management Policy (OPMP) will be used to prioritize a list of crops
potentially at risk within each state as a result of FQPA
implementation. State priorities will then be assessed at the regional
level to identify crosscutting challenges and opportunities for multi-
state and multi-regional cooperation. The resulting reports will serve
as the basis for priority setting for this competitive research grants
program to be coordinated through CSREES in consultation with OPMP.
The funding mechanism, for the Crops at Risk program, will involve
the awarding of competitive grants whose merit has been determined
following a relevancy and scientific peer review process. The request
for proposals will be developed to attract innovative applications for
projects that demonstrate integrated research, education and extension
activities.
food recovery and gleaning
Question. A new Food Recovery and Gleaning Community Infrastructure
Grants Program is proposed to be funded for fiscal year 2000 as an
integrated activity. The budget justification indicates that $10
million is proposed to be awarded to support infrastructure projects;
$2,850,000 in Smith-Lever 3(d) funding is to be awarded to establish a
technical assistance and education network to help coordinate gleaning
activities, establish local hunger programs, and administer food
recovery programs; and $2,150,000 is to establish a competitive food
recovery and gleaning competitive grants program. For fiscal year 1999,
the President proposed that a Food Recovery and Gleaning program be
managed and overseen by USDA's Food and Nutrition Service. Why is the
President now proposing that this be a CSREES activity?
Answer. The Secretary has determined that CSREES should be the lead
USDA agency on food recovery and gleaning grants for a number of
reasons:
--CSREES is the USDA agency with the most significant previous hands-
on experience giving grants to food recovery and gleaning and
related activities (through the Fund for Rural America), as
well as the USDA agency with the greatest expertise overall in
giving grants to grass-roots activities.
--There are numerous CSREES-related food recovery and gleaning
projects sponsored by state and local extension services which
have proven track records of success in efficiently feeding
hungry people, utilizing volunteers, and empowering
communities.
--The CSREES-affiliated Cooperative Extension System has a unique
ability to help serve isolated rural areas, which are currently
under served by nonprofit feeding groups.
--Tying such grants to the Cooperative Extension System will help the
effort fully utilize the expertise of universities and county
offices, as well as increase hunger-related volunteer
activities through the 4-H Program.
--It is desirable to better integrate food recovery and gleaning
projects with Community Food Projects grants, which are
currently awarded by CSREES, as well as to place the Food
Recovery and Gleaning Initiative in the same overall USDA
mission area as the overall Community Food Security Initiative.
Question. Please explain the need for a separate food recovery and
gleaning competitive grants program, and why such grants can't be
funded through the Department's other competitive research programs?
Answer. The food recovery and gleaning grants would go mostly to
infrastructure improvements and extension activities that directly feed
people and help people better utilize the food provided. Most of these
activities would not qualify as research activities that could be
funded under research programs.
In previous years USDA had limited ability to provide small grants
for food recovery and gleaning activities through both the AmeriCorps
National Service Program and the Fund for Rural America (FRA). Because
the USDA AmeriCorps program has been eliminated and the fiscal year
1999 Agriculture Appropriations Act prevents USDA from using funds to
administer the FRA, USDA can no longer use those avenues to fund such
efforts. The Department has been able, over the last few years, to
provide some publicity and technical assistance to food recovery and
gleaning projects, but USDA currently lacks the ability to provide
significant financial resources to help local efforts to directly
expand their infrastructure to recover, glean, and distribute excess
foods. The $15 million grant program would provide significant aid to
hard-pressed nonprofit feeding organizations throughout the country,
many of whom now report that they are unable to keep up with large-
scale, recent increases in demand for supplemental and emergency food.
A 1998 study by the Second Harvest Food Bank Network indicated that
over 21 million Americans obtain supplemental and emergency food from
food pantries and hot meal programs, most of which are run by faith-
based nonprofit groups. Most of these groups have recently reported
that they have experienced dramatic increases in demand for food--
especially from families with children and/or families in which one or
more adults are working. These groups have also reported that they have
been generally unable to collect enough additional food to meet the
rising need of their clients.
Existing USDA food recovery and gleaning efforts have certainly
been helpful. However, we know that--because local efforts often lack
the appropriate equipment and processes for collecting, transporting,
heating, refrigerating, packaging, processing, and distributing the
food, nonprofit groups and other local entities are often unable to
fully utilize USDA technical assistance and publicity to expand their
efforts. Such groups and entities repeatedly inform USDA that they need
monetary assistance to buy those pieces of equipment and build those
processes.
Due to this lack of local infrastructure--even though food can be
safely recovered from farms, ranches, orchards, manufacturing and
processing plants, wholesale and retail markets, restaurants and food
service operations--an estimated 96 billion pounds of the 356 billion
pounds of food produced for human consumption in America continues to
be wasted. By providing limited Federal funds to leverage community-
based efforts to recover, glean, and distribute such food, hundreds of
millions of pounds of additional, wholesome food can be distributed to
hungry Americans each year.
It is clear that community organizations (including faith-based
organizations) are willing to bring significant resources of their own
to aid food recovery and gleaning efforts and community volunteers are
able and willing to provide free labor to such efforts. Yet these
organizations still require some help from the Federal government--as
well as from state and local governments, foundations, and private
businesses. Federal assistance is needed to provide seed money and
leverage other resources.
Question. Please distinguish between activities eligible for
funding through the Department's Commodity Assistance Program and those
which would be undertaken this through this new grant.
Answer. Most of the funds ($45 million) currently available to
states for the administration of the Emergency Food Assistance Program
(TEFAP) are used to transport and otherwise handle USDA commodities
distributed through TEFAP. The remainder of the funding is usually used
by states to support the transport and handling of donated food already
moving through the emergency feeding system. Thus, states have very
limited ability to use such funds to help non-profit and often
community-based, faith-based organizations substantially improve their
infrastructure to obtain and use new sources of food.
Furthermore, food banks and their member agencies throughout the
country are currently reporting that they are facing dramatic increases
in request for food--particularly from working poor families--and that
they are frequently unable to provide the additional food needed to
meet the additional demand. In addition, food banks and their member
agencies are facing great difficulty making up the 10 percent cut in
fiscal year 1999 in TEFAP appropriations. For this reason, the
Administration has proposed returning funding for TEFAP food purchases
to the fiscal year 1998 level of $100 million, as well as proposing an
additional $15 million in funding to help such agencies develop and
support the channels necessary to obtain and distribute large-scale new
sources of donated food.
Question. What types of nonprofit organizations will be eligible
for the $10 million ``infrastructure'' component of this program and
please give examples of the types of ``infrastructure'' projects which
would be eligible for funding and the need to provide federal support
for these projects.
Answer. Any non-profit organization, including faith-based,
community-based, as described in section 501(c) (3) of title 26, United
States Code; state governments; local government agencies (including
school districts), and Indian tribal governments would be eligible to
receive the grants.
The following of some of the ``infrastructure'' items that could be
funded by the grants:
--equipment and supplies to harvest, collect, sort, process, store,
dehydrate, preserve, transport, and distribute recovered and
gleaned food;
--infrastructure additions needed to start or expand programs that
combine food recovery with job training.
--preparation and distribution of handbooks, resource guides, and
instructional materials (including materials to help persons
use recovered food safely, nutritiously, and cost effectively);
--equipment, programs, and systems (including integrated
transportation systems) to improve operations and integration
of food recovery and gleaning efforts;
Funds provided through the grants would only be used to start new
activities or expand or improve existing activities; funds would not
replace funding for existing activities. Federal assistance would be
used in conjunction with private, non-profit, and State funds to
empower community-based food recovery and gleaning efforts and
encourage community volunteerism, as well as to increase ties to
broader community food security activities.
Preferences would be given to applicants based on the following
criteria:
--the offer of non-Federal matching funds in excess of the match
required; the cost-effectiveness of the project; the
effectiveness of similar projects operated by the eligible
grantee;
--the socio-economic composition of the population to be served by
the project;
--the extent to which the project promotes the self-sufficiency of
communities and food recipients, utilizes sweat equity to help
individuals collect their own food, increases the dignity of
food recipients, and helps individuals train for eventual paid
employment;
--the extent to which the project includes partnerships with other
private or public entities involved with other community food
security activities; and
--the extent to which the project will directly affect an area that
is designed as an empowerment zone or enterprise community.
farm*a*syst
Question. Will the Administration's proposal to provide water
quality funding through the integrated activities program affect the
Farm*A*Syst program?
Answer. It is anticipated that the Farm*A*Syst program will not be
affected by the Administration's proposal to provide water quality
funding through the integrated activities program. The integrated
activities program is expected to maintain and strengthen existing
National initiatives, such as the Farm*A*Syst program, by ensuring that
the knowledge and technology generated by research is delivered to the
end-users, including producers, communities, and consumers.
methyl bromide
Question. The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes $5 million under the
integrated activities program for a Methyl Bromide Transitions Program.
The budget justification indicates that the ARS is focusing on long-
term methyl bromide replacement strategies, this program will focus on
short-and intermediate-term solutions. How much of the funding proposed
for this program will be for research? Why not expand or reorient the
ARS program rather than begin a new research program?
Answer. The new funding in the proposed Methyl Bromide Transitions
Program would be available to research projects, research and extension
combined projects, and extension projects through a competitive grants
program that would be made available to land-grant and other
universities, extension programs, and other research facilities that
normally compete through the USDA-CSREES competitive grants programs.
Each category--research , research and extension, and extension-would
receive approximately one-third of the funding. Much of the pre-plant
methyl bromide alternative research in ARS has focused on fresh market
tomato and strawberries. The CSREES competitive grants program would
focus on integrated approaches that include: 1) increased support for
minor use chemicals on commodities, such as lettuce, pepper, other
vegetables; 2) increased integrated research and extension activities
on alternatives for ornamentals; 3) increase opportunities for field
testing of integrated approaches for strawberry and fresh market
tomato; 4) extension activities on implementation of alternatives; and
5) increased technology transfer of results to growers through
education programs. The use of the competitive process would assure
that new research activities were complementary to ARS and met the
needs of industry.
Question. The budget justification indicates that technology
transfer of research into practical management alternatives for methyl
bromide will be done through cooperative extension activities. How much
of the request $5 million is for these activities? What research
findings will be transferred to users?
Answer. Cooperative Extension and Education activities would
receive approximately one-third of the proposed funding. These
activities would more rapidly promote technology transfer from ARS and
support new alternative programs by expanding field testing of
integrated approaches, implementation of successful alternatives now
available, and provide more demonstration of alternatives to growers.
This would include tomato and strawberry but focus on other vegetables
and ornamentals that are dependent on methyl bromide. ARS sponsors
field-scale validations of the most promising alternatives identified
in experimental plots. Parallel programs are proceeding in Florida and
California ($250,000 each annually) with emphasis on tomatoes in
Florida and strawberries in California. Research teams that include ARS
and university scientists, extension personnel, and grower
representatives meet periodically to evaluate research results and plan
future trails. To help transfer the technology to growers, many of the
field-scale validations are done with active grower participation on
commercial farms. Such alternatives are being tested at seven
strawberry sites in California, scattered from just north of San Diego
to Watsonsville and with one site in the Central Valley, to test
alternatives under a range of growing conditions. There are five sites
devoted to perennials, in Florida, there are five sites each for
tomatoes and strawberries. $50,000 of the Florida funds supports
extension efforts to facilitate adoption of alternatives.
small farms
Question. Please explain in more detail the need for the small
farms programs proposed in the budget and why these needs aren't being
met through the Department's existing rural development; natural
resources and environment; farm assistance programs; and research,
education and extension programs.
Answer. The National Commission on Smalls 1998 Report, A Time to
Act, provides an excellent description of the plight of the Nation's
small farmers and makes a compelling case for immediate, effective
action on the part of USDA, its Land Grant partners, and other public
and private sector organizations and groups who work with farmers.
There are many reasons why the Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service (CSREES) and its Land Grant partners need to
develop and deliver programs that will stop the erosion of the Nation's
small farms. A few of the most important are: (1) Small farms often
lead the way in new product development, (2) Small farms enhance the
quality of life for all Americans and protect natural resources for the
entire Nation, (3) Small farms also enhance the quality of life for
urban communities, and (4) Small farms protect resources that serve all
Americans.
Small farmers also have special and varied needs and the National
Small Farm Program must address those needs. Small farms are highly
varied in size, mix of animal and plant enterprises, gate receipts and
gender and cultural background of the farm operator. A few examples
will illustrate the complexity of the small farm population and its
needs.
Small farms produce an enormous range of products and many of them
are products for which the existing research base is not well
developed. Organic production provides one example. Relatively little
research-based information is available for organic producers.
Small farms are not unsuccessful large farms. Small farmers are
resourceful entrepreneurs who produce valuable agricultural products
using more limited fiscal, human and land resources that their larger
scale neighbors. They have special research, education and extension
needs because they have fewer resources available to them than larger
farms.
Small farms differ widely from state to state and even within the
same state. Small farmers include many different cultural and social
groups. For example, language can be a barrier for some, and these
groups need information available to them in their own languages. Some
small farmers have limited educational backgrounds. They also have
special information needs. Education and extension programs must
address these multiple groups of clients.
In general, the special and varied needs of small farmers have not
been met because the majority of resources of the Nation's agricultural
system have for several decades been increasingly devoted to research,
development, assistance, and education/extension programs which have
led to greater industrialization of the agricultural sector. While
industrialization has certainly resulted in enormous gains and benefits
for our food and fiber system, the small farmers, now representing 94
percent of all farms and receiving 41 percent of all agricultural
receipts, contribute immensely to our Nation's food production and are
the foundation of our Nation.
Question. The budget justification indicates that the $4 million
requested for the small farms program will enable CSREES to reach the
three goals of the National Small Farm Program ``much more rapidly''.
Please explain how these goals are currently being met by CSREES and
how the proposed farm program will expedite the agency's ability to
meet these goals.
Answer. There are three principal goals for the National Small Farm
Program. They are based on the goals for the CSREES National Plan for
Small Farms and reflect many of the primary concerns raised in the
National Commission on Small Farms report, A Time to Act.
The goals are to enhance the economic viability of small farms, to
improve the contribution of small farms to environmental quality, and
to enrich the quality of life for small farm families. These goals are
currently being addressed through CSREES National Small Farm Program, a
program which currently relies on formula funding and programs at the
1862 and 1890 Land Grant Institutions. Programs at these institutions
tend to be quite small, usually supporting professionals part-time to
meet the needs of the small farmer communities.
The Small Farms Initiative proposed for fiscal year 2000 will
substantially improve education and outreach for small farmers. The
priority programs that need to be developed are: appropriate production
practices, marketing strategies, consumer awareness, entrepreneurial
skills, communication and information networks, and helping beginning
farmers establish viable farm operations and enterprises.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Burns
fiscal year 2000 budget
Question. Funding for Research and Education Activities are vitally
important to enhance university curriculums and to increase
opportunities for agricultural producers on new cropping methods,
marketing methods, new information in the industry and ways to increase
efficiency. How will USDA restore the $2.5 million cut in order to give
agricultural producers an extra edge with today's depressed prices?
Answer. Following extensive consultation with stakeholders,
including the National Agricultural Research, Education, Extension, and
Economics Advisory Board, the land-grant university system, and
producer representatives, the Administration developed a portfolio of
national agricultural research, extension, and education priorities for
fiscal year 2000, including food safety, methyl bromide alternatives,
small farms, Food Quality Protection Act implementation, and water
quality. States and localities may still choose to address issues of
immediate state and local concern as identified through their own
stakeholder input process. Since States are free to use formula funds
in the manner they choose, the impact of the reduction in the CSREES
Research and Education Activities account will vary from state to
state. Overall, the Administration is proposing an increase of 2.6
percent in the CSREES discretionary budget, and an additional
$152,500,000 in mandatory funding, for high priority research,
education, and extension programs that will significantly expand and
strengthen the knowledge of agriculture in the United States.
Question. Funding for Extension Activities is vitally important for
rural areas. Extension agents and programs provided by county extension
of flee provide support and education to farming and ranching
communities. How will USDA restore the $16.2 million cut from the
budget?
Answer. Following extensive consultation with stakeholders,
including the National Agricultural Research, Education, Extension, and
Economics Advisory Board, the land-grant university system, and
producer representatives, the Administration developed a portfolio of
national agricultural research, extension, and education priorities for
fiscal year 2000, including food safety, methyl bromide alternatives,
small farms, Food Quality Protection Act implementation, and water
quality. States and localities may still choose to address issues of
immediate state and local concern as identified through their own
stakeholder input process. Since States are free to use formula funds
in the manner they choose, the impact of the reduction in the CSREES
Extension Activities account will vary from state to state. Overall,
the Administration is proposing an increase of 2.6 percent in the
CSREES discretionary budget, and an additional $152,500,000 in
mandatory funding, for high priority research, education, and extension
programs that will significantly expand and strengthen the knowledge of
agriculture in the United States.
______
Farm Credit Administration
Questions Submitted by Senator Cochran
competition
Question. The Philosophy Statement on Intra-System Competition
adopted by the Board last July affirms the Board's belief that
competition within the System is beneficial for the customer. Will all
of the institutions be able to lend across geographic boundaries on
both short-term loans and long-term loans or will there be any
regulations from one lending institution to another where the
institutions will not be equal in all aspects?
Answer. The Farm Credit Administration (FCA or Agency) Board's
philosophy statement expresses support for:
--Farm Credit System (FCS or System) customers being able to choose
the System lender with which they want to do business. We call
this ``customer choice.''
--Each System direct lender being able to offer all financial
services authorized by the Farm Credit Act (Act). We call this
``cross-title lending.''
--Each association being able to choose the System bank from which it
will be funded. We call this ``funding choice.''
In November of last year, we published the proposed Customer Choice
Rule, which would allow all institutions to lend across geographic
boundaries. If the Board adopts that rule substantially as proposed,
every association would be able to make a loan to any customer at the
customer's choice. In this respect, all associations would be treated
the same.
This proposed rule would not change the types of loans an
association can make. Federal Land Bank Associations (FLBAs) and
Federal Land Credit Associations (FLCAs) could still make only long-
term mortgage loans under title I of the Act. Production Credit
Associations (PCAs) could still make only short- and intermediate-term
loans under title II of the Act. A customer seeking a long-term
mortgage loan, for example, could apply to any Agricultural Credit
Association (ACA), FLBA, or FLCA. A customer seeking short- or
intermediate-term credit could apply to any ACA or PCA.
FCA faces a statutory obstacle to giving customers the opportunity
to obtain any type of loan from any association. The FCA Board would
have to amend or issue new charters to associations that now have only
title I or title II lending authority. The 1992 amendments to the Act
prohibit this for FLBAs and PCAs in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama,
and New Mexico \1\. These same FLBAs and PCAs under existing law could
make both long-term and short-term loans if the following actions were
taken:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section 5.17(a)(2) and (C) applies to the associations in the
three southern states in the former Jackson district. FCA cannot
overcharter existing associations without the consent of the affected
FLBA or PCA and the respective funding bank. Sections 5.17 (a)(13) and
(14) contain similar consent requirements before overchartering
associations that reaffiliated under section 433 of the Agricultural
Credit Act of 1987. Today, these provisions apply only to the
associations located in New Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--They merge with the unlike association(s) in their territory; or
--They get permission from each association that now provides the
type of credit that they wish to provide in that association's
territory. These limits on FCA's chartering authority for
associations do not exist elsewhere in the country.
equity-based lending
Question. Some of the lending banks are now reverting to the 1980's
``equity based'' lending because crop and livestock projections do not
justify writing a loan. Do you see farm credit borrowers significantly
hurting from the same actions that took place a decade ago?
Answer. We have found that System institutions learned from the
mistakes of the mid 1980's crisis and, as a result, no longer emphasize
collateral based lending practices that were referred to as ``equity
lending'' in the 1980s. System institutions shifted to a repayment
based lending philosophy, which was further strengthened with a
disciplined approach to credit extension, using underwriting standards
tailored to the types of commodities financed. In addition, FCA revised
regulations addressing System underwriting standards to ensure ``an
applicant has the operational, financial, and management resources
necessary to repay the debt from cashflow.''
When the agricultural economy is experiencing stress, however, FCS
institutions have considerable flexibility under existing regulations
to provide appropriate relief. Such relief efforts may include, but are
not necessarily limited to, extending the terms of loan repayment or
restructuring a borrower's debt obligations. A System institution may
consider easing some loan documentation or credit-extension terms for
new loans to certain borrowers or requesting FCA to grant relief from
specific regulatory requirements. When conducted in a reasonable and
prudent manner, the FCA will consider FCS efforts to work with
distressed borrowers as consistent with safe and sound business
practices.
Over the past 10 years, the majority of FCS institutions have
increased substantially the level of capital they maintain. In fact,
the level of risk funds (which includes permanent capital and the
allowance for losses on loans and other property owned) in relation to
loans outstanding and other property owned increased from 10.9 percent
at yearend 1989 to 21.1 percent at yearend 1998. The total capital of
the System grew from $3.8 billion at the end of 1989 to $12.5 billion
at the end of 1998. This indicates that System borrowers contributed
substantially to rebuilding the financial strength of their cooperative
associations and banks so that the institutions would be better able to
withstand a downturn in the agriculture environment should it occur and
be better positioned to work with their stockholder borrowers if
necessary.
competitive interest rates
Question. Does the Farm Credit Act prohibit Farm Credit
institutions from offering interest rates that are below their
competitors' rates? If yes, why?
Answer. The Act does not expressly prohibit FCS institutions from
offering interest rates that are below their competitors' rates. The
Act provides that ``it shall be the objective'' of System lenders to
set interest rates and other charges ``at the lowest reasonable cost on
a sound business basis,'' taking into consideration the lender's cost
of funds, necessary reserves, and the cost of providing services to its
members.
Under Section 1.1(c) of the Act, only System institutions that use
regulatory accounting practices (RAP), as provided in the Farm Credit
Act Amendments of 1986 and part 624 of FCA regulations, are prohibited
from pricing their loans below competitive market rates. Currently,
there are no FCS institutions using RAP. For FCS institutions not using
RAP, neither the statute nor regulations specifically prohibit them
from pricing their loans below their competitors.
Question. There have been a lot of complaints directed towards Farm
Credit Services of the Midlands because of special loan programs. Has
this issue been taken care of and what actions have been taken to keep
these special programs from offering below market rates?
Answer. In early 1998, the FCA did receive several complaints from
commercial banks regarding the loan pricing practices of the Farm
Credit Services of the Midlands (now the FCS of America). The
complaints were directed toward a special loan program promoting 5-year
fixed-rate term loans for capital purchases (such as equipment
purchases); and 15-year fixed-rate real estate loans. Both had a rate
of 7.75 percent with no limit on loan size, no prepayment penalty, and
no origination fee. At the time of the complaints, there were numerous
advertised rates in the association's four-state trade territory from
equipment and farm supply dealers that were similar to the rate offered
by the association for similar loan products.
Based on our examination of the association and our review and
analysis of its loan pricing practices, including the above noted
special program, we found no evidence that the FCS of America was
offering interest rates that did not recover costs and earn a profit,
or were significantly different than those rates currently offered
under its differential pricing program. Further, we found no evidence
that the institution's pricing program resulted in any violations of
applicable law and regulations or was an unsafe or unsound practice.
In our examinations of System institutions, the FCA evaluates an
institution's earnings, including whether the institution obtains and
uses competitor rate information in the pricing of its loan portfolio.
The documents we reviewed indicated that the association obtained
surveys of loan rates offered by banks and non-bank lenders in its
territory. Also, the association's advertised loan rates were within
the ranges of the rates offered by its competitors.
We issued an informational memorandum to all System institutions on
February 11, 1999, restating the statutory and regulatory requirements
related to loan pricing, as well as how the FCA examines an
institution's loan pricing practices. The memorandum stated that,
consistent with the law, regulations, and sound business practices,
System institutions should price loans at a level sufficient to cover
all costs, fund provisions to the allowance accounts, and accumulate
capital. Specific consideration should be given to the cost of funds,
the cost of servicing loans, other costs of operations, interest rate
risks, profit and marketing objectives, and the competitive
environment. FCA examiners evaluate whether interest rates charged are
consistent with established policies and are sufficient to cover costs
and adequately capitalize the institution, while maintaining safety and
soundness and remaining competitive in the marketplace.
Question. Have there been any other cases of below market pricing
in the past four years and what action was taken if there was?
Answer. Over the past four years, our reviews of unfair or below
market loan pricing have found no instances where an institution's loan
pricing program resulted in below market pricing or was outside of the
range of rates offered by competitors.
Question. How does the FCA determine the competitive rate? Are Farm
Credit Institutions required to do surveys of their competitors'
prices? If yes, how often and why?
Answer. As the System's regulator, FCA does not determine the
competitive rate. The rate varies by location, type of lender, type of
credit, qualifications of the borrower, and other loan terms. It is
difficult to obtain exact information about actual loan rates and terms
on loan pricing practices of institutions that are competitors of FCS
institutions. While advertised rates provide useful information, the
rates charged in individual transactions are often higher or lower than
quoted rates. Generally, appropriate loan rates for System institutions
are those that are sufficient to cover all costs, including credit
risk, and earn a profit to be able to accumulate capital in
consideration of the law, regulations, sound business practices and the
competitive environment.
No provision of the Act or FCA regulations expressly requires
System institutions to conduct market surveys of competitors' loan
rates. However, we believe that obtaining timely information of what an
institution's competitors are charging for equivalent products is a
sound and essential business practice and should be a part of the loan
pricing policies and interest rate programs that System banks and
associations are required to establish. We have strongly encouraged FCS
institutions to conduct competitor interest rate surveys periodically
to ensure their pricing practices are comparable to the market.
Competitors now include more than commercial banks and other
traditional lenders. There are many non-traditional lenders, such as
John Deere and Pioneer Hi-Bred, also competing for agricultural loans.
If there are instances of loan pricing by FCS institutions that appear
to be outside of prevailing market interest rates, they would be
scrutinized closely by our examiners.
government performance and results act
Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within your agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. I, along with my fellow Board members, developed the FCA's
vision statement, which serves as the basis for our Strategic Plan. As
the CEO, I established performance-based management, through FCA's
Leadership Team, focusing on accountability and regular reporting to
the FCA Board on goal achievements. We have already begun gathering
information to prepare our performance report to Congress and the
public for the year ending September 30, 1999, which is due in March
2000.
Question. How are your agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. Our performance expectations are reflected in the
individual merit performance plans of each of our managers and
supervisors. Each executive has a performance plan for the Agency
performance measures for which they are responsible, individually and
collectively. These same performance expectations are the backbone of
the quarterly report the FCA Board receives from management. This
report describes the progress toward accomplishing our goals and
objectives.
Question. How is performance information being used to manage the
agency?
Answer. We use Agency plans and performance measures to develop
direction, manage expenses, and provide objective feedback on success
in meeting our goals. We focus on performance results and initiatives
that support our goals and objectives. We are also critiquing
activities that do not add value to accomplishing our stated goals.
FCA's planning process is driven by customer and mission requirements.
These include developing direct input and analysis of markets,
identifying emerging needs and risks that dictate internal changes for
FCA, and then shifting resources and priorities to meet these needs.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding requests for fiscal year 2000? Please provide examples.
Answer. We developed office budgets for fiscal year 2000 based on
resources needed to accomplish Strategic Plan initiatives that were
tied directly to our performance indicators. We also identified
initiatives to further enhance our goal of ensuring the continued
safety and soundness of the System. These initiatives were included in
the performance plans supporting staff requirements and salaries to
fund the planned work.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the strategic
and annual plans?
Answer. As a financial regulator, the objectives of our strategic
and operating plans focus on ensuring the FCS operates safely and
soundly, meets the requirements of the statute and regulations, and
benefits farmers, ranchers, agricultural cooperatives, and rural
America as Congress intended. To further our success in meeting these
goals, we have expanded our outreach and communication efforts to our
customer base through a series of meetings and symposiums on topics of
mutual interest. Also, our recent Philosophy Statement supports actions
that will ensure a relevant FCS for the future. The introduction of a
``Best People, Best Products, Best Practices'' initiative within the
Agency has resulted in a clearer focus on what is important.
Question. How does the agency budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. The cost accounting system within our Financial Management
System links expenses by goals and functions. The system was modified
in October of this fiscal year to ensure the linkage between these
systems.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. Budget justifications to Congress are driven by object
classes, such as salaries. Performance is tied to strategies and
related activities designed to achieve results. In addition, the budget
uses a 2-year horizon, while many worthwhile outcomes take much longer.
We are developing 5-year human resource and financial plans to estimate
and plan resources through the life cycle and significant milestones of
major strategies. It is also clear that plans will necessarily change
in order to stay relevant and reflect changes in assumptions. We expect
to update plans as we learn from our experiences and sharpen
performance measures.
Question. Does the agency fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance
plan include performance measures for which reliable data are not
likely to be available in time for the first performance report in
March 2000? If so, what steps are planned to improve the reliability of
these measures?
Answer. Yes. We have reliable data, and the databases are in place
for reporting 17 of 20 measures included in our annual performance
plan. The databases for two of the measures will be ready in time for
the March 2000 report. The final measure includes a new customer survey
that will not be completed until after the initial report is prepared.
Question. How will future funding requests take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance?
Answer. Future funding requests will consider actual performance
compared to target performance by addressing these outcomes in the
budget development and justification process. We are now developing a
5-year financial plan to support the FCA 5-year Strategic Plan.
Requests will continue to demand cost-effective performance and direct
resources to higher value activities for public and mission goals. One
of our performance measures uses the cost of the FCA budget to the
customers of FCS institutions to determine customer value.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
agency performance goals reflect the full costs of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. We allocate the full costs of activities in support of a
performance goal to that goal, including associated overhead costs.
______
Research, Education, and Economics
Questions Submitted by Senator Cochran
strategic planning task force
Question. Please give us a report on the progress being made by the
Strategic Planning Task Force on Research Facilities mandated by the
Farm Bill.
Answer. The Strategic Planning Task Force on Research Facilities
has completed its review of agricultural research facilities and has
prepared a draft report which has been widely circulated for review.
The task force will meet in early summer to finalize the report in
light of the comments that have been received.
Question. Is the report of the Strategic Planning Task Force still
scheduled to be released in April of 1999?
Answer. It is anticipated that the final report will be printed and
distributed this summer.
Question. Are any of the Strategic Planning Task Force's
forthcoming recommendations reflected in the President's fiscal year
2000 Budget?
Answer. Recommendations of the task force are not included in the
President's fiscal year 2000 budget.
biobased coordinating council
An increase of $1,500,000 is proposed for fiscal year 2000 in
funding for the Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics,
as Chair of the Biobased Coordinating Council, to develop a list of
biobased products. The budget justification indicates that the funds
would be used to promote acquisition of biobased products and to help
develop a biobased products list, including the development of
standards, as well as for facilitating technology transfer to new
products and for other purposes.
Question. Under what authority was the Biobased Coordinating
Council established? What is the composition and purpose of the
Council?
Answer. The Biobased Products Coordination Council (BPCC) was
originally created as the New Uses Coordinating Council by Secretary
Glickman in a decision memorandum dated September 13, 1995. The
council's name was changed in 1996 to be more descriptive of and
consistent with current terminology. The BPCC's purpose is to provide
strategic planning and policy input on the development of biobased
products from agricultural materials, including forestry materials, for
commercial and industrial purposes. The BPCC garners input from its
USDA members and actively collects economic, product and marketing
information from other Federal agencies and non-Federal groups. A major
accomplishment of the BPCC was planning and hosting a government-wide
conference on the acquisition of value added products from agricultural
materials. The conference, the National Marketplace for the
Environment, was held in November 1997 in Washington, D.C. The BPCC
will continue to be a part of other conferences and forums to further
the government's and public's knowledge of biobased products.
The Council's purpose was further strengthened by the Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA). For
example, one section of this law authorizes the Secretary of
Agriculture to ``coordinate the research, technical expertise, economic
information, and market information resources and activities of the
Department to develop, commercialize, and promote the use of biobased
products.'' Another section of the law identifies new and alternative
uses and production of agricultural commodities and products as a
priority mission area. The BPCC is carrying out these types of
coordination activities on behalf of the Department.
The BPCC is chaired by the Under Secretary for Research, Education
and Economics and is composed of representatives from each interested
USDA agency and office. Ex officio members include representatives from
the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, and the
Office of the Federal Environmental Executive.
Question. Describe in more detail how the $1,500,000 requested to
develop a list of biobased products will be allocated, e.g., for
promotion, development of a list, and technology transfer.
Answer. The funds will be allocated to those activities supported
in the BPCC strategic plan. Among the major activities that would be
carried out or started in fiscal year 2000 are: the development,
publication and maintenance of a biobased products list as directed in
Executive Order 13101; educational activities, such as training and
conferences, to inform the public and government agencies about
biobased products; demonstration projects to create awareness of and
demand for biobased materials; development of Internet-based
information systems to promote biobased products; support for the
Office of the Environmental Executive; and support for technology
transfer activities through our research agencies with involvement of
the private sector and industry partners.
Question. Give examples of the activities which will be undertaken
both to promote the acquisition of biobased products and to facilitate
the transfer of technology to new products.
Answer. Two activities have been accomplished which are the
building blocks for future activities. The National Marketplace for the
Environment conference in November, 1997, brought to Washington D.C. a
huge showcase for biobased products, processes, and partnerships.
Biobased products are a foundation piece for environmentally preferable
purchasing by government agencies as directed in Executive Order 13101,
Greening the Government Through Waste Prevention, Recycling, and
Federal Acquisition. The publication of a Biobased Products List will
be a major tool to promote acquisition of biobased products.
Agriculture's leadership and innovation are essential in the
development of biobased products. Research conducted under Cooperative
Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) will allow for the
transfer of new technology to the private sector and industry. This
pathway to technology transfer will be used in the development of
biobased products.
Another example that will promote acquisition of biobased products
is the ``Federal Track'' (sponsored by the Office of the Federal
Environmental Executive) in the annual National Recycling Coalition's
Congress and Exposition. In this event Federal, State, and local
governments join with educational institutions and commercial
businesses to share information, success stories, and challenges on
efforts to reach the goals of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976 and related environmental activities.
stakeholders
Question. How do the Department's research, education and extension
agencies communicate with its stakeholders and customers on a regular
basis? Please give specific examples.
Answer. The main method of communication between the REE mission
area and its stakeholders is through the National Research, Extension,
Education and Economics Advisory Board. This board was established in
the 1996 Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. The
Advisory Board's role is to provide consultation to the Secretary and
land grant colleges and universities on long-term and short-term
national policies and priorities for agricultural research, extension,
education and economics. In fiscal year 1998, for example the board
held three public meetings in Washington DC, including the Second
National Stakeholder Symposium, to solicit input and comment from those
who conduct and use agricultural research, extension, education and
economics. The board also held a regional listening session in Utah to
hear the specific concerns of stakeholders in the Western region. The
board held the Third annual Stakeholder Symposium on March 18 of this
year.
The REE agencies also use a variety of other venues, such as
meetings, conferences, workshops, and public hearings to discuss with
stakeholders and customers specific issues of particular importance to
them. While the nature and focus of these activities varies, they are
all important in helping the agencies and mission area to understand
and therefore be responsive to stakeholders and customers needs.
The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) has a long history of
meaningful interactions with its customers and stakeholders. ARS'
research scientists know who their customers and stakeholders are and
they interact with them, formally and informally, throughout the life
of the project. Customer input is important in helping to set the
research direction for each project and customers help to evaluate the
products and outcomes of that research. Each of ARS' eight Area Offices
also conduct aggressive outreach efforts with State and regional
customers and stakeholders of ARS research. At the National level ARS
senior managers and National Program Leaders are in almost constant
contact with the major organizations, associations, and a wide variety
of Federal action and regulatory agencies that either use ARS developed
knowledge and technology or have a keen interest in the work of the
Agency. In developing its new Strategic Plan 1997-2002, ARS solicited
customer input by printing the draft plan in the Federal Register and
mailing copies to 1,400 customers and stakeholders.
In the early stages of the development of the new National Program
structure, the National Program Staff sent copies of various draft
program statements to approximately 1,400 customers and stakeholders
inviting their review and comments. A critical step in the
implementation of the 23 National Programs is a series of planning
workshops that bring together customers, stakeholders, partners, and
ARS scientists. These workshops help identify specific customer needs,
problems, and concerns that feed into the Agency's planning process. By
this approach ARS is able to keep its research focused on solving
specific problems confronting American agriculture.
The following list of planning workshops (completed and upcoming)
demonstrates the comprehensive outreach effort being made by ARS to
ensure the relevancy of its research:
--Animal Genomes, Germplasm, Reproduction, and Development, February,
2000
--Animal Production Systems, February, 2000
--Animal Health, September, 1999
--Arthropod Pests of Animals and Humans, May, 1999
--Animal Well-Being & Stress Control Systems, April, 1999
--Aquaculture, September, 2000
--Human Nutrition Requirements, Food Composition, & Intake, March,
2000
--Food Safety (animal & plant products), February, 1999
--Water Quality & Management, December, 1998
--Soil Resource Management, October, 1998
--Air Quality, May, 1999
--Global Change, October, 1999
--Grazing lands Management, February, 1999
--Manure & Byproduct Utilization. April, 1998
--Integrated Farming Systems, November, 1999
--Plant, Microbial & Insect Germplasm Conservation & Development,
July, 1999
--Plant Biological & Molecular Processes, February, 1999
--Plant Diseases, August, 1999
--Crop Protection & Quarantine, September, 1999
--Crop Production, September, 1999
--New Uses, Quality, & Marketability of Plant & Animal Products, May,
1999
--Bioenergy & Energy Alternatives, April, 1999
--Methyl Bromide Alternatives, November, 1998
As part of its on-going commitment to be responsive to
stakeholders, the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service coordinated a public forum, ``The USDA Solicitation of Input
from Stakeholders regarding the Initiative for Future Agriculture and
Food Systems'' in July 1998. The purpose of this forum was to foster
dialogue between USDA and stakeholders on the implementation of the
mandatory spending program authorized in Section 401 of Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 for competitive
grants to address critical emerging agricultural issues. CSREES also
coordinated a public meeting in December 1998 to solicit input from
stakeholders regarding the role of the USDA/HHS Joint Institute for
Food Safety Research. Agency personnel are using the input to develop
plans for the Institute, which was created to (1) develop a strategic
plan for conducting food safety research activities consistent with the
President's Food Safety Initiative and (2) efficiently coordinate all
Federal food safety research, including research conducted with the
private sector and academia, to ultimately reduce the incidence of
foodborne illness to the greatest extent feasible.
CSREES has recently published in the Federal Register a proposed
rule on stakeholder input requirements for recipients of agricultural
research, education and extension formula funds. This proposed rule
will implement section 102(c) of the Agricultural Research, Extension
and Education Reform Act of 1996, and will require land grant and
extension partners to report annually on the actions taken to encourage
stakeholder input, and a brief statement of the process used by a
recipient institution to identify individuals or groups as stakeholders
and to collect input from them. The Department believes that these
formal channels, as well as our continuing involvement with land grant
and extension policy committees and farmer representatives will ensure
that USDA's research, extension and education portfolio addresses the
highest priority needs of American agriculture.
ERS uses conferences, workshops, and briefings to seek stakeholder
input on proposed studies. These activities are developed in
conjunction with the scientific associations, cooperating universities,
and other organizations concerned with research on agriculture. Recent
examples include:
--A workshop on economic analysis of long-term field trials of
organic farming systems in Washington, DC, in April 1999. The
workshop brought together economists associated with the long-
term projects, the Organic Farming Research Foundation, the
Rodale Institute, the Wallace Institute for Alternative
Agriculture, the Leopold Center, and representatives of USDA
extension and research programs.
--Two workshops on the issue of phasing out methyl bromide in
Gainesville, Florida in March, 1998, and in Sacramento,
California in June 1998. The participants included growers,
environmentalists, researchers, input suppliers, and State and
Federal administrators. Input from these meetings formed the
basis for an inventory of methyl bromide alternatives and the
information was used to produce economic models of the
potential impact of the methyl bromide phaseout.
--A March 1999 workshop that brought together representatives of the
private sector, universities, the National Research Council,
the Congressional Research Service, and other USDA and federal
agencies to discuss economic research needs on transportation
issues and their impact on U.S. agricultural export
performance.
--A Fall 1998 conference of experts on the economic and public health
consequences of achieving USDA's dietary guidelines, and a
follow-up conference in the spring of 1998 on the impacts of
possible changes to those guidelines.
ERS also regularly attends industry meetings attended by its
stakeholders. For example, its researchers attend the Fertilizer
Institute's Economics and Information Committee meeting each Spring,
the International Poultry Waste Management Conference, the
International Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives, and numerous
annual conferences sponsored by commodity groups. ERS also meets
directly with specific stakeholders and customers to discuss issues of
particular importance to them to obtain their individual opinions and
perspectives. For example, ERS leadership met with seven organizations
in the fresh produce industry to discuss their desire to see more
research on concentration in their industry. The Agency plans to expand
its repertoire of communication channels by developing a series of
round tables with a broad range of commodity and industry groups. The
first of these round tables is being planned for mid-1999.
One of the primary ways that NASS regularly communicates with its
stakeholders, customers, and data providers is through the grassroots
contacts maintained by the 45 field offices. These State offices work
directly with State cooperators, usually State departments of
agriculture, and keep in touch with the agricultural leaders in farm
organizations and producers across their States. All NASS field offices
have toll-free numbers. Each field office has a Home Page in addition
to NASS's main Home Page. NASS Headquarters staff also attend a number
of national agricultural commodity meetings, exhibitions, conferences,
and meetings of the National Association of State Departments of
Agriculture. In addition, NASS hosts many visitors each year for its
crop and livestock report ``lock-up'' briefings.
Another major source of feedback for NASS are data users meetings
held at least twice per year. Input gathered at these meetings help
NASS keep its statistical program responsive to the current needs of
the agricultural sector.
response to stakeholder concerns
Question. Name changes that have been made in the Department's
research program over the past year to respond to the concerns and
needs of its stakeholders and customers?
Answer. The REE agencies regularly make adjustments in its programs
in response to stakeholder and customer concerns and needs. Many are
adjustments within programs based on new understandings of stakeholders
problems or concerns.
At the laboratory, Area Office, and headquarters levels, ARS
maintains continual contact with a wide range of customers and
stakeholders. The purpose of this dialogue is to keep our research
program relevant to its mission of solving critical national problems
that confront American agriculture. In the last 18 months, ARS has made
a number of changes in its research activities in response to customer
and stakeholder input.
One of the most important changes to occur is the initial
implementation of the aggregation of 1100+ research projects into 23
National Programs. This process has had active input from ARS'
customers, stakeholders, and partners since its inception. Draft
program statements were submitted to our customers for review and
comment. Planning workshops have been or will be held for each program
or major program components. These workshops bring together customers,
stakeholders, partners, and ARS scientists to help focus the Agency's
research program on meeting the highest priority needs of American
agriculture. ARS is also strengthening it peer review processes to
ensure the quality of research programs. By mid-summer, the National
Program Staff will make an Annual Report on each of the 23 National
Programs available to its customers, stakeholders, and partners on the
ARS home page. The Agency intends to send a notice to all interested
parties when these reports are available, inviting their review and
comments.
In response to stakeholder input, in fiscal year 1999 CSREES added
the following National Research Initiative programs: Epidemiological
Approaches for Food Safety; and The United States Rice Genome
Sequencing Project.
ERS continually appraises and adjusts research plans to address
stakeholder and customer needs. As an example, a new research project
was formulated based on perceived concerns about the role of
agriculture in emerging water quality problems of coastal areas.
Initial plans for the project have been based on a host of specific
situations, such as the hypoxia problem in the northern Gulf of Mexico,
pfiesteria piscida eruptions in North Carolina's Albemarle Sound and
the Chesapeake Bay, red tides in Florida, and salinity and nutrient
problems in the San Francisco Delta and Puget Sound, all characterized
as harmful algal blooms attributed to excessive nutrient enrichment of
coastal waters.
Other priority studies designed to respond to issues presented to
it by key stakeholder and customers include: An ERS-wide study of
concentration in the food system; an analysis of the changing global
meat market and its implications for US trade; a multi-division
research activity on the economic impacts of biotechnology; a major
initiative on risk management; and analyzing the impact of the
financial crisis on US agricultural exports. In addition, the Agency
has responded to stakeholder and customer requests by reinstating a
full complement of its commodity analysis reports, and making them
available in concise form on the Internet. Following a meeting with
seven representatives of the fresh product industry, ERS initiated a
study of retail trade practices and market structure in the produce
industry.
On an on-going basis, NASS modifies and enhances the content and
access to the vast array of data it provides customers. For example,
the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) instrument
contained on the NOAA-14 weather satellite continues to be used to
monitor changing vegetative conditions throughout the growing season.
The NASS Internet web page allows Agency and external users to
reference the following 1995-1999 map products on a real time basis:
vegetative index maps, ratio comparisons to the previous year, within-
year thumbnail time series, and frost danger. In response to customer
requests, a new product was created to compare the current period's
data to that of a 4-year median (1995-1998). In addition to GIF
(Graphic Interchange Format) images, ftp (file transfer protocal) users
now have access to postscript files allowing high resolution printing
of the AVHRR products from the web.
Research also produces Landsat images categorized by specific
crops, which is helping to meet the demand for spatial information on
crops. A new initiative has been launched to develop external
partnerships that will increase remote sensing capabilities for State
Statistical Offices.
Research into the graphical display of data, which will allow users
a better understanding of inherent patterns and structure, and a better
ability to visualize and analyze data, has begun. The long-term goal of
this research is to allow the users to dynamically generate graphical
displays through the web. Historically, access to the data have been in
tabular form only.
research portfolio
Question. Dr. Gonzalez, you indicate in the testimony you have
submitted to the Committee that ``we must find ways to balance the
research portfolio in helping colleges and universities enhance their
future capacity with base funding'' to strengthen their ability to
compete successfully for research funding. Would you please describe
the imbalances which have been identified by the Department and what
the Administration is doing to correct these problems.
Answer. When I refer to balances in the research portfolio, I am
thinking mainly of imbalances between the various categories of land
grant colleges and universities that we have across the nation.
Specifically, I refer to the vast differences in funding between our
1862 land grants and our minority-serving institutions, namely the
1890's and the 1994's and some Hispanic Serving Institutions. For these
institutions to compete for funds in a competitive environment, the
system must identify ways for these institutions to use their formula
funds to leverage additional capacity building resources. Very soon,
the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service will
publish in the Federal Register a proposed rule to implement Section
226 of the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of
1998 which requires increased non-federal matching funds for 1890
institutions. The Reform Act also allows the 1994 institutions to
conduct research and extension programs under cooperative agreements
with other land grant institutions. Both of these provisions will allow
these institutions to use their existing formula fund resources to
improve their research capacity, make them more competitive for state
and private sector resources, and add diversity in approach to the
solution of agricultural problems.
integrated pest management
Question. Will the Administration achieve its goal for the adoption
of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices on 75 percent of U.S.
cropland by the year 2000? Where are you currently in meeting this
goal?
Answer. Consensus has emerged that Integrated Pest Management--
IPM--systems should be measured along a continuum, ranging from no
integration of management tactics to high levels of IPM adoption. The
Department's 1994 report, Adoption of Integrated Pest Management in the
United States, measured adoption along a continuum, and this approach
was refined by Consumers Union in its 1996 report, Pest Management at
the Crossroads. This report estimates that in the year 1996, 70 percent
of crop acreage was managed with pest management systems at the low end
of the IPM continuum. Our goal is to develop and help growers implement
IPM strategies that will enable them to move from the low to the high
end of the continuum. This will involve incrementally-enhancing
biologically-based IPM systems within each production system.
The overall percentage of U.S. crop acres under IPM in 1998 remains
at the 70 percent level, and will likely remain constant in 1999.
However, we remain convinced that the increased investments proposed in
the President's budget request for fiscal year 2000 will permit us to
reach the 75 percent adoption goal by 2000. More importantly, we
believe that these investments will accelerate the adoption of IPM
systems at the medium and high end of the continuum. We believe that
increased adoption of pest management systems at the high end of the
IPM continuum will benefit all Americans by increasing profitability,
protecting water quality and farm worker safety, and enhancing the
wholesome quality of our Nation's food supply. We believe that an
accelerated effort is warranted to develop IPM strategies and to assist
growers to implement pest management strategies through educational
programs that will help them reduce reliance on high-risk pesticides
and enhance sustainability of their operations.
agricultural problems
Question. Please describe the Department's response to acute
agricultural problems, such as the wheat and barley scab crisis and to
the avian influenza.
Answer. The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recognizes the
seriousness of acute agricultural problems, such as wheat and barley
scab, and avian influenza.
The USDA-Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is expanding its
research program on Fusarium Head Blight, and is working closely with
the U.S. Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative to increase collaboration
between Federal and State laboratories. The Cereal Rust Laboratory and
the wheat genetic improvement project at St. Paul, Minnesota, have
focused efforts on improved varieties with enhanced resistance to scab.
In fact, a wheat line with significant resistance has been released
from that program. In Peoria, Illinois, emphasis has been on the
importance of the toxin in virulence and upon biocontrol approaches.
$1,000,000 was appropriated to ARS for scab research in Minnesota in
fiscal year 98. In fiscal year 99, Congress appropriated an additional
$3,000,000 for cooperative research between ARS and the U.S. Wheat and
Barley Scab Initiative. ARS is allocating the $3,000,000 to in-house
research and grants to scientists in 20 States participating in the
Initiative.
The Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory (SEPRL) located in
Athens, Georgia, has been intimately involved in the eradication,
control, and prevention of the highly infectious and lethal avian
influenza virus. The research program will assist the U.S. poultry
industry and other countries in influenza control. Assisting other
countries with information and collaborative research is an effective
strategy to prevent highly pathogenic Avian Influenza from being
introduced into the U.S.
SEPRL has been particularly active in research on H5N1 avian
influenza, which occurred in Hong Kong in 1997. The H5N1 outbreak began
as a problem in chickens and spread to infect at least 18 people. SEPRL
has collaborated with the Agriculture and Fisheries Department in Hong
Kong and the Hong Kong Zoo on the agricultural aspects of the disease
outbreak. This includes providing expert advice and research
collaboration on currently available and new serologic tests to detect
the virus and diagnose the disease and delivery of a new vaccine to
protect poultry. SEPRL collaborated with the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia, on the characterization of isolates
of the H5N1 viruses. The CDC conducts, as required by law, all aspects
on diagnosis of the H5N1 influenza in humans and handles all human
clinical specimens. The SEPRL provided collaborative research support
on molecular epidemiology of the viruses and testing the human isolates
for ability to infect and cause disease in poultry and other bird
species.
information to farmers and producers
Question. How does the Department currently ensure that information
for the Department's research and analyses reaches farmers and
producers? What improvements are being proposed for 2000?
Answer. The Department uses a variety of avenues to ensure that
information and technology from its research and analysis program
reaches farmers.
ARS scientists work directly with farmers and producers by
involving them in field trials, research workshops, and other informal
and formal outreach. For example, the Area-Wide Integrated Pest
Management Project in the Pacific Northwest directly involves dozens of
farmers. Once results began to be analyzed, the program also became a
demonstration to inform many other growers of ways to reduce their use
of chemical pesticides.
ARS produces a number of technical and semi-technical publications
that provide important research results and analyses to small and large
farmers and producers. For example, ARS recently published a series of
manuals for crop residue management to reduce erosion and improve soil
quality for farmers bringing their land out of the Conservation Reserve
Program. ARS also publishes information such as the Cotton Ginner's
Handbook, which provides new research information to the industry. ARS
also distributes research information written for broad public
audiences including farmers and producers through such Agency
publications as Agricultural Research Magazine and the Quarterly Report
of Research Results.
In order to make efficient use of resources, ARS disseminates
research results through information multipliers such as commodity and
trade associations, farm and general media, and educational and service
organizations and agencies such as Cooperative Extension offices and
State Agricultural Experiment Stations. ARS also distributes
information through appropriate USDA farm service and regulatory
agencies. For example, ARS supplied extensive amounts of research
information for the Grasshopper IPM User Handbook, which is available
to farmers through USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
Tremendous amounts of ARS information are being made accessible
through the Internet. All technical and semi-technical publications are
now also published electronically, providing wider access to the
information. Individual labs as well as Agency programs maintain web
sites that include new research results and analyses. ARS maintains a
searchable web site that provides extensive resources to farmers and
other stakeholders at http://www.ars.usda.gov. Information about ARS's
research initiatives in 23 National Programs and ongoing workshops is
available at this site and also at http://www.nps.ars.usda.gov.
The many resources of the National Agricultural Library (NAL) are
also Web-accessible. From the home page at http://www.nal.usda.gov
farmers and producers can search the bibliographic database, AGRICOLA,
with more than 3,500,000 citations to the literature of agriculture, a
significant portion of which are USDA publications. Specific
Information Centers at NAL support such diverse communities as small
farms (Sustainable Agriculture Information Center), mayors and rural
communities (Rural Information Center), and those concerned about water
quality (Water Quality Information Center). The Food and Nutrition
Information Center covers the range of nutrition interests of farmers
and producers and provides information relevant to the school lunch
program, WIC program participants, dieticians and the general public.
ARS improvements proposed for 2000:
--A systematic effort will be made to provide direct access to ARS
research publications in electronic form on the Web.
--Continuation of outreach to farmers and producers through National
Program workshops and reviews across the country.
The Cooperative Extension Service is the premier system for
disseminating information from Federal and land grant research programs
to farmers and producers. The Agricultural Research, Extension and
Education Reform Act of 1996 gives the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service new authority to link research,
extension and education programs in Section 406. The fiscal year 2000
budget takes full advantage of this new authority by proposing
integrated research projects in the areas of FQPA Implementation,
Methyl Bromide Transitions, Food Safety and Water Quality, among
others. These topics represent immediate concerns where research
results must be translated to on-the ground impacts as soon as
possible. The Department believes that linking research and extension
from the beginning will ensure the most efficient transfer of new
knowledge to farmers and ranchers.
ERS has a comprehensive dissemination program to ensure that its
information, research and analyses reach the widest possible audience.
This program includes (with no charge to users): electronic copies of
all agency reports on the Internet; e-mail subscriptions for time-
sensitive crop, livestock, and agricultural trade reports; and
documents available through a fax-on-demand system. It also includes
wide distribution of printed reports and summaries to the news media
and other information services, to State cooperative extension
programs, and to farmer and producer groups for use in their
communications. Additionally, all ERS reports are available (for the
cost of distribution) from the USDA Order Desk, 1-800-999-6779, which
is a service operated by the National Technical Information Service of
the Department of Commerce.
In addition to the release of each research and market analysis
report, a broader publication program has been designed to generate
articles and features in ERS and USDA periodicals, and in popular,
widely-read outlets such as Choices, and the Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, and peer-reviewed journals. ERS regularly publishes a
variety of monographs targeting a diverse clientele and stakeholder
constituency, and designed to communicate complex issues and research
findings in a straightforward and useful manner:
--Agricultural Outlook is the Agency's main outlet for summarizing
the situation and outlook for agricultural commodities, and for
communicating in an easily readable manner the findings of
analyses and research on a broad range of commodity market,
trade, and natural resource policy issues.
--Rural Development Perspectives publishes the results of new
research on rural economic and social changes. Articles are
especially targeted toward areas with policy relevance.
--Rural Conditions and Trends provides yearly updates of current
economic, social, and policy developments affecting rural
America.
--Food Review, ERS' magazine of food economics, provides public and
private decision makers with data and analyses of the economic
issues surrounding domestic and foreign food consumption, food
prices, export opportunities, food safety, nutrition,
marketing, and the impacts of Federal food regulations and
policy reforms.
ERS has recently made a number of investments in improved
electronic information dissemination which will continue in 2000.
Through these investments ERS has improved its capacity to access
information from the U.S. trade database and share it more easily with
other users. The Agency is now developing a prototype of a web-based
interactive data base, which would make our data directly and easily
accessible to policy makers and the general public. The Agency is also
reviewing our system for disseminating printed information to assure
that we are reaching key individuals and groups, including
organizations which can further disseminate our work to farmers and
producers. ERS has developed new products--country, commodity and issue
briefing rooms--which are updated regularly. These provide users with
focused and timely information from both our data bases and published
work.
Annually NASS publishes over 400 national reports which cover more
than 120 crop and 45 livestock items. These basic and unbiased data are
necessary to maintain an orderly association between the consumption,
supply, marketing, and input sectors of agriculture. The popularity of
accessing NASS information through Internet continues to grow. During a
recent month, the USDA Web Server was accessed an average of 1,600,000
times a week, of which inquiries to NASS accounted for nearly 254,000.
The NASS crops and livestock reports were first in popularity among
USDA agencies, with 11,000 to 14,300 hits per week. E-mail
subscriptions to NASS reports increased over 30 percent in the last
year and electronic subscriptions for all reports total nearly 13,000.
NASS continues to work with ERS, WAOB, and Cornell University to
enhance the USDA Economics and Statistics System Internet site at
Cornell University. The Mann Library at Cornell University archives
reports and provides an e-mail subscription service for NASS, ERS, and
WAOB under a cooperative agreement. The new USDA Economics and
Statistics System Home Page improves navigation from any page. The e-
mail subscription process was upgraded to enable customers to click on
the desired reports in order to subscribe.
______
Federal Administration and Special Research Grants
Questions Submitted by Senator Cochran
aflatoxin research, illinois
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been conducted under the Aflatoxin Research, Illinois grant.
Answer. This research is focused on development of strains of corn
which will be highly resistant to infection with Aspergillus flavus and
the production of aflatoxin under field conditions. After
identification of resistant strains through field testing, transfer of
genetic material into usable corn inbred strains will be performed.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for the
research?
Answer. There is much national concern about the role of aflatoxins
as carcinogens in the human population. The aflatoxin material is also
toxic to animals and humans. The presence of the fungus in corn results
in a lower value for the crop and the possible rejection of the corn.
Aflatoxin contamination continues to be a serious problem in the
southern and southeastern United States, although outbreaks can and
have occurred during severe drought conditions in the upper mid-west
and other areas during the past few years.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of the research was the reduction of
infestation of corn with Aspergillus flavus and the consequent
reduction of aflatoxin in the corn produced. The researchers have
produced strains with resistance genes for both prevention of infection
with A. flavus as well as the production of the aflatoxin itself. Field
trials have been in progress to determine effectiveness of these
resistance factors under normal growing conditions when exposed to the
fungus.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1990, $87,000; fiscal year 1991, $131,000; fiscal
years 1992-1993, $134,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $126,000; and
fiscal years 1995 through 1999, $113,000 per year. A total of
$1,177,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds by
fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds have been from state appropriated
dollars in the form of principal investigator and technical salaries,
equipment usage, and experimental plot expenses. These have been at the
level of $130,000 for fiscal years 1997 and 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research is being performed in the Department of Crop
Sciences at the University of Illinois.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
was 1995, but the project was revised last year to continue to fiscal
year 2002. The primary reason for the extension of the work is that
there appear to be multiple resistance genes which are necessary to
prevent both the infection with the fungus and the synthesis of the
aflatoxin compound. The investigators are very optimistic about the
future success of this approach and this work will be discussed at a
meeting of Multi-State Research Project NC-129 on January 25-26, in New
Orleans.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The last evaluation by the agency was in 1996 at which time
the project was considered to be progressing well and had a high
probability of success in meeting its original objectives. The project
also receives a form of peer review as it is discussed each year during
the annual meeting of NC-129, a project focused on mycotoxin production
and toxicity of the toxins in animals and humans.
ag-based industrial lubricants research program, iowa
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Ag-Based Industrial Lubricants Research Program
grant.
Answer. This project is a continuation of eight years of activity
conducted to target specific applications, establish baseline
performance data, develop formulations of additives and chemical
modifications, administer laboratory and field tests, characterize, and
build relationships for commercialization of industrial lubricants
derived from U.S. grown vegetable base oils. Baseline performance data
will be compiled to establish fatty acid compositions, guide genetic
modifications, additive development, establish standards relative to
toxicity and biodegradability, and characterize compatibility with
specific metallic and non-metallic components. The grant has been peer
reviewed internally at the University of Northern Iowa.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Primary local and regional need is related to expanding
value-added applications of agricultural commodities in order to
stimulate increased demand and raise crop prices paid to farmers. On a
national level, the need is to provide renewable, safer, more
environmentally-sound alternatives to petroleum based industrial
lubricants. The principal investigator believes this research to be of
local, regional, and national importance.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of the program was sponsored by non-
federal funding to develop a soybean-based hydraulic oil which was
introduced to market in July of 1997, marketed by AGRI Industries of
West Des Moines, Iowa as BioSOY hydraulic fluid. In part as a result of
the product's availability, Iowa law SF2185 was unanimously passed that
requires users of state owned equipment to demonstrate a preference for
purchasing soybean-based hydraulic fluid when applicable. As of January
1999, and with the consensus of AGRI Industries, the original license
was transferred to West Central Cooperative of Ralston, Iowa, which is
in a better position than AGRI to market the product. Field testing of
two grease formulations and a dielectric transformer coolant has begun,
as well as development of a two-cycle engine lubricant and bar and
chain oil. A large volume of technical data has been compiled specific
to crop-based oil and lubricants. This program has identified and has
begun servicing a broad array of market development requirements,
including demonstrating specific performance features, expanding
awareness, and supporting government purchase initiatives.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Federal funding for this project began with a 1998
appropriation of $200,000. The fiscal year 1999 appropriation is
$250,000 for a total of $450,000 appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Since 1992 this research program has received cash grants
from the Iowa Soybean Promotion Board, Carver Scientific Research
Initiatives, in addition to several in-kind donations from industry to
develop and coordinate commercialization of what has since become
BioSOY hydraulic oil. Beginning in 1995, the state of Iowa began to
support the program through its Wallace Technology Transfer Foundation.
Beginning in 1996, state funding was provided by legislative
appropriation through the Iowa Department of Economic Development.
Additional funding has been provided by the Iowa Department of
Agriculture and Land Stewardship. In fiscal year 1998, $150,000 was
appropriated through the Iowa Department of Economic Development,
$50,000 from the Iowa Soybean Promotion Board, $25,000 from Iowa
Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, $32,500 from John
Deere, and other awards and service revenues totaling approximately
$60,000. State funding for the program in the amount of $250,000 has
been requested through direct appropriation to the university.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Laboratory and literature studies are being carried out
primarily at the Ag-based Industrial Lubricants Research Program
facility in Waverly, Iowa, with minor portions of activity being
conducted on the campus of the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar
Falls, Iowa and the laboratories of various industrial affiliates
located throughout the state and country. Field tests are being
conducted at Sandia National Laboratories, U.S. Department of Army test
sites, some municipalities, and in industrial equipment located
throughout the nation.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Data collection, additive and modification research,
characterization, and supplier development objective of the first year
are ongoing. The development of the dielectric transformer coolant is
an added objective and has been expedited through to field testing.
Activities to expand public awareness and support government purchase
initiatives have been added to the original objectives. This activity
will be significant in implementing the lubricants section of Executive
Order 13101. Field testing of some products is expected to be completed
within a year, and additional lubricant applications are anticipated to
be targeted within a year for development in subsequent periods.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The cognizant staff scientist reviews quarterly reports and
has determined that this research is conducted in accordance with the
mission of the agency.
agricultural diversification and specialty crops, hawaii
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Agricultural Diversification and Specialty Crops
grant.
Answer. With the resurgence of interest in Hawaiian culture and
corresponding increased prevalence of Hawaiian dances, there is
increased pressure on plant materials found in State and Federal
forests in Hawaii. To this end, the University of Hawaii College of
Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources has been working on the ``lei
project'', involving about 20 members from the College and different
organizations in the state working together to develop a handbook for
the production and business of materials for Hawaiian lei. Efforts
continue to find entrepreneurs to grow and process taro on a large
scale for hypoallergenic products. Work is continuing with Maui onion
growers who are potentially interested in obtaining a Federal Marketing
Order for their unique onions. This effort has focused on researching
market potential and giving informational talks. Work continues on
kava, a root crop used as a non-addictive natural relaxant. Work
continues on high pressure food processing of pineapple and other
tropical fruits to eliminate quarantine problems and utilize cull
fruits. This project is merit reviewed by the university.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
investigator, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. Unfortunately, Hawaii's economy is not sharing the current
growth and prosperity of the other states on the U.S. mainland. The
small projects that are being undertaken under the umbrella of the
Diversified Agriculture project are just one attempt to provide to some
current and would-be entrepreneurs the tools they need to make business
decisions about agricultural opportunities. The principal investigator
believes this research to be of local and Pacific regional need, and,
in some cases, national need.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of the original proposal was to screen potential
food and non-food crops for commercial development in Hawaii and then
make earnest attempts to work with willing and able entrepreneurs to
move the results of research into the private sector. As mentioned
above, the lei project has been working with the people who know how to
produce the 85 plants most likely to be made into a lei. That knowledge
will be transferred to willing entrepreneurs so that they can take
advantage of the opportunity created by the increased awareness of the
Hawaiian culture. The taro project struggles with the reality of a
tight economy and a lack of risk-taking, mass production-oriented
entrepreneurs. The lessons learned from this work and the written
outputs have been serving and will continue to serve as templates for
other crops and opportunities in Hawaii. `This Hawaii Product Went to
Market' will continue to serve agricultural entrepreneurs needs for
years past the end of this project. Expanding the market for Hawaii's
agriculture, in this case Maui onions, is a goal that will be met if
the growers decide they want to make the effort to self-regulate their
industry with a Federal marketing order.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated, by fiscal year, through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal years 1988-1989, $156,000 per year; fiscal years 1990-
1993, $154,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $145,000; and fiscal years
1995-1999, $131,000 per year. A total of $1,728,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The University of Hawaii provides in-kind support in the
form of laboratory and office facilities, equipment and equipment
maintenance, and administrative support services: $68,503 in fiscal
year 1992; $75,165 in fiscal year 1993; and $74,663 in each fiscal year
1994-1998. In addition, nearly $50,000 of in-kind support has come from
private sector and state partners, $8,000 from the Office of Hawaiian
Affairs, and $30,000 from the private sector on the high pressure
minimal processing project.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at the University of Hawaii's
College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources on the island of
Oahu, and on the islands of Maui and Hawaii.
Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of this project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. All taro work is complete. Work on the marketing book is
also complete. Work continues on kava, high pressure processing, and
other projects consistent with the original goal. Work on kava
agronomics is expected to continue through fiscal year 1999. High
pressure processing for pineapple, papaya, and banana is expected to
continue for another 1-2 years.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency representative to this project meets with the
investigators at least twice each year to review progress and plan
subsequent activities. This close interaction has led the project
though a progression of steps from research discovery to near-term
commercialization of various products, and, in the case of high
pressure processing, back to testing and development of a new
technology for possible commercial use.
agricultural diversity/red river, mn and nd
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Agricultural Diversity/Red River Grant.
Answer. This multi-year, multi-phase project will have six specific
components. They are:
--vegetable growing research, especially field and glasshouse-related
research;
--vegetable collection and storage research and/or related storage or
distribution business development;
--development of processing industries for the fresh market or
research related to the fresh products for market; development
of marketing and/or supply associations among vegetable
producers; development of processing industries for the ready-
to-eat salad market or research related to ready-to-eat
products; and development of processing industries for the
frozen vegetable products market or research related to frozen
products. The first phase of this multi-phase project will
concentrate its industry development and research activities in
three areas: vegetable growing research, especially field and
glasshouse-related research, development of marketing and/or
supply associations among vegetable producers, and development
of processing industries for the ready-to-eat salad market or
research related to ready-to-eat products. The second phase of
this multi-phase project will concentrate its activities in
four areas: continued research on vegetable production,
including commercial greenhouse production and field production
using Missouri River water for irrigation; development of
markets for fresh product; preparation of a business plan for a
ready-to-eat delicatessen salad processing facility in the
region; and analysis of the potential for adding higher value
complementary crops to the rotation mix in vegetable producing
areas.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Initially the growing of vegetables in the region was
driven by an opportunity to meet increasing consumer demand for fresh
vegetables and concerns over both the cost of water and the
environmental impacts of the use of chemicals in the traditional
vegetable-producing regions of the southern United States. This
industry currently raises three crops of vegetables a year. This
requires extensive irrigation in the hot summer months. Population
growth and increased domestic and industrial demands for water have
created significant pressures to shift water usage away from
agriculture and toward other domestic and industrial needs.
Additionally, use of chemicals to fight soil bacteria has raised
environmental concerns in these states. These issues created a need to
identify other regions to produce vegetables, especially in the summer
months. The northern plains states of Minnesota, North Dakota, and
South Dakota have been identified as one area that could meet this
need. In addition, the opportunity to add a high-value crop to the
rotation cycle for northern Great Plains farmers can help to decrease
their dependence upon program crops. The shift in cropping patterns can
have a positive effect on farm income and lessen the need for outside
or Federal financial assistance. Interest in the potential for adding
higher value crop to the rotation cycle, including vegetables, has
increased significantly in the past year due to the poor farm economy.
Research on the potential for adding new crops to the region's
production base could help stabilize the farm economy in the region and
lessen the need for outside financial assistance to farmers.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The project objectives include: (1) conduct three
replicated field trials on growing of carrots; (2) continue study of
vegetable growing techniques in Europe, and continue negotiations with
vegetable growing research facilities/laboratories in Europe to
transfer growing knowledge to the region; (3) review current and future
market opportunities for further development of the industry and
identify strategies and partners for pursuing these opportunities and
take appropriate organizing steps; (4) develop and maintain a WWW
Webpage for this vegetable industry project; (5) conduct market
research for establishment of a ready-to-eat delicatessen salad
processing facility in the region; (6) conduct market research for
establishment of a ready-to-eat fresh-bagged salad processing facility
in the region; (7) continue business development planning for
establishment of a ready-to-eat delicatessen salad processing facility
in the region; and (8) continue business development planning for
establishment of a ready-to-eat fresh-bagged salad processing facility
in the region. Funding for this project was received July 1, 1998 at
which time work on the project began. Accomplishments to date include:
Establishment of an advisory task force of producers, researchers, and
economic developers. Completion of a comprehensive search of the
published literature in the northern Great Plains region regarding
vegetable production. The data are now being catalogued by specific
category, including vegetable types and type of research--i.e.
production, processing, storage, etc. Maps are being prepared that will
show soil types, precipitation, climate, and ground water. Overlays of
these data are also being prepared in order to identify specific high
potential areas for growing vegetables. A public information brochure
titled ``Growing and Processing Vegetables on the Northern Great
Plains: Options and Opportunities'' has been prepared. The USDA
provided funding to prepare the report, and the Ford Foundation funds
were used to print the report.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. This work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998
with appropriations for fiscal year 1998 and 1999 for $250,000 per year
for a total of $500,000 appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-federal support will come from private growers, state
agri-development project funds, the Ford Foundation, and other local
foundations. The amount of non-federal support since July 1, 1998 has
been approximately $50,000.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The work is being carried out in Minnesota, North Dakota,
and South Dakota.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Since this is a new project and has not yet started, any
original objectives have not been met. It is expected that this will be
a multi-year, multi-phase project. Work is expected to continue until
June 30, 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project will be evaluated by review of the proposal and
the annual project reports.
agriculture water usage, ga
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Agriculture Water Usage, GA grant.
Answer. The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service has requested the university to submit a grant proposal that
has not been completed to date, but it will be written to cover the
period from June 1999 to June 2002.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. Water has become a major issue in the southeast. The tri-
state water ``issue'' between Florida, Georgia, and Alabama is seeking
to allocate interstate waters in the primary river basins which begin
in the Atlanta area. These allocation formulas were to be completed by
December of 1998, but an extension has been granted to complete the
development of the allocation formulas by December of 1999. The salt
water intrusion problem associated with coastal Georgia and South
Carolina is also a major issue. Both these problems suffer from the
lack of data on agricultural water use across the state. This program
seeks to develop a monitoring and modeling strategy to determine how
much water is used by agricultural irrigation. The program is designed
to begin with Georgia and then allow expansion into neighboring states
for a better estimate of agricultural water use.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. This is the first year of this particular grant program.
However, the project has begun by hiring of strategic personnel for the
monitoring program, and development of the equipment and the data base
to be used for obtaining volunteers for the monitoring phase. This
integrated project will involve the development of computer based
models to take a monitoring sample and extrapolate that information for
the entire state.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 1999
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1999 is $300,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The scope of the project is of such magnitude and
importance in Georgia that this appropriation is not sufficient to
support the entire project effort. The state of Georgia through the
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection
Division has appropriated $289,000 for fiscal year 1998-1999 and is
expected to appropriate $250,000 per year for an additional four years
to help support this project.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted from the University of Georgia,
College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences. The primary
coordination of the program will be centered in the Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Unit at Tifton, Georgia, but the program will
involve input from personnel in Griffin and Athens, and researchers
outside the University of Georgia.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. This project, within the overall agricultural water use
program, is anticipated to be completed within the original five-year
time frame. Since this project is new, objectives have not been
completed to date.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project is new and has not been through an agency
evaluation.
alliance for food protection, ne, ga
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Alliance for Food Protection grant.
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 appropriation supports the
continuation of a collaborative alliance between the University of
Georgia Center for Food Safety and Quality Enhancement and the
University of Nebraska Department of Food Science and Technology.
Fiscal Year 1998 funds supported research at the University of Nebraska
on the detection, identification, and characterization of food
allergens, the effects of processing on peanut allergens, and
investigation of the efficacy of using various types of thermal
processes to reduce or destroy the toxicity and mutagenicity of certain
Fusarium metabolites in corn and corn products. Research at the
University of Georgia was directed toward determining the foodborne
significance of Helicobacter pylori, determining the effect of
antimicrobials to eliminate Arcobacter from pork, determining the
survival of E. coli O157:H7 at reduced water activity, and using
extrusion cooking to destroy peanut allergens. CSREES has requested,
but has not yet received, proposals from the University of Georgia and
the University of Nebraska in support of the fiscal year 1999
appropriation.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes the proposed research
addresses emerging issues in food safety which have national, regional,
and local significance. Specifically, research will address bacterial
pathogens that can cause ulcers, cancer, and diarrheal illness, toxic
fungal metabolites in corn products, and allergens in foods that cause
serious reactions, including death, in sensitive people. These emerging
issues affect consumers, the food industry, and food producers at all
levels, national, state, and local.
Question. What was the original goal of the research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to first, facilitate
the development and modification of food processing and preservation
technologies to enhance the microbiological and chemical safety of
products as they reach the consumer; and second, develop new rapid and
sensitive techniques for detecting pathogens and their toxins as well
as toxic chemicals and allergens in foods. The University of Nebraska
developed assays for detection of peanut, milk, egg, and almond
residues in processed foods, produced high-quality antibodies for these
assays, identified a soybean allergen and two sunflower seed allergens,
discovered clues as to the reason why Brazil nuts cause severe allergic
reactions, discovered that certain types of Fusarium fungi do not
produce mutagenic substances, developed a simple liquid chromatographic
procedure for determination of moniliformin toxin, found that the corn
flake manufacturing process can reduce levels of fungal toxins such as
aflatoxin and fumonisins, and also found that low levels of
carcinogenic aflatoxins in corn grits might be reduced to less than
regulatory actions levels by the corn flake manufacturing process. The
University of Georgia developed methods to culture Helicobacter pylori,
and detect the pathogen in foods, the effect of antibiotics on the fate
of E. coli O157:H7 in reduced water activity conditions, and found that
extrusion cooking can greatly reduce allergens in peanuts.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1996,
and $300,000 was appropriated in fiscal years 1996 through 1999, for a
total appropriation of $1,200,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were $117,000 state funds and $250,000 industry and miscellaneous in
fiscal year 1996 and were estimated to be a minimum of $111,000 state
funds and $305,000 industry and miscellaneous in fiscal year 1997;
$70,000 state funds and $295,000 industry and miscellaneous funds in
fiscal year 1998; and are estimated to be a minimum of $25,000 state
funds and $25,000 industry funds in fiscal year 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at the University of Georgia
Center for Food Safety and Quality Enhancement in Griffin, Georgia and
at the University of Nebraska Department of Food Science and Technology
in Lincoln, Nebraska.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objectives have not yet been met. The
researchers anticipate that work will be completed on the original
objectives in 1999.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of the
proposals submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual basis.
A review of the proposal from the University of Nebraska was conducted
on January 16, 1998, and good progress was demonstrated on the
objectives undertaken in 1997. A review of the proposal from the
University of Georgia was conducted on January 21, 1998, and good
progress was demonstrated on the objectives undertaken in 1997. In both
cases, a CSREES scientist reviewed annual reports submitted by the
cooperating institutions. These annual reports include the Principal
Investigators' synopsis of their results, as well as listing public
presentations of the funded research as scientific meetings and in
peer-reviewed journals, which are other independent indicators of the
progress made in the research.
alternative crops, north dakota
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Alternative Crops, North Dakota program.
Answer. The alternative crops project has two main thrusts--
development and utilization of alternative or novel crops and
utilization of traditional crops. The goals of the project are to
diversify income at the farm gate, reduce reliance on monoculture to
help alleviate pest problems, while providing new agricultural and
industrial products to society. Some of the new areas under
investigation include feeding of co-products to livestock, development
of white wheat as an alternative crop, production of certified dried
bean seed, and borage--a perennial herb. Previous work continues with
oilseed crops such as crambe, rapeseed, and safflower as a renewable
supply of industrial oil, products from food crops for novel new uses
in paints, coatings, food ingredients, and the development of new
biochemical and enzymatic processes to refine oils for industrial uses.
The projects funded in this appropriation are evaluated by a peer-panel
chosen by the Associate Dean of Research at North Dakota State
University. The internal peer review was conducted on the following
criteria: (1) probability and extent of generating value-added
agricultural products, (2) technical and financial feasibility, (3)
scientific merit, (4) innovation, (5) probability of rapid
commercialization, and (6) interdisciplinary research efforts.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that nationally,
developing new crops and new markets for agricultural products is
critical for both environmental and economic reasons. Enhanced
biodiversity that comes from the successful commercialization of new
crops aids farmers in dealing with pests and reducing the dependency
upon pesticides. New markets are needed to provide more economic
stability for agricultural products, especially as Federal price
supports are gradually withdrawn. Regionally, the temperate areas of
the Midwest have the potential to grow a great number of different
crops but are in need of publicly-sponsored research efforts to reveal
the most practical, efficient, and economical crops and products to
pursue. Potential national need for this research project could
possibly be funded by the competitive grants provided under the
Initiative for Future Food and Agricultural Systems or the National
Research Initiative competitive grants.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was and still is to
introduce, evaluate, and test new crops which will broaden the economic
diversity of crops grown in North Dakota. The primary emphasis is to
find new crops, new uses, and create value added products, such as
crambe, lupin, canola, safflower, cool-season grain legumes, buckwheat,
amaranth, field pea production and utilization, transgenic sugar beets
to produce levan, utilization and processing lupin flower,
confectionery sunflower production, growing and marketing of carrots,
crop-derived red food dye and high quality pectin as food ingredients,
innovative biochemical means of splitting crop oils, and other new uses
of oilseed crops, development of markets for new crops as livestock and
fish feeds. These efforts have forged a strong link with the private
sector, and successfully spawned several crops and products into
profitable private sector businesses
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Appropriations by fiscal year are as follows: 1990,
$494,000; 1991, $497,000; 1992 and 1993, $700,000 per year; 1994,
$658,000; 1995, $592,000; and in 1996 through 1999, $550,000 per year.
A total of $5,841,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. In fiscal year 1991, $10,170 was provided by state
appropriations. In fiscal year 1992, $29,158, was also provided by
state appropriations and self-generated funds. In fiscal year 1993,
$30,084, was provided by state appropriations. In fiscal year 1994,
$161,628 was provided by state funds, $3,189 provided by industry and
$9,020 provided by other sources, totaling $173,837. In fiscal year
1995, $370,618 was provided by state appropriations, $1,496 provided by
self-generated funds, $1,581 provided by industry, and $5,970 was
provided in other non-federal funds, totaling $379,665 for fiscal year
1995. In fiscal year 1996, $285,042 was provided by state
appropriation, $4,742 provided by industry, $14,247 provided from other
non-federal funds totaling $304,031 for 1996. In fiscal year 1997,
$462,012 was provided by state appropriations, $8,080 was provided by
self-generated funds, $8,217 was provided by industry, and $103,063 was
provided from other non-federal funds totaling $581,372 for fiscal year
1997.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work is conducted on the campus of North Dakota State
University and at the Carrington Research and Extension Center,
Carrington, North Dakota, and the Williston Research Center, which are
both in North Dakota. Work is also done in eastern Montana.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Fiscal year 1999 is the tenth year of activity under this
grant. The primary emphasis has been to find new crops with non-food
uses and create value added products. The original objectives have been
met and continue to expand.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The cognizant staff scientist annually reviews the project
and has determined that the research is conducted in accordance with
the mission of this agency.
alternative crops for arid lands, texas
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Alternative Crops for Arid Lands, Texas grant.
Answer. This grant is to develop the two most abundant plants in
southwestern United States, i.e. mesquite and cactus, into commercial
crops through a combination of applied research and market development.
In Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, these plants occupy
72,000,000 acres. This grant is peer reviewed internally and external
reviewers include a private sector cactus breeder, the Texas
Agricultural Extension Service, and a specialist in wood products
marketing.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this goal?
Answer. The semi-arid regions of the United States that border with
Mexico in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California have some of the
highest unemployment rates, lowest economic returns per acre, and
lowest incomes in the United States. The two most abundant plant
species in this region are prickly pear cactus and mesquite. By working
with Mexican researchers, this grant will help to stabilize the
economic situation of rural poor in Mexico and the United States. There
are few crops capable of being grown sustainably in these regions. Due
to the nitrogen fixing capability, and thus soil improving properties
of mesquite and high water use efficiency of cactus, these plants
contribute to sustainable agriculture and will diversify southwestern
agriculture. This research group is the only center in the United
States developing these plants as crops.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal is to dramatically improve the economic returns
and year-to-year economic stability in the southwestern United States
from arid and semi-aid lands. For cactus, the goal has been to provide
improved varieties that can be harvested and processed into food and
forage. Accomplishments include: established collection of 130
varieties; established procedures for improving breeding; establishment
of a new cactus plantation in the Rio Grande Valley; retail sales of a
new vegetable cactus variety through largest retail grocery in Texas.
Mesquite accomplishments include: presentations to architects in all
major cities in Texas; demonstrations of mesquite products at the World
Trade Fair in Chicago, which resulted in a new manufacturing facility
in Texas; a potential one hundred dollars per acre annual return from a
ten-year field study of mesquite growth. Recent research has suggested
that a sustainable system for mesquite management can avoid land
clearing by bulldozers and aerial herbicides in fragile and sensitive
semi-arid landscapes by creating markets for mesquite products and
using the tree's natural drought tolerance and nitrogen fixing
properties.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1994
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $94,000. For fiscal
years 1995 through 1997 the appropriation was $85,000 per year and for
fiscal year 1999 is $100,000. A total of $449,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. In fiscal year 1994, $43,215 was provided by the Texas
legislature.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The work is being conducted by Texas A&M University,
Kingsville, Texas.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Significant but small Texas cactus and mesquite industries
now exist. Transformation of these small industries into medium
industries and transfer of the arid technologies to low rainfall areas
of the Midwestern and southeastern United States will continue 10 years
into the next century.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Evaluation of this project is conducted annually based on
the annual progress report and discussions with the principal
investigator, as appropriate. The review is conducted by the cognizant
staff scientist who has determined that this research is in accordance
with the mission of the agency.
alternative marine and freshwater species, mississippi
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the alternative marine and freshwater species grant.
Answer. The research has focused on the culture of hybrid striped
bass, freshwater prawns, hybrid crappie, and crawfish. Nutritional and
water quality requirements and alternative management and harvest
strategies for these species have been evaluated and field tested.
Applied knowledge from this research will improve production efficiency
and facilitate commercialization of these alternative species and
provide alternative management strategies. The project undergoes peer
review by the university and is also reviewed by the CSREES Program
Leader on an annual basis.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher indicates that it is essential
that alternative species and production strategies be considered to
help the industry diversify and expand while taking advantage of
existing infrastructure. Diversification will benefit both the producer
and consumer of aquaculture products. Research generated from this
grant should lead to alternative production systems that can have
national, regional, and local impact.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to develop and
evaluate aquaculture production technologies that would lead to the use
of alternative species and management strategies in commercial
aquaculture production. Research evaluating stocking rates, feeding
regimens, nutritional requirements, and methods to reduce stress in
hybrid striped bass production systems has led to the development of
improved production efficiency in these systems. Recent research has
led to improved feed formulation and feeding strategies for hybrid
striped bass. The effects of feeding frequency and temperature on
growth have been evaluated. Researchers have also researched management
strategies to improve production efficiency and cost effectiveness in
non-forage based crawfish production systems.
Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991
and the appropriation for fiscal years 1991-1993 has been $275,000 per
year, $258,000 in 1994, and $308,000 each year in fiscal years 1995-
1999. A total of $2,623,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The university reports a total of $332,091 of non-federal
funding to support research carried out under this program for fiscal
years 1991-1994, $70,636 in fiscal year 1995, $79,935 in fiscal year
1996, $124,893 in fiscal year 1997, and $328,023 in fiscal year 1998.
The primary source of the non-federal funding was from the state.
Additional funding is provided from product sales, industry
contributions, and other miscellaneous sources
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at Mississippi State
University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original specific research objectives were to be
completed in 1994. These specific research objectives have been met,
however, the broader research objectives of the program are still being
addressed. The specific research outlined in the current proposal will
be completed in fiscal year 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency evaluates the progress of this project on an
annual basis. The university is required to submit an accomplishment
report when the new grant proposal is submitted to CSREES for funding.
The 1998 review indicated that the research addresses an important
opportunity in the aquaculture industry, that research objectives were
met, that progress on previous research was well documented, and that
the proposed research builds on the previous work funded through this
program. The research on hybrid striped bass and crawfish funded
through this program complements research conducted through other USDA
programs.
alternative salmon products, ak
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Alternative Salmon Products grant.
Answer. This was a new grant in fiscal year 1998. Research was
aimed at developing a commercial pin-bone removal machine to reduce
production costs of salmon fillets and thus open markets for salmon
fillet shatter packs. CSREES has requested, but has not yet received a
proposal in support of the fiscal year 1999 appropriation.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The Alaska salmon industry has lost considerable market
share worldwide to farmed salmon production. In 1994, the farmed salmon
market share surpassed Alaska's market share of the world's salmon
supply and has continued to climb every year since. In 1997, Norwegian
farmed salmon production exceeded Alaska wild stock harvests. Also in
1997, Chilean coho salmon exports to Japan exceeded North American
sockeye salmon exports to Japan. Japan has traditionally been Alaska's
strongest and most lucrative export market. The current situation is an
example of foreign competition undermining a traditional American
industry. Federal support of product development in this area has
dropped from $17,300,000 to $3,000,000 nationwide, largely through a
significant reduction in Saltonstall-Kennedy funds. USDA traditionally
has supported fish food research primarily from aquacultured fish. The
Alaska salmon industry is a multi-state industry. Though the product is
harvested in Alaska, the benefits are shared with fishermen residents
in Washington state, Oregon, California and throughout the nation.
Question. What was the original goal of the research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The research goal is the development of market-desired
salmon products using wild-caught salmon. In 1998, researchers
addressed the problem of deboning wild-caught fish so that they can be
marketed frozen rather than canned, and thus compete effectively with
pen-reared salmon. Researchers designed, built, and tested three
prototype pinbone removal machines, making sequential improvements in
design.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998,
with appropriations in fiscal years 1998 and 1999 of $400,000 per year
for a total of $800,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Industry will contribute approximately $200,000, based on
an estimated cost of $50,000 per plant, times four plants, for
commercial testing of the beta prototypes during the summer 1998 salmon
season in Alaska.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work with be conducted at the University of Alaska
Fairbanks--Fishery Industrial Technology Center in Kodiak, Alaska, and
at the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, in
Fairbanks, Alaska.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion of the full objectives of this
research area, including original and related objectives, will require
about five years.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The proposal received in support of the fiscal year 1998
appropriation was reviewed for merit by a CSREES specialist on January
21, 1998. At that time, the agency science specialist believed that the
projects addressed needs and interests of the Alaskan salmon industry.
animal science food safety consortium
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the animal science food safety consortium program.
Answer. The research goal of the Food Safety Consortium is to
improve the safety of foods, specifically poultry and red meat
products, consumed by humans. In order to accomplish this, the
Consortium consists of three Universities that specialize in beef,
poultry, and pork. In coordination, they have focused on accomplishing
six objectives: (1) to develop techniques for rapid detection of
infectious agents and toxins in meat and poultry; (2) to develop a
statistical approach for evaluating potential health risks; (3) to
identify effective intervention points to control microbiological or
chemical hazards; (4) to develop monitoring methodologies to detect
these hazards in the distribution chain; (5) to develop technologies to
complement the development of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
Point--HACCP--programs by USDA; and (6) to estimate costs and benefits
associated with intervention alternatives.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researchers, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. A safer meat product food supply would reduce the economic
losses related to days away from work, medical treatment, and even
human suffering and death as a result of foodborne illnesses. The costs
are estimated at over $5,000,000,000 a year. The Consortium's
participation in technology transfer to health departments and trade
associations are helping on a regional and local level to help educate
consumers and food handlers on safe handling procedures. Scientific-
based testing that is being developed will help provide food that will
be accepted in international markets and increase exports and
sustainable rural economies at home. On a regional and local level,
each of the institutions are involved in HACCP program training for
industry and are holding seminars for industry to discuss food safety
research findings. In addition, the University of Arkansas is teaching
food safety programs to children in state elementary schools. Potential
national need for this research project could possibly be funded by the
competitive grants provided under the Initiative for Future Food and
Agricultural Systems or the National Research Initiative competitive
grants.
Question. What was the original goal of this research, and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal was to bring together research and
expertise of institutions in three states in order to best address the
areas of poultry, beef, and pork meat production from the farm to the
consumer's table. In coordination with each other, they seek to develop
detection, monitoring, and prevention techniques to control or prevent
the presence of infectious agents and chemical toxins in the food
supply. Each year advisory and technical committees provide guidance
and expertise in research planning. Major accomplishments occurred in
1998. Research at the University of Arkansas emphasized risk assessment
and analysis, chemical interventions for raw poultry, control measures
for cooked poultry, and rapid detection methods. Major projects
included tests that showed up to 30 percent of surveyed households with
Salmonella-infected children had significant levels of Salmonella
traced to non-food sources in the homes. Risk assessment models were
developed to predict the relative reductions in the incidence of
Salmonella-positive poultry carcasses. Control of pathogens in poultry
also centered on thermal processing and use of bacteriocins. Three new
bacteriocins with the ability to inhibit foodborne pathogens were
produced. Nucleic acid probes and polymerase chain reaction assays were
developed to detect Arcobacter and Campylobacter jejuni. At Iowa State
University, research concentrated on swine production, swine
processing, irradiation, methodologies of detecting bacteria, and risk
assessment. Projects included a study of the impact of modern livestock
production practices on the incidence of Salmonella, the use of hot
water rinses as a method of carcass decontamination, the effect of
irradiation on lipid oxidation and off-flavor development in cooked
pork, and the effects of HACCP procedures on the economic costs of
pathogens in pork production. Work performed at Kansas State University
emphasized sampling and testing for microorganisms and intervention
strategies for pathogen control in beef. Research with sponge sampling
of carcasses provided information required for microbiological testing
at large and small plants and enabled the offering of hands-on training
for processors and inspectors. Studies of steam pasteurization found
that the process is a viable intervention technique for reducing
bacteria on freshly slaughtered beef carcasses. The Kansas State
investigators also continued refining and enhancing sampling and
testing procedures for Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point
implementation and verification.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1989, $1,400,000; fiscal year 1990, $1,678,000;
fiscal year 1991, $1,845,000; fiscal years 1992-1993, $1,942,000;
fiscal year 1994, $1,825,000; fiscal years 1995-1996, $1,743,000 each
year; fiscal year 1997, $1,690,000; fiscal years 1998-1999, $1,521,000
each year. A total of $18,850,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: $1,313,653 State appropriations, $2,959 product sales,
$35,600 industry, and $259,735 miscellaneous for a total of $1,611,947
in 1991; $1,270,835 State appropriations, $10,129 product sales,
$90,505 industry, and $267,590 miscellaneous for a total of $1,639,050
in 1992; $1,334,680 State appropriations, $1,365 product sales, $33,800
industry, and $356,308 miscellaneous for a total of $1,726,153 in 1993;
$1,911,389 State appropriations, $192,834 industry, and $200,000
miscellaneous for a total of $2,304,223 in 1994; $1,761,290 State
appropriations, $221,970 industry, and $91,885 miscellaneous for a
total of $2,075,145 in 1995; $2,643,666 State appropriations and
$152,431 industry, for a total of $2,796,097 in 1996; and $1,776,167
State appropriations and $824,378 industry, for a total of $2,600,545
in 1997; $612,000 State appropriations and $1,238,899 industry, for a
total of $1,850,899 in 1998. Thus, from 1991 through 1998 a total of
$16,604,068 in non-federal funds was provided.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at Iowa State University,
Kansas State University, and University of Arkansas at Fayetteville,
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences at Little Rock, and
Arkansas Children's Hospital.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The research projects from the Consortium continue to
evolve and build on the original objectives first set out in 1989.
Additional objectives are revised on an annual basis to enhance the
original six objectives. For example, one of the original objectives
was to look at risk assessment in the safety of animal food products.
In 1998, the Consortium sent a principal investigator to work in USDA's
Office of Risk Assessment and Cost Benefit Analysis. Another objective
was the detection and surveillance of foodborne pathogens. Recently,
the Consortium has participated in research projects that have made
significant contributions to the establishment of scientific parameters
used in HACCP programs. The principal investigators have developed
patented tests that have significantly reduced the time necessary to
detect pathogens in the processing plants. The Food Safety Consortium
continues to use peer evaluated projects to address priority issues.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. There has never been a formal evaluation of the Food Safety
Consortium but instead, a annual conference is organized where a
designated representative from CSREES attends. The annual conference
was held in October, 1998. Along with other invited agency
representatives such as FSIS, ARS, and ERS, CSREES participates in a
steering committee meeting which critiques projects and discusses
research priorities. CSREES representatives were considered part of the
Technical Advisory Committee as well as members of the Food Safety
Consortium Steering Committee and fully participated in meetings and
conference calls. The individual projects are also peer reviewed. The
peer review results, by expert scientists who are not members of the
Consortium, determine those projects selected for funding.
apple fire blight, michigan and new york
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Controlling Fire Blight Disease of Apple Trees,
Michigan and New York, grant.
Answer. This project studies fire blight in apple trees, which is a
bacterial disease that can kill spurs, branches, and whole trees. The
management of this disease is difficult because only one antibiotic
treatment is available. The objectives of this research are to develop
fire blight resistance varieties, evaluate biological and chemical
control methodologies for disease management, and develop an education
and extension component for disease management.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Fire blight is a destructive disease of apple trees that
can kill the trees. This disease is caused by bacteria and effects
apple trees in all apple growing areas of the nation. In the northeast,
the disease is more prevalent because of humid weather conditions. The
principal researcher believes this research to be of national,
regional, and local need.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goals of this research are to develop transgenic apple
trees through various molecular technologies, to develop new approaches
to antibiotic treatments of disease, to develop an early screening
technique for tree sensitivity to the disease, to evaluate biological
and cultural controls, and to develop and improve education and
extension components of disease management. The last objective involves
using disease prediction models.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. fiscal year 1997 was the first year funds were appropriated
for this grant at $325,000. For fiscal year 1998-1999, $500,000 was
appropriated per year. A total of $1,325,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What are the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds for 1997 were $40,127 for Michigan
and $104,166 for New York State. The funds for 1998 are state
appropriated at $25,071, and $15,000 in funds from the Michigan Apple
Research Committee for a total of $40,071 from Michigan whereas New
York is estimating state appropriated funds at $104,166 for 1998. The
state appropriated funds for 1999 are $49,771 for Michigan, and New
York is estimating state appropriated funds at $106,689 for 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at Michigan State University
and Cornell University, New York Experiment Station.
Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated date of completion for the original
objectives was 1998. The objectives have not been met. It is estimated
by the researchers that three to five years is need to complete this
project.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The last merit review of this project was in January, 1998.
In summary, the evaluation indicated that progress was demonstrated in
all the objectives. In New York, rootstock transformation was
successful in two commercially-important apple varieties and another
transgenic line preformed well in field trails. The use of the hrpN
gene for resistance to fire blight was used to produce transgenic lines
in apple. Biological control agents, systemic acquired resistance
inducers, and bactericides were evaluated for their use in integrated
pest management of fire blight. Commercial orchards were mapped for
tree loss due to fire blight rootstock infection, and the internal
movement of fire blight through healthy apple scion tissue was
investigated. In Michigan, bacteriophages were used as potential
biological control agents for fire blight control on apple trees under
field conditions. Management of fire blight was evaluated using
chemical growth regulation and induced resistance strategies. The
effects of hrpA genese on elicitation of the HR and causation of the
fire blight was studied using Arabidopsis and immature pear as a model.
aquaculture, louisiana
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Aquaculture, Louisiana grant.
Answer. Research has focused on catfish, crawfish, and hybrid
striped bass in commercial aquaculture. Research has included basic and
applied research in the areas of production systems, genetics, aquatic
animal health, nutrition, off flavor, water quality, and germplasm
preservation. Grants are awarded to scientists within the university on
a competitive peer review basis. The entire proposal is also reviewed
by the CSREES Program Manager on an annual basis.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher indicates that improved production
efficiency and product safety and quality for a number of important
aquaculture species will enhance the profitability and sustainability
of the aquaculture industry in the region. The research funded through
this program focuses on the production of a number of important
aquaculture species such as catfish, crawfish, and hybrid striped bass.
Aquaculture research at national centers is supported through Regional
Aquaculture Center grants.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of the research was to provide science-
based information through a basic and applied research base that
specifically addressed the needs of the aquaculture industry in
Louisiana and the southern states. The university has completed studies
in the area of fish nutrition, fish health, fish genetics, production
management strategies, alternative species, seafood processing, product
quality, and broodstock development. Research has led to improved
channel catfish and hybrid striped bass feed formulations, production
of new channel catfish vaccines, improved extraction and detection
methods for the off-flavor compounds, production of genetically-
improved channel catfish with increased resistance to bacterial
infection, developed procedures for production of gene maps for channel
catfish, improved harvesting and production strategies for crawfish,
and improved processing technologies for crawfish and other aquaculture
products. Research continues to be directed at important opportunities
to enhance production efficiency and the commercial viability of
sustainable aquaculture systems in the region.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Research to be conducted under this program will continue
as initiated under the Aquaculture General program in fiscal years 1988
through 1991. The work supported by this new grant category began in
fiscal year 1992 and the appropriation for fiscal years 1992-1993 was
$390,000 per year, $367,000 in fiscal year 1994, and $330,000 each year
in fiscal years 1995-1999, for a total of $2,797,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The university estimates that non-federal funding for this
program is as follows: in fiscal year 1991, $310,051; in fiscal year
1992, $266,857; in fiscal year 1993, $249,320; in fiscal year 1994,
$188,816; in fiscal year 1995, $159,810; in fiscal year 1996, $150,104;
in fiscal year 1997, $158,808; and in fiscal year 1998, $110,101. The
primary source of this funding was from state sources and self-
generated funds with minor contributions from industry and other non-
federal sources.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at Louisiana State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original specific objectives were to be completed in
1990. These specific research objectives have been met, however, the
broader objectives of the research program are still being addressed.
The specific research outlined in the current proposal will be
completed in fiscal year 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency evaluates the progress of this project on an
annual basis. The university is required to provide an accomplishment
report each year when the new grant proposal is submitted to CSREES for
funding. In addition, the CSREES program manager conducted site visits
in 1996 and 1997 to meet with the scientists involved in the project
and review the progress of the research. The 1998 review of the project
indicated that the research is addressing important research needs of
the aquaculture industry, that the facilities are excellent, that the
principal investigators are well qualified, that the experimental
design is sound, that the proposed research represented a logical
progression of research previously funded through this program, and
that the progress on previous research funded under this program is
well documented. The 1999 CSREES review will be completed within three
weeks of submission of the proposal. The researchers are asked to the
develop a research proposal consistent with the National Science and
Technology Council's Strategic Plans for Aquaculture Research and
Development. Research results from this program have had a significant
impact on the aquaculture industry in Louisiana and the region.
aquaculture product and marketing development, west virginia
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Aquaculture Product and Marketing Development,
West Virginia.
Answer. The proposed study is aimed at developing a viable and
competitive aquaculture industry in West Virginia and Appalachia.
Specific research strategies include the development of marketing
strategies for trout producers and processors, increasing the economic
efficiency and profitability of trout-based enterprises, improving the
consistency and quality of fresh trout fillets, and of value-added
smoked trout products. The proposal also contains a technology transfer
component to disseminate information generated by the project. The
proposal represents a significant investment for a new initiative under
the Special Research Grants Authority. CSREES did not approve the
original proposal and has requested a revised proposal.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The researchers indicate that there is a regional and
national need to evaluate marketing and product development for small
scale aquaculture systems in rural communities. In addition there is a
need to improve the efficiency and sustainability of these systems. The
researchers also indicate that the proposed research is consistent with
the National Science and Technology Council's Strategic Plan for
Aquaculture Research and Development.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The proposed research represents a new initiative aimed at
developing sound marketing strategies for aquaculture products in the
region, improving the economic efficiency of aquaculture production
systems, and improving the quality, and variety of aquaculture products
in the region. CSREES has conducted an in-depth peer review of the
proposal and has recommended that the university submit a revised
proposal that addresses concern expressed by the reviewers and the
CSREES Program manager.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. A grant has been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1998, $600,000 and fiscal year 1999, $750,000. A
total of $1,350,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The university estimates that significant non-federal
funding will be provided in fiscal year 1998 primarily from state
sources to cover the salaries of the principal investigators. As the
program develops, additional non-federal funding is expected.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research would be conducted at the University of West
Virginia in Morgantown and at off campus sites with a variety of
potential cooperators.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
is fiscal year 2000. The project was initiated in fiscal year 1998.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. CSREES conducted an external and internal peer review of
the original proposal. The proposal was peer reviewed by 10 external
reviewers and the CSREES National Program leaders for Aquaculture, and
the CSREES Aquaculture Program Specialist. Although the proposal was
aimed at important issues facing the aquaculture industry in the
region, a number of significant concerns were expressed by the
reviewers and CSREES Program Leaders. These concerns with
recommendations were presented to the University, and a revised
proposal was requested. CSREES has withheld authority of the University
to utilize funds until an acceptable proposal has been submitted and
approved by the agency. CSREES is currently awaiting receipt of the
revised proposal.
aquaculture research, stoneville, mississippi
Question. Please provide a description of the research funded under
the aquaculture research Stoneville, Mississippi grant.
Answer. The primary objectives of this research have been to
improve practical feeds and feeding strategies that enhance fish health
and production efficiency in channel catfish ponds. Additionally,
scientists are evaluating the application of acoustical instrumentation
in commercial aquaculture. The project undergoes peer review by the
university and by the CSREES Program Leader on an annual basis.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher indicates that the research
findings from this project have a direct impact on the profitability
and sustainability of a significant segment of the domestic aquaculture
industry. The farmed-raised catfish industry accounts for over 55
percent of the total U.S. aquaculture industry. Research funded by this
program is directed towards improved feeds and feeding strategies. In
addition, research is directed towards acoustical monitoring and
inventory of catfish in pond production systems.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to address the
research needs of the catfish industry in the areas of water quality
and nutrition. The research has led to improved water quality
management practices in commercial catfish ponds. Research in the area
of catfish nutrition has led to improved diet formulation and feeding
strategies that have been widely adopted by the industry. Scientists
are currently evaluating vitamin supplementation in catfish feed
formulations using conditions that closely reflect commercial
production ponds. Research findings from this program have had a direct
impact on least-cost feed formulations utilized by commercial feed
mills resulting in reduced cost of commercial feeds without reducing
performance and productivity. Scientists are also evaluating feed
delivery techniques to improve feed conversion efficiency. Studies
evaluating acoustical instrumentation have demonstrated possible
applications in commercial aquaculture. Researchers are developing
sonar electronics hardware and computer-generated graphics
communications interface software for the application of monitoring
count and size of channel catfish in the pond.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal years 1980-1981, $150,000 per year; fiscal year 1982,
$240,000; fiscal years 1983-1984, $270,000 per year; fiscal year 1985,
$420,000; fiscal years 1986-1987, $400,000 per year; fiscal year 1988,
$500,000; fiscal year 1989, $588,000; fiscal year 1990, $581,000;
fiscal year 1991, $600,000; fiscal years 1992-1993, $700,000 per year;
fiscal year 1994, $658,000; fiscal years 1995-1997, $592,000 each year;
$642,000 in fiscal year 1998; and $592,000 in fiscal year 1999. A total
of $9,637,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The university estimates a total of $2,101,508 in non-
federal funding to support this research for fiscal years 1991-1994;
$1,128,451 in fiscal year 1995; $601,473 in fiscal year 1996; $463,990
in fiscal year 1997; and $464,266 in fiscal year 1998. The primary
source of non-federal funding is from the state. Additional funding is
provided from product sales, industry contributions, and other
miscellaneous sources.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The grants have been awarded to the Mississippi
Agricultural Experiment Station. All research is conducted at the Delta
Branch Experiment Station, Stoneville, Mississippi. The acoustical
research in aquaculture is conducted in cooperation with the National
Center for Physical Acoustics at the University of Mississippi.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the specific original
research objectives was 1984. These specific research objectives have
been met, however, the broader research objectives of the program are
still being addressed. The specific research outlined in the current
proposal will be completed in 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency evaluates the progress of this project on an
annual basis. The university is required to provide an accomplishment
report when the new proposal is submitted to CSREES for funding. CSREES
Program manager conducted a site visit in 1998. The 1998 review
indicated that the research targets important opportunities in the
farm-raised catfish industry. Significant progress has been reported on
past research and the experimental and scientific design of the new
project are sound. Scientists involved in the project are leading
authorities in this area of research and linkages between the
researchers and the catfish industry has lead to accelerated adoption
of research findings. Adoption of improved feeds and feeding strategies
developed through this program by the catfish industry has led to
improved production efficiency in commercial catfish operations. CSREES
is planning a comprehensive review of the catfish research program at
Mississippi State University in late 1999.
aquaculture, virginia
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Aquaculture, Virginia grant.
Answer. The proposal research will document and develop fish
production parameters and culture methods, analyze management
economics, and provide information on industry marketing and economic
development of a recirculating aquaculture system-based industry.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The investigators indicate that there is a need to develop
a highly competitive, sustainable aquaculture industry to meet consumer
demand for cultivated aquatic foods that are of high quality, safe,
competitively priced, nutritious, and are produced in an
environmentally-responsible manner with maximum opportunity for
profitability in all sectors of the industry.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. Program objectives include research to identify
commercially-viable aquaculture species utilizing recirculating
aquaculture system technology, verify production and culture management
protocols utilizing this technology, analyze production budgets
providing information to build business plans, investigate marketing
development strategies, and prepare scientific, technical, and popular
publications to disseminate the results of this research. This is a new
research initiative and the year one proposal is currently under review
by CSREES.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. This is a new research initiative and the appropriation for
fiscal year 1999 is $100,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The university estimates a minimum of $90,000 of non-
federal funding in fiscal year 1999 primarily from state sources. As
the program develops, additional non-federal funding is expected.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research will be conducted through the Virginia
Agricultural Experiment Station, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, and in collaboration with
private aquaculture firms in Virginia.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. This proposal seeks funding for year one of a proposed
three year project. The anticipated completion date for the fiscal year
1999 component of the project is July 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This is a new research initiative and the year one proposal
is currently under review by CSREES. The agency will evaluate the
progress of this project on an annual basis. The university will be
required to submit an accomplishment report each year when the new
proposal is submitted to CSREES for funding.
babcock institute for international dairy research and development
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Babcock Institute grant.
Answer. The Babcock Institute for International Dairy Research and
Development was established with participation of the University of
Wisconsin-Madison College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, School of
Veterinary Medicine, and the Cooperative Extension Division. The
objective of the Babcock Institute is to link the U.S. dairy industry
with the rest of the world through degree training, continuing
education, technology transfer, adaptive research, scientific
collaboration, and market analysis.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes the need is to strengthen
dairy industries around the world, to enhance international commercial
and scientific collaborative opportunities for the U.S. dairy industry,
and to draw upon global perspectives to build insight into the
strategic planning of the U.S. dairy industry.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of the Institute remains the linkage of the U.S.
dairy industry with the rest of the world through training, continuing
education and outreach, technology transfer, adaptive research,
scientific collaboration and market analysis. Initial efforts were
focused on planning and staffing. An initial activity was, and
continues to be, the development of multi-language extension materials
about basic management techniques essential to optimize performance of
U.S. dairy cattle overseas. This activity has grown to include manuals
on Breeding and Genetics, Lactation and Milking, and Basic Dairy Farm
Financial Management published in English, Spanish, French, Russian,
and Chinese. Research on potential implications of NAFTA and GATT on
the U.S. dairy industry was completed. A technical workshop on dairy
grazing in New Zealand and the mid-west was organized and held in
Madison during the fall of 1993. A technical workshop on Nutrient
Management, Manure, and the Dairy Industry: European Perspectives and
Wisconsin's Challenges was held in Madison, Wisconsin during September,
1994. A round table was held in January, 1995 addressing ``World Dairy
Markets in the Post-GATT Era''. Sponsored the Great Lakes Dairy Sheep
Symposium in 1995 and 1996. Created a World Wide Web site in 1996 for
distribution of Babcock Institute technical dairy fact sheets in four
languages. The first International Dairy Short Course for a group of
producers and technicians from Argentina has been organized on the
University of Wisconsin Campus. Scientist's are being supported in
collaborative research with New Zealand primarily to gain a better
understanding of grazing systems as related to dairy management. An
analysis of the impact of changes in European dairy policies has been
completed. The Institute sponsored a Minnesota-Wisconsin Dairy Policy
Conference to provide insights into current agricultural programs and
policy issues in the dairy sector of the U.S. economy.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal years 1992 and 1993, $75,000 per year; fiscal year
1994, $250,000; fiscal years 1995-1998, $312,000 per year, and fiscal
year 1999, $400,000. A total of $2,048,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. During fiscal year 1992, $13,145 of State funds were used
to support this program and $19,745 of State funds in fiscal year 1993
for a total of $32,890 during the first two years of this research.
Information is not available for fiscal years 1994-1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at the University of Wisconsin-
Madison College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The Babcock Institute's overarching mission has been to
link the U.S. dairy industry and its trade potential with overseas
dairy industries and markets. The original objectives of this project
have remained consistent over the years. However, each year specific
objectives were proposed to further the mission of the Institute and to
build on previous accomplishments. The Institute has accomplished
specific objectives each year in a timely manner. The Babcock Institute
has remained true to its original objective of linking Wisconsin and
the U.S. to dairy industries around the world. This objective remains
of increasing importance with continued development of international
markets for dairy products and technologies. The University researchers
anticipate that work currently in progress will be completed by
September, 1999.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The Babcock Institute undergoes two independent review
processes each year. The first is done by a committee of university and
industry representatives who review the annual research proposal and
amend it prior to submission to the agency. The annual proposal is
reviewed by agency technical staff prior to approval for fund release.
In addition, the institute was included in a comprehensive review of
the programs of the Department of Dairy Science at the University of
Wisconsin in May, 1995. The agency project officer has conducted two on
site reviews of the institute since it's formation in 1992. The most
recent review has found that the approach proposed by the researchers
is appropriate and that the researchers are well qualified to perform
the objectives as stated. The objectives of the proposal are within the
mission of the USDA and the Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service.
binational agricultural research and development program
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Binational Agricultural Research and Development
Program--BARD--grant.
Answer. The Binational Agricultural Research and Development
Program is a competitive grants program that supports agricultural
research of importance to both the United States and Israel. The areas
of research supported by the BARD program include plant and animal
sciences, water and soil science, aquaculture, agricultural economics,
and agricultural engineering. Research projects submitted for funding
must involve collaboration between U.S. scientists and Israeli
scientists. The funds available through the BARD Special Research
Grants Program are used to support Land-Grant university scientists in
the U.S. portion of projects receiving BARD awards.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. All proposals receiving awards through the BARD Program
have national, regional, and/or local significance to agriculture in
both the United States and Israel. Thus, applicants must convince the
review panel of the global significance of the proposed work in order
to receive funding. The fundamental research supported by the BARD
program provides the knowledge base needed to solve important
agricultural problems in the U.S. and Israel as they arise.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of the BARD program is to support fundamental
research that is important to agriculture in both the U.S. and Israel.
Many fundamental discoveries and accomplishments have been made in the
research areas supported by BARD. These discoveries and accomplishments
will lead to reduction of livestock diseases, increased livestock
production, improved production of plants under harsh environmental
conditions, and improved resistance of plants to disease. The
scientific quality of BARD-supported research is reflected in its
publication record. During the past decade, nearly 2,000 papers were
published in more than 200 refereed scientific journals. More than 38
percent appeared in ``high impact'' journals, including prestigious
scientific journals and another 30 percent appeared in the top
agricultural research journals. On average, each project produced five
refereed publications. In addition, there was an even larger number of
presentations at the professional conferences, congresses, symposia,
and workshops. In the period 1979 through 1998, a total of 820 grants
were awarded, over 1,000 scientific articles were published, and 8
patents awarded.
Several examples of BARD projects include:
--Work supported by the BARD program at the University of Florida
resulted in the DNA sequencing of the citrus tristeza virus.
This virus has caused major economic losses to the citrus
industry in both the U.S. and Israel. The sequencing
information can now be used to develop effective methods to
protect citrus trees by creating safe strains of the virus that
project the trees from disease-causing strains.
--Bovine Genetics. Innovative statistical methods were developed to
analyze variation and heritable traits in dairy cattle and to
improve classical dairy breeding programs. In addition,
continuation projects have initiated a shift from statistical
analyses of heritability to genome mapping. This has directly
contributed to the international bovine genome mapping program.
--Control of Fungal Diseases. Molecular approaches were employed to
produce new commercial tomato varieties with resistance to
several important fungal diseases. These new varieties are used
commercially worldwide. The study helped explain the genetic
diversity of the widespread pathogenic strains of the Fusarium
fungus and identified unique DNA sequences that led to the
development of diagnostic probes that enable precise
identification of the virulent forms of the fungus.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. In 1977, an agreement was signed between the U.S. and
Israeli governments which established BARD. An initial endowment fund
of $80,000,000 was established through equal contributions from each
country. Subsequently, that endowment was increased by $30,000,000 for
a total of $110,000,000. Funds for BARD are available from the interest
earned on that endowment. In the early part of this decade, a reduction
in interest rates, combined with increased research costs, impeded the
ability of the BARD program to adequately meet the agricultural
research needs of each country's producers and consumers. In fiscal
year 1994, the Department directed that $2,500,000 of funding, which
had been appropriated for CSREES's National Research Initiative
Competitive Grants Program, be used for the BARD Program to supplement
the interest earned from the endowment. The supplementary funds were
matched by Israel. In fiscal year 1995, Congressional language directed
that CSREES again use $2,500,000 of the National Research Initiative's
appropriation for BARD, and in fiscal year 1996, the Department
directed that a third $2,500,000 increment of the National Research
Initiative's appropriation be used for BARD. CSREES received a direct
appropriation in the amount of $2,000,000 for BARD in fiscal year 1997,
$500,000 in fiscal year 1998, and $400,000 in fiscal year 1999.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The supplemental funds provided by CSREES are matched each
year by the Israeli government. Each BARD grant funded by CSREES is for
supporting Land-Grant university scientists in the U.S. portion of a
collaborative project between U.S. and Israeli scientists. The Israeli
portion of the project is supported by supplemental funds from Israel
or from interest on the endowment. Therefore, half of each project is
supported by non-federal funds.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The objective of BARD is to support fundamental science of
importance to agriculture in the U.S. and Israel. The generation of
knowledge and the need for scientific research was seen as an ongoing
process. The trust fund was established to provide a long-term source
of funding to conduct research of high priority to both the U.S. and
Israel. The creators of the BARD program determined that a 10-year
review should be conducted to ensure its relevance and impact. The 10-
year external review panel strongly endorsed the success of BARD and
recommended its continuance and enhancement. Due to the ongoing nature
of scientific research, the annual funding of grant awards is focused
on development and application of state-of-the-art science. Each grant
project is funded for two or three years, and the results feed into the
greater scientific body of knowledge generated by these and other
scientists.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The USDA and the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture conducted
a 10-year External Review of the BARD program and published the report
in September of 1988. The objective of that external review was to
evaluate the effectiveness of BARD and the suitability of its concept
for bi-national collaborative research. The report concluded that the
BARD program had achieved its objectives. The Report of the Review
Committee concluded that ``BARD is working very well, with extremely
high efficiency.'' ``Its organization is robust and its scientific,
technological, and economical achievements are outstanding.'' ``The
project evaluation and management infrastructure has been paramount in
allowing BARD's programs to evolve and flourish.'' The Report made
recommendations relative to operational procedures for managing the
grant proposals and emphasized the need for increasing the corpus of
the endowment. BARD is now undergoing a 20-year external review. The
review will evaluate the scientific and economic impact of the
program's funded research as well as its general operations.
biodiesel research, missouri
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the biodiesel research grant.
Answer. Research on biodiesel involves examining the feasibility of
producing biodiesel and other higher value products from oilseed crops
including soybeans, canola, sunflower, and industrial rapeseed. The
project is also evaluating local processing plants whereby farmers
could produce crops and process the crops locally and use the fuel and
high protein feed coproducts on their farms or locally. This project
undergoes merit review at the College of Agriculture.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The initial work is being conducted in Missouri. The
results may provide the agricultural community with alternative crops
and more diverse markets, additional marketable products, and a locally
grown source of fuel. This will result in increased investment in local
communities, additional jobs, and increased value added in the farm and
rural community sectors.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goals were to examine the feasibility of producing
biodiesel and other higher value products from oilseed crops, plus to
increase the value of coproducts. Results indicate that biodiesel can
be produced most economically from soybeans, primarily because of the
high value of soybean meal. Since small quantities of biodiesel
regularly sell for at least $4.00 per gallon, the structure of the
production, marketing, and transportation is currently under evaluation
to identify more efficient and less costly ways to produce and market
biodiesel. Also, a study of which markets might provide the best
opportunity to use increased levels of biodiesel is underway. Such
markets might include underground mining and the marine industry in
addition to urban mass transit systems and cities having problems
meeting more stringent air quality mandates. Research results indicate
that for each one million gallons of biodiesel used by the Kansas City,
Missouri, transit fleet in a B20 blend consisting of 20 percent
biodiesel and 80 percent petroleum-based diesel, the estimated impacts
would be: almost 100 additional jobs; increased investment of $500,000;
net increase in personal income of $3,200,000; and increase in total
economic activity in the region of $9,600,000. Research has also
identified that rapeseed meal compares favorably to soybean meal and
blood meal as an animal feed. It has a higher escape protein value than
soybean meal. This research is carried out in close cooperation and
coordination with other state and Federal agencies, plus trade
associations such as the National Biodiesel Board, the United Soybean
Board, American Soybean Association, and others.
Question. How long has this work been underway, and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year, through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work for this program began in fiscal 1993, and the
appropriation for that year was $50,000. The appropriation for fiscal
year 1994 was $141,000; and for fiscal years 1995 through 1999,
$152,000 annually. A total of $951,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The source of non-federal funds is state appropriated
funds. The level in 1994 was $7,310. The funding level for 1995 was
$74,854. Cost sharing by the University of Missouri each year for
fiscal year 96 and fiscal year 97 was $80,000 and $86,000,
respectively. Total cost sharing for the project by the University of
Missouri has been $242,224. Additionally, some work funded by this
grant has been conducted in cooperation with the National Biodiesel
Board, plus the Missouri Soybean Merchandising Council.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work is being carried out at the University of
Missouri-Columbia.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The principals estimate that the work with biodiesel will
require an additional two years to complete. Additionally, the work on
higher value products, such as solvents from biodiesel, is expected to
be ongoing. Successes with the higher value products will result in
more value added opportunities for farmers and rural communities. Also,
much of the work in commercializing biodiesel has been with the B20, 20
percent blend, with petroleum-based diesel. This biodiesel research is
evaluating the use of biodiesel in much smaller blends, such as one
percent or one-half percent. At this use level, biodiesel would be
considered an additive rather than as a fuel extender. With this
scenario, the primary benefit would be a cost-competitive lubricant
with superior performance characteristics, thereby making the product
more valuable as a lubricant that as a fuel.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The evaluation of using biodiesel as a complete fuel and in
a blend has been met. This project is evaluated on an annual basis
based on the annual progress report, discussions with the principal
investigator as appropriate, and agency participation in collaborative
activities related to this project. The review is conducted by the
cognizant staff scientist, and it has been determined that the research
is performed in accordance with the mission of this agency.
brucellosis vaccine, montana
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been conducted under the Brucellosis Vaccines, Montana grant.
Answer. This project will study the immune response of bison to
Brucella abortus bacteria and then develop a vaccine that will be
effective in stimulating an immune response in bison. The second part
of the project will be to incorporate the appropriate antigens in a
novel delivery system utilizing the binding of bacteria carrying these
antigens to forage type grasses.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for the
research?
Answer. The research project is intended to develop a strategy for
vaccinating or immunizing cattle against brucellosis by incorporation
of Brucella abortus genes into forage plants. The cattle eat the plants
containing the bacterial proteins and then develop an immunity against
the bacteria, thus preventing any infection following exposure to the
bacteria.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of the project will be to accomplish
incorporation of Brucella genes which code for specific antigens into
forage plants and have the genes expressed so that the desired proteins
are produced. The project is expected to be funded and started in May,
1999.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work is just being initiated in fiscal year 1999 and
the appropriation for fiscal year 1999 is $150,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds by
fiscal year?
Answer. The source and amount of non-federal funds for fiscal year
1999 can not be determined until after the end of the fiscal year.
Question. Where is this work being performed?
Answer. The work is being performed at Montana State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
was May, 2002 or three years from the initiation of the project.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. As the project is just being started, there has been no
evaluation as yet.
center for animal health and productivity, pennsylvania
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Center for Animal Health and Productivity grant.
Answer. This research is designed to reduce nutrient transfer to
the environment surrounding dairy farms in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. Progress to date includes the development of an individual
dairy cow model which will predict absorbed amino acids and the loss of
nitrogen in manure. This model has been developed into user friendly
software so that trained farm advisors can evaluate herd nutrient
management status while on a farm site. A whole farm model has been
developed which integrates feeding and agronomic practices to predict
utilization of nitrogen and farm surpluses. Using these tools, a survey
of dairy farms in the region has been done to assess nitrogen status on
dairy farms and potential management practices to reduce nitrogen
excesses on dairy farms. Refinement of the model tools and research to
refine estimates of the environmental fate of excess nitrogen from
dairy farms is in progress. Two on-site reviews of the program have
been conducted by the CSREES Project Officer and a third is planned
during 1999. The animal and farm models have been published in peer
reviewed scientific journals.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that reducing non-point
pollution of ground and surface water by nitrogen from intensive
livestock production units is of concern nationally, and especially in
sensitive ecosystems like the Chesapeake Bay. This research is designed
to find alternative feeding and cropping systems which will reduce net
nutrient flux on Pennsylvania dairy farms to near zero.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research remains the development
of whole farm management systems which will reduce nutrient losses to
the external environment to near zero. To date the researchers have
developed their own models to more accurately formulate rations for
individual dairy cows which permit the comparison of alternative
feeding programs based upon both maximal animal performance and minimal
nutrient losses in animal waste. This model is being tested on select
commercial dairy farms to evaluate the extent to which total nitrogen
losses in manure can be reduced without impacting economic performance
of the farm. At the same time, whole farm nutrient models have been
developed to evaluate alternative cropping systems which will make
maximum use of nutrients from animal waste and minimize nutrient flux
from the total farm system. These tools are currently being used to
survey the current status of nutrient balance on farms in the area and
efforts to fine tune the tools are in progress.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. A grant has been awarded from funds appropriated in fiscal
year 1993 for $134,000 and in fiscal year 1994 for $126,000. In fiscal
years 1995-1999, $113,000 has been appropriated each year. A total of
$825,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. This information is not available at the present time.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at the University of
Pennsylvania, College of Veterinary Medicine.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The University researchers anticipate that work currently
underway will be completed by September, 1999. This will complete the
original objectives of the research. The principal researcher indicates
that consideration has been given to the broadening of objectives to
include additional nutrients in the model system, but this has been
dropped because technical expertise required is currently not readily
available.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The Center for Animal Health and Productivity project was
last reviewed in June, 1997. An on-site review by agency technical
staff was conducted in June, 1995. It was concluded that project
objectives are within the goals of the program, are within the mission
of both the USDA and CSREES, and the institution is well equipped and
qualified to carry out the research project. The institution has made
excellent progress towards the completion of the original goals of the
project, but still must evaluate the effectiveness of the use of the
new tools developed in reducing nutrient runoff from commercial dairy
farms in the watershed of the Chesapeake Bay.
center for innovative food technology, ohio
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Center for Innovative Food Technology grant.
Answer. Funds from the fiscal year 1998 grant are supporting
research projects on using neural network/fuzzy logic tools to develop
a model of a growing and processing cycle for canning tomatoes, using
electrostatic coating for snack foods and baked goods, combining
several non-thermal processing techniques to sterilize low acid liquid
foods, using Near Infrared reflectance systems to measure protein and
ash content in wheat flour, using membrane separation systems to
produce extended shelf life milk products, and developing a protocol
for testing the microbial load of ingredients in meat processing
facilities. fiscal year 1998 funds are supporting research from March
1, 1998, through February 28, 1999. CSREES has requested, but not yet
received, a proposal in support of the fiscal year 1999 appropriation.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes the value-added food
processing industry is the largest industry in Midwestern states,
including Ohio where the industry contributes over $17,000,000,000 to
the annual economy. From an economic development point of view,
processing and adding value to crops grown within a region is the
largest possible stimulus to that region's total economic product. This
program aims to partner with and encourage small and medium-sized
companies to undertake innovative research that might otherwise not be
undertaken due to risk aversion and limited financial resources for
research and development in these companies. The principal researcher
believes that, although the initial impact of this research will be
regional, the recipient organization of this grant is part of a
technology transfer network and proactively seeks opportunities to
deploy technologies developed through this research to the food
industry on a national basis. Research on value added products of
national significance could potentially be supported by competitive
grants awarded under the National Research Initiative or under the
Initiative for Food and Agricultural Systems.
Question. What was the original goal of the research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of the research was to develop innovative
processing techniques to increase food safety and quality or reduce
processing costs. The neural network project has developed a model for
predicting the harvesting time that will optimize product quality and
economic return to the grower, processor, and consumer. The coating
project has demonstrated the shelf life, sanitation, and product cost
advantages available through the use of this technology. The filtration
project will allow fluid milk processors to lower their costs and
increase water quality by removing high Biological Oxygen Demand
materials from municipal treatment systems. The sterilization project
will lower processing costs by increasing the shelf life of liquid
products. The extended shelf life project has resulted in the marketing
of single serving, long shelf life milk products, and the Near Infrared
project will allow flour millers to develop improved process control
systems.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1995.
The project received appropriations of $181,000 in fiscal years 1995
through 1997, $281,000 in fiscal year 1998, and $381,000 in fiscal year
1999. A total of $1,205,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. In fiscal year 1995, non-federal funds included $26,000
from state funds and $70,000 from industry memberships. In fiscal year
1996, non-federal funds included $26,000 in state funds and $80,000 in
industry funds. In fiscal year 1997, non-federal funds included $35,000
in state funds and $95,000 in industry memberships. In 1998, $35,000 in
state funds and $105,000 in private industry memberships contributed to
the support of the project.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted in the laboratories of the Ohio
State University and at various participating companies in Ohio,
Illinois, and Pennsylvania.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The principal investigator anticipates that some projects
supported by the fiscal year 1996 grant will be completed by February
28, 1998. At the current funding level, it is anticipated that funding
will be required through fiscal year 2000 to achieve the goal of self-
sufficiency.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of the
proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual basis.
The last review of the proposal was conducted on January 28, 1998. At
that time, the agency science specialist believed that the projects
addressed issues relevant to food manufacturing, were scientifically
sound, and that satisfactory progress was being demonstrated using
previously awarded grant funds.
center for rural studies, vermont
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded under the Center for Rural Studies Project in Vermont.
Answer. The Center for Rural Studies Project involves applied
research focused on developing and refining social and economic
indicators used to evaluate the impact of economic development
programming and activities. They are perfecting a delivery format for
technical assistance for community and small business development. A
major component of current research relates to utilization of the world
wide web as a delivery vehicle. Project proposal undergoes a merit
review within the agency.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. This is an on-going pilot to demonstrate the effective
development and implementation of applied research, training,
education, and technical assistance related to rural development. The
grant has addressed methodology and strategies for assessing rural
development program impacts.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal was to create a database and analytical
capability for rural development programming in Vermont. Examples of
past accomplishments include maps presented to target child hunger
programs, targeted areas for other types of rural development program
intervention, analytical reports to guide the development of retail
shopping areas, an ``Economic Handbook for Vermont Counties'', and
strategies for using the world wide web to disseminate information.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The grant was initiated in fiscal year 1992. Appropriated
amounts are: fiscal years 1992-93, $37,000 per year; fiscal year 1994,
$35,000; fiscal years 1995-98, $32,000 per year; fiscal year 1999,
$200,000 for total appropriations of $437,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Fiscal year 1991 included $91,130 in state matching funds.
fiscal years 1993, $143,124; 1994-96, $3,547 state matching funds.
fiscal years 1997-98 state dollars were $2,931 plus researcher's
salary. 1999 dollars are not known at this time.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Applied research and outreach is being carried out through
the University of Vermont.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original completion date was September 30, 1993. The
original objectives of this research have been met. The additional
objectives being presented for the current year will be completed by
September 30, 2000. Proposal for current has not been received to date.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency evaluates the merit of research proposals as
they are submitted. No formal evaluation of this project has been
conducted. The principal investigators and project managers submit
annual reports to the agency to document impact of the project. Agency
evaluation of the project includes peer review of accomplishments and
proposal objectives and targeted outcomes.
chesapeake bay agroecology, md
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Chesapeake Bay Agroecology, Maryland, special
grant.
Answer. The Chesapeake Bay Agroecology grant focuses on increasing
our understanding of nutrient cycling, retention, and utilization by
vital agricultural industries located within vulnerable Chesapeake Bay
watershed ecosystems that have been impacted by outbreaks of the toxic
microorganisms Pfiesteria. There is a specific focus on Maryland's
Eastern Shore. This research focus has been identified as a priority by
the State of Maryland's Blue Ribbon Pfiesteria Action Commission
Report--1997--and by a Research, Education, and Economics--REE--
strategic plan emphasis--Greater Harmony Between Agriculture and the
Environment--that calls for ``a better understanding of the linkages
between agricultural production, water and soil quality, range and
forest land health, and habitat protection.'' Requested funds in fiscal
year 1999 will support interdisciplinary projects that bring together
the expertise of numerous scientists located at institutions throughout
the University System of Maryland. These scientists continue to
generate technical and scientific advances that guide Federal, state,
and local policy responses to Pfiesteria outbreaks.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The continued viability of Maryland's important coastal
agricultural economy, and the protection of Chesapeake Bay and Atlantic
Coastal aquatic and agricultural resources from future Pfiesteria
outbreaks, depends upon our ability to prevent future toxic algal
blooms by stemming the flow of nitrogen, phosphorus, and other
agricultural nutrients into estuarine waterways.
Maryland is an acknowledged leader in implementing agricultural
nutrient management, soil conservation, conservation reserve,
Chesapeake Bay tributary team, and other cooperative planning
strategies. However, non-point sources of nutrients remain a major
source of pollution into Atlantic Coastal waterways, and farmland
remains the largest controllable source of non-point nutrient loading
into Chesapeake Bay. Thus, its essential that we continue to increase
our efforts to stem nutrient losses into waterways while preserving and
enhancing important agricultural industries.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of this research is to increase our understanding
of nutrient--nitrogen and phosphorus--cycling, retention, and
utilization by vital agricultural industries located in coastal regions
of Chesapeake Bay, and to develop new technologies and strategies that
limit nutrient losses while enhancing vital agricultural industries.
This project was initiated in fiscal year 1999.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much as been
appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 1999
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1999 is $150,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The project is in its first year. The state of Maryland has
pledged to match 100 percent of the Federal funds provided in fiscal
year 1999 and in future years for the Chesapeake Bay Agroecology
Project.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. This research will be conducted at University System of
Maryland institutions and field research stations located throughout
the state, with an emphasis on the Eastern Shore of Maryland which
experienced significant Pfiesteria outbreaks.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. This project begins in fiscal year 1999. There will be a
need for additional Federal, state, and private investment in research
to develop new approaches for agricultural nutrient control in
estuarine systems for the foreseeable future.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project begins in fiscal year 1999. The projects
supported by this special grant will be peer reviewed by an
independent, external scientific panel and will be competitively
awarded to qualified scientists located throughout the University
System of Maryland.
chesapeake bay aquaculture, maryland
Question. Please provide a description of the research funded under
the Chesapeake Bay Aquaculture grant.
Answer. The objective of this research is to improve the culture of
striped bass and its hybrids through genetic improvement, reproductive
biology, nutrition, health management, waste management, and product
quality. The research provides a good balance between basic and applied
research. The university awards grants based on an internal competitive
peer review, and the CSREES Program Manager reviews the proposal each
year.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes the Mid-Atlantic region
of the country has significant opportunities to contribute to the
overall development of the domestic aquaculture industry. Research
supported through this program should have broad application and
enhance production efficiency and the sustainability of aquaculture as
a form of production agriculture.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original research goal was to generate new knowledge
that can be utilized by the aquaculture industry to address serious
problems limiting the expansion of the industry in Maryland and the
Mid-Atlantic region. The program focuses on closing the life cycle of
the striped bass and its hybrids, enhancing production efficiency,
decreasing effluents, and improving product quality under aquaculture
conditions. Research is conducted in the areas of growth, reproduction
and development, aquacultural systems, product quality, and aquatic
animal health. Progress has been made in developing controlled
artificial spawning techniques and refining the nutritional
requirements of striped bass. Scientists continue studies to optimize
water quality in closed systems. Water calcium levels above 250 ppm
were shown to increase survival in striped bass. Researchers indicate
that increased environmental calcium may improve survival and that
intermediate salinity levels may improve the feed conversion efficiency
in juvenile striped bass. Researchers have developed improved
techniques for storing striped bass sperm. Growth hormone
administration was shown to increase body length in striped bass. The
aquatic animal health component of the research is aimed at the
prediction and management of dinoflagellate blooms in estuarine hybrid
striped bass ponds
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported under this grant began in fiscal year
1990 and the appropriation for fiscal year 1990 was $370,000. The
appropriation for fiscal years 1991-1993 was $437,000 per year; fiscal
year 1994, $411,000; fiscal years 1995-1998, $370,000 each year; and
fiscal year 1999, $385,000. A total of $3,957,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The university reports the amount of non-federal funding
for this program is as follows: in fiscal years 1991 and 1992,
$200,000; in fiscal years 1993 and 1994, $175,000; in fiscal year 1995,
$400,000; in fiscal year 1996 $536,000; in fiscal year 1997
approximately $400,000; in fiscal year 1998, $360,000. The university
reports that these funds are from direct state appropriations and other
non-federal funding sources.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at the University of Maryland.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original specific research objectives were to completed
in 1993. These specific research objectives have been met, however, the
broader research objectives of the program are still being addressed.
The specific research outlined in the current proposal will be
completed in fiscal year 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency evaluates the progress of this project on an
annual basis. The university is required to submit an accomplishment
report when the new proposal is submitted to CSREES for funding. The
1998 review indicated the proposal was well written with objectives
clearly stated; that excellent progress is reported on previous work;
that scientific and technical expertise is excellent; and that the
proposal addresses high priority research needs. The 1999 CSREES review
will be completed within three weeks of submission of the proposal. The
researchers are asked to the develop a research proposal consistent
with the National Science and Technology Council's Strategic Plans for
Aquaculture Research and Development. The proposal does address high
priority research needs for the aquaculture industry at the state,
regional, and national level.
citrus tristeza
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the citrus tristeza research program grant.
Answer. CSREES has developed a RCA with input from industry and
researchers for a competitive grant program for this program.
Question. According to this research proposal, or the principal
investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Citrus Tristeza virus is a problem in all citrus growing
areas of the United States. The recent introduction of a new vector,
the brown citrus aphid, into Florida has allowed for another pathotype
of the virus to be introduced. This is a more destructive pathotype of
the virus that is more devasting that than those already in the citrus
producing areas.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of this research is to reduce losses in citrus
through research, characterization, and detection of citrus tristeza
virus strains, biology, and control of the brown citrus aphid; host
plant resistance; epidemiology and crop loss assessment; development of
cross-protecting citrus tristeza virus strains; and research to enhance
virus free budwood programs.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 1999
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1999 is $500,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of nonfederal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. There are no non-federal funds provided for this grant.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being carried out at land grant universities
and research centers in the United States, primarily Florida, Texas,
California, and Arizona.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Since this is a new program, the original objectives have
not yet been met.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project will under peer review at the University level
and agency merit review.
competitiveness of agriculture products, washington
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the Competitiveness of Agriculture Products research
grant?
Answer. This research improves opportunities for Northwest firms to
export forest products and food products.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researchers, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Shipping forest products from the Pacific Northwest to
Asian markets costs less than shipping them to the eastern population
centers in the United States. Research has focused on opening Asian
markets including the more complete transfer of U.S. light frame
construction building technology primarily to Japan in direct support
of the efforts to deregulate the Japanese housing sector, thereby
providing large opportunities to export higher valued secondary
manufactured products to Japan. The Asian economic crisis has
temporarily lowered demand requiring market research on how to protect
the export gains that have been made. Research has also been focused on
forest management alternatives that can better satisfy environmental
goals with less negative impacts on timber-dependent communities.
Priorities are set by an outside Executive Board, and they review
progress quarterly. Faculty review the technical merits of each project
proposal.
Export of foods--specifically produced to meet Asian tastes--
improves the global competitiveness of the Pacific Northwest. Research
focuses on foreign market assessments, product development, and policy
and trade barriers. The focus is on technology that can add value to
U.S. agricultural products while meeting changes brought by
international trade agreements. This grant is awarded competitively at
the state level.
There is a very large opportunity to increase the export of
materials and building systems to Asian markets. Northwest companies
that could export are generally small and are not able to provide their
own research. Construction technologies used in Asian markets are
inferior to U.S. technology, yet there is a long history of use and
cultural appreciation of traditional methods. Deregulation and change
in these markets has required extensive research on comparability of
alternative product and building standards, quality and service needs,
training in the U.S. technology, and customization to foreign consumer
values. The Pacific Northwest can grow more wood with higher quality
using more advanced technologies while reducing the impact on timber-
dependent communities from harvest constraints to protect certain
species. The Northwest agricultural economy is highly dependent upon
being able to export given that food production in the region greatly
exceeds food consumption.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of the research in both wood products and food is
to provide the information on markets and product technologies that can
open higher-valued international markets to U.S. exporters. Foreign
purchasers need information on the advantages of U.S. products and U.S.
exporters need information on the substantially different quality and
service requirements for serving foreign markets. Value added wood
product exports had increased over 200 percent prior to the Asian
crisis, but still remain 100 percent above earlier levels. If the
United States can remain competitive and retain its presence in these
markets in the face of a stronger dollar, exports should return to a
high growth path once their economies begin to recover.
The food production research has focused on finding new market
opportunities for Pacific Northwest producers, solving technical
impediments to exports and developing new products and new processes
that will enhance exports. It has pinpointed emerging market
opportunities in Southeast Asia, China, Mexico, and Latin America. It
has improved the export quality of diverse products such as asparagus,
apples, grass-seed, and wheat, and it has helped commercialize high-
value products such as Wagyu beef, azuki beans, wasabi radish, and
burdock and pioneered new food processing technologies that produce
fresh-like, shelf-stable products and save energy and reduce waste.
Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work began in fiscal year 1992. The appropriation for
fiscal years 1992-1993 was $800,000 each year; fiscal year 1994,
$752,000; fiscal years 1995-1998, $677,000 each year; and $680,000 in
fiscal year 1999. A total of $5,740,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: $716,986 State appropriations, $209,622 product sales,
$114,000 industry, and $661,119 miscellaneous, for a total of
$1,701,727 in 1991; $727,345 State appropriations, $114,581 product
sales, $299,000 industry, and $347,425 miscellaneous for a total of
$1,488,351 in 1992; $1,259,437 State appropriations, $55,089 product
sales, $131,000 industry, and $3,000 miscellaneous, for a total of
$1,448,526 in 1993; $801,000 State appropriations, $1,055,000 product
sales, $1,040,000 industry, and $244,000 miscellaneous, for a total of
$3,140,000 in 1994; $810,000 State appropriations, $42,970 product
sales, $785,000 industry, and $2,000,000 gift of a ranch due to the
International Marketing Program for Agricultural commodities and Trade
Center's research on Wagyu cattle, for a total of $3,637,970 in 1995;
$844,000 State appropriations, $45,000 product sales $900,000 industry,
and $45,000 miscellaneous, for a total of $1,834,000 in 1996; $876,000
State appropriations, $1,606,000 industry, for a total of $2,482,000 in
1997, and $1,180,000 State appropriations, $604,000 industry, for a
total of $1,784,000 in 1998.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The food research is being carried out by the International
Marketing Program for Agricultural Commodities and Trade at Washington
State University, Pullman, and the forest products research is carried
out at the Center for International Trade in Forest Products at the
University of Washington, Seattle.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date of the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The project was projected for 3 years duration to be
completed following fiscal year 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide the summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Two evaluations of the Washington State University
component of the project were conducted in 1992 by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture. The State of Washington Legislative Budget Committee
gave the Washington State Center exemplary marks for meeting its
objectives. On-site reviews are conducted annually of the University of
Washington component of the project through annual meetings of the
project's executive board attended by the agency's staff. Both
components are reviewed annually by the agency. The project is meeting
the key objective of trade expansion through innovative research. The
University of Washington project was formally reviewed by the agency in
1991. State reviews were completed in 1992 and 1994. A formal review by
the University was completed in 1997. A broad survey of constituents
impacted by the research was completed, resulting in a very favorable
review of the Center's activities and a recommendation to continue this
research. In 1998, State of Washington legislation eliminated the
requirement for state reviews of the center, including one scheduled
for 1999, based on hearings that focused on the other favorable reviews
and the continuous oversight by the Executive Board.
contagious equine metritis, kentucky
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been conducted under the Contagious Equine Metritis, Kentucky grant.
Answer. The research being conducted is focusing on a new variant
of the original equine metritis agent, and CSREES has requested the
university to submit a grant proposal that has not yet been received.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for the
research?
Answer. The need for this research is national in scope. Several
years ago, contagious equine metritis caused serious problems and
caused embargoes on importation of horses from other countries. The
original organism is currently being controlled, but a new variant has
caused concern that it may not respond to current control measures.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal is planned to be a study of the economic
impact that this may have on the equine industry, including both racing
and performance horses. Also, work will be done to ensure that adequate
control measures are in place to prevent widespread infection with this
new variant.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. This work will be initiated in fiscal year 1999 and the
appropriation for fiscal year 1999 is $250,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds by
fiscal year?
Answer. No information is presently available as to the probable
amounts or sources of non-federal fund in fiscal year 1999 for this
project.
Question. Where is this work being performed?
Answer. The research is being performed at the Department of
Veterinary Science, University of Kentucky.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original project
will be about one year after initiation of the project or May, 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. As the project is just being started, no agency evaluation
has been done at this time.
cool season legume research
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Cool Season Legume Research grant.
Answer. The Cool Season Legume Research Program involves projects
to improve efficiency and sustainability of pea, lentil, chickpea, and
fava bean cropping systems collaborative research. Scientist from seven
states where these crops are grown have developed cooperative research
projects directed toward crop improvement, crop protection, crop
management, and human nutrition/product development. CSREES has
requested the universities to sub grant proposals for 1999 funding.
Question. According to the research proposal, or principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The multi-state region covered by this program represents
most of the nation's production of cool season food legumes. These
minor crops are very important economically to the region, are the
primary source of these important food items, and contribute
significantly to U.S. agricultural exports. The growers face a number
of production problems that need research if this industry is to
compete with international competition. In addition, use of these crops
in rotation with wheat is critical to the production of wheat, the
major cash crop for the region. National research in the area of crop
genetics could potentially be supported by competitive grants awarded
under the National Research Initiative and the Initiative for Food and
Agricultural Systems.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The principal researcher believes the original goal of this
project was to improve efficiency and sustainability of cool season
food legumes through an integrated collaborative research program and
genetic resistance to important virus diseases in peas and lentils.
Evaluation studies of biocontrol agents for root disease organisms on
peas are underway. Other studies are evaluating integration of genetic
resistance and chemical control. Considerable progress has been made
using biotechnology to facilitate gene identification and transfer.
Management system studies have addressed tillage and weed control
issues.
Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991
with appropriations for fiscal year 1991 of $375,000; fiscal year 1992
and 1993 $387,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $364,000; fiscal year
1995, $103,000; fiscal years 1996 and 1999, $329,000 per year. A total
of $2,932,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of nonfederal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds provided for this grant were as
follows: 1991. $304,761 state appropriations, $14,000 industry, and
$18,071 other nonfederal; 1992, $364,851 state appropriations, $15,000
industry, and $14,000 other non-federal; 1993, $400,191 state
appropriations, $19,725 industry, and $10,063, other non-federal; and
1994, $147,607 non-federal support. Non-federal support for 1995 was
$150,607; for 1996 it was $386,887; for 1997 $384,628; and for 1998,
$392,000.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research has been conducted at agricultural experiment
stations in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York,
and New Hampshire. The funds have been awarded competitively among
participating states and not all states receive funds each year.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The projected duration of the initial project was five
years. Revised objectives are expected to be completed in 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation?
Answer. The project is evaluated annually by a university/industry
advisory panel. Proposals are peer reviewed at the universities and by
CSREES National Program Leaders. This research has provided vital
information which is already being used to improve production
management. However, a number of critical issues related to insect and
disease control as well as crop quality remain to be addressed.
Breeding for insect and disease resistance is given the highest
priority, while crop management alternatives to help reduce disease and
insect pest problems will continue to be studied.
cotton research, texas
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Cotton Research, Texas, grant.
Answer. CSREES has requested the university to submit a grant
proposal for fiscal year 1999, that has not yet been received. Texas
A&M and Texas Tech Universities have developed an integrated research
effort to address cotton production issues using a comprehensive
approach in order to strengthen the cotton industry in the high plains.
Priority productions and marketing issues will be studied.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The proposed project is expected to help support a broad
based program to address priority research needs of cotton grown on the
Texas high plain. The specific issues will include production,
processing, marketing, and utilization.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of this project is to improve cotton production in
West Texas and expand the demand for cotton grown in the area.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998.
The appropriation for fiscal years 1998-1999 was $200,000. A total of
$400,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds supporting the project were $156,000
in fiscal year 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work will be conducted at the Texas A&M University
Research and Extension Center, Lubbock and Texas Technical University
Campus.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The principal investigators anticipate the developmental
phase of this project which will establish priorities and provide
planning for a long-term comprehensive program should be completed in
fiscal year 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project received a comprehensive review and evaluation
at its inseption by Texas A&M and Texas Tech Universities and the
CSREES National Program Leader. It will be evaluated annually
throughout its lifetime.
cranberry-blueberry disease and breeding, new jersey
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Cranberry-Blueberry Disease and Breeding, New
Jersey grant.
Answer. The work has focused on identification and monitoring of
insect pests on blueberries and cranberries; the identification,
breeding, and incorporation of superior germplasm into horticulturally-
desirable genotypes; identification and determination of several fungal
fruit-rotting species; and identification of root-rot resistant
cranberry genotypes. Overall, research has focused on the attainment of
cultural management methods that are environmentally compatible, while
reducing blueberry and cranberry crop losses. This project was not
awarded competitively but has undergone peer review at the university
level and merit review at CSREES.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. This project involves diseases having major impacts on New
Jersey's cranberry and blueberry industries, but the findings here are
being shared with experts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and New England.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal was the development of cranberry and
blueberry cultivars compatible with new disease and production
management strategies. Over 75 blueberry selections with wild blueberry
accessions resistant to secondary mummy berry infections have been
moved into advanced testing identified. The biology and seasonal life
history of spotted fireworm on cranberries has been determined. A
pheromone trap-based monitoring system for cranberry fruitworm was
developed and further refined for commercialization in 1997. Blueberry
fruit volatiles attractive to blueberry maggots were identified and
tested in the field. Seven major fungal fruit-rotting species were
identified, and their incidence in 10 major cultivars of blueberry and
cranberry were determined. It is likely that resistance to fruit rot is
specific to fungal species. Researchers have planted over 4,500
cranberry progeny for evaluation.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1985, $100,000; fiscal years 1986-1987, $95,000
per year; fiscal years 1988-1989, $260,000 per year; fiscal year 1990,
$275,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $260,000 per year; fiscal year 1994,
$244,000; and fiscal years 1995-1999, $220,000 each year. A total of
$3,209,000 has been appropriated
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal?
Answer. State and non-federal sources are providing funds in the
amount of 250,000 each year.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This research is being conducted at the New Jersey
Agricultural Experiment Station.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The completion date for the original objectives was 1995.
Those objectives have not been met. To complete the breeding, disease,
and insect management and provision of new management guidelines for
extension and crop consultants, it estimated that an additional five to
nine years will be required.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted?
Answer. The last agency evaluation of this project occurred in
January, 1998. In summary, the evaluation stated that the effort has
continued to be highly productive, with various improved management
strategies, plant materials, and environmentally-balanced pesticides
being areas of major impact. Some specific accomplishments included
continued evaluation of blueberry and cranberry germplasm for yield,
color, fruit rot, and flavor; and development of an efficient plant
regeneration system for cranberry for genetic transformation. Other
research includes trap and lure development for monitoring the
cranberry fruitworm and evaluation of several aphicides in blueberries.
The discovery of an antisporulant in a registered fungicide provide for
a novel use patent for blueberry anthracnose control.
cranberry and blueberry, massachusetts
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the cranberry/blueberry research program grant.
Answer. This is a new research project that will aid in the
reduction of pesticide dependence in cranberry and blueberry production
in Massachusetts. The main target pests are dodder, weeds, and fungi.
This research will provide an integrated pest management approach to
cranberry and blueberry production. This project was not awarded
competitively but has undergone peer review at the university level and
merit review at CSREES.
Question. According to this research proposal, or the principal
investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The research is a new approach to managing pests associated
with cranberries and blueberries in Massachusetts. The program will
focus on the use of molecular genetics to reduce pesticide dependency
in cranberry production. The research will be applicable to all
cranberry research in states where cranberries are produced. Ongoing
regional research in this area is supported by grants awarded under the
Minor Crop Pest Management Program.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goals of this research are to determine whether early
emerging and late emerging dodder populations can be differentiated
using molecular markers; to determine the relationships among several
isolates of a fungus which might be used in biological control; to
screen various plant pathogen fungi isolates for infectivity and
virulence and determine the presence of genes in these isolates; and
develop an in vitro assay system for root rot and induce resistance in
cranberry plants caused by different isotypes of the fungus.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 1999
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1999 is $150,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of nonfederal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. There are no non-federal funds provided for this grant in
1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being carried out at the University of
Massachusetts Cranberry Experiment Station.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Since this is a new program, the original objectives have
not yet been met.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project will under peer review at the University level
and agency merit review.
critical issues
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Critical Issues grant.
Answer. These funds support research on critical issues related to
new or emerging pests and diseases of animals and plants. The program
is expected to initiate research in a short time period until other
resources can be secured to address the issue. The program began in
fiscal year 1996 when potato late blight and vesicular stomatitis in
animals were the two targeted emerging problems chosen for funding.
Funding for vesicular stomatitis research was continued through fiscal
year 1997 in an effort to identify either insect carriers of the virus
that could transmit the disease among animals or the wildlife
reservoirs of the virus which could contribute to initiation of future
outbreaks. In fiscal year 1997, the critical issues funding continued
to support research on potato late blight so that growers will be able
to manage disease outbreaks more effectively with integrated pest
management programs. During fiscal year 1998, these funds were used for
support of a project on a newly emerging corona virus strain that is
considered to be a probable cause of severe outbreaks of shipping fever
or pneumonia in shipped beef cattle. For plant diseases, fiscal year
1998 funds were used to support two major research projects on a new
disease of sorghum, Sorghum Ergot. The two projects were Epidemiology
and Life History of Ergot and Development of Integrated Control of
Sorghum Ergot.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. Vesicular stomatitis was of national impact due to its
similarity to foot and mouth disease and the negative effect on
movement of horses, cattle, and swine during an outbreak. Since 1992
new, highly virulent strains of the potato late blight fungus
Phytophthora infestans caused severe losses in potato and tomato
production throughout the United States, resulting in what some experts
term a national crisis. From 1993 to 1995, a series of meetings
involving growers, consultants, industry, academia, and government
assessed the growing problem, and participants concluded that
extraordinary steps were needed to mobilize research efforts that would
help address the problem in the near term. Bovine shipping fever causes
heavy economic losses to the beef industry in cattle being shipped to
feedlots and vaccines for currently recognized viruses seem to be
ineffective in certain settings in preventing outbreaks. The isolation
of a probable new virus, bovine respiratory corona virus, represents an
opportunity to contribute to the reduction of this disease complex in
cattle. Sorghum Ergot is a serious disease of sorghum which was first
detected in Texas in March, 1997. It rapidly spread to almost all
sorghum growing regions of the U.S. by September 1997. Decisions on
specific research needs and focus of research projects is decided after
consultation with a variety of commodity stakeholders, other USDA
agencies, especially the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
scientists in land grant system, and other public input.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. In animals, the goal was to discover natural reservoirs of
the vesicular stomatitis virus and insects which are capable of
transmitting the disease among animals. At this time, we have been
unable to find significant wild life hosts which could serve as a
reservoir for the virus during periods between outbreaks nor have the
researchers been able to isolate the virus from insects in areas
affected during the most recent outbreak. The bovine respiratory
disease work on the apparently new respiratory corona virus is expected
to validate the role of this virus in outbreaks of pneumonia in cattle
vaccinated for other known causes of shipping fever. Confirmation of
such a fact will provide a basis for development of control measures
including vaccine development. Research was initiated to provide
growers with the knowledge and technologies they need to reduce
economic losses resulting from potato late blight with less reliance on
pesticides. Research initiated with fiscal year 1996 funds is making
progress in developing modeling tools and management approaches that
are an important step towards reducing the devastating effects of late
blight. The National Late Blight Fungicide Trial provided important
information on the efficacy of an array of fungicide programs. A World
Wide Web site was established to provide growers, researchers and
industry with the latest information on management of potato late
blight. The research projects on Sorghum Ergot were intended to develop
information about the history and epidemiology of the disease which
would lead to studies on development of integrated control programs for
this fungus.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. $200,000 per year were appropriated in fiscal years 1996-
1999 for a total appropriation of $800,000 to date.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. This information is not currently available.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The vesicular stomatitis work was conducted at the
University of Arizona and Colorado State University. The potato late
blight work has been conducted at Washington State University, Oregon
State University, University of Idaho, University of Wisconsin,
Pennsylvania State University, and North Carolina State University. The
bovine respiratory disease work is being performed at Louisiana State
University. The Sorghum Ergot work is being done at the University of
Nebraska and Texas A&M University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The Critical Issues funds are intended to support the
initiation of research on issues requiring immediate attention until
other, longer-term resources are available. The objectives of the
projects are short-term and are expected to be completed within a 1-2
year period. This has been true for the vesicular stomatitis and potato
late blight work. These projects have been reviewed to ensure
compliance with the original goals during fiscal year 1997. The
subsequent project grants for potato blight in 1997 and for Sorghum
Ergot and bovine respiratory disease in 1998 have short term goals and
are expected to be completed by the end of their project years which
will occur in late spring 1999.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. All projects were reviewed for scientific merit before
funding decisions were made. Also, scientists being supported with
these funds are in close contact with CSREES' National Program Leaders
in these areas so that the agency is kept abreast of developments as
they occur. In addition, site visits are arranged when convenient to
include as part of other official travel to that state. The vesicular
stomatitis research has received one site visit review in early 1998
and will be reviewed as a completed project in March, 1999. It is
expected that the final results of the bovine respiratory work will be
reviewed during early July, 1999. The plant related projects have
received similar reviews as the projects have moved forward, and the
results are being reported at regional and national meetings.
dairy and meat goat research, prairie view a&m, texas
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the dairy goat research grant?
Answer. The program has addressed a range of issues associated with
goat production. Research by scientists at the International Dairy Goat
Center, Prairie View A&M University, focuses on problems affecting goat
production in the United States. Issues included are the study of
nutritional requirements of goats, disease problems, methods to improve
reproductive efficiency in the doe, the use of gene transfer to improve
caprine genetics, and the evaluation of breeding schemes to improve
meat and milk production. Currently, research is in progress to assess
the economics of alternative breeding and rearing systems for goats in
the southeastern region of the U.S., to study the incidence and impact
of intestinal parasites, and to develop least-cost health management
strategies for parasite control.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that nationally, most of
the farm enterprises that include goats are diverse and maintain a
relatively small number of animals. Responding to disease, nutrition,
breeding, and management problems will improve efficiency of production
and economic returns to the enterprise.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to conduct research
that will lead to improvement in goat production among the many small
producers in the United States. Research has been conducted to develop
and improve nutritional standards, improve genetic lines for meat and
milk production, and to define mechanisms that impede reproductive
efficiency in goats. Current efforts focus on the development of
enterprise budget management tools for goat producers in the Texas gulf
coast region.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded through appropriated funds as
follows: $100,000 per year for fiscal years 1983-1985; $95,000 per year
for fiscal years 1986-1988; no funds were appropriated in fiscal year
1989; $74,000 for fiscal year 1990; $75,000 per year for fiscal years
1991-1993; $70,000 for fiscal year 1994; and $63,000 per year for
fiscal years 1995-1999. A total of $1,269,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The University reports no non-federal funds expended on
this program.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at Prairie View A&M University
in Texas.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The overall objective of this research is to support the
needs of small farms engaged in the production of meat and milk from
goats along the Texas Gulf Coast. The university researchers continue
to address those needs on an annual basis and anticipate that work
currently in progress will be completed by the end of fiscal year 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The Dairy/Meat Goat Research grant was reviewed last in
June, 1997. The project objectives are within the goals of the program,
are within the mission of both USDA and CSREES, and the institution is
well equipped and qualified to carry out the research project.
delta rural revitalization, mississippi
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded under the Delta Rural Revitalization, Mississippi Project?
Answer. The Delta Rural Revitalization, Mississippi Project
involves applied research and outreach focused on creating new and
expanded economic development opportunities for the Mississippi Delta
region. The project has gone through several phases in the delineation
of a strategy for long range development within the region. Phase I was
completed with the delivery of a baseline assessment of the economic,
social, and political factors that enhance or impede the advancement of
the region. Phase II of the project evaluated the potential for
entrepreneurship and small business creation as mechanisms to improve
economic conditions. Phase III is now focusing on technical assistance
to Delta region manufacturing firms to strengthen their ability to
provide employment and incomes and includes to development and
refinement of data bases and development statistics. The proposals are
submitted for internal review and evaluation within the agency.
Recommendations are presented to enhance impact on regional and
national agendas and provide greater impact on targeted region.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. This is an on-going pilot to demonstrate the effective
development and implementation of applied research, training,
education, and technical assistance related to job and business
development as a development strategy. The principal researcher
believes that the databases, technical assistance, and analytical
capability will increase the effectiveness of economic development and
entrepreneurial activity in the region.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The applied research and outreach project was designed to
increase ability to strategically guide economic development through
target industry attraction. They developed an analytical baseline for
the Delta region to benchmark economic development progress and to
profile potential arenas of opportunity. An entrepreneurial forum was
established to help new business ventures with start-up advice and
assistance. A venture capital association was formed to help both
inventors and businessmen find capital resources to carry out
development initiatives. The emphasis of the project is now shifted to
technical assistance for existing industries.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from appropriated funds in the
following amounts per year: fiscal year 1989, $175,000; fiscal year
1990, $173,000; fiscal years 1991-93, $175,000 per year; fiscal year
1994, $164,000; fiscal years 1995-99, $148,000 per year. A total of
$1,777,000 has been appropriated and awarded.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Total non-federal funds directed to this project, as
reported by Mississippi State University, are: fiscal year 1991,
$117,866; fiscal year 1992, $84,402; fiscal year 1993, $68,961; fiscal
year 1998, $57,404. Reports for other years are incomplete at this
time.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Applied research and outreach is being carried out through
Mississippi State University and sub-contractors.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original completion date was September 30, 1990. The
original objectives of this research have been met. The additional
objectives being presented for the current year should be completed by
September 30, 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency evaluates the merit of research proposals as
they are submitted. No formal evaluation of this project has been
conducted. The principal investigators and project managers submit
periodic reports to the agency to document impact of the project.
Significant suggestions have been offered to improve the relevance and
impact of this project. Time lines tend to lag on targeted
accomplishments. An assessment of the project was conducted by the
Social Science Research Center at Mississippi State University and a
report compiled in November, 1996.
designing foods for health, texas
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Designing Foods for Health, Texas grant.
Answer. Designing fruits and vegetables for improved health and
nutrition will be the over all goal. Health scientists have documented
that naturally-occurring compounds such as flavonoids, carotenoids, and
antioxidants, have health benefits to prevent heart disease, stroke,
and some forms of cancer. The goal of Texas A&M researchers is to
develop fruits and vegetables that have uniform, high levels of these
compounds so all consumers can prevent disease through their diet.
CSREES has requested the university to submit a grant proposal that has
not yet been received.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The need for this research is to improve the quality of
fruits and vegetables. Fruits and vegetables have naturally-occurring
compounds that promote health and prevent disease. Health scientists
have documented these compounds and have evidence that they do prevent
certain diseases. The medical community is stating that preventing
disease is more advantageous than trying to cure it.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research will be to design fruits
and vegetables that assist in preventing diseases through diet.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 1999
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1999 is $250,000.
Question. What are the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are estimated to be as follows: $146,449 state appropriations and
$200,000 miscellaneous in fiscal year 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted at the Vegetable and Fruit
Improvement Center and other locations within the Texas A&M University
System.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
is projected to be 2003. This research is a long-term project and must
be continued as health scientists continue to document the compounds in
foods that promote disease prevention.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Texas A&M researchers will conduct a peer review prior to
submitting the proposal for fiscal year 1999.
drought mitigation, nebraska
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Drought Mitigation grant.
Answer. The National Drought Mitigation Center in the School of
Natural Resource Sciences at the University of Nebraska has a
comprehensive program aimed at lessening societal vulnerability to
drought by promoting and conducting research on drought mitigation and
preparedness technologies, improving coordination of drought-related
activities and actions within and between levels of government, and
assisting in the development, dissemination, and implementation of
appropriate mitigation and preparedness technologies in the public and
private sectors. Emphasis is directed toward research and outreach
projects and mitigation/management strategies and programs that stress
risk minimization measures rather than reactive actions.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has recently
estimated that annual losses attributable to drought in the United
States are between $6,000,000,000-8,000,000,000. Drought impacts are
escalating in response to increasing demands for water and other
natural resources, increasing and shifting population, new
technologies, and social behavior. These impacts are diverse and affect
the economic, environmental, and social sectors of society. This fact
was reinforced dramatically in 1996 in the Southwestern United States.
Impacts in Texas alone were estimated to be more than $5,000,000,000.
The Center is receiving non-federal funds in support of this
research from the University of Nebraska. In addition, the Center is
attracting support for specific projects that are an integral part of
its mission from federal and state sources.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to create a National
Drought Mitigation Center and develop a comprehensive program aimed at
lessening societal vulnerability to drought. The Center has created an
information clearinghouse and is delivering information to a diverse
audience of users through its home page. Over 50,000 users now access
the Center's home page each month. The Center's award winning home page
was used extensively by state and federal agencies during the 1996
drought to assist in the evaluation and response process. This home
page networks users of drought-related information in the United States
and elsewhere with information that would otherwise be unavailable or
inaccessible to users.
The National Drought Mitigation Center played an important role in
the response of federal and state government to the 1996 severe drought
in the Southwest and southern Great Plains states. In addition to
providing timely and relevant information on drought severity and
alternative response, mitigation, and planning measures, the Center
participated in the Multi-state Drought Task Force workshop organized
at the request of President Clinton and helped formulate long-term
recommendations to improve the way this Nation prepares for and
responds to drought. The Center is also a member of the Western
Governors' Association Drought Task Force. This Task Force made
recommendations to reduce the risks associated with drought in the
western United States.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant received an appropriation
of $200,000 in fiscal years 1995 through 1999, for a total
appropriation of $1,000,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The University of Nebraska contributed $75,737 of non-
federal funds in support of this research in fiscal year 1995, $58,977
in fiscal year 1996, and $61,545 in fiscal year 1997. The University of
Nebraska contributed $67,819 in fiscal year 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research will be conducted at the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The research conducted under this project is being
undertaken under a series of nine tasks. Significant progress on each
of these tasks has been made, but these activities are ongoing. The
information clearinghouse has been created, but new information and
documents are continuously added to the home page in response to users'
needs and requests. In addition, the drought watch section is updated
monthly to assist users in evaluating current climate and water supply
conditions. Research on new climatic indices to monitor drought and
water supply conditions are being tested and mitigation technologies
and existing state drought plans are continuously evaluated. New
activities are also being initiated in response to the growing interest
and awareness in drought mitigation in the United States and elsewhere.
For example, the activities of the Western Drought Coordination Council
provides the Center with a broadening range of activities on an annual
basis.
Question. When was the last evaluation of this project? Provide a
summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project was peer-reviewed at the time the proposal was
prepared in 1998. Each year when the new proposal is prepared, it is
reviewed at the university and again at CSREES. The project is
evaluated for progress toward completion of objectives, new activities
proposed, and accomplishments.
ecosystems, alabama
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Ecosystems, Alabama, grant.
Answer. In 1998, CSREES approved a proposal from Auburn University
to support projects at two Community Colleges in Alabama--Faulkner
State Community College and Alabama Southern Community College. The
Faulkner State Community College's project is intended to (1) fund the
development of distance education classrooms for estuarine-and marine-
related education, and (2) to establish an aquaculture-related
veterinary technician education program. The Alabama Southern Community
College project will purchase and install laboratory equipment to
further the educational capacity of the Center for Excellence in
Forestry, Paper, and Chemical Technology.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the local, regional, or national need for this
project?
Answer. Faulkner State Community College asserts that their
veterinary technician program will be the only such program in the
country, providing the first two years of the degree program leading to
an A.A. degree at Faulkner State, and the second two years leading to a
bachelor's degree at Auburn University. The distance education capacity
is intended to better integrate marine and estuary research into
educational activities.
The Center for Excellence in Forestry, Paper, and Chemical
Technology at Alabama Southern Community College is believed to be a
unique educational opportunity in the Southeastern United States due to
the merging of four individual technology training programs. These
programs are: (1) Industrial Maintenance, (2) Electronics and
Instrumentation, (3) Paper Process, and (4) Chemical Process training.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goals for these projects include the development of a
veterinary technician training program and integration of marine and
estuary research into classrooms at Faulkner State Community College;
and to establish a state-of-the-art wood paper process and chemical
process laboratory at Alabama Southern Community College.
These projects were initiated during the late summer of 1998, and
no progress has yet been reported.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. These projects were initiated September 1, 1998, and have
received a total of $1,000,000 to date with $500,000 appropriated per
year in fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided to support this project?
Answer. No non-federal funds have been identified to support this
project.
Question. Where is this work to be carried out?
Answer. The project will be conducted at the Faulkner State
Community College Aquaculture Center in Alabama and at the Alabama
Southern Community College Center for Forestry, Paper, and Chemical
Technology.
Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The Alabama Southern Community College project proposal
indicates a two year budget for project completion. The Faulkner State
Community College proposal was for one year only. The objectives have
not yet been met but are well underway.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project began in fiscal year 1998 and has not had a
formal, onsite review to date. It received a merit review at the time
the project proposal was submitted.
environmental research, new york
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the environmental research grant.
Answer. The environmental research in New York has several major
goals. These are: (1) to better understand the impacts of nutrient
flows, principally nitrogen, from agriculture on non-agricultural
ecosystems, forests, wetlands, and water resources in mixed ecosystem
landscapes; (2) to improve knowledge of agricultural contributions to
greenhouse gas emissions and effects of projected climate change on
crop production; and (3) to develop innovative approaches and
technologies for improving the efficiency of agricultural production
and/or reducing environmental impacts of agriculture. New thrusts for
the coming year include: 1) to improve understanding of the impacts of
land application of biosolids on the sustainability of New York
agriculture and on water quality, and to develop management practices
and guidelines for sustainable use of biosolids in New York
agriculture; and 2) to evaluate spatial and temporal variability of
crop yields within fields and to develop management practices that
increase productivity, increase the efficiency of use of inputs, and
reduce environmental impacts of agriculture.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. Interactions between agriculture and the environment are
many and complex and require multi-disciplinary efforts to both
understand the interactions and to develop effective management
strategies. Programs supported by the special grant are multi-
disciplinary in nature, involving technical scientists from a range of
disciplines, together with social scientists and economists.
Additionally, translation of knowledge from plot or field studies to
larger scales, such as landscape to regional and global, is needed to
provide information that is useful to policy makers.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. One goal of the program is to identify impacts of nitrogen
flows from agricultural lands on adjacent natural ecosystems, forests
and wetlands, and water resources, and to devise management strategies
to minimize these impacts.
Nitrogen leaching from maize-based cropping systems has been shown
to be higher when organic sources of nitrogen, manures, and plow-down
alfalfa are used as nitrogen sources for crop growth compared to use of
inorganic fertilizers. Attempts to use an interseeded cover crop to
capture and recycle excess nitrogen left over after the cropping season
were only marginally successful due to limited growth of the cover crop
following maize harvest in New York's climate. A computer-based
nitrogen decision support system to improve recommendations for on-farm
nitrogen management was developed and implemented in New York.
A second goal of the program is to investigate several interactions
between agriculture and climate change. Studies of methane fluxes to/
from soils showed that northern hardwood forests are both a source and
a sink for this powerful greenhouse gas and overall may be a net source
of methane. In contrast, upland agricultural systems were consistently
found to be a sink for methane. Use of legume green manures to supply
nitrogen in an organic production system increased methane emissions
two-fold, creating a conflict between a sustainable agriculture
practice and the environment.
No-tillage agriculture was shown to increase preservation of
existing soil organic carbon, but accumulation of carbon derived from
crop inputs was higher with conventional tillage. Inputs of carbon to
soils from root exudates and residues were found to be more important
to carbon sequestration in soils than were residues from the tops of
plants.
A third goal of developing innovative approaches to management
systems and technologies has the following components:
--Whole farm analysis and planning
--Soil quality changes in the Chesapeake farms sustainable
agriculture project
--Use of constructed wetlands to mitigate phosphorus run-off from
barnyards Assessments of nutrient use and management on farms
have been carried out in Cayuga County, New York and in
Pennsylvania, in conjunction with Rodale Institute. In New
York, mass nutrient balance data on dairy farms has shown that,
because of nutrient imports in feed and inadequate cropland
area, nutrients excreted in manure exceed crop requirements.
Coupling of models for nutrient management and animal diets was
used to develop improved management practices. On one farm,
production of nitrogen in manure was reduced 25 percent by more
accurate balancing of animal diets and on a second farm
modification of the cropping pattern reduced the imported
nitrogen in feed by 13 percent.
Soil quality assessments at the Chesapeake farms sustainable
agriculture project on Maryland's Eastern shore, where various cropping
systems are being compared with the conventional corn-soybean rotation,
have shown that soil quality improves as the cropping system becomes
more complex, involves less tillage, and has more organic inputs.
Mitigation of phosphorus in runoff from barnlots by a constructed
wetland system is being evaluated on a 500 head dairy farm in New York.
Different substrates in the wetland beds are being evaluated, including
soil, limestone, norlite, and wollastonite. To date, the soil and
norlite materials are proving to be the most effective at phosphorus
removal.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991
with an appropriation of $297,000. The fiscal years 1992-1993
appropriation was $575,000 per year; $540,000 in fiscal year 1994; and
fiscal years 1995 through 1999, $486,000 each year. A total of
$4,417,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. In fiscal year 1991, Cornell University provided $27,893
and the State of New York provided $118,014. In fiscal year 1992,
Cornell University provided $37,476 and the State of New York $188,915.
In fiscal year 1993, Cornell University provided $13,650 and the State
of New York $243,251. In fiscal year 1994, the State of New York
provided $214,989. In fiscal year 1995, the State of New York provided
$233,085. In fiscal year 1996, the State of New York provided $388,301.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This research is being conducted at Cornell University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original estimate was for a five-year program, and many
of the initial objectives in the nitrogen and climate change areas have
been met. New objectives evolved from the original, work and the
program was also oriented to consider broader dimensions of
environmental management, particularly strategies for community-based
watershed management, involving linkage of technical knowledge with
social and local governmental perspectives and needs. Estimated
completion dates for current program elements are:
1998-1999 program year:
--Nutrient processing in wetlands
--Use of weather forecasts in weed management
--Use of constructed wetlands to remediate barnyard run-off
--Effect of climate variability on crop production
--Carbon storage in soils
Completion beyond 1999:
--Watershed science and management
--Effects of elevated CO2 on crop yield potential
--Remington farms sustainable agriculture project--a 10-year project
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project was peer reviewed in 1997 and 1998. Overall,
the project was rated very high. Specific ratings included the
following:
--Outstanding scientific merit.
--Appropriate methodology.
--Excellent previous accomplishments.
--The project has potential for significant impact concerning the
relationship of agriculture to global change.
--The proposal is well conceived and well written.
environmental risk factors/cancer, new york
Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Environmental Risk Factors/Cancer, New York, grant.
Answer. The agency has requested the University to submit a renewal
grant proposal that is currently being reviewed.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, and local need for this
research?
Answer. The American Cancer Society estimated that over 178,000
women in the United States were diagnosed with breast cancer in 1998.
The role of environmental risk factors, such as pesticides, is of
concern to women, the agricultural community, and policymakers. This
project, emphasizing risk reduction prevention information, will work
at filling that void.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original and continuing goals of this research are:
--To establish and maintain a database of critical evaluations on the
current scientific evidence of breast carcinogenicity and
effects on breast cancer risk for selected pesticides.
--To effectively communicate database information to the scientific
community, federal agencies, pubic health professionals, the
agricultural community, and the general public using innovative
electronic methods of communication, in-service training
sessions, printed materials, and exhibits.
--To further develop the Breast Cancer Environmental Risk Factors--
BCERF--World Wide Web to improve ease of use, add informational
materials and hyperlinks, and determine the feasibility of
developing an online, searchable bibliography on pesticides and
breast cancer risk accessible through this Web site.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1997,
and appropriations were as follow: fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999,
$100,000 per year for a total of $300,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $150,000 state appropriations for fiscal year 1996;
$250,000 per year in state funds--New York--were requested for fiscal
years 1997, 1998, and 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This research is conducted at the Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. This was a new project which began in April 1997. The
anticipated completion date is March 31, 1999.
Objectives met: Database was established during year one and is
updated and expanded each year. It currently has over 2,400 entries
with over 200 added each quarter. Also, it includes full bibliographies
of all pesticide and dietary/lifestyle scientific critical reviews.
Scientific Critical Evaluation of seven pesticides--four in fiscal year
1997; three in fiscal year 1998--have been completed or are nearing
completion. Two pesticides and/or non-pesticide agrochemical will be
developed in fiscal year 1999. Science-based information material--fact
sheets--have been developed not only for the seven pesticides, but also
for four diet/lifestyle breast cancer risk factors, plus two on water
contaminants and cancer, two on food safety, and two general fact
sheets on breast cancer. Nine additional fact sheets are to be
developed in fiscal year 1999. Two video teleconferences and an in-
service have been held and evaluated. Followup telephone surveys of
1997 facilitators at BCERF satellite video conference downlink sites
and participants at the June 1997 on-campus training program was
completed, and an analysis of response data was initiated. The Farm
Exhibit is expected to be completed in Spring 1999 and evaluated during
Summer 1999. The BCERF website was revamped in 1997-1998 and relaunched
in September 1998. The number of browsers accessing the BCERF home page
has risen from 380 to 450 hits per month during the summer of 1998 to
1,053 hits in November and 3,490 hits in December.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. As a relatively new project, a complete evaluation has not
been conducted, although the proposal is currently under review.
Periodic progress reports have been made throughout the year. The
project is moving towards achieving its desired goals. A final
evaluation will be made after March 31, 2000.
BCERF has done an evaluation of the video teleconferences and in-
service and have had the pesticide fact sheets reviewed by several
focus groups--breast cancer survivors and women not having breast
cancer.
The participants brought a variety of perspectives to the
discussion, providing BCERF with a wealth of important feedback on our
fact sheets and educational approach. Some of the conclusions we have
drawn from this evaluation have already resulted in simple changes made
in the preparation of current fact sheets. Other feedback from this
evaluation will inform our planning efforts for the education component
in general.
expanded wheat pasture, oklahoma
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Expanded Wheat Pasture, Oklahoma grant.
Answer. This project was designed to develop improved
supplementation programs and new systems for technology delivery to
reduce production risk of raising cattle on wheat pasture. The work
involves evaluation of grazing termination date on grain and beef
production, assess the impact of wheat cultural practices, and develop
an economic model to evaluate alternative decisions on grain/beef
production. Additional effort is directed toward development of cool
season perennial forage grasses to complement wheat pasture. The
proposal for fiscal year 1999 has been requested.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that this work addresses
the needs of wheat/cattle producers of Oklahoma as a primary focus.
However, it would appear to have application regionally in adjacent
wheat growing states.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to develop
economically-viable management systems for use of wheat for
supplemental pasture for beef cattle before the crop starts making
grain. This work has already shown how the use of feed supplements can
increase net profit from cattle grazing on wheat pasture. The study has
identified management practices, e.g. date of planting, cultivar
selection, grazing intensity, and date of cattle removal that produce
the optimum grain yield and cattle gain. A Wheat/Stocker Management
Model has been developed as a decision aid to help producers assess
income risk in the operation. Work is underway on a Wheat Grazing
Systems simulation model.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1989
and appropriations were as follows: fiscal year 1989, $400,000; fiscal
year 1990, $148,000; fiscal year 1991, $275,000; fiscal years 1992-
1993, $337,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $317,000; and fiscal years
1995-1999, $285,000 each year. A total of $3,239,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $175,796 state appropriations in 1991; $174,074 state
appropriations in 1992; and $236,584 state appropriations in 1993. The
non-federal support for 1994 was $238,058 for state appropriations.
Funds for fiscal year 1995 were $275,426, for 1996 were $120,000, for
1997 were $190,510, and for 1998 $224,500.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research is being done at Oklahoma State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. This project started in 1989 with a projection of 10 years
to complete the research objectives. Some objectives are nearing
completion while others will require further study. A number of wheat
cultivars have been identified which will tolerate grazing and still
produce economic grain yields. The grazing cut off date for grain
production has been established. However, year to year variation need
additional study in order to develop a reliable decision support
system.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This program is reviewed annually. Each year's funding
cycle is peer reviewed internally and by CSREES National Program
Leaders for scientific merit and relevance. Results from this project
are currently being used by ranchers to help with management decisions
concerning stocker cattle grazed on wheat that will be harvested for
grain. Current work is designed to refine the current information and
identify wheat cultivars and grazing management for optimum economic
return.
expert ipm decision support system
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Expert IPM Decision Support System grant.
Answer. A prototype information and decision support system was
developed in collaboration with Purdue University and the Department of
Energy's Argonne National Laboratory that integrates and manages
information from multiple data sources. Development of this system now
continues with the collaboration of the Office of Pest Management
Policy--OPMP--and the National Science Foundation Center for Integrated
Pest Management--CIPM--at North Carolina State University--NCSU.
Components of the Pest Management Information Decision Support System--
PMIDSS--include information on the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency--EPA--review status of pesticides, crop losses caused by pests,
status of minor use registrations--IR-4--current research in progress,
and priorities of IPM implementation teams. The PMIDSS data, along with
OPMP/Pesticide Impact Assessment Program--PIAP--crop profiles, provide
the background information that is critical to the development of
commodity-specific transition strategies in response to the Food
Quality Protection Act--FQPA--driven regulatory decisions.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. When fully operational, the PMIDSS will serve national,
regional, and local needs for research and extension activities. At the
national level, the system supports the USDA/EPA Memorandum of
Understanding--MOU--to identify crop protection gaps and to find
alternatives to pesticides either under FQPA regulatory review or those
being lost due to pest resistance. The system will assist in the
identification of priorities for the Pest Management Alternatives
Program and regional IPM Special Grants and Special Projects. It will
provide a mechanism for decision transparency and for all stakeholders
to interact with the priority setting process. The ultimate result will
be to help insure that farmers have adequate alternatives for managing
pests at the specific local level.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of the PMIDSS was to refine the process of
identification for IPM needs of USDA, EPA, and the states. This goal
reinforces the state and Federal partnerships to disseminate important
pest management information for improved decision making and
environmental quality, and to address future needs. In 1996 and 1997,
the program addressed priority commodity pest management needs
resulting from voluntary pesticide cancellations and regulatory
cancellations, responding to the MOU and a supplemental MOU between EPA
and USDA. The supplemental MOU was signed in April 1996, at which time
there were 58 pesticides and 374 uses identified and prioritized. The
process included information on cancellations furnished by EPA.
Selected uses were sent to the states' PIAP and IPM networks. Impacts
of cancellations affecting individual states were reported for
inclusion in the decision support system. Twenty-five minor use crops
on which 40 specific pests were identified in the 1997 Request For
Proposals. Results were also used by the regional IPM grants program
Request For Proposals. The Pest Management Alternatives Program
WorkBench prototype--a major component of PMIDSS--was made accessible
on a test basis through a web-based server maintained by the CIPM at
North Carolina State University and the software has been delivered. A
web-based pest management information system that allows concurrent
multiple database searches of four key databases--Crop Profiles,
National Council for Food and Agricultural Policy--NCFAP--Pesticide Use
Data, OPMP Pipeline, and the Reregistration Notification Network--is
presently available through a secure web server maintained by CIPM.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. This work began in 1994 with development of the concept and
design, and has proceeded through steps including database
identification and specific development of a prototype and software.
Current development is to bring the product to the web and provide
multiple database search capabilities for ease of data access. In
fiscal year 1994, we expended $40,000 of CSREES administrative funds
and $90,000 from Science and Education Evaluation Funds to initiate
collaborative work with the Argonne National Laboratory. In fiscal year
1995, we expended $172,000 as a Cooperative Agreement with Purdue
University and Argonne National Laboratory from the Pest Management
Alternative Special Grant Funds and $5,000 from PIAP funds. In fiscal
year 1996, we expended $177,000 in a cooperative agreement with Purdue
University and Argonne National Laboratory from Pest Management
Alternative Special Grant Funds, $21,000 from Research, Extension, and
Education Evaluation Funds, and $40,000 from PIAP funds--for
development of PIAP data fields. In fiscal years 1997 and 1998, we
expended $165,425 and $177,000 to Purdue University and Argonne
National Laboratory. In fiscal year 1999 we are expending $177,000 to
NCSU-CIPM, to make the system web-based and provide access to multiple
databases.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. It is difficult for us to estimate the amount of non-
federal funds supporting the PMIDSS. Purdue University, Cornell
University, and NCSU have contributed non-federal resources in the form
of dollars and personnel time. The CIPM at NCSU is supported in large
part by corporate funds, part of which have underwritten Center
personnel salaries. A number of states have provided information that
is part of the information base. Many program areas are contributing
databases that are part of the Pest Management Information Decision
Support System.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Presently, the bulk of the work is carried out in
Washington, D.C. and in Raleigh, North Carolina. CSREES has National
Program Leaders in IPM, PIAP, and IR-4 program areas working on PMIDSS.
The CIPM at NCSU manages the web server where the prototype and a pest
management information system is located and is developing the multiple
concurrent database search and decision support capability. Interaction
and information is provided by every state in our system. We are in the
process of strengthening the role of Land Grant partners in this
program and additional database access is being developed through CIPM
at NCSU and through a sub-contract with George Mason University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Our original estimate was two to three years with adequate
resources to complete the developmental work. However, the design
considerations became more complex with the 1996 passage of the FQPA.
Program needs dictated an expansion and change in information bases. In
addition, technology that was unavailable in 1994--the web--is now a
major and needed part of the program strategy. We feel we are
reasonably addressing FQPA objectives with available resources to
become an ongoing activity of the USDA. Utility of the system to the
Agency, Land Grant partners, and the private sector stakeholders will
increase as additional databases are added to both the data access and
decision support aspects of the project. It is critical that the data
sources be maintained as part of an interconnected system. Toward that
end, the PMIDSS team is now working directly with many data providers--
IR-4, NASS, NCFAP--and users--CSREES, OPMP, EPA, commodity groups, and
agribusiness--to assure that needed data are available, consistent,
current, and searchable. The PMIDSS program is a key component for
transparent data access and decision support for FQPA responses by OPMP
and CSREES.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation.
Answer. PMIDSS underwent a formal review in June 1997, and a major
piece of the system, the Pest Management Alternatives Program
WorkBench, was reviewed by regionally-selected land grant scientists
and others in November 1997. In August 1998, a progress review
evaluated the engineered software product and determined the need for a
web-accessible multiple database search and look-up function for the
system. A concept review held in September 1998 demonstrated the
functionality of a web-based decision support system. The June review
recommendations included: focus the system on the needs of the Pest
Management Alternatives Program, timely delivery of the software
product to USDA, and development of a plan to sustain the system in a
user-friendly, widely available format. The November evaluation of the
WorkBench brought the following comments and recommendations: the
WorkBench provides good linkages to relevant databases and brings
together essential information on pest management issues; the system
should be placed on the World Wide Web for greater access and utility;
tell potential users that it is available; and invest in high quality
databases to support and enhance data integrity of the WorkBench.
Development now focuses on the needs of the Pest Management
Alternatives Program, the requirements of FQPA, and an easy-to-use
interface for data search and access. Data access is focused on current
and transparent databases to address critical FQPA needs.
farm and rural business finance: illinois and arkansas
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the farm and rural business finance program.
Answer. Federal funding for this project provides partial support
for the Center for Farm and Rural Business Finance which conducts a
program of research and information on the financing of farms and rural
businesses in the United States. The plan of work focuses on the
financial management performance of farm and rural businesses,
evaluation of financial markets and credit institutions serving rural
America, and the impacts of public policies and regulations on the
structure and performance of rural financial markets. This project
addresses some of the same issues included in the RRF Project NC-221,
Financing Agriculture and Rural America: Issues of Policy, Structure,
and Technical Change. Professional staff at the two institutions are
engaged in both projects. Proposals for the grant funds for this
special project are peer reviewed at the performing institutions and
are reviewed for merit within the CSREES when received. Additional peer
review occurs with the Hatch project included in NC-221.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The need is national in scope in that the shifting policy
environment, the changing structure within the agricultural sector, and
managerial responses to technical change and changes in tax regulations
have nationwide impacts. Regional and local needs vary with the
commodity mix in the agricultural sector and the availability of
financial institutions and services to meet local needs. The new
agricultural policies that have altered the ``safety net''
significantly increase the financial risk for farmers, ranchers, and
agribusinesses. Changes to the Federal income tax, capital gains tax,
and estate tax provisions can have significant impacts on owners of
agricultural assets. Consolidations are occurring within the Farm
Credit System, and increased integration and coordination at the farm
level within hog and other concentrated enterprises are providing
access to additional sources of capital.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal is to assist farmers, ranchers, and rural
businesses with research-based information on financial management as
they face increasingly complex financial markets. The project is
completing projects on the post-acquisition performance of banks
resulting from recent mergers, levels and trends in small farm and
small business lending across different types of commercial banks, and
the measurement and classification of the financial performance of
agribusiness firms. Additional projects have developed a model of
working capital management applicable to a wide variety of selected
agribusiness firms and have identified primary risks associated with
lending to integrated farm production units. Other projects are
measuring the longer term impacts of changes in the Federal tax laws on
the financial performance of Illinois farms, evaluating the financial
characteristics of rural banks and assessing their competitiveness in
rural financial markets, and identifying the financial characteristics
of high performing agricultural banks. A project at the University of
Arkansas is analyzing the effects of financing in accelerating the
cattle cycle.
Question. How long has the work been underway, and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work has been underway since 1992. Appropriations were
$125,000 in fiscal year 1992, $125,000 in fiscal year 1993, $118,000 in
fiscal year 1994, $106,000 per year in fiscal year 1995 through fiscal
year 1997, $87,000 per year in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999.
Appropriations through fiscal year 1999 total $860,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal sources and funds provided for this program
in fiscal year 1992 totaled $259,427 with $58,427 in State
appropriations, $189,000 from industry and $12,000 from miscellaneous
sources. In fiscal year 1993, the total was $287,890 with $94,588 in
State appropriations, $133,000 from industry, and $25,000 from
miscellaneous sources. In fiscal year 1994, the total was $391,000 with
$221,000 coming from State appropriations, $45,000 from industry, and
$125,000 from the National Research Initiative competitive grants
programs. In fiscal year 1995 the total was $185,000 where $46,000 came
from State appropriations, $62,500 from industry and $76,500 from
miscellaneous sources. In fiscal year 1996, the total was $344,000
where $294,000 was appropriated from State sources and $50,000 from
private sources. In fiscal year 1997, $125,000 was appropriated from
State sources, $103,000 was received through a National Research
Initiative grant, and $130,876 was received from the Council on Food
and Agricultural Research. In fiscal year 1998, $176,250 was received
from a Fund for Rural America grant, $65,000 from a CSREES Special
Research Grant, and $20,000 from miscellaneous sources. Non-federal
support for fiscal year 1999 has not been identified.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Researchers and professional staff conducting this program
are located at the University of Illinois and the University of
Arkansas.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objectives of the program, as amended with
additional funding and new termination dates, now extend to fiscal year
1999. Although initial objectives have been met, new developments in
the rural finance environment call for continuing work to address new
dimensions of the objectives. Anticipated completion dates of these
amended objectives extend through fiscal year 1999.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the latest evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project is evaluated periodically during the year
through direct contact with the Director of the Center and the project
leaders, as reports are received, and annually when proposals are
submitted. Internal agency criteria are used to evaluate the program in
terms of whether objectives are being met, appropriate methods are
being used, and timelines are being met to a reasonable extent. The
general objectives of this program continue to be met and results from
specific projects are evaluated as they evolve. The latest evaluation
shows 16 separate projects underway that have or are nearing
completion. Results are applicable to issues within the rural finance
community. A National Symposium for Agricultural Finance Executives
provides a valuable service and visibility for the Center. The program
has led to an impressive number of publications by the Project Director
and the project leaders. Articles have been published in leading U.S.
agricultural and finance journals and in international journals
addressing the same topics.
feed barley for rangeland cattle, montana
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Feed Barley for Rangeland Cattle, Montana grant.
Answer. This project will support research on the nutritional value
of barley cultivars as feed for beef cattle. This effort will assist
with the breeding and selection of superior types that can be more
competitive with other feed grains and improve farmer income from
barley crops grown in rotational systems in the Northern Great Plains.
The project was subjected to a merit review.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. Barley as a feed grain is grown extensively in the United
States. Based on chemical analyses and the experience of some cattle
feeders, the principal researcher believes it should have a feed value
on par with corn and wheat. However, it is listed as inferior to both
in feeds hand books and is, therefore, discounted in the market.
Comprehensive feeding studies of various barley types will be conducted
to document the value as a feed grain for beef cattle.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to determine the
true feed value of barley for feeder cattle, and thereby improve the
economic return to barley production.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1996
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1996 was $250,000, for fiscal
year 1997, $500,000, and in fiscal years 1998 and 1999, $600,000 per
year. The total appropriation is $1,950,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-federal funds for this project were $160,000 in 1996,
$174,500 in 1997, and $168,000 in 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted at Montana State University.
Question. When was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion of the original objective is
fiscal year 2001. Integrating of findings into management systems is
expected by 2005 with outreach and information dissemination completed
by 2010.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted?
Answer. The project is evaluated annually. It undergoes a
scientific merit review by two Department Heads and three peer faculty
members. It is reviewed again by a CSREES scientist upon submission.
floriculture, hawaii
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the floriculture program grant.
Answer. The research carried out with these funds involves
wholesale and retail U.S. and Japan market research, development of new
varieties for aesthetic values and pest resistance, and pest management
strategies to meet quarantine needs and consumer expectations.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The researcher believes the tropical cut flower and foliage
industry in Hawaii, which includes anthurium, orchids, flowering
gingers, bird of paradise, heliconia, protea, and cut foliage is worth
over $50,000,000 primarily in out-of-state sales. Development of
disease resistant cultivars and quarantine pest management strategies
that reduce pesticide usage are high priority issues at the national
level.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of the research was to develop superior
Hawaii anthuriums, orchids, protea, and exotic tropical flower
varieties with disease resistance, particularly to anthurium blight
which devastated the Hawaii anthurium industry through the mid-1980's
and reduced Hawaii's market share. Additionally, research focused on
development of post-harvest handling practices and quarantine pest
control. To date, a new anthurium cultivar has been patented and
released. Additional blight resistant cultivars are being propagated
and tested by the anthurium industry. Disease resistant protea
germplasm has been obtained from South Africa and is being used in the
protea breeding program. A post-harvest hot water dip treatment has
been developed and is being used commercially on tolerant cutflower
species to meet quarantine requirements.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1989, $300,000; fiscal years 1990-1993, $296,000
per year; fiscal year 1994, $278,000; and fiscal years 1995-1999,
$250,000 each year. A total of $3,012,000 has been appropriated since
1989.
Question. What is the source and amount of nonfederal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: State appropriations of $87,937 in 1995, $56,680 in
1997, and $62,600 in 1998 for a total of $207,217 since 1995.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted by the University of Hawaii at
Manoa and Hilo.
Question. When was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The objectives in the original project were to maintain
Hawaii floricultural industry competitive. This objective continues to
be the principal direction for the projects. Because the industry and
the markets are changing pests are becoming either resistant or newer
strains. And quarantines are changing with technology the objective
remains valid.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The individual projects funded under this Special Research
Grant are evaluated through merit review to ensure that good science is
being used. This evaluation is the major tool used to award funds to
the projects.
food and agriculture policy institute, iowa and missouri
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done at the food and agriculture policy institute program.
Answer. The Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute--FAPRI--
was established by Iowa State University and the University of
Missouri, Columbia, in 1984. The purpose of the institute is to conduct
comprehensive analyses and disseminate results about the economic
impacts of U.S. food, farm, and trade policies to agricultural
producers, agribusinessmen, and public policymakers. Iowa State
conducts research on the economic interrelationships within and between
domestic and foreign food and agricultural markets from the farm gate
to market destinations; develops and maintains databases and analytical
support systems to facilitate the analysis of agricultural and trade
policy issues; and evaluates the impacts of U.S. and foreign commodity
supply, demand, and public policy programs on agricultural trade. The
University of Missouri maintains models of the domestic agricultural
economy and directs its efforts primarily to the analysis of domestic
policy issues. The two universities maintain linkages with a number of
other universities who provide data and analytical support to the
system.
The universities maintain a comprehensive analytical modeling
system of the U.S. and international food and agricultural sectors to
evaluate near-and long-term economic implications of alternative farm
policies for the basic commodities. Each year, and more often if
conditions require, the system is used to provide economic information
on potential impacts out to 10 years in the future of farm policies on
farm prices, income, output, government program cost and means to
enhance the management of farm programs at the national level.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researchers, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The Nation's agricultural sector and its components are
subject to numerous Federal policies and programs. FAPRI is the only
publicly-supported, non-federal organization with the analytical
capability to assess and evaluate the numerous public policies and
programs affecting the agricultural sector and report results to a
broad constituency including farmers, agribusinessmen, and Federal and
State policymakers.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal was to develop the analytical capability
to assess and evaluate U.S. farm policies on the U.S. agricultural
sector and disseminate this information to farmers, farm and other
agricultural organizations, and public policymakers. The mission has
been expanded to include assessment of trade and environmental policy
impacts and their interaction with the agricultural sector at national,
regional, and farm levels. The models in place are also used to assess
fiscal and monetary policy implications and impacts of new technologies
such as biotechnological innovations on the agricultural sector.
Both institutions maintain large econometric models and data sets
which are regularly updated to analyze farm and trade policy
alternatives and the impacts of various programs on the several sub
sectors of the agricultural economy. This update was especially
valuable for conducting analyses to assess policy options for the 1996
farm bill. During the past year, the FAPRI completed 35-40 studies
addressing policy issues such as assessments of the 1996 Farm Bill,
alternative ethanol programs, USDA's proposed milk market order reform,
U.S.-Canada agricultural trade, the importance of fast track to U.S.
agriculture of economic recession in the Middle East and the economic
meltdown in Russia. Numerous studies were completed addressing
improvements made to the empirical modeling system to improve domestic
and international policy capabilities. The FAPRI staff has made
numerous public appearances throughout the U.S. to agricultural groups
and Congressional committees and Executive branch groups addressing
policy issues.
Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal years 1984-1985, $450,000 per year; fiscal years 1986-
1987, $357,000 per year; fiscal year 1988, $425,000; fiscal year 1989,
$463,000; fiscal year 1990, $714,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $750,000
per year; fiscal year 1994, $705,000; fiscal years 1995-1996, $850,000
each year; and fiscal years 1997-1999, $800,000 each year. The total
amount appropriated is $10,271,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: $260,355 State appropriations, $113,565 industry, and
$37,913 miscellaneous for a total of $411,833 in 1991; $321,074 State
appropriations, $51,500 industry, and $35,100 miscellaneous for a total
of $407,674 in 1992; $234,796 State appropriations and $70,378 industry
for a total of $305,174 in 1993; $78,286 State appropriations, $43,925
industry, and $29,750 miscellaneous in 1994 for a total of $151,961 in
1994; $80,155 State appropriations, $37,128 industry, and $42,236
miscellaneous for a total of $159,519 for 1995; $124,123 in State
appropriations with no other funding for 1996; and $79,000 in State
appropriations, $50,000 industry, and $25,000 miscellaneous for a total
of $154,000 in 1997; and $88,800 State appropriations, $75,200
industry, and $34,687 miscellaneous for a total of $198,687 in 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The program is carried out at the Center for Agriculture
and Rural Development, Iowa State University and the Center for
National Food and Agricultural Policy, University of Missouri.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. This is a continuing program of research and analysis for
the purpose of assessing farm and related policy actions and proposed
actions likely to affect the agricultural sector and its components.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The annual proposal is carefully reviewed for adherence to
stated objectives and progress before the special research grant in
awarded. It is also peer reviewed prior to its submission. No formal
evaluation of this program has been conducted.
food irradiation, iowa
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the food irradiation grant.
Answer. Since the Linear Accelerator Facility was placed in
operation in March 1993, studies on the effect of irradiation on shelf-
life extension, safety, and quality of ground beef, beef steaks, ham,
pork chops from loins, chicken breasts, and turkey have been conducted.
Studies combining irradiation with high hydrostatic pressure and
cooking, using whole chicken breasts, turkey, and ham, have been
conducted to determine the combination of these treatments that will
yield a shelf-stable product while maintaining high eating quality.
Several studies were conducted to determine whether consumers can
detect a difference between irradiated and non-irradiated ground beef
patties. Experiments were also conducted to investigate consumer
acceptance of pork products irradiated to prevent trichinosis. Test
markets of irradiated chicken breasts were conducted to determine
consumers' willingness to pay for irradiated products. Research on the
effect of packaging materials on quality of irradiated meat is in
progress. The fiscal year 1998 funds are supporting research from May
1, 1998 through June 30, 1999. CSREES has requested, but not yet
received, a proposal in support of the fiscal year 1999 appropriation.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes consumers' attention and
concern about the safety of fresh meat and poultry has increased with
recent outbreaks of foodborne illness from E. coli 0157:H7. The meat
industry has also expressed interest regarding the quality of
irradiated products and how this process can be used to yield high
quality fresh meats that are free of pathogens. The recent massive
recall of over 25,000,000 pounds of ground beef due to illness caused
by E. coli 0157:H7 contamination has resulted in huge economic losses.
With the recent Food and Drug Administration--FDA--clearance of
irradiation of red meat, research needs leading to commercialization of
this technology have been enhanced. Additionally, researchers from
eight other research institutes have used the irradiation facility for
research projects. Thus, the principal researcher believes this
research to be of national, regional, and local need.
Question. What was the original goal of the research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of the research was to generate knowledge
necessary to develop a research and technology transfer program leading
to commercial use of irradiation of foods, whereby consumers would be
provided with food products with enhanced safety. The effectiveness of
irradiation, using an electron beam accelerator, in destroying known
pathogenic bacteria in pork and beef has been determined. Mathematical
models have been developed to predict the growth of bacteria in low-
dose irradiated ground pork. Demonstration of irradiation technology
has been presented to some commercial firms, and plans are being
developed for some large scale test markets.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991
when $100,000 was appropriated for this project. The appropriations for
fiscal years 1992 and 1993 were $237,000 per year; fiscal year 1994,
$223,000; fiscal years 1995-1997, $201,000 each year; and fiscal years
1998 and 1999, $200,000 per year. A total of $1,800,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The project received $1,037,270 in State of Iowa funds--
$1,000,000 of which was for capital construction--in fiscal year 1991;
$37,942 in state funds and $67,800 in industry grants in fiscal year
1992; $68,897 in state funds, $78,300 in industry grants, and $9,666 in
user fees in fiscal year 1993; $70,652 in state funds, $35,420 in
industry grants, and $47,788 in user fees in fiscal year 1994; $72,772
in state funds, $100,000 in industry grants, and $55,211 in user fees
in fiscal year 1995; $81,540 in state funds, $115,300 in industry
grants, and $50,963 in user fees in fiscal year 1996; $77,963 in state
funds, $253,450 in industry grants, and $46,550 in user fees in fiscal
year 1997; and $100,200 in state funds, $205,900 in industry grants,
and $36,200 in user fees in fiscal year 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at Iowa State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The principal investigator anticipates that the project's
original objectives will be met within a few years after the USDA final
rules are issued.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. A review of the proposal supporting the fiscal year 1998
appropriation was conducted on January 16, 1998. Previous studies
funded under this project have provided useful information toward
understanding how irradiation can be useful in eliminating or reducing
foodborne pathogens in meat products. It is anticipated that the
proposed research will continue to further the understanding of how
irradiation can be used to improve shelf-life and enhance safety of
meats and meat products.
food marketing policy center, connecticut
Question. Please provide a description of the research done under
the Food Marketing Policy Center grant.
Answer. The Food Marketing Policy Center was established in 1988 at
the University of Connecticut at Storrs. The Center conducts research
on food and agricultural marketing and related policy questions. The
intent is to provide information that contributes to improved
performance of the food production and marketing system. The Policy
Center is primarily an economic research organization, but it conducts
interdisciplinary research as appropriate and it communicates results
to the public. Key users include farm and consumer organizations,
agricultural business firms, public agencies, state legislatures, and
the U.S. Congress. The Center facilitates research at cooperating
institutions by organizing research workshops twice annually,
furnishing common data bases, preparing research publications, and
providing leadership for joint research efforts including the
sponsorship of research conferences.
This grant is not competitively awarded at the state or regional
level, but the proposal is reviewed by the Experiment Station Director
and the Department Head, and is subject to internal merit review.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The research proposal identifies an ongoing national need
to continually improve the economic efficiency and operation of the
U.S. food marketing system to benefit farmers, merchants, processors,
and consumers.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The ongoing research goal is to identify marketing problems
and assess alternatives that improve economic performance of the U.S.
agricultural and food marketing sector. The Center serves as a core
research group for Regional Research Project NE-165, Private
Strategies, Public Policies, and Food System Performance. The research
agenda includes industrial organization, strategic marketing, economics
of food safety, cooperatives, and public policy including antitrust and
regulation. The Food Marketing Policy Center conducts economic research
on food marketing, including descriptions of food quality issues and
enhancement policies, private label branding, advertising strategies
for cooperatives, assessment of food retail mergers and competition,
evaluation of dairy regulations, branded product marketing, supermarket
chain entry, oligopsony in agricultural markets, and impacts of
cooperatives on food market performance.
The Center has prepared and distributed over 45 working papers, 35
policy research reports, 16 policy issue papers, 8 books, and it has
reprinted and distributed over 65 important journal articles to
researchers, industry, and Federal and State legislators, and decision
makers.
This grant will support work on nine projects with two targeted
research problem areas: impacts of changes in strategies, technologies,
consumer behavior and policies on the economic performance of the food
system, and economic analysis of private and public strategies to
assess their impacts on improvements in food safety and quality.
Projects include competitive strategy analysis of cooperatives and
investor-owned firms; firm dominance in food manufacturing;
advertising; mergers, product relatedness and performance outcomes;
effects of market structure and concentration on promotional activity;
testing theories of oligopoly conduct; relationships between market
structure, firm position, and price levels; strategic responses to food
safety and nutritional regulation; and trade agreement effects on food
quality and trade.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1988, $150,000; fiscal year 1989, $285,000; fiscal
year 1990, $373,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $393,000 per year; fiscal
year 1994, $369,000; fiscal years 1995-1998, $332,000 each year; and
fiscal year 1999, $400,000. A total of $4,084,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are State appropriations as follows: $234,259 in fiscal year 1991;
$231,741 in fiscal year 1992; $201,288 in fiscal year 1993; $234,557 in
fiscal year 1994; $219,380 in fiscal year 1995; $134,399 in fiscal year
1996; $135,490 in fiscal year 1997; and in fiscal year 1998, $164,772
at the University of Connecticut and $30,000 at the University of
Massachusetts. The decline reflects a change in reporting only salary
and related fringe benefits and excludes overhead for facilities and
utilities.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The research is being carried out by the Agricultural
Experiment Station at Storrs and at the University of Massachusetts.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the projects? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original proposal in 1987 was for 24 months. According
to the principal researcher, the objective of conducting policy-
oriented research on food manufacturing and distribution industries to
assist state and Federal policy makers in improving the performance of
the food system is still an ongoing public concern, given increasing
levels of concentration in food processing. The current phase,
initially funded in fiscal year 1997, will be completed in 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. CSREES annually reviews project reports, succeeding annual
project proposals, research studies, and educational programs. A merit
review of the fiscal year 1998 proposal was conducted in February 1998,
and a similar review of the fiscal year 1999 proposal will be
conducted. A comprehensive outside review was conducted in April 1998.
Assessment criteria include peer review of results and publications,
administrative review and approval of proposals, and reports by
external sources.
food processing center, nebraska
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the food processing center grant.
Answer. The University of Nebraska Food Processing Center has been
conducting short-term, highly-applied research projects to assist small
and mid-sized food processing companies and entrepreneurs to develop or
improve processes and products and to develop new food processing
enterprises. Projects were selected based on the estimated economic
impact of the technical assistance or the criticality of the technical
assistance to the future of the firm or venture. Priorities were placed
on projects relating to the safety of the food product or process and
to the fulfillment of regulatory mandates such as nutrition labeling,
use of approved and effective ingredients, and adherence to regulations
imposed by foreign governments. In addition, several research projects
were conducted to improve or assess the quality, extend the shelf-life,
or assess or improve the processing efficiency of specialty food
products which impacted several processors or used alternative
agricultural products. fiscal year 1998 funds are supporting research
from July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999. CSREES has requested, but not
yet received, a proposal in support of the fiscal year 1999
appropriation.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes the primary impact of
this project will be statewide. Small and mid-sized food processing
companies and entrepreneurs have limited technological capabilities for
addressing issues related to product development, process development,
product and process evaluation, food safety, quality assurance, and
regulatory mandates. The short-term research and technology transfer
projects conducted as part of this overall project will aid these
companies in appropriately addressing these oftentimes complicated
issues.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of the research, as stated previously, is to
assist small and mid-sized food processing companies and entrepreneurs
to develop or improve processes and products and to develop new food
processing enterprises. Technological evaluations were conducted for
120 individuals or companies interested in developing new food
processing businesses. These evaluations included formulations,
processes, processing equipment, packaging, shelf-life, sensory,
nutritional attributes, microbiological quality, regulatory
considerations, and other factors. Additionally, microbiological
analyses, shelf-life assessments, sanitation audits, and nutritional
analyses were conducted for numerous Nebraska food companies.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1992.
The appropriations were $50,000 per year for fiscal years 1992-1993 ;
$47,000 for fiscal year 1994; and $42,000 per year for fiscal years
1995-1999. A total of $357,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The Food Processing Center received $402,389 in State funds
and $1,771,856 in food industry grants and miscellaneous sources from
1992 through 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at the University of Nebraska.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Because this project supports ongoing technical assistance
to clients, the objectives are ongoing.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of the
proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual basis.
A review of the proposal was conducted on January 12, 1998. Progress
under previous grants for this project appears to be satisfactory, with
numerous examples of assistance cited and summaries of short-term
projects provided by the principal investigator.
food quality, ak
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Food Quality, Alaska grant.
Answer. This is a new grant in fiscal year 1999. Research will be
aimed at establishing the Salmon Quality Implementation Project. The
project has two parts. The first part is the evaluation, design, and
implementation of a voluntary quality seal that can be attached to
salmon that meet the existing standards for premium and number one
grade. The second part is a series of workshops and training sessions
on salmon quality handling and maintenance for workers at all levels of
the industry, from harvesting to retail.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The seafood industry is Alaska's largest employer and main
source of revenue in many communities along its 38,000 miles of
coastline. The salmon fishery is second only to groundfish in providing
the most value in the industry. It is the mainstay of many traditional,
family-owned businesses. The salmon industry is regional, involving
thousands of fishermen and processing workers from Washington State,
Oregon, California, and throughout the nation that come to Alaska to
participate in the fishery. In recent years, the Alaska salmon industry
has suffered economically from increased competition from international
salmon farmers, mainly in Norway and Chile. They have made great
inroads in many traditional markets, surpassed Alaska in salmon
production, and now set the product standard in the marketplace. One
key for American businesses to recapture and strengthen their salmon
markets is to guarantee and promote the quality of wild Alaska salmon.
This project will provide the industry with the research and
information needed to accomplish this.
Question. What was the original goal of the research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to ensure a
consistent and predictable level of handling and quality for Alaska
seafood. In doing so, the project will help Alaska seafood processors
strengthen or maintain their place in domestic and international
markets. Because this is a new grant, no progress has yet been
reported.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 1999
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1999 is $350,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The State of Alaska, the Alaska Seafood Marketing
Institute, and the industry will contribute considerable personnel
hours to perform the work described in the application. The state will
contribute the time of several staff people to research and help
establish the voluntary quality seal program. Staff time would account
for approximately $10,000. The Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute will
have a staff person set up training workshops throughout Alaska.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work will be administered at the University of Alaska
Fairbanks. Field work will be carried out in numerous Alaska fishing
communities.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the quality and
handling training portion of the project is July 1, 2000. The
anticipated completion date for the voluntary quality seal portion of
the project is December 31, 2000. The project managers will able to
report at that time on their success at meeting project objectives.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. It is anticipated that the proposal received in support of
the fiscal year 1999 appropriation will be reviewed for merit by a
CSREES specialist shortly after it is received by the agency.
food safety
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Food Safety grant.
Answer. This program is to provide funding for competitively-
awarded research grants. The focus of the program is on very high
priority issues each year and it reflects areas of major importance
under the Food Safety Initiative. The request for proposals for fiscal
year 1998 focused on major issues related to the safety of fresh and
minimally processed fruits and vegetable which is an area of concern to
the public. For fiscal year 1999, we will request proposals that again
address the safety of fresh fruits and vegetables, and request
proposals in two additional areas of food safety of major importance:
the scientific basis for critical control points in food processing and
handling and risk assessments on bacterial pathogens in foods. For
fiscal year 2000, the focus will continue to be on current and emerging
National issues in food safety. The input of stakeholders and other
Federal agencies will again be used to determine the focus. It is
expected that risk assessments related to foodborne pathogens, the
scientific basis for critical control points and critical limits, and
the development of safe and efficacious techniques to enhance or ensure
microbiological safety will continue to be important. The specific food
groups targeted will be chosen to respond to high priority issues, and
it is also anticipated that minimally-processed and ready to eat
foods--which can include fruits, vegetables, meat, and dairy products--
will continue to be viewed as important.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. As part of the needed research effort under the President's
Food Safety Initiative, this program addresses gaps in information
available to support control measures in food safety in food
production, processing, handling, and regulation. Several agencies and
stakeholder meetings have combined to establish priorities for research
for consumer protection and in support of regulatory actions in food
safety. The request for proposals reflects these priorities.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of this grant program is to support problem-
solving food safety research that addresses current and emerging
National issues in food safety. It is intended to respond to high-
priority issues with information and interventions that will have
applications in the near term. For this reason, the program stresses
established or documented linkage with industry partner(s), and clear
and effective plans for technology transfer to end users.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998.
The appropriation for fiscal year 1998 was $2,000,000 and for fiscal
year 1999 is $5,000,000. A total of $7,000,000 has been appropriated
for this program. The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes $15,000,000 for
an integrated program for food safety research and education.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Because this is a new program with the first awards being
made in fiscal year 1998, we are unable to report contributions to this
work from other funding sources.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Research funded through this program is being conducted at
Cornell University, Rutgers University, North Dakota State University,
Purdue University, Ag Innovations LLC, Pennsylvania State University,
University of Delaware, University of Arkansas, University of
Tennessee, Oregon State University, University of Florida, and Auburn
University in 1998. All institutions will be able to compete for
funding in 1999.
Question. What was the anticipated date for the original objectives
of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the anticipated
completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. This program first received funding for fiscal year 1998
and again in fiscal year 1999. Current and evolving concerns about food
safety are expected to prompt continued funding of this program.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The research proposals for this program were evaluated by a
peer panel of 13 scientists from universities, government, and
industry. Of 40 proposals submitted to the peer review panel, 12 were
selected for funding. The criteria used in evaluating the soundness of
the proposed research were: conceptual adequacy of the hypothesis or
approach as related to the program objectives; clarity and delineation
of proposed project objectives as related to National issues and
objectives; adequacy of the description of the proposed work;
suitability and feasibility of the methodology for conducting the work;
probability of success of the project; novelty, uniqueness, and
originality; qualifications of the proposed project personnel,
partnerships, and adequacy of the facilities; established or documented
linkage with industry partner(s); and a clear and effective plan for
educational outreach and technology transfer to end users.
food safety, alabama
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Food Safety, Alabama, grant.
Answer. CSREES has requested the university to submit a grant
proposal that has not yet been received. Auburn Research Center's Food
Safety Program will develop a method of food inspection that involves
the placement of a sensor chip on food items. The goal is for these
chips to automatically inventory and assess the safety at any point
from source to consumption on every food product sold in the U.S.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Most food-borne illness can be attributed to bacteria. The
sensor chips developed at Auburn University will target the bacteria
that causes most of these illnesses. This technology could result in
financial savings nationally, regionally, and locally through the
prevention of food-borne illness and its related costs.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this project will be to reduce the
incidence of food-borne illness through the use of a sensor chip that
will assess the safety of food items as they move through the food
chain. Since a grant proposal from Auburn University has not yet been
received, there are no accomplishments to report to date.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant will begin in fiscal year
1999 and the appropriation for fiscal year 1999 is $300,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Since a grant proposal from Auburn University has not yet
been received, the source and amount of non-federal funds for this
research is not yet known.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted at Auburn University, in Auburn
Research Center's Food Safety Program.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
will be one year following the date of the award. The anticipated award
date will be in April or May of fiscal year 1999. Since a grant
proposal from Auburn University has not yet been received, related
additional objectives are not yet known.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Since a grant proposal from Auburn University has not yet
been received, this research has not yet been evaluated by the agency.
food systems research group, wisconsin
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the Food Systems Research Group program.
Answer. The Group conducts research on contemporary issues
affecting the organization and competitiveness of the U.S. food system
in domestic and international markets. The issues include new
technologies, market structure, and government policies and programs.
Studies have been completed on pricing of cheddar cheese, fed cattle,
and hogs; changes in private label product markets; causes of
structural change in the flour milling, soybean oil milling, wet corn
milling, cottonseed milling, beef packing, and broiler processing
industries; competition in U.S. food markets; and the relationship
between U.S. food market structure and the industry's performance in
global markets. The research proposal was subject to an administrative
review and a peer review by the university prior to submission to
CSREES.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that the U.S. food system
is changing rapidly in response to a large number of global economic,
social, and technological changes. Research is needed to determine the
effects of these changes on the system's organization and performance,
and to ascertain needed adjustments in public policies based upon sound
research. There is a national need to assess and evaluate the
organization and performance of the Nation's food industry to ensure
that it continues to satisfy performance expectations of farmers and
consumers and adheres to acceptable standards of conduct. In spite of
the growing concentration in food production-processing and increasing
public policy questions concerning the performance of this industry,
few organizations like the Food Systems Research Group are providing
research needed for public and private decision making.
Question. What was the original goal of this research, and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal was to assess and evaluate the
organization and performance of the U.S. food industry and provide
recommendations for improvements. Recent work in the broiler industry
shows that increased productivity and reduced real feed costs have
significantly increased the competitiveness of the sector and
stimulated market growth. Other empirical studies show that strong
antitrust policies result in improved international competitiveness of
U.S. firms, and that competition is essential for achieving greater
efficiency and technological progress. A few years ago the Group
completed a study of the National Cheese Exchange which resulted in a
major public report, Congressional hearings, and a Wisconsin task
force. Alternative pricing mechanisms were developed to avoid the
problems of a very thin market which is used to price a large volume of
off-market sales. The Group has completed numerous studies on economic
structure and performance issues of the U.S. food manufacturing and
distribution system. Basic research is conducted on market theories;
effects of mergers, new technologies, and firm conduct on industry
structure and organization; factors affecting industry prices, profits,
efficiency, and progressiveness; and impact of public policies and
regulations on food system organization and performance.
Question. How long has this work been underway, and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal years 1976-1981, $150,000 per year; fiscal years 1982-
1985, $156,000 per year; fiscal years 1986-1989, $148,000 per year;
fiscal year 1990, $219,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $261,000 per year;
fiscal year 1994, $245,000; fiscal years 1995-1998, $221,000 per year;
and fiscal year 1999, $225,000. A total of $4,472,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: State appropriations of $120,304 in 1991; $119,448 in
1992; $85,188 in 1993; $96,838 in 1994; $59,435 in 1995; $50,636 in
1996; $56,421 in 1997; and $64,004 in 1998.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The grant supports research at the University of Wisconsin,
Madison.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original proposal in 1976 was for a period of 36
months. The current phase of the program will be completed in 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in February
1998, as it evaluated the 1998 project proposal, and concluded that the
Food Systems Research Group at the University of Wisconsin does
excellent research on structure, conduct, and performance of selected
segments of the food industry, and has won many professional awards.
Much of the work provides empirical tests of competing theories. In
spite of the growing concentration in food production-processing and
increasing public policy questions concerning the performance of this
industry, few organizations like the Food Systems Research Group are
providing research needed for public and private decision making.
Research results appear in several peer reviewed professional journals
and the popular press, and researchers have ongoing dialog with private
and public decision makers.
forestry research, arkansas
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the Forestry Research grant.
Answer. The Arkansas Forest Resources Center offers programs of
research, education, and outreach to the landowners of Arkansas and the
surrounding region. This has been accomplished through continuing
education events for landowners, the development of a series of
distance-learning tutorials, and the funding of 20 assistantships for
the first two classes of graduate students in the new forest resources
master's program. A partial list of workshops includes: Uneven-aged
Silviculture of Loblolly and Shortleaf Pine Forest Types, Environmental
Law & Policy, Timber Income Tax Update, Thinning Methods and
Operations, Introduction to ArcView 3.0, Estate Planning, Forest
Finance Applications: Basic Tools for Daily Practice, and Opportunities
in Forest Regeneration. The educational thrust has combined Center and
private dollars to establish one of only three of the country's ArcView
Learning Centers for natural resources. To better provide the highly
educated professionals needed in the natural resources professions,
educational tutorials are being developed in dendrology--tree ID, plant
morphology, silvics--that aid in the (1) transfer of students in
community colleges to institutions with forest resources offerings, and
(2) forest resources education of non-majors at institutions without
forest resources faculty. Furthermore, the University of Arkansas
activated a new Master of Science program in the Fall 1998.
Research projects address issues of species diversity, richness,
redundance, and the resilience of disturbed and undisturbed hardwood
stands of the Mississippi River floodplain. Furthermore, research has
indicated that neotropical migratory birds are indicators of ecosystem
health. Factors influencing their breeding range include habitat
destruction/alteration and forest fragmentation. Thus, issues of re-
establishment and structure of hardwood stands are important for
timber, non-timber values, and the quality of life enjoyed regionally,
nationally, and internationally. Also, other projects are contributing
to the development of (1) a biological control agent for the southern
pine beetle, (2) alternative forest crops for the economically-
depressed Delta region, and (3) technologies for enhanced fiber and
wood production from nonindustrial and industrial lands. Newer projects
include an important regional social science study of the ethical
values held by people of the southern United States. These issues will
grow in importance as southern forests assume greater proportions of
the national demand for fiber and wood.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researchers, what is the national, regional, and local need for this
research?
Answer. With the reduced levels of production of wood products from
the Northwest, southern forests are increasingly having to produce a
major portion of wood products for the United States. This increased
demand and production make it critical that the forestry community
understand the possible environment effects of forestry practice.
Social implications of the conflicts between forest production and
environmental quality will become more and more important.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The thrust of goal one is developing alternative forest
management strategies of achieving multi-resource objectives; i.e.,
production of timber, wildlife, recreation and other values of the
forest on private industrial and non-industrial forest lands and pubic
lands. Significant progress has been made in several areas. Some
examples include: developing intensive fiber farming systems as
alternatives to soybeans for Mississippi Delta farmers, taking the
first step toward biological control of the southern pine beetle by
discovering the nutrient needs of predators of the beetle so predators
can be grown and studied in artificial cultures. The first survey of
nonindustrial landowners in Arkansas for 15 years has been conducted.
The survey shows that because of the average age of landowners--60+
years--there will be a massive change in ownership in the next 10-20
years. Landowners continue to not be aware of assistance programs. The
survey also indicated a concern about government programs and possible
intervention on private land. This information will be useful in
understanding future timber supply trends from private holdings and in
the design of assistance and educational programs.
Ongoing projects include a broad array of topics, competitively
awarded within the Center. These include best management practices,
ecological characteristics, effects of different forest management
regimes, stream-sided buffer zone effectiveness, effects of winter
logging, and secondary processing efficiency.
Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows:
Fiscal year Funds Appropriated
1994.......................................................... $470,000
1995.......................................................... 523,000
1996.......................................................... 523,000
1997.......................................................... 523,000
1998.......................................................... 523,000
1999.......................................................... 523,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 3,085,000
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funding and its source provided to this
grant in 1994 was $411,726 State appropriations and $380,000 industry
for a total of $791,726; $491,301 State appropriations and $785,262
industry for a total of $1,276,563 for 1995; a total of $695,204 from
State and industry sources for 1996; a total of $1,115,341 from these
sources in 1997; and an estimated total of $1,000,000 for 1998. For
1999, the State legislature appropriated approximately $850,000 above
the 1998 level.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The Arkansas Forest Resources Center is administered from
the School of Forest Resources on the campus of the University of
Arkansas at Monticello. Individual studies are being conducted at the
University of Arkansas at Fayetteville and several locations across the
State.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Grants were received in 1994-1999 with funds distributed
for use over the 3 to 5 years following the activation year. Projects
are on schedule; work from 1994 funding is nearing completion. Forestry
research is long term. Center objectives and selected projects will be
continued beyond the life of individual grants, using the
infrastructure and capacity developed with these Special Research
Grants.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of the project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. In 1991, an agency team visited Monticello and reviewed
faculty qualifications, supporting sources, and the feasibility of the
proposal. The team exit report indicated the faculty was highly
capable, the infrastructure needed strengthening, and the proposal
concepts were feasible. Since 1991, there has not been a formal program
review; however, a review is planned for the year 2000, pending fund
availability.
fruit and vegetable market analysis, arizona and missouri
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the fruit and vegetable market analysis program.
Answer. The purpose is to provide timely knowledge and analysis of
the impacts of trade, environmental, monetary, and other public
policies and programs upon the Nation's fruit and vegetable industry to
farmers, agribusinessmen, and policymakers through a program of
empirical assessment and evaluation.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researchers, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The U.S. fruit and vegetable sector is experiencing
increased growth from greater domestic and export demand. However, the
growth of this sector depends upon its ability to compete domestically
and internationally and to conform with the regulatory environment in
which it operates. This program of research provides increasingly
critical information to farmers and policymakers on the implications
and impacts of various policies and programs such as environmental,
trade, labor, and food safety. It is the only such program providing
analysis of the total U.S. sector.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal is to develop the analytical capability to assess
and evaluate public policies and programs impacting the U.S. fruit and
vegetable industry and disseminate the results to policy makers,
industry organizations, producers, and other users. Proposals have been
submitted that outline long-range plans and specific projects for
funding. Models have been developed for 18 major, as measured in
production, consumption, and trade, U.S. fruits and vegetables
representing 80 percent of the farm value of the U.S. fruit and
vegetable industry. Trade models for those commodities with a
significant import and/or export sector will also be developed. These
models feed into a larger food and agricultural sector model to support
analyses of cross commodity and policy effects.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1994.
The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $329,000; for fiscal years
1995-1998, $296,000 each year; and for fiscal year 1999, $320,000. A
total of $1,833,000, has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funding and its source provided to this
grant in 1994 was $50,073 State appropriations and $11,000 industry for
a total of $61,073; $21,876 State appropriations and $36,624 industry
for a total of $58,500 for 1995; a total of $62,400 from State and
industry sources expected for 1996; and $50,000 each year from these
sources in 1997 and 1998.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The work is being carried out at Arizona State University
and the University of Missouri.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The university researchers anticipate that work is an
ongoing project to look at the impact of various public policy
proposals on the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. We have conducted no formal evaluation. However annual
proposals are peer reviewed for scientific merit and relevance; also
each annual budget proposal is carefully reviewed and work progress is
compared with prior year's objectives. Informal discussions with
congressional staff indicate that analyses are extremely useful.
generic commodity promotion, new york
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the generic commodity promotion program.
Answer. The grant supports, in part, the National Institute on
Commodity Promotion Research and Evaluation which provides objective
analyses of national and state commodity checkoff programs designed to
enhance domestic and export demand. The overall project proposal was
merit reviewed at the university level. A competitive peer review
process is used to select specific research projects.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher states that producers are
contributing about $1,000,000 annually to commodity research and
promotion funds designed to expand the domestic and export markets for
their products. The number of commodity groups participating and the
size of the funds available could continue to grow. The 1996 Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act--FAIR--requires all Federally-
constituted research and promotion boards to evaluate their programs at
least every five years. Accurate evaluations require the development of
sophisticated techniques that differentiate the impact of research and
promotion expenditures from several other market influencing factors.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal is to determine the economic effectiveness of
generic promotion programs designed to increase the sales of
agricultural commodities in domestic and international markets. Recent
accomplishments of this project include: access to a commodity
advertising database for researchers; methodologies for using retail
scanner data, estimating advertising wearout, and testing sensitivity
of results based on various estimating procedures; relative
effectiveness of advertising versus other kinds of promotion
activities; and understanding of factors affecting producer attitudes
toward checkoff programs. In addition, the Institute has sponsored
educational workshops and conferences for directors and Chief Executive
Officers of commodity research and promotion boards to help them comply
with the FAIR Act requirements for evaluating promotion and research
activities.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by the grant began in fiscal year 1994.
The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $235,000 and for fiscal
years 1995-1999, $212,000 each year. A total of $1,295,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal matching funds and sources allocated to
this grant by Cornell University are as follows: $97,333 a year in
State appropriations for 1994-96; $125,650 for 1997; and $130,430 for
1998. Collaborating institutions performing work under subcontract also
contribute non-federal matching funds.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work is being carried out at Cornell University in
collaboration with eight other land-grant universities.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original proposal in 1994 was for a period of 21
months, however, the need to evaluate the benefits of commodity
promotion and research programs is a growing regional and national
concern as producers take on greater responsibility for marketing their
products. An increasing number of promotion and research programs are
being evaluated. The current phase of the program will be completed in
2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in February
1998, as it evaluated the 1998 project proposal, and determined that
``the project has sound objectives and procedures that are helping
private and public decision makers effectively expand markets for U.S.
agricultural products leading to a highly competitive agricultural
production system and enhanced economic opportunity for Americans.''
The principal investigator is well recognized for his leadership in
this area of research. Research results appear in several peer reviewed
professional journals and popular press, and researchers have ongoing
dialog with private and public decision makers.
global change
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the global change grant.
Answer. Radiation from the sun occurs in a spectrum of wavelengths
with a majority of wavelengths being beneficial to humans and other
living organisms. A small portion of the short wavelength radiation,
what is known as the Ultraviolet or UV-B Region of the spectrum, is
harmful to many biological organisms. Fortunately, most of the UV-B
radiation from the sun is absorbed by ozone located in the stratosphere
and does not reach the surface of the earth. The discovery of a
deterioration of the stratospheric ozone layer and the ozone hole over
polar regions has raised concern about the real potential for increased
UV-B irradiance reaching the surface of the earth and the significant
negative impact this could have on all biological systems including
man, animals, and plants of agricultural importance. There is an urgent
need to determine the amount of UV-B radiation reaching the earth's
surface and to learn more about the effect of this changing
environmental force. The Cooperative State Research, Education and
Extension Service, CSREES, is in the process of establishing a network
for monitoring surface UV-B radiation which will meet the needs of the
science community of the United States, and which will be compatible
with similar networks being developed throughout the world. The fiscal
year 1998 grant supports work through September, 1999.
This grant is part of a government-wide initiative. The research is
closely coordinated with other Federal agencies involved in the U. S.
Global Change Research Program Inter-agency UV-Monitoring Network Plan.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes destruction of the
stratospheric ozone layer, our shield from the full intensity of solar
radiation, continues to increase. This creates a high priority need for
information to document not only the levels of UV-B radiation reaching
the earth's surface, but the climatology of that radiation. The United
States, and the rest of the world, needs to know the strength of the
UV-B radiation reaching the earth and the potential impact on all forms
of life, especially animal and plant life of agriculturally-important
species. The principal researcher believes this research to be of
national as well as regional and local importance.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The USDA UV-B Network is to provide accurate,
geographically-dispersed data on UV-B radiation reaching the surface of
the earth and to detect trends over time in this type of radiation. A
primary problem which had to be overcome in order to reach this goal is
the development of instrumentation adequate to make the measurements
required for the monitoring network. A major advance occurred during
1996 with the availability to the network of a new multi-band
instrument which will provide the spectral information needed to
support both biological and atmospheric science research and to serve
as ground-truth for satellite measurements. These instruments have been
deployed and are currently in operation at twenty-six monitoring sites
across the United States, including Hawaii. The researchers plan to
have additional sites in Alaska, Puerto Rico, Oregon, North Carolina,
and Oklahoma operational by the summer of 1999.
Two grants to design and build advanced spectroradiometers have
been awarded under the National Research Initiative Competitive Grants
Program. These instruments are to be used in a research network to make
precise measurements of the total UV-B spectra at selected sites. The
first of these instruments failed to meet spectral performance
standards when tested and calibrated by the National Institute of
Science and Technology. An alternative design which resulted in a much
larger and more difficult instrument to deploy has been developed. The
first of two advanced instruments was deployed at Table Mountain near
Boulder, Colorado during the fall of 1998. The second will be installed
at Beltsville, Maryland during the spring of 1999.
To gain experience in network operation, broadband instruments
along with ancillary instruments were installed at ten sites and have
been in operation for the last 52-60 months. These sites are now
equipped with a full compliment of instruments including the new multi-
band instrument. Additional sites developed during the last 12 months
are similarly equipped with broadband and the new multi-band UV
instrument. Data from each site is transmitted daily to Colorado State
University for preliminary analysis, distribution, and archiving. These
data are available, within 24 hours of collection, on the Internet via
a World Wide Web Site located in the Natural Resources Research
Laboratory at Colorado State University. The Department of Agriculture
is also a participant in the development of a central calibration
facility at Department of Commerce facilities in Boulder, Colorado. The
purpose of the central calibration facility is to ensure uniform and
acceptable calibration and characterization of all instruments used in
interagency UV-B monitoring programs.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1992,
and the appropriation for fiscal years 1992-1993 was $2,000,000 per
year; fiscal year 1994 was $1,175,000; fiscal year 1995 was $1,625,000;
fiscal year 1996 was $1,615,000; fiscal year 1997 was $1,567,000; and
fiscal years 1998 and 1999 was $1,000,000 per year. A total of
$11,982,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: $162,000 state appropriations in 1993; $183,106 state
appropriations in 1994; and $285,430 provided by Colorado State
University in 1995.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Colorado State University is managing the operating
network, which when completed will include all regions of the country.
At least 30 sites are planned for the climatological network including
sites in Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico in order to provide broad
geographic coverage. Ten sites have been operational with broad band
instruments for up to five years and 26 sites are now operational with
new generation instruments. The research level network began with the
first instrument installed at the Table Mountain, Colorado instrument
intercomparison site and the second to be installed at the Department
of Agriculture Plant Stress Laboratory at Beltsville, Maryland.
Negotiations are underway with the Department of Energy Solar Radiation
site near Ponca City, Oklahoma as part of the Atmospheric Radiation
Measurements field network as a potential site for the third instrument
to be deployed later in 1999.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. As with other weather and climate observations, this
network will be an ongoing need for the predictable future. These
measurements will provide information on the nature and seriousness of
UV-B radiation in the United States and will provide ground truth
validation to other predictions of UV-B irradiance. The project has now
met it's first objective of the establishment of a climatological
network to monitor UV-B radiation at the surface of the earth. Years of
operation will be required to measure trends in UV-B radiation and to
develop models to predict the climatology of UV-B radiation.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency has assigned two technical staff to continuously
monitor activities in the global change research program. A team of
three experts in UV-B radiation measurement technology reviewed
specifications for the development of the advanced spectroradiometers
in July, 1996 prior to the procurement of major components of the
instrument. A panel of radiation spectra scientists was brought in to
review data derived from the new multi-band instruments in December,
1996 to advise on the interpretation and analysis of data derived from
these instruments. Agency staff is in contact with program management
on a weekly basis and has visited the program headquarters six times
during the last year. A review of the UV-B Monitoring Program by a
panel of technical experts from outside the Department is planned for
1999.
global marketing support services, arkansas
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the global marketing support services program.
Answer. This grant supports the University of Arkansas Global
Marketing Support Services program to provide research and service to
agribusinesses. The objective of the university research is to identify
potential foreign markets for Arkansas products and to conduct and
disseminate foreign market assessment and evaluation studies to
agribusiness firms. The research proposal received a merit review at
the university prior to submission to CSREES.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes the emerging importance
of global trade to the nation's economy and the reduction of trade
barriers world-wide present unprecedented opportunities for cooperative
public-private-university research to develop expertise in world
markets.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal is to develop a university research and service
organization to support international trade development activities by
local area businesses. Research is conducted to determine the demand
for specific Arkansas products in selected countries. In the past year,
four export training workshops were held. Twelve Industry Opportunity
Reports were completed and, as a result of these reports and one-on-one
technical assistance, six firms entered the export market for the first
time. Seven factsheets were completed and distributed and a peer-
reviewed publication on international joint ventures was published. An
Internet website has been established to distribute information, and an
Internet international market is being developed. Case studies of firms
engaged in international market development are being developed as an
educational tool. A new market analysis of Slovakia is underway.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1994.
The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $47,000; for fiscal years
1995 through 1997, $92,000 per year; and for fiscal years 1998 and
1999, $127,000 per year. A total of $577,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were $90,000 per year in State appropriations for 1994 through 1996;
$51,700 for 1997; and $80,000 for 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This research is being conducted at the University of
Arkansas, Fayetteville.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original proposal in 1994 was for a period of 12
months, but the objective of expanding the export capacity of small to
medium-sized agribusiness firms will not be met until 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in February
1998, as it evaluated the 1998 proposal and determined that the
``Global Marketing Support project provides leadership for a
comprehensive program to integrate Arkansas into the global economy. It
provides workshops, educational materials, technical assistance that
help mostly small and moderate-size businesses understand and enter the
export market. It provides market analyses and other research to back-
up its educational programs.''
grain sorghum
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Grain Sorghum grant.
Answer. This project was designed to improve the yield improvement
of grain sorghum cultivars by developing early maturing hybrids with a
longer grain filling period. The research focuses on identification of
sorghum germplasm, which have a longer grain filling period or earlier
maturation date. These traits may be used to shift more of the
production to grain and less to vegetative growth, thus enabling more
efficient use of the limited water supply. These funds are awarded to
scientists working on sorghum at Kansas State University.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The focus of this research is toward the non-irrigated
lands of Kansas where sorghum can produce a grain crop under conditions
that would not be possible with corn and is, therefore, very important
in the rotation with wheat. While the research is directed toward
Kansas conditions, it would also apply to adjoining states. Germplasm
research of national significance could potentially be supported by the
competitive grants awarded under the National Research Initiative or
the Initiative for Future Food and Agricultural Systems.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research is to identify germplasm
and use it to develop grain sorghum cultivars that mature earlier and
produce more grain. Initial studies have identified genetic
characteristics controlling grain yield under a range of climatic
conditions. Researchers have identified several sorghum lines, which
have a grain-filling period as much as one-third longer than U.S.
adapted parent lines. Analyses show that variability exists, the trait
is genetically controlled, and incorporation into adapted germplasm can
be accomplished. Simulation of expected production gains has been
initiated.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1997
and the appropriation for fiscal years 1997 through 1999 was $106,000
per year for a total of $318,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. In 1998, Kansas State provided support via salaries and
associated fringe benefits of $31,852, associated indirect costs of
$14,652, and in-kind costs of $45,580, for a total of $92,084.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. These funds are awarded to Kansas State University, which
allocates the money to Kansas State University scientists working on
sorghum.
Question. When was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The objectives of this project, which began in 1997, are to
develop sorghum parental lines with genetically longer grain fill
duration and identify changes in management necessary to optimize grain
production in these lines. Five years or more are required to
accomplish the objectives. The first objective has been completed. The
researchers expect to complete the next three original objectives by
2004 and subsequent objectives by 2006. Preliminary results have
contributed toward the understanding of factors controlling grain yield
and the development of higher yielding sorghum cultivars for Kansas.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project is subjected to the institutional review and
approval process, as well as review by a CSREES scientist. In addition,
stakeholder input was obtained through formal and informal methods. The
institutional review of the project confirmed that high priority issues
of the sorghum industry in Kansas and other sorghum producing states
were being addressed.
grass seed cropping systems for sustainable agriculture
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Grass Seed Cropping Systems for Sustainable
Agriculture grant.
Answer. This program was developed to provide management systems
for sustainable grass seed production without field burning of the
straw residue following harvest which results in adverse air quality
problems. Grass seed yields are often significantly reduced the
following season if the residue is not burned. The fiscal year 1999
grant proposal has been requested.
Funds from this grant are awarded competitively to scientists at
Oregon State University, the University of Idaho, and Washington State
University engaged in research on grass seed production. Each award is
been passed a merit review by peer scientist.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that according to
information provided by technical committees representing researchers
and the grass seed industry, the need for this research is to develop
sustainable systems of seed production that do not depend on field
burning of straw residue. Much of the grass seed for the United States,
including lawn grasses, is produced in the area. Field burning of straw
residue creates unacceptable levels of air pollution and yields of some
cultivar decline without burning.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal for this project is to develop grass seed
production systems that do not depend on field burning of straw
residue. To date, joint planning by state experiment station
administrators and researchers from the three states with industry
input have developed an integrated regional research effort to solve
the problem.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1994.
The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $470,000, and for fiscal
years 1995-1999, $423,000 each year. A total of $2,585,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal support for this project in fiscal year
1994 was $266,055, $298,052 for fiscal year 1995, $282,053 in 1996,
$301,650 in 1997, and 310,700 in 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research will be conducted by the three state
agricultural experiment stations in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Completion of the initial objectives was anticipated to
take five years and, therefore, should be completed in 1999. Revised
goals leading to application of new management systems will require
additional time.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The entire project is reviewed annually by a steering
committee for focus and relevance. The combined proposal is reviewed by
CSREES before funds are awarded.
Considerable progress has been made toward identifying the
consequences of phased out field burning of straw residue on grass seed
production. Current and future effort are directed toward development
of sustainable systems without field burning. This program is subject
to annual comprehensive evaluation by a team of peer scientist,
industry representatives, and farmers. The results are used to guide
research for the next year. Each proposal is subjected to the
institution project approval process and reviewed by the CSREES
National Program Leader.
human nutrition, iowa
Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Human Nutrition, Iowa grant.
Answer. This research aims to develop animal and plant foods with
nutritionally-optimal fat content and to improve utilization of foods
containing non-nutrient health protectants, components that may reduce
health risks. The research includes human and animal nutrient
utilization, consumer food choices, and economic impacts of designed
food to support optimal nutrition. The fiscal year 1998 grant supports
research efforts of 35 investigators from six disciplines through June
1999. CSREES requested that the university submit a grant proposal for
fiscal year 1999 which is now under CSREES merit review.
Question. Cipal researcher, what is the national, regional or local
need for this research?
Answer. The research addresses food quality, nutrition, and optimal
health. Much of the research focuses on improving the nutritional
quality of foods important to the economy of the Midwest, while making
those improvements economically feasible. Ongoing research focuses on
increasing health protective lipids and plant chemicals in human foods.
Such foods have recently been called functional foods and the
development of functional foods is of high priority to the food
industry.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of the Center for Designing Foods to Improve
Nutrition, the administrative unit for this grant, is to improve human
nutrition and health maintenance by determining how to improve animal
and plant food fat content and how to increase availability of health-
protectant factors in the human food supply. The research includes food
production, processing, consumer choices, biological utilization, and
economic impacts.
The researchers have developed milk, eggs, and pork enriched in the
fatty acid called conjugated linoleic acid. This compound has unique
cancer preventive properties derived from animal fats. Studies suggest
that pork enriched with conjugated linoleic acid may be highly
acceptable to consumers. Several studies have demonstrated the
modifying key enzymes that are important for lipid synthesis in plants
impact oil accumulation in the seeds. The Center's research group on
soybean health effects assessed the ability of soybean isoflavones
during menopause to maintain bone density and reduce menopausal
symptoms. They found that soybean isolate with isoflavones reduced bone
loss in postmenopausal women. Several studies have demonstrated that
research with cultured cells showed that oxidants can cause damage to a
gene that is important in the development of many cancers and that
antioxidants, including glutathione, may be able to prevent this
damage. Additional research was aimed at identification and
characterization of novel iron compounds from milk that will improve
iron absorption and utilization. Researchers observed that low
molecular weight proteins found in human milk are responsible for high
iron bioavailability.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991
with an appropriation of $300,000. The fiscal years 1992-1993
appropriation was $500,000 per year; $470,000 in fiscal year 1994;
$473,000 per year in fiscal years 1995 through 1999. A total of
$4,135,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $293,000 university, $312,869 industry, and $14,000
miscellaneous in 1991; $90,000 state appropriations, $473,608
university, $131,160 industry, and $116,560 miscellaneous in 1992;
$307,500 state appropriations, $472,081 university, and $222,267
industry in 1993; $486,000 university and $254,000 private in 1994;
$210,000 university and $200,000 private in 1995; $613,770 university
and $207,811 private in 1996; $690,736 university and $458,000 private
in 1997; and $502,124 university and $700,000 private in 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at the Center for Designing
Foods to Improve Nutrition, Iowa State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original overall objective to design foods to improve
nutrition is continuing to be addressed. A new set of related
objectives will be completed in 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The grant proposals for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 have
undergone extensive scientific peer review by the grantee. Progress and
objectives will be further reviewed by the Center's newly formed
External Advisory Council.
human nutrition, louisiana
Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Human Nutrition, Louisiana grant.
Answer. Obesity is a growing problem in the United States and world
wide. This grant entitled, Dietary Fat and Obesity, will help answer
three issues about this important problem. First, is there a mechanism
for tasting fat which can be used to reduce its preference? Second,
does exercise enhance the ability to use fat? And third, are there
genetic factors which can influence the response to dietary fats? The
fiscal year 1998 grant supports research through July 2000. The
University has submitted a revised comprehensive proposal for fiscal
year 1999.
Question. According to the principal researcher, what is the
national, regional or local need for this research?
Answer. Obesity is an epidemic in the United States and the role of
dietary fat as a cause of this epidemic is hotly debated. This grant is
currently supporting a project which is studying the preventive effects
of a sugar and soybean oil commodity-derived fat substitute on the
development of obesity and associated problems. It is also partly
funded by industry.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The overall goal of this grant is to identify the basis for
the susceptibility to obesity of some people who eat high fat diets and
to understand how they differ from those people who are resistant to
becoming obese when eating a high fat diet. The researchers have
identified that some people can taste selected polyunsaturated fatty
acids but others cannot. The relation of this taste to other tastes,
and its influence on food preferences are the current line of study in
this project. In a second project, they have shown marked differences
between individuals in their response to an increase in dietary fat
intake. When exercise is added, the adaptation to a high fat diet is
much more rapid, suggesting the importance for public policy of
increasing efforts to encourage Americans to become more active. In a
third project they found that the dietary intakes of total fat,
saturated and monounsaturated fats were associated with insulin
resistance. A single circulating fatty acid--20 carbons long with three
cis double bonds--was the strongest independent predicator of fasting
insulin. Surprisingly, and contrary to this hypothesis, trans fatty
acids in the serum were not markers of insulin resistance.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991
and the appropriation for fiscal years 1991-1993 was $800,000 per year;
for fiscal years 1994-1999 was $752,000 per year. A total of $6,912,000
has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $523,100 state appropriations in 1991; $515,100 state
appropriations and $2,216,606 private in 1992; $536,100 state
appropriations and $940,000 private in 1993; $627,000 state
appropriations and $3,775,000 private in 1994; $546,100 state
appropriations and $3,100,000 private in 1995; $1,471,000 state
appropriations and $2,488,000 private in 1996; $1,998,000 state
appropriations and $2,104,000 private in 1997; and $987,000 state
appropriations and $1,892,000 private in 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted at the Pennington Biomedical
Research Center, Louisiana State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
is fiscal 2000. The objectives to be completed over the remaining time
of the grant will be reviewed by an external advisory team.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. In March 1999 an on-site panel of researchers evaluated the
proposed objectives and experimental protocols. On the basis of the
critiques from the reviewers, the proposal for fiscal year 1999 was
revised. Another review will be conducted in March 1999, allowing for
implementation of the research projects to fulfill these objectives.
human nutrition, new york
Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Human Nutrition, New York grant.
Answer. The focus of this work remained unchanged during the last
fiscal year. The general objective was improving the knowledge base
needed to evaluate and, when appropriate, implement the increased
reliance on plant-based foods that is at the core of current Federal
dietary guidelines. Current dietary guidelines use this approach as a
principal strategy to control energy consumption, reduce fat intake,
modify the composition of ingested lipids, enhance the consumption of
foods associated with reduced cancer risk, and simultaneously insure
that macro-and micronutrient needs are met. The grant has brought
together investigators whose expertise ranges from basic nutritional
molecular biology to the behavioral sciences that are key in enabling
consumers to adopt newly discovered knowledge easily and effectively.
The fiscal year 1998 grant supports research through September 1999.
CSREES has requested that the university submit a comprehensive
grant proposal for the next grant period. The university plans to
change the focus to basic, human, and social science food and nutrition
issues that complement the university's initiative in genomics.
Opportunities exist on those aspects of mammalian and plant genomics
that relate most directly to dietary guidelines and to the
international acceptance of genetically-engineered foods.
Question. According to the principal researcher, what is the
national, regional or local need for this research?
Answer. Inappropriate diets and physical activity patterns are the
second leading etiology of preventable morbidity and mortality in this
country. As greater emphasis is given to strategies that permit
individuals to take increasing responsibility for their health and
identify genetic and environmental risk factors, the knowledge gained
by research sponsored by this grant becomes increasingly valuable. This
knowledge is used by consumers in making informed food choices, by food
producers and processors in anticipating consumer demands, and by
public health professionals in designing health promotion and disease
prevention strategies.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The newly revised dietary guidelines reemphasize expected
health benefits from the increased consumption of fruits, vegetables,
and grain products. As pointed out in the response to the first
question, investigations are carried out at the molecular, behavioral
and community levels.
Changes in fat levels and composition of the American diet are
expected to alter lipid metabolism. Lipoprotein lipase is a pivotal
enzyme that regulates lipid metabolism. A novel technique to tag an
immunologically portion of the enzyme was developed. The researchers
expect that this will enable the identification of key domains of this
enzyme and thus lead to a better understanding of the handling of
dietary fat. Other work focusing on fat led to the development of the
first system for high precision analysis of stable isotope ratios from
organic compounds separated by gas chromatography. This methodology has
led to improved detection of lipid metabolites in human blood.
Scientific and public health understanding of the role of preformed
vitamin A and its precursors in health has grown markedly in the last
few years. Researchers discovered a novel regulatory mechanism of one
of the nuclear receptors that is responsive to vitamin A or its
metabolites. Related work has led to the development of methodology to
assess the vitamin A content of plant foods and better methods for
assessing the absorption and conversion of vitamin A precursors to
active metabolites.
Selenium's role in the prevention of selected cancers is receiving
national attention. Forty accessions from the brassica collection in
Plant Genetic Resources Laboratory were raised under field and
greenhouse conditions. A ten-fold range in selenium content was
discovered which was related to the sulfur content, but not the total
protein content of the material. It is expected that this work will
enhance future plant breeding techniques that have enhanced nutritional
outcome as a major goal.
The university's community work included an assessment of the
opportunities and constraints for increasing plant food consumption in
five counties with findings indicating the need for closer links
between producers and consumers. This led to a descriptive analysis
which documented the major features of a county area that contains a
metropolitan concentration surrounded with highly productive and varied
agriculture production. In a separate effort, a community decision-
making approach for improving food and nutrition was developed and
subsequently implemented in six counties. A university community
partnership model for integrating nutrition research and intervention
was also developed and tested by community stakeholders.
In addition, researchers completed studies on the consumption of
low-fat foods by children. Detailed food records of children attending
day-care centers were collected. They observed that the majority of the
children's calories were consumed in the centers, the majority of
calories were consumed from snacks, and that carbohydrates were the
major determinant of total caloric intake. In another study dietary
risk factors among Hispanic/Latino families were assessed in a sample
of 575 households. Major findings suggested that consumption of
calories from saturated fat and the degree of obesity were
significantly higher among migrant Hispanic women compared to non-
migrants.
Question. How long has this work been underway, and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1989, $450,000; fiscal years 1990-1991, $556,000
per year; fiscal years 1992-1993, $735,000 per year; fiscal year 1994,
$691,000; fiscal years 1995-1999, $622,000 each year. A total of
$6,833,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $154,056 state appropriations and $2,456 private in
1991; $238,430 state appropriations and $60,746 private in 1992;
$19,401 state appropriations and $22,083 private in 1993; $202,441
state appropriations and $1,175 private in 1994; $296,794 state
appropriations in 1995; $348,127 in state appropriations and $39,593
private in 1996; $133,162 state appropriations in 1997; and $8,185
university appropriations, $166,752 state appropriations, and $7,905
private in 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at Cornell University, New
York.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original overall objective to integrate nutrition goals
and food systems is continuing to be addressed. A set of new related
objectives was submitted in 1997 and will be the research focus through
1999. The university plans to change the focus to basic, human and
social science food and nutrition issues that complement the
university's initiative in genomics.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The grant proposal for fiscal year 1997 was subjected to
extensive peer review, and the recommendations were incorporated into
the ensuing experimental designs.
hydroponic tomato production, oh
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Hydroponic Tomato Production, OH grant.
Answer. CSREES has requested the university to submit a grant
proposal that has been not yet been received. Cultural practices,
greenhouse design, and economics will be evaluated for the areas.
Tomato production will be evaluated as an alternative enterprise.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The research is needed to develop and evaluate management
protocols for economical production of greenhouse tomatoes as an
alternative crop for that area.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goals of the research is to provide
recommendations for management systems for successful operation of
greenhouse tomatoes as an alterative crop.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1998 was $140,000, and for fiscal
year 1999 is $200,000. A total of $340,000, has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal provided by
fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds provided for support of the project
are from State funds totaling $19,400 for fiscal year 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research will be conducted by the Ohio State
Agricultural Experiment Station at selected locations in Ohio.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The principal investigator for this project anticipates
completion of the original objectives in fiscal year 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project was subjected to a peer review in the
institution and again reviewed by the CSREES National Program Leader
when initiated in 1998.
illinois-missouri alliance for biotechnology
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Illinois-Missouri Alliance grant.
Answer. The Illinois-Missouri Alliance has initiated a competitive
grants program in agricultural biotechnology for research in targeted
priority areas of need related to corn and soybeans. The scope of
interest includes production, processing, marketing, utilization,
inputs, and support services, along with economic, social,
environmental, and natural resource concerns. The Alliance has
solicited research project proposals from scientists at Illinois and
Missouri and other midwestern institutions, and has conducted peer
reviews for science quality, commercial feasibility and potential
economic impact to select the proposals that will be funded. In 1998
the Alliance awarded four research grants at four institutions totaling
$1,013,000.
In 1998 the Alliance also started an on-line magazine called
AgBioForum devoted to the economics and management of agricultural
biotechnology. The purpose of AgBioForum is to provide unbiased timely
information and new ideas leading to socially-responsible and
economically-efficient decisions in science, public policy, and private
strategies pertaining to agricultural biotechnology. In its first four
months, AgBioForum experienced over 23,000 hits from individuals in
universities, industry, government, and international organizations.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal investigator has indicated that the goal of
the Alliance is the pre-commercial development of emerging
biotechnology discoveries for agriculture. The midwestern region
produces more than half of the nation's output of corn and soybean
crops, and is critical to domestic food security and United States
competitiveness in global agricultural markets. Alliance grants are
awarded on a regional basis to advance corn and soybean production in
the Midwest. The Alliance is implementing a research strategy that it
hopes will generate important biotechnological developments that are
rapidly adaptable to unique local soil, climatic, and socioeconomic
conditions of the region. Alliance grants are awarded to projects with
a clearly defined marketable product or service derived from
biotechnology research. Biotechnology research of national significance
could potentially be supported by competitive grants awarded under the
National Research Initiative or the Initiative for Future Food and
Agricultural Systems.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. fiscal year 1998 was the fourth year of funding for the
Alliance. The research program focuses on the two major commodity
crops, corn and soybeans, as produced, processed, and marketed in the
midwest. The goal of this biotechnology program is to fund integrated
research and development projects that will lead to specifically-
defined practical technologies for commercialization. The projects
funded in fiscal year 1998 include efforts to: (1) engineer maize to
produce genistein, a possible anti-cancer agent, (2) detect and select
superior resistance to soybean sudden death syndrome, (3) isolation of
specialized seed-forming genes in grassy relatives of maize, and (4)
development of high oil maize hybrids.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1995.
The appropriations for fiscal years 1995 and 1996 were $1,357,000 each
year, for fiscal year 1997, $1,316,000, and for fiscal years 1998 and
1999, $1,184,000 per year, bringing the total appropriations to date to
$6,398,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The Alliance has not specified a required amount of
matching funds, but it is expected that most projects will have
commitments for significant direct and in-kind non-federal support.
Since Alliance projects are still underway, the exact amount of the
non-federal contribution is still unknown. The non-federal contribution
is expected to be substantial, and a system for accounting for future
non-federal contributions is in place.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research projects identified for funding in fiscal
years 1995 through 1998 are being conducted at the University of
Illinois, the University of Missouri, Iowa State University,
Northwestern University, Southern Illinois University, and the
Agricultural Research Service.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Each project proposal for Alliance funding has a target
date for completion. The four initial projects were three-year studies
with anticipated completions at the end of fiscal year 1998. Most of
the second and third rounds of projects are also three-year studies
with anticipated completions at the end of fiscal years 1999 and 2000,
respectively.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The Illinois-Missouri Biotechnology Alliance was evaluated
for scientific merit by an agency peer review panel on January 29,
1998. The panel recommended approval of the project pending receipt of
supplemental information on administrative aspects of the project. The
supplemental information was received, and we are satisfied that the
program is being administered in compliance with the purpose of the
grant. A peer review panel of scientists was scheduled to re-evaluate
the project for scientific merit on February 9, 1999.
improved dairy management practices, pennsylvania
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Improved Dairy Management Practices grant.
Answer. The research focuses on developing methods to help dairy
farmers in the adoption of new technology and management practices
which lead to improved dairy farm profitability. Individual research
projects funded by the grant are determined by a competitive peer
review process administered by the Institution using peers from other
Institutions located primarily in other States.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes the local need is the
identification and implementation of profit enhancing management
strategies for Pennsylvania dairy farms in response to changing market
conditions and emerging technologies. The current focus is to develop
economically-viable solutions to issues confronting Pennsylvania dairy
farmers such as dealing with animal waste in an environmentally-
friendly manner, reducing the cost of forage production systems,
including grazing systems, and to develop a better understanding of
decision processes by dairy farmers.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research remains the same, which
is the development of methods to help dairy farmers in the adoption of
new technology and management practices which lead to improved dairy
farm profitability. A farm management survey is complete and analysis
of results is in progress. Farm financial models have been developed
and are undergoing field tests on selected farms. Workshops to teach
elements of business management to dairy farmers have been conducted,
and survey instruments are in place to monitor effectiveness of
workshops. Research is currently underway to develop improved models
for nutrient management on northeastern dairy farms, to evaluate the
potential role of intensive grazing systems to replace harvested
forage, and to better understand how decisions are made by dairy farm
families. Refinements of an expert computer based system to assist
dairy farmers in controlling the udder disease, mastitis, is underway.
A study to evaluate the induction of lactation on dairy profitability
is underway. An additional study to evaluate the impact of improved
protein nutrition during late gestation on dairy cow performance has
been initiated.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1992
and the appropriation for fiscal years 1992 and 1993 was $335,000 per
year. The fiscal year 1994 appropriation was $329,000 and $296,000 each
year in fiscal years 1995-1999. A total of $2,479,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. During fiscal year 1992, $354,917 were from State funds,
and $16,000 from Industry, for a total of $370,417. During fiscal year
1993, $360,374 were from State funds and $16,000 from Industry for a
total of $376,374. Information is not available for fiscal years 1994-
1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at Pennsylvania State
University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The principal researcher anticipated completion of the
original objectives by March, 1994. The original objectives were met.
Availability of continued funding has permitted the institution to
develop a competitively awarded grant program within the institution to
address priority issues related to management of dairy farms. Proposals
are reviewed and ranked by peers in other institutions prior to award.
It is anticipated that awards from the fiscal year 1999 appropriation
will be complete in September, 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency accepts technical review of specific proposals
funded by this grant on an annual basis. The overall proposal is review
by the agency on an annual basis. In addition, technical staff has
conducted on-site review of the program in 1993 and in 1995. The
overall objectives of the work funded by this grant has direct
relationship to the development of Integrated Management System as well
as to aspects of animal production systems on animal well-being and
impact on the environment.
improved fruit practices, michigan
Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
done under the improved fruit practices grant.
Answer. The request for proposal for fiscal year 1999 has been
issued. Funds from this grant will be awarded competitively to
scientists at Michigan State University working with these crops. This
research will involve a multidisciplinary approach to reduce chemical
use on apple, blueberry, and sour cherry, three important Michigan
fruit crops, and improve the management of dry edible beans and sugar
beets. Research will be conducted on crop management techniques and
reduced chemical use.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes Michigan's need for this
research is to develop and maintain/expand their tree fruit and small
fruits industry. There is a need to improve the culture and management
of dry edible beans and sugar beets.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The planned objectives of the research are to reduce the
chemical contamination of the environment from fruit production and
improve production practices for beans and beets through
multidisciplinary research, including pesticides, and the development
of new nonchemical production methods.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1994.
The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $494,000, and for fiscal
years 1995-1999, $445,000 each year. A total of $2,719,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
in fiscal year 1994 were $437,338 from state appropriations and
$135,000 from industry, for fiscal year 1995 were $574,494 from state
appropriations and $127,000 from industry, and a total of $908,969 for
1996. The non-federal funds for 1997 totaled $752,500. The non-federal
funds for 1998 total $729,145.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted at Michigan State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The Principal Investigators have reported significant
progress toward improved cultural practices for these speciality crops
which is expected to reduce the need for chemical pesticides, and
expect to complete the original objective by the end of fiscal year
1999. Long-term goals are expected to take an additional five years.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This project has not been subjected to a comprehensive
review. The annual proposals including all of its sub projects are
subjected to peer review before submission to CSREES before they are
approved. The project has progress toward the objective of developing
management practices and strategies for economical production of
specialty crops in Michigan with reduced chemical pesticide use. This
program is evaluated at the end of each research cycle and priorities
adjusted for the next years funding. The evaluation is performed by
scientists at Michigan State University.
infectious disease research, colorado
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been conducted under the Infectious Disease Research, Colorado grant.
Answer. This center will be focused on the development of a
multidisciplinary structure to address such diseases and disseminate
critical information on trade issues. The Center will utilize a network
of related research and services programs at collaborating universities
and state and Federal agencies. All activities will be reviewed and
evaluated by an interdisciplinary group which will include scientists
and livestock commodity representatives. Finally, a core laboratory
facility will be established to provide diagnostic support of the
program.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for the
research?
Answer. The need for this research is to provide valid risk
assessment models for diseases which affect international trade and
animal and public health. Livestock producers and the industry need
this type of information to enable them to make correct disease
management decisions.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal is to establish a regional center that will foster
interactive work on risk assessment, disease control, and minimize the
economic impact of disease outbreaks in livestock.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant will begin in fiscal year
1999 and the appropriation for fiscal year 1999 is $250,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds by
fiscal year?
Answer. Currently there is no information on non-federal
contributions to the project.
Question. Where is this work being performed?
Answer. The research will be conducted at the College of Veterinary
Medicine, Colorado State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date is 2003.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of it.
Answer. Because the project is just being initiated, no evaluation
has been done.
institute for food science and engineering, arkansas
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Institute for Food Science and Engineering grant.
Answer. As the flagship center for the Institute of Food Science
and Engineering, the Center for Food Processing and Engineering has as
its objectives to facilitate and encourage value-added research and
improve the processing of agricultural products. The Center requires
researchers to obtain matching funds from industry to support their
research. Research projects have been funded by 39 different companies
from 17 states and 4 countries. The next request for proposals to the
Institute will be issued in February 1999. The Center for Food Safety
and Quality, with a mission to conduct research on the safety and
quality of foods relative to microbiological and chemical hazards, was
activated on January 1, 1997. Center researchers are presently
receiving funding through the Food Safety Consortium. The Institute has
also received funding from the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization to establish a Center of Excellence for Food Quality and
Safety. fiscal year 1998 funds are supporting research from March 1,
1998, through February 28, 1999. CSREES has requested, but not yet
received, a proposal in support of the fiscal year 1999 appropriation.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal, or
the principal researcher, what is the national, regional or local need
for this research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes the Institute will
provide technical support and expertise to small and mid-sized food
processors that usually do not possess adequate expertise in-house. The
economy of the southern region will be improved through the creation of
new jobs and a high multiplier effect from the research. The Institute
will develop and disseminate scientific information and provide
educational programs related to value-added further processing,
storage, and marketing of food products. These efforts will assure food
safety, improve the sensory and nutritional quality of food, and meet
the nutritional requirements and food preferences of a changing
society. Value added research of national significance could
potentially be supported by competitive grants awarded under the
Initiative for Future Food and Agricultural Systems.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research is to establish an
Institute of Food Science and Engineering at the University of
Arkansas-Fayetteville. The Institute for Food Science and Engineering
and the Center for Food Processing and Engineering are operating.
Research projects at the Center include: postharvest management
practices for rice, such as studies of physicochemical properties,
bacterial load of rice products, and milling systems, and development
of methods to improve the texture and dill flavor of pickles, and the
color of acidified pickled vegetables, with estimated impact to the
pickle industry of $500,000 annually. Researchers have developed 12
mechanized systems for total vineyard mechanization which maintain or
improve juice and wine quality. Research on physicochemical properties
of potatoes and bitterness in carrots and have had estimated economic
impacts of several million dollars. Research on elecrochemical flow-
through systems for chicken processing water and near infrared, mid-
infrared imaging for large scale fruit processing have important
applications in industry. Institute staff, including the Descriptive
Sensory Panel, have assisted both national food processing companies
and small commercial kitchens in process development, with an impact of
up to 2,000,000 annually on the Arkansas vegetable processing industry.
The Institute's FAO Center of Excellence presents workshops in the
United States as well as planning train the trainer courses in Mexico
and Central America to improve the safety of imported fresh fruit and
vegetables. To date, 70 publications, two IMPACT reports, and a
quarterly newsletter have served to keep the industry and fellow
scientists informed of research and technology transfer activities.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1996.
The appropriation for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 was $750,000 each
year, $950,000 for fiscal year 1998, and $1,250,000 for fiscal year
1999. A total of $3,700,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
include $184,700 in state funds and $93,000 from industry in fiscal
year 1996, and $187,357 in state funds and $320,403 in industry funds
in fiscal year 1997. Thus far in fiscal year 1998, industry has
provided $93,599, with firm commitments of an additional $55,000. The
state has also provided facilities and administrative and clerical
support estimated at $303,694 through June 30, 1998. The Institute has
also received $48,000 to establish the FAO Center of Excellence.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted at the University of Arkansas at
Fayetteville.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The principal researcher anticipates that work will be
completed on the original goals in fiscal year 2002. The goals of this
project related to establishing the centers of the Institute have not
been fully met. The Center for Food Processing and Engineering and the
Center for Food Safety and Quality are in operation; activation of the
Center for Human Nutrition is scheduled for 1999. The objectives
related to research and service to industry, food entrepreneurs, and
the general public would continue to be ongoing.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of the
proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual basis.
In a review of the proposal on January 8, 1998, the assessment was that
satisfactory progress was demonstrated in meeting the goals of the
Institute.
integrated pest management
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Integrated Pest Management special grant.
Answer. This special research grant develops new pest management
tools to address critical pest problems identified by farmers and
others in a crop production region. Funds are distributed though the
Regional Integrated Pest Management--IPM--Grants Program, which
provides competitively awarded grants to develop new pest management
tactics to replace management tools lost to the Food Quality Protection
Act--FQPA--issues, validate the effectiveness of new tactics in a
production setting, and help producers implement these tactics by
providing educational training programs. Proposals submitted to the
Regional IPM Grants program undergo technical and merit review at the
regional levels.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The ability of the Nation's agricultural production system
to keep pace with domestic and global demand for food and fiber is
dependant on access to safe, profitable, and reliable pest management
systems. For a variety of reasons, many of the chemical control
alternatives that farmers and other pest managers have relied on for
many years are no longer available. The loss of these important tools
is likely to continue at an accelerated rate over the next several
years. The FQPA will have significant impacts on pest management
systems in the United States over the next decade, and the ``minor
use''--high value crops grown on relatively few acres--will be
particularly hard hit. Regulatory decisions under FQPA are focused on
organophosphate insecticides, which are widely used tools in IPM and
Resistance Management programs. For these reasons and others, it is
essential that farmers be provided with new pest management tools and
better information so they can remain competitive in today's global
marketplace. These special IPM research grant funds address important
issues via a request for proposals distributed to applied agricultural
scientists throughout the United States. This request for proposals
focuses on the development and testing of practical alternatives for
IPM and Resistance Management Systems to replace organophosphate
insecticides which likely will be lost due to FQPA.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of this research is to provide farmers with new
pest management options that allow them to reduce dependence on
chemical pesticides, improve their profitability, and protect vital
natural resources. The research supported by this special grant has
made an important contribution to increasing knowledge about new
approaches to pest management, but the need for continued investment in
this area of research is greater than ever.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much as been
appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1981, $1,500,000; fiscal years 1982 through 1985,
$3,091,000 per year; fiscal years 1986 through 1989, $2,940,000; fiscal
year 1990, $2,903,000; fiscal year 1991, $4,000,000; fiscal years 1992
and 1993, $4,457,000 per year, fiscal year 1994, $3,034,000; and fiscal
years 1995-1999, $2,731,000 each year. A total of $58,130,000 has been
appropriated since fiscal year 1981.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. A study of the sources of non-federal funds which
contribute to this research effort was conducted in 1993 and 1994 and
the results are as follows. In fiscal year 1993, state appropriations,
$841,017, product sales, $33,987, industry grants, $17,081, and other,
$31,737, which totaled $923,822. For fiscal year 1994, state
appropriations, $2,303,458, product sales, $77,157, industry grants,
$210,110, and other, $216,552 which totaled $2,807,277. These studies,
which have not been repeated since 1994, have demonstrated a trend
toward greater annual state investments in Integrated Pest Management
research.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Scientists in all states are eligible to compete for this
funding on a competitive basis. This research is currently being
carried out by State Agricultural Experiment Stations in more than 40
states.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Due to the passage of FQPA in 1996, the economic and
environmental pressures facing U.S. agriculture today are greater than
they were in 1981 when Federal funds were first appropriated for this
special research grant. It is important for government to address
agricultural producers' needs by participation in the development and
implementation of new approaches to pest management with the emergence
or introduction of new pests, as existing pests become resistant to
current control methods, as new pesticide regulations are implemented,
and as national and international markets shift.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Evaluation of this project is a continuous process.
Projects funded by this research grant are awarded through a
competitive process that includes relevance, technical, and merit
reviews by multi-disciplinary panels of peers. Progress reports are
reviewed to evaluate accomplishments, and special scrutiny and interest
is given to studies involving new control strategies relating to at-
risk sites with pest management usage patterns impacted by FQPA
implementation.
integrated production systems, oklahoma
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Integrated Production Systems, Oklahoma grant.
Answer. This grant focuses on the development of efficient
management systems for production of watermelons and blackberries under
intensively-managed conditions. The work will address biotic and
abiotic production components under Southeastern Oklahoma conditions
for use in production guidelines. This will include planting densities,
fertilizer studies, weed management and insect and disease control. The
request for the fiscal year 1999 proposal has been issued, the grant
will be competitively awarded to scientists working at the West Watkins
Agricultural Research Center--WWAR--based on a merit review conducted
by Oklahoma State University personnel.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for the
research.
Answer. The principal researcher believes the need for this
research is focused on the local area of Southeastern Oklahoma, an area
that is economically-depressed and in need of alternative crops to
diversify the dominant cow/calf livestock production.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to develop new and
alternative crops to supplement and diversify the cow/calf livestock
agriculture of Southeastern Oklahoma with emphasis on horticultural
crops. Work to date has shown promise for strawberries, blackberries,
cabbage, melons, and blueberries. CD-ROM technology transfer to
research results to support an expert system will be developed for
grower use.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Work supported by this grant started in fiscal year 1984
and the appropriations were: fiscal year 1984, $200,000; fiscal year
1985, $250,000; fiscal year 1986, $238,000; fiscal years 1987-1989,
$188,000 per year; fiscal years 1990-1991, $186,000 per year; fiscal
year 1992, $193,000; fiscal year 1993, $190,000; fiscal year 1994,
$179,000; fiscal years 1995-1998, $161,000 each year; and fiscal year
1999, $180,000. A total of $3,010,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $165,989 state appropriations in 1991; $160,421 state
appropriations in 1992; and $164,278 state appropriations in 1993. Non-
federal support for 1994 was $141,850 for state appropriations. Funds
for fiscal year 1995 were $129,552; for 1996, $146,000; for 1997,
$152,000; and for 1998, $148,000.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This research is being done at the West Watkins
Agricultural Research and Extension Center at Lane, Oklahoma, a branch
of the Oklahoma State Agricultural Experiment Station.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objectives of this project were to develop
production systems for alternative crops with economic potential for
southeastern Oklahoma. Each year's funding cycle has addressed specific
crop and management objectives to be completed over two years time.
These short term objectives have been met for each of the completed two
year projects. However the original objective of developing alternative
cropping systems is very long term and have not been completed.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Each of the annual project proposals has been put through
the institutions review and is reviewed by a CSREES scientist before
approval. In addition to the annual review of individual proposals, a
comprehensive review of the Lane Agricultural Center, where this
research is conducted, was conducted in 1993. This review reviled that
work supported by this grant is central to the mission of that station
and represents an important contribution to the agriculture of the
area. This work has provided practical management information for
farmers of southeastern Oklahoma that has improved their ability to
economically-produce small fruit and vegetable crops. This project is
evaluated internally at the end of each year in order to set priorities
for the next year.
international agricultural market structures and institutions, kentucky
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the international agricultural market structures and
institutions program.
Answer. This is a new project and the University of Kentucky is
submitting its first grant proposal in fiscal year 1999. The research
will identify a variety of market factors that affect the success of
American firms in international agricultural markets, estimate the
impact of such factors, and make recommendations to policy makers and
business firms.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. U.S. firms need to become more aggressive in international
markets, but these markets are unfamiliar to many firms. The structure
of international markets and the institutions that serve them are often
different than in domestic markets. Furthermore, the structures and
institutions are continuously changing.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal is to increase the international marketing success
of American farmers and agribusinesses by increasing their
understanding of how international markets work.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by the grant begins in fiscal year 1999
and the appropriation is $250,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal matching funds and sources will be
identified in the grant proposal when it is completed.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work will be carried out at University of Kentucky in
Lexington.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The objectives and duration of the project will be
specified in the grant proposal.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This is a new project. CSREES will carefully review the
proposal when it is received.
international arid lands consortium
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the International Arid Lands consortium.
Answer. fiscal year 1998 was the fifth year that Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service funded the International
Arid Lands Consortium. The Forest Service supported the program during
fiscal year 1993 to develop an ecological approach to multiple-use
management and sustainable use of arid and semi-arid lands. Projects
that began in 1994-1997 will continue to be funded to address issues of
land reclamation, land use, water resources development and
conservation, water quality, and inventory technology and remote
sensing. All proposals are peer reviewed and awarded competitively,
whereby the principal investigator must be from a Consortium member
institution.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes the consortium is devoted
to the development, management, and reclamation of arid and semi-arid
lands in the United States, Israel, and elsewhere in the world. The
International Arid Lands Consortium will work to achieve research and
development, educational and training initiatives, and demonstration
projects. The current member institutions are the University of
Arizona, The University of Illinois, Jewish National Fund, New Mexico
State University, South Dakota State University, Texas A&M University,
Kingsville, and Nevada's Desert Research Institute. The United States
Department of Agriculture's Forest Service works very closely with The
International Arid Lands Consortium through a service-wide memorandum
of understanding. The Consortium's affiliate members include Egypt's
Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation Undersecretarial for
Afforestation and Jordan's Higher Council for Science and Technology.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of the Consortium was and continues to be
acknowledged as the leading international organization supporting
ecological sustainability of arid and semi-arid lands. To date, 56
projects have been funded, 37 of which are to conduct research and
development, 14 for demonstration projects, and 5 for international
workshops. Funds approximating $3,390,000 have been used to fund these
projects.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The International Arid Lands Consortium was incorporated in
1991. Funds were appropriated to the Forest Service in 1993. Additional
funds were received during each of the years that followed. $329,000
has been appropriated from CSREES for fiscal years 1994 through 1998,
and $400,000 for fiscal year 1999 for total appropriations of
$2,045,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Members of the International Arid Lands Consortium have
provided funds to support the Consortium office in Tucson, Arizona, and
for printed materials as needed. Each member has provided travel and
operations support for semi-annual meetings, teleconferences, and other
related activities. In fiscal years 1993-1996, $60,000 in state
appropriations were provided. Industry provided $84,083 and $100,000 in
fiscal years 1993 and 1995, respectively. Additional funds of $34,000
were received during 1996 from the Egyptian affiliate member to enhance
future collaboration. Funds of $25,000 from industry were received in
1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is currently being conducted at the University of
Arizona, South Dakota State University, Texas A&M University,
Kingsville, New Mexico State University, University of Illinois, and
several research and education institutions in Israel.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the projects? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives.
Answer. Almost all research and demonstration projects that started
during 1993 and 1994 have been completed. The projects started in 1995-
1997 are expected to be completed within 15 months depending upon the
nature of the project. Projects started during 1998 will be completed
within 2 years. Several demonstration projects were completed and 5
international workshops were held during 1994 through 1998. The
International Arid Lands Consortium is an organization with long-term
goals.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The cognizant staff scientist reviews the project semi-
annually and has determined that the research is conducted is in
accordance with the mission of the agency.
iowa biotechnology consortium
Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Iowa Biotechnology Consortium grant.
Answer. This Consortium formed between Iowa State University, the
University of Iowa, and the City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, has served as
the focal point for cooperative biotechnology research studies to
recover and utilize byproduct materials arising from new and emerging
industries in biotechnology with an emphasis on fermentation wastes and
agribusiness. Both fundamental and applied research studies are being
conducted to reduce the burden of agricultural bioprocessing wastes on
municipal waste management systems and to transform components of these
agricultural wastes into commercially-viable products. The overall
project involves a coordinated approach by a diverse group of
investigators, and funding decisions for individual studies within each
participating institution are based on a competitive process with a
peer panel review and evaluation. The overall project proposal
submitted to us, which combines the selected individual studies, is
also peer reviewed for scientific merit by a biotechnology panel
designated by our agency.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. Developments in biotechnology have added to the national
need for improved management systems that increase the capacity and
sophistication of agricultural waste processing. These researchers
believe that technological breakthroughs are possible to deal
effectively with the increasing burden of agricultural wastes and that
useful byproduct materials can be recovered and recycled through the
bioprocessing of wastes. The principal investigators consider this
research to be of national, regional, and local importance. While they
are working with wastes that are generated in and problematic for the
State of Iowa, these waste streams are similar to those generated by
agricultural industries across the United States.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goals of this project were aimed at enhancing
the recovery and utilization of by-product materials arising from
industries using biotechnology. Recycling agricultural wastes,
isolating useful byproducts, and developing value added processing
remain the primary thrusts of the project. The Consortium has utilized
a multi-disciplinary, multi-faceted research approach and has brought
together a cadre of active scientists to assist in finding uses for the
by-product waste streams generated by agricultural processing. The
Consortium is making significant scientific progress related to the
bioconversion, biocatalysis, membrane concentration, and bioseparation
of by-products. Recent new studies have been initiated on value-added
products related to culture of polysaccharide-producing bacteria,
screening of agricultural seed processing fractions for biocatalysts,
conversion of lignocellulose to lactic acid, the use of waste by-
products as feeds for livestock and aquacultural species, composting
strategies for waste streams, and exploitation of micro-organisms that
colonize extreme environments found in food processing plants..
Question. How long has this work been under way and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1989, $1,225,000; fiscal year 1990, $1,593,000;
fiscal year 1991, $1,756,000; fiscal year 1992, $1,953,000; fiscal year
1993, $2,000,000; fiscal year 1994, $1,880,000; fiscal years 1995-1996
$1,792,000 each year; fiscal year 1997, $1,738,000; and $1,564,000 per
year in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. A total of $18,857,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant were
as follows: $623,803 from the State of Iowa and $42,813 from the city
of Cedar Rapids in 1991; $768,287 from the State of Iowa and $365,813
from the city of Cedar Rapids in 1992; $858,113 from the State of Iowa
and $170,000 from the city of Cedar Rapids in 1993; $841,689 from the
State of Iowa and $36,000 from the City of Cedar Rapids in 1994;
$1,016,505 from the State of Iowa and $36,000 from the city of Cedar
Rapids in 1995; $862,558 from the State of Iowa and $40,000 from the
City of Cedar Rapids in 1996; $1,044,864 from the State of Iowa and
$50,000 from the City of Cedar Rapids in 1997; and $303,549 from the
State of Iowa and $50,000 from the City of Cedar Rapids in 1998.
In addition, leveraging of Federal grant monies has been obtained
in the form of industrial matching funds or contracts for related
projects. Some of the more noteworthy awards are as follows: $20,000
from Archer Daniels Midland; $342,720 from Ajinomoto; $40,000 from
BASF; $18,000 from Bluestem Solid Waste Agency; $1,748,975 from
Cargill; $177,200 from Heartland Lysine, Inc.; $48,000 from Horizon
Technology, Inc.; $75,274 from Iowa Corn Promotion Board; $65,200 from
Iowa Energy Center; $80,273 from National Corn Growers Association,
$25,000 from National Pork Producers Council; and $11,500 from
PathoGenesis Corporation.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at Iowa State University and
the University of Iowa, in collaboration with the City of Cedar Rapids.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The Consortium was originally formed between the City of
Cedar Rapids and the participating universities to assist the City in
dealing with wastes associated with corn and oat processing and
milling, biocatalysis to produce high-fructose syrups, and one of the
largest fermentation facilities in the world. More recently, the
diversified economic base of the Cedar Rapids area has attracted new
biotechnology industries, which have added greatly to the volume of
industrial waste streams. Since its inception, the Consortium has
worked closely with the City and the industries producing these
agricultural wastes. Because the studies continue to make progress in
analyzing waste streams and in devising laboratory procedures for
extracting useful products, no date has been established for the
completion of this research. The City of Cedar Rapids is investing
funds from other sources in special waste treatment facilities to
conduct large scale tests of new treatment methods. Several years will
be required to complete these tests and to refine separation
technologies.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The fiscal year 1998 project proposal was evaluated for
scientific merit on January 29,1998, by an agency peer panel that
recommended its approval for the award. The Iowa Biotechnology
Consortium proposal for fiscal year 1999 will be evaluated for
scientific merit by a biotechnology peer review panel designated by the
agency on February 9, 1999. The panel will review and evaluate the
future studies that are proposed in the grant application and will make
recommendations regarding overall approval of the project. In addition,
the peer panel will assess past progress as a part of the approval
process and of post-award management. A visit by the Program Manager to
the research facilities of the cooperating institutions to conduct an
on-site assessment is scheduled to occur during October, 1999.
ir-4 minor crop pest management
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the IR-4 Minor Crop Pest Management grant.
Answer. The Minor Crop Pest Management Program--IR-4--formerly the
IR-4 Pesticide Clearance Program, is a joint effort between the State
Agricultural Experiment Stations, CSREES, and the Agricultural Research
Service--ARS. IR-4 provides the national leadership, coordination, and
focal point for obtaining data to support the regulatory clearance
through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency--EPA--for pesticides
and biological control agents for specialty food crops such as fruits
and vegetables as well as non-food crops like turf and ornamentals. In
many cases, the agricultural chemical industry cannot economically
justify the time and expense required to conduct the necessary research
for products with limited market potential. With assistance from IR-4,
registration-related costs are manageable, and producers of a large
number of small acreage crops such as vegetables, fruits, nuts, herbs,
and other specialized crops have access to necessary pest control
products. In order to accomplish the above, a four-step process has
been developed. Step one involves research prioritization. Because of
limited resources, IR-4 requests and receives input from stakeholders
on potential research projects. Yearly workshops are conducted that
involve growers, commodity organizations, university research and
extension specialists, EPA staff, and industry representatives to
determine which projects are the most critical to minor crop
agriculture. Step two is research planning. Research protocols are
written after careful review and comments from stakeholders. Step three
is research implementation. A typical IR-4 program consists of both
field and laboratory phases. For the field work, researchers apply the
crop protection chemical to the target crop per directions from the
protocol. The crop is harvested and transferred to the laboratories
where the amount of chemical remaining, if any, in the crop is
determined. All field and laboratory research is conducted under EPA
Good Laboratory Practices--GLP's. Step four is data submission and
approval. The data are critically reviewed and formatted into a
regulatory package and submitted to the EPA for their review. If
appropriate, the EPA will approve the submission and grant a tolerance
to use the chemical on the target minor crop.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The basic mission of IR-4 is to aid producers of minor food
crops and ornamentals in obtaining needed crop protection products. IR-
4 is the principal public effort supporting the registration of
pesticides and biological pest control agents for the $35,000,000,000
plus minor crop industry. This is a national effort which identifies
needs by a network of users, commodity groups and state university and
Federal researchers. This research is highly significant to national
and regional as well as local needs.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal is to obtain minor use and specialty use pesticide
registrations, assist in the maintenance of current registrations and
to assist with the development and registration of biopesticides and
safer or Reduced Risk chemicals useful in Integrated Pest Management--
IPM--systems for minor crops. During the past two years, over 650 new
minor food use clearance requests were submitted to IR-4 from growers,
state, and Federal scientists and extension specialists. After
evaluation and prioritization, over 300 studies consisting of over
1,100 field trials throughout the U.S. have been conducted in 1997 and
1998 alone. Accomplishments included the recent clearance of the
herbicide pyridate on the ultra-minor crop garbanzo beans--chick pea--
grown on only 15,000 acres in the Pacific Northwest, which will have an
estimated economic impact of increasing net revenue by over $3,300,000.
This crop has become an important rotational crop due to changes in the
government farm programs in that region. In 1998, EPA approved 55 new
uses based on IR-4 data. In addition, EPA approved 43 Section 18
Emergency Exemptions which were supported with IR-4 data. IR-4 has
recently developed and submitted data to EPA for the insect growth
regulator tebufenozide on blueberry, caneberries, canola, cranberry,
mint and turnip. IR-4 expects EPA to register these reduced risk uses
in early 1999. This chemical is extremely effective, and it has the
potential to replace many high risk organophosphate and carbamate
insecticides. The Cranberry Institute has estimated the use of
tebufenozide can provide economic benefits from $17,000,000 to
$35,000,000 annually depending on the severity of the target pest
infestations. Because of its unique ability to control problem pests
without damaging non-target pests and the environment, tebufenozide
received the 1998 EPA Green Chemistry award. IR-4 has also worked with
the vegetable herbicide clomazone to develop data that supported 24C
registrations in Delaware, Virginia, and Maryland providing over
$4,000,000 in benefits to snapbean, summer squash, and cucumber growers
in those states.
IR-4 provided residue data to support the FIFRA 88-mandated
reregistration of more than 700 minor uses identified by growers as
critical needs. Without IR-4, these uses would have been cancelled and
not allowed for crop protection by minor crop growers. One of these IR-
4 defenses was streptomycin for the treatment of edible dry beans grown
for seed on 15,000 acres in California and valued at $4,000,000
annually. California seed is sold to growers in Colorado, Nebraska,
Minnesota, the Dakotas, Wisconsin, Michigan, and New York where a
disease known as halo blight can devastate untreated bean plantings.
For this reason, growers will not purchase seed that is not treated
with streptomycin.
Registrations for the control of insect, disease and weed pests of
commercially grown ornamental crops continues to be an important
objective of the IR-4 Project. Since 1977, IR-4 has assisted with the
registration of over 5,100 pesticides and biological pest control
agents on woody nursery stock, flowers, and turf grass. Recently, IR-4
developed data to allow the use of a herbicide for the control of
yellow nutsedge and other grassy weeds in woody and perennial
ornamental crops. In California alone, over 100,000 acres are treated
with this herbicide, thereby saving growers $1,600,000 compared to hand
weeding. IR-4 also continues to work closely with nurserymen and
growers to develop pesticides such as azadiractin, a naturally-
occurring insecticide, for IPM programs.
Biopesticides have been an important IR-4 thrust since 1982. IR-4
conducts a competitive grants program to develop research data to
support the registration of microbial and biochemical pest control
products on minor crops. Equally important, IR-4 interacts with public
guidance on EPA registration procedures. EPA granted 65 IR-4 supported
biopesticide clearances in 1998 including one for Kaolin for insect,
fungal, and bacteria control on 48 crops.
The Food Use part of the IR-4 Program continues to have a high
productivity which, according to EPA, supports 40 percent of all EPA
pesticide registrations. Since the programs inception in 1963, IR-4 has
been granted over 4,700 food use clearances--over 1,400 since 1984.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from appropriated funds as
follows: Program redirection in fiscal year 1975, $250,000; fiscal year
1976, $500,000; fiscal years 1977-1980, $1,000,000 per year; fiscal
year 1981, $1,250,000; fiscal years 1982-1985, $1,400,000 per year;
fiscal years 1986-1989, $1,369,000 per year; fiscal year 1990,
$1,975,000; fiscal year 1991, $3,000,000; fiscal years 1992-1993,
$3,500,000; fiscal year 1994, $6,345,000; fiscal year 1995 through
1997, $5,711,000 per year; and fiscal years 1998 and 1999, $8,990,000.
A total of $70,509,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $891,856 state appropriations and $65,402 industry in
1991; $1,002,834 state appropriations and $104,292 industry in 1992;
$1,086,876 state appropriations and $310,133 industry in 1993; $550,160
state appropriations, $408,600 industry, and $924,169 miscellaneous in
1994; $775,432 state appropriations, $266,714 industry, and $751,375
miscellaneous in 1995; and an estimated $800,000 state appropriations,
$250,000 industry, and $800,000 miscellaneous in each year of 1996,
1997, 1998, and 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Field work is performed at the State and Territorial
Experiment Stations. Laboratory analysis is conducted primarily at the
California, New York, Florida, and Michigan Agricultural Experiment
Stations with assistance by the Oregon, Hawaii, North Dakota, North
Carolina, Washington, Virginia, and Idaho Agricultural Experiment
Stations. Field Research Centers located in Hawaii, Oregon, Washington,
California, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, North
Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Texas, New Jersey, New York, Maryland,
and New Hampshire conduct the field residue program. Protocol
development, data assimilation, writing petitions, and registration
processing are coordinated through the New Jersey Agricultural
Experiment Station. ARS is conducting minor use pesticide studies at
field locations in California, Georgia, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas,
and Washington. ARS laboratories in Georgia, Maryland, and Washington
are cooperating with analyzes.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Selected categories of the Special Research Grants Program
address important national and regional research initiatives. IR-4 is
involved in research on biological systems that by their nature are
ever changing and presenting new challenges to agriculture. The IR-4
workload is anticipated to be long term because of the sensitivities
about food safety and the environment, and the eventual loss of a large
number of conventional pesticide registrations for minor crops because
of the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act--FQPA. The FQPA presents a
serious challenge to minor crop pest management. It is estimated that
there will be significant loss of conventional pesticide registrations
for minor crops. IR-4 has developed a strategy to minimize the impact
of loss of the critical pest control tools needed by our domestic minor
crop growers. The IR-4 strategy involves the following factors: first,
facilitating regulatory clearance of ``Reduced Risk'' pesticides for
minor crops; second, when appropriate, develop risk mitigation measures
for existing minor use registrations; third, assist with the
registration of biologically-based pest control products for minor
crops; and fourth, register and maintain pesticides essential to IPM
systems
This strategy has been in place since April 1997 and has helped IR-
4 achieve significant accomplishments. Since 1996, IR-4 has expedited
research efforts on over 150 studies relating to reduced risk
pesticides, biopesticides, and conventional pesticides critical to IPM
programs. Several of these uses are referenced as ``Reduced Risk'' or
``BioBased'' alternatives in the Consumer Union's ``Worse First''
report. For example, IR-4 has developed and submitted data to EPA for
the biobased pesticide Spinosad on potato. This use has the potential
to replace or reduce many of the high risk organophosphate and
carbamate insecticide uses on potato. The FQPA program thrust will be
carried out along with the traditional minor crop pesticide clearance
program. Since FQPA requires that the EPA review all of the almost
10,000 tolerances by 2006, it is anticipated that the IR-4 program will
have a significant challenge to help bring new crop protection
solutions to minor crop growers well into the next century.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Each year the program is peer reviewed and reviewed by
CSREES' senior scientific staff. A summary of those reviews indicate
excellent progress in achieving the objective of providing safe pest
controls for minor uses. In December 1997, CSREES sponsored a Peer
Review of the Project by a panel of representatives from USDA, EPA,
commodity groups, the food processing industry, the crop protection
industry, and the land grant university system with a final report
issued January 1998. The report covered the areas of response to FQPA,
Project operations, accomplishments, good laboratory practices--GLP--
the ARS companion program, and future outlook with specific
recommendations for each area. Most of those recommendations have been
implemented in 1998 programs or will be implemented in 1999. The panel
was in unanimous agreement that IR-4 is a very successful program which
serves an important need to producers of agricultural products for
ultimate consumption by the American public. The program is effectively
and efficiently administered by a dedicated professional staff. The
goal in 1999 and beyond will be to build on this basis and fully
implement the recommendations of the panel. This review and previous
reviews have resulted in significant improvement in the IR-4 programs
productivity and quality of research. Additionally, the customers
served by IR-4 have provided input to the program to enhance its
effectiveness.
jointed goatgrass
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Jointed Goatgrass grant.
Answer. Research is conducted as sub-projects by more than 30
scientists in 10 western and mid-western states on systems for
suppression of jointed goatgrass in winter wheat production systems.
Research includes integrated cultural management, reduction of seed in
the soil, identification of more competitive wheat varieties and crop
rotations, and modeling to predict economic outcomes of changing
management practices. The premier research projects continue to be four
regional, long-term integrated management studies conducted across nine
states. In these studies, various cultural control practices such as
seeding rates, row spacing, planting dates, seed size, competitive
varieties, fertilizer placement, crop rotations, and tillage practices
are being evaluated as an integrated management system for the
suppression of jointed goatgrass. Research is also being conducted on
genetic diversity in the jointed goatgrass population, soil conditions
responsible for persistence of jointed goatgrass seedbank, timing and
intensity of tillage on seed persistence in the soil, gene flow between
wheat and jointed goatgrass, identification of crop traits that make
wheat more competitive against jointed goatgrass, and making the
bioeconomic model more user friendly. All funded projects have a
technology transfer component, and a national extension coordinator
insures that growers and extension personnel are fully informed about
all options for the managing this devastating weed. The National
Extension Coordinator is housed at Colorado State University.
Question. According to the research proposal or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Jointed goatgrass infests nearly 5,000,000 acres of winter
wheat lands in the west and mid-west. Through the efforts of the
national program, the rate of spread of this weed has decreased
significantly in the past 5 years. However, jointed goatgrass still
costs U.S. wheat producers an estimated $145,000,000 annually in lost
yield, reduced quality, production of less profitable crops, increased
management costs, and reduced land values. Control of jointed goatgrass
in a standing wheat crop is impossible with currently available
technology because seed survives in the soil for five years or more,
and because jointed goatgrass is genetically related to wheat. Jointed
goatgrass has increased rapidly in the past 25 years in part because of
the widespread adoption of conservation tillage systems. Jointed
goatgrass proliferated in such systems, and it greatly impedes the
universal adoption of such practices. The principal investigator and
the National Association of Wheat Growers believe this research is of
high national and regional importance.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of this project is to reduce the devastating
effect of jointed goatgrass on winter wheat production and quality, and
to prevent the spread of this weed into new, non-infested areas.
Numerous individual cultural control practices have been evaluated in
several states as to their effectiveness for the suppression of jointed
goatgrass and on the growth and yield of wheat. Four regional, long-
term integrated management projects have been established where three
or more individual cultural control practices have been combined into
an integrated management system for the suppression of jointed
goatgrass in winter wheat. Early results from these projects show
promising results for the management of jointed goatgrass. A
bioeconomic model has been constructed that combines jointed goatgrass
population biology information, weather data, and responses of jointed
goatgrass and wheat to various cultural control practices, and predicts
wheat yields, response of jointed goatgrass, and economic outcomes from
changing production practices. Six regional symposia have been held to
transfer to producers and extension personnel the latest information on
the identification, biology and management of jointed goatgrass in
winter wheat. A World Wide Web site has been established to further
enhance information transfer. Also, a videotape and a slide set have
been produced to assist extension personnel in transferring information
on jointed goatgrass biology and management.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1994.
The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $329,000; for fiscal years
1995-1997, $296,000, each year; $346,000 for fiscal year 1998; and
$360,000 in fiscal year 1999 bringing the total appropriations to
$1,923,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: for 1994, $82,198 state appropriations, $82,256 from
industry, and $14,871 miscellaneous; for fiscal year 1995, $67,442
state appropriations, $38,496 from industry, and $13,304 miscellaneous;
for each fiscal year 1996-1997, an estimated $70,000 state
appropriations, $50,000 from industry, and $14,000 miscellaneous; and
for 1998, $231,335 state appropriations and $42,570 from State wheat
commissions.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research is being conducted by University scientists in
the states with serious infestations including Washington State
University, who are the principal coordinating institution and receive
the grant, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah, Oregon, Idaho,
Montana, Wyoming, and South Dakota.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The project was initiated to accomplish significant results
in five years, and significant accomplishments have been made. However,
the jointed goatgrass problem will require an additional five more
years to accomplish all of the objectives and to have effective
management practices available for producers to control jointed
goatgrass in winter wheat.
Question. When was the agency evaluation of this project? Provide a
summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Each year the grant is peer reviewed and reviewed by
CSREES's senior scientific staff. Grants are awarded on a competitive
basis using a peer review process by Washington State University.
livestock and dairy policy, new york and texas
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the livestock and dairy policy program grant?
Answer. The purpose of this grant is to assess the possible
economic impacts on the U.S. livestock and dairy sectors from various
macroeconomic, farm, environmental, and trade policies and new
technologies. Both Cornell University and Texas A&M University conduct
analyses of these policies and disseminate the information to
policymakers, farmers, and agribusinessmen. Cornell focuses on sector-
level dairy policies, and Texas A&M focuses on policies affecting
livestock and dairy at the farm level.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Information on the implications of new and alternative
farm, trade, and macroeconomic policies affecting the livestock and
dairy sectors is of special interest to policy-making officials,
farmers, and others. Such information enables farmers and
agribusinessmen to make necessary adjustments to their operations to
enhance profitability and for national public officials to consider
alternatives to sustain adequate supplies and minimize costs. The
principal researchers believe this research to be of national,
regional, and local significance.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been done to date?
Answer. The original goal was to establish a specialized research
program that could provide timely and comprehensive analyses of
numerous policy and technological changes affecting livestock and dairy
farmers and agribusinessmen and advise them and policymakers promptly
of possible outcomes. This goal has been achieved and the program
continues to provide timely assessments and evaluations of provisions
and proposed changes in agricultural policies, the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade, and the North American Free Trade Agreement; various
income and excise tax measures; and alternative pricing measures for
milk. The institutions were integrally involved in several current
studies relating to dairy provisions in the 1996 farm legislation.
These studies contributed significantly to the development of proposed
regulations called for in this legislation. Both institutions maintain
extension outreach programs to disseminate results of their analyses
throughout the United States. They have organized a national Dairy
Markets and Policy Extension committee to advise and assist them in
this effort. This latter committee was especially helpful to USDA in
educating farmers about proposed milk marketing order changes last
year.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1989, $450,000; fiscal year 1990, $518,000; fiscal
years 1991-1993, $525,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $494,000; fiscal
years 1995-1998, $445,000 each year; and fiscal year 1999, $475,000. A
total of $5,292,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: $37,420 State appropriations in 1991; $162,086 State
appropriations and $133,278 product sales for a total of $295,364 in
1992; and $301,817 State appropriations, $1,412 industry, and $7,121
miscellaneous for a total of $310,350 in 1993; $24,702 State
appropriations and $5,961 industry for a total of $30,663 in 1994;
$235,526 State appropriations for 1995; $250,000 in State
appropriations for 1996; and approximately $245,000 in State funding
for 1997 and 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research is being conducted at Cornell University and
Texas A&M University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. This program is of a continuing nature for the purpose of
assessing existing issues and proposed policy changes affecting the
livestock and dairy industries.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. We have conducted no formal evaluations of this project.
Annual proposals for funding, however, are peer reviewed for relevance
and scientific merit. Our agency contact is also in regular contact
with principal researchers at each institution to discuss progress
toward project objectives. Discussions with congressional staff and
USDA policy makers support the usefulness of policy analyses provided
by this project.
lowbush blueberry research, maine
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the lowbush blueberry research program grant.
Answer. Interdisciplinary research is being conducted on many
aspects of lowbush blueberry culture and processing including
investigations into factors affecting processing quality, biological
control of insect pest, sustainable pollination, weed, disease, and
fertility management, cold heartiness, and group water protection.
Question. According to this research proposal, or the principal
investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Maine produces 99 percent of all lowbush blueberries or 33
percent of all blueberries in the United States. This work is of major
local interest and helps maintain the continued availability and high
quality of the native fruit commodity.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original research goal was to provide answers to unique
lowbush blueberry production, pest, and processing problems. Research
to date indicates that the field sanitizer was able to use heat to
control insect pests without adversely affecting plant growth, while
providing a non-chemical alternative for pest management. Biological
control agents were sued to control fireworms. Lowbush blueberry yields
were increased by use of native leafcutter and alfalfa leafcutter bees.
Mechanical harvesting was found to be effective and had yields and
fruit quality comparable to hand harvest, providing growers with a more
efficient tool to harvest blueberries. Productes for the use in food
industry are being extracted from cull berries, therefore, improving
utilization and reducing waste.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1990, $170,000; fiscal year 1991, $202,000; fiscal
years 1992-1993, $185,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $208,000; and
fiscal years 1995-1999, $220,000 per year. A total of $2,050,000 has
been appropriated to date.
Question. What is the source and amount of nonfederal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Direct industry support was about $65,000 from 1996-1998,
per year. The 1999 nonfederal support is $205,832 from industry.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being carried out at the University of Maine.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objectives have not yet been met. The
University of Maine researchers estimate that the project will be
concluded at the end of fiscal year 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The last agency merit review of this project was January,
1998. Research accomplishments included investigations of post
emergence, grass-specific herbicides to control weeds rather than the
use of broad spectrum; timing of fertilization treatments; and
comparisons of various fertilizer combinations have indicated that
fertilizers containing nitrogen increase yields. Other research
accomplishments include the insect management of blueberry maggots
through behavioral control and the use of less toxic chemicals from
control of blueberry flea beetles.
maple research, vermont
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Maple Research grant?
Answer. The research is designed to increase understanding of the
sources of heavy metal contamination in maple sap and syrup and explore
methods of reducing or eliminating lead and other heavy metal
contaminant levels in the finished product through alteration of
manufacturing equipment and processes. The project is annually
subjected to the University's merit review process.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researchers, what is the national, regional, or local focus for this
research?
Answer. Maple products are an important cultural heritage, and a
source of seasonal income in maple growing areas of rural America.
Identifying sources of heavy metal contaminants during processing and
methods to remove contaminants from products is important in assuring
consumers that these food products are not harmful.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished?
Answer. The goal of this research is to conduct research on maple
tree physiology, management of maple stands, and related aspects of the
maple syrup industry in Vermont and the Northeast. The primary goal of
this work has been to identify and eliminate sources of lead and other
heavy metal contaminants in maple syrup.
Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Work under this project began in fiscal year 1985. Annual
appropriations in support of this project are as follows: fiscal year
1985--$100,000; fiscal years 1986 and 1987--$95,000 per year; fiscal
years 1988 and 1989--$100,000 per year; fiscal years 1990 through
1993--$99,000 per year; fiscal year 1994--$93,000; fiscal years 1995
through 1997--$84,000 each year; and fiscal years 1998 and 1999--
$100,000 per year. A total of $1,431,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-federal fiscal support for this project is provided by
two primary sources and one secondary source. The primary sources are
state appropriations and product sales. The secondary source is local
support, but that support is not available each year. The total non-
federal contribution from these sources provides an average ratio of
.86 to 1. The low ratio was .6 to 1 early in the project. More recently
the ratio has been 1.1 to 1.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This research is being conducted at the Vermont
Agricultural Experiment Station.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The work from this project, relative to maple tree
physiology and management of maple stands has been completed. The
objective of identifying sources of heavy metals in maple syrup
products and, subsequently, reducing them is underway. The anticipated
completion date is 1999.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Project proposals and progress reports are reviewed and
evaluated annually by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Satisfactory
progress has been made on tree physiology and maple tree management.
Progressive work on identifying sources and controlling maple syrup
contaminants is in place and is being monitored by the Department.
meadowfoam, oregon
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Meadowfoam, Oregon grant.
Answer. This funding will be used to: develop meadowfoam cultivars
with increased seed yield, lodging resistance, oil concentration, and
insect resistance; increase seed, field test, and deploy several new
experimental cultivars; enhance the genome map of meadowfoam; develop
DNA markers for molecular breeding and genetic analysis in meadowfoam;
and map genes affecting self-pollination, seed yield, oil content, and
insect resistance. The proposal will be internally and externally
reviewed for scientific merit. This research will be reviewed by state
and Federal scientists and administrators for merit and progress.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. This research is needed to increase the productivity of
meadowfoam as an edible and industrial oilseed crop. Meadowfoam oil is
a basic feedstock for lubricants, cosmetics, and personal care
products. Oregon State University has recently developed a food grade
meadowfoam oil that should open edible oil markets for this crop. This
research is needed to expand the range of production of meadowfoam and
to supply U.S. farmers with competitive cultivars--varieties--for
commercial production.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to increase the
productivity of meadowfoam as an oilseed crop for U.S. farmers. This
work continues with the new appropriation in 1999.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 1999
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1999 is $300,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-federal funds have not been provided.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The breeding research is being conducted at Corvallis,
Oregon. Cultivars are being field tested at four sites in the western
United States including Corvallis and Medford, Oregon, Mt. Vernon,
Washington, and Davis, California, and three sites in the eastern
United States including Blacksburg, Virginia, and two as yet
unspecified sites.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The objectives of the project sponsored by Cooperative
State Research, Education, Extension Service have not yet been met,
however, these objectives are anticipated to be complete within the
first year of the project.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This is the first year of this project.
michigan biotechnology consortium
Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Michigan Biotechnology Consortium grant.
Answer. The objective of the Consortium's research program is to
develop bioprocessing technology to manufacture products from
agricultural raw materials; to increase the utilization of agricultural
raw materials; reduce agricultural surpluses; degrade agricultural and
associated wastes, thereby decreasing environmental costs of
agricultural products and processes; and to reduce the need to import
foreign petroleum. Using the tools of bioprocessing, agricultural
resources can be transformed into products equal in function and value
to those currently made from petroleum.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes results from the research
will help to develop bioprocessing technologies to manufacture value-
added products from agricultural raw materials, which increases their
utilization, reduces commodity surpluses, reduces environmental costs,
and decreases the need for foreign petroleum thus contributing
significantly to local, regional, and national priorities.
Biotechnology research of national significance could potentially be
supported by competitive grants awarded under the National Research
Initiative or the Initiative for Future Food and Agricultural Systems.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of this research is to select and develop market-
viable technologies that form the basis for new companies, new jobs,
and additional tax revenues for local, state, and Federal governments.
During the past several years, the Consortium has used funding from the
Special Grants program to develop technologies that are now in the
marketplace. Examples include: Production of lactic acid using corn as
the feedstock resulting in a polymer for biodegradable plastics and a
disinfectant. A $200,000,000 plant has been built in Nebraska to
produce lactic acid by this process for domestic and foreign markets.
Corn was used as a feedstock to develop plant growth formulations to
enhance plant growth and productivity and to reduce plant stress.
Growth promoters are being introduced to the marketplace on a
nationwide basis. Biodegradable plastic resins developed from
cornstarch were made to produce compostable films for lawn and leaf
litter bags, agricultural mulch films, and other soluble films.
Biodegradable plastic resins from cornstarch were also developed for
moldable products such as disposable cutlery, plastic containers, and
toys and toothbrushes. The market for resins is in excess of
$2,000,000,000 annually. Corn was also used for the development of all-
natural flavors and derivatives including a salty-flavored compound
that can replace monosodium glutamate in low sodium foods. Low-cost,
readily-available carbohydrates--from whey--were used to produce high-
quality, high-value optically-pure chiral intermediates for the
pharmaceutical and agrochemical industries.
A sand/manure separation system for dairy farms was developed to
cost-effectively separate manure from sand and recycle both components.
Biodegradable adhesives have been developed from agricultural
resources. Numerous enzymes have been characterized and are now in use
to provide value added modifications in the processing of agricultural
products. A stabilized phytase enzyme has been developed to improve
digestibility of forage-based animal feeds and reduce animal wastes.
Improved methods to clean up herbicides, pesticides, and other
agriculturally-important materials have been developed. Many of these
products have been commercialized through licensing agreements with
industrial partners or new company start-ups. Special grant funding in
fiscal year 1998 allowed the Consortium to develop several new agri-
based products including: paint removers; calcium magnesium acetate
deicer; biobased membrane polymers for liquid crystals, metals
recovery, and other uses; improved specialty enzymes; and high value
animal feed from rice straw. Funding also supported a technology
transfer program that brought researchers from almost 30 land grant
universities, Federal laboratories, and USDA, together with Consortium
researchers to review numerous commercially-promising agriculturally-
based technologies. A cooperative research and development agreement
was signed with the USDA's Northern Regional Laboratories to develop
technology for an oxidant-stable protease for laundry detergents,
household cleaners, body cleaners, and dehairing and leather tanning
agents.
Question. How long has this work been under way and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1989, $1,750,000; fiscal year 1990, $2,160,000;
fiscal year 1991, $2,246,000; fiscal years 1992-1993, $2,358,000 per
year; fiscal year 1994, $2,217,000; fiscal year 1995, $1,995,000;
fiscal years 1996 and 1997, $750,000 per year; and fiscal years 1998
and 1999, $675,000 per year. A total of $17,934,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $1,750,000 in State of Michigan appropriations,
$160,000 from industry, and $1,000,000 from miscellaneous in 1991;
$1,750,000 in State of Michigan appropriations, $175,000 from industry,
and $1,000,000 from miscellaneous in 1992; $1,750,000 in State of
Michigan appropriations and $100,000 from industry in 1993; $1,750,000
in State of Michigan appropriations, $175,000 from industry, and
$100,000 from miscellaneous in 1994; $200,000 in State of Michigan
appropriations and $2,035,000 from industry in 1995; $1,250,000 in
State of Michigan appropriations, $350,000 from industry, and
$6,000,000 from miscellaneous in 1996; $402,500 from industry and
$10,000,000 from miscellaneous in 1997; and $500,000 in State of
Michigan appropriations, $90,000 from the North Central Biotechnical
Program, $150,000 from the Illinois Corn Marketing Board, and $820,000
from the California Air Resources Board in 1998. A total of $31,507,500
has been provided to support this work by non-federal sources.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research is being conducted on the campus of Michigan
State University and at the Michigan Biotechnology Institute
International. Demonstrations of technology occur throughout the United
States.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The Consortium reports specific milestones for technology
development over a five year period. Specific milestones for
technologies which will be commercialized in fiscal year 1999 were
established in fiscal year 1995 and updated annually. The Consortium
has been successful in effectively closing the gap between research and
commercialization in the five-year period.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The Michigan Biotechnology Institute was evaluated for
scientific merit by an agency peer review panel on January 29, 1998.
The panel recommended approval of the project pending receipt of
supplemental information on administrative aspects of the project. A
peer panel of scientists is scheduled to re-evaluate the scientific
merit of the project on February 9, 1999.
midwest advanced food manufacturing alliance, nebraska
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance
grant.
Answer. The stated purpose of the Midwest Advanced Food
Manufacturing Alliance is to expedite the development of new
manufacturing and processing technologies for food and related products
derived from United States produced crops and livestock. The Alliance
involves research scientists in food science and technology, food
engineering, nutrition, microbiology, computer science, and other
relevant areas from 12 leading Midwestern universities and private
sector researchers from numerous United States food processing
companies. Specific research projects are awarded on a competitive
basis to university scientists with matching funds from non-federal
sources for research involving the processing, packaging, storage, and
transportation of food products. Projects selected for funding are
merit reviewed by non-participating university scientists, industry
scientists, and scientists from professional organizations. Close
cooperation between corporate and university researchers assure that
the latest scientific advances are applied to the most relevant
problems and that solutions are efficiently transferred and used by the
private sector. fiscal year 1998 funds are supporting research from
June 1, 1998 through May 31, 1999. CSREES has requested, but not yet
received, a proposal in support of the fiscal year 1999 appropriation.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
project?
Answer. The principal researcher believes the food manufacturing
industry is the number one manufacturing industry in the Midwestern
region and that opportunities for trade in high value processed food
products will grow exponentially on a worldwide basis. The Alliance is
positioned to fill the void in longer range research and development
for the food industry. Though the focus is regional, it is anticipated
that impacts may also be local and national.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal, as stated previously, was to expedite the
development of new manufacturing and processing technologies for food
and related products derived from United States produced crops and
livestock. This is accomplished by conducting a research proposal
competition among faculty from the 12 participating universities to
fund research projects where matching funds are available from
industry. Fourteen projects were funded from fiscal year 1994 funds
with completion and final reports due by May 1, 1996. Ten projects were
funded from fiscal year 1995 funds with anticipated completion and
final reports due by August 31, 1997. Ten projects were also funded
from fiscal year 1996 funds with anticipated completion and final
reports due by May 31, 1998. Eleven projects were funded from fiscal
year 1997 funds with anticipated completion and final reports due by
May 31, 1999. Nine projects were funded from fiscal year 1998 funds
with anticipated completion and final reports due by May 31, 2000.
Proposals are reviewed for scientific merit by independent scientists,
and final selection of projects includes consideration of industrial
interest and commitment on non-Federal matching funds.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1994.
The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $470,000, and for fiscal
years 1995-1999, $423,000 each year. A total of $2,585,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Industry matching funds were $823,148 in fiscal year 1994,
$414,164 in fiscal year 1995, $576,600 in fiscal year 1996, $429,579 in
fiscal year 1997, and $557,549 in fiscal year 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work is being coordinated by the Nebraska Agricultural
Experiment Station at Lincoln. Specific research projects are also
being conducted at 10 other universities that are part of the Alliance.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The overall objectives of the Alliance are ongoing. Funding
supports the continuing and evolving needs and opportunities for foods
manufactured and processed from United States produced crops and
livestock.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of the
proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual basis.
A review of the proposal was conducted on January 12, 1998. The
principal investigator has provided descriptions of projects funded by
this grant. Scientifically sound, industry-relevant projects appear to
be the basis of the project, with impactful results expected.
midwest agricultural products, iowa
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the Midwest Agricultural Products program.
Answer. The Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information
Center does applied research to improve the global competitiveness and
marketability of agricultural products produced in the Midwest and
disseminates the results to small and medium-sized agribusinesses.
Projects include analyses of potential markets for U.S. agricultural
products and equipment/technology in several countries; attitudes of
foreign consumers; development of new/improved U.S. products to meet
foreign needs. The overall project proposal received a merit review at
the university level and individual research activities are reviewed by
the principal investigator and other faculty.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that agribusiness firms
in the United States, especially small to medium-sized firms, have a
large unrealized potential to expand export sales and foreign business
ventures. These untapped opportunities exist in the Pacific Rim and in
emerging markets such as Mexico, China, and Eastern Europe. The
reluctance of small to medium-sized firms to explore these market
opportunities is, in part, due to the high cost of market information
and analysis and the perceived high risk of doing business in new
markets. This project meets the needs of these firms at the local,
regional, and national level.
Question. What was the original goal of this research, and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal is to enhance the exports of agricultural
commodities, value-added products, and equipment produced by Midwestern
agribusiness firms through research and education programs involving
close-working relationships with those firms. Recent results include
analyses of the markets in selected countries--Hungary, Poland,
Lithuania, Egypt and Morocco--to identify opportunities for U.S. food
products, processes, and equipment; Mexican consumer response to U.S.
pork products; comparative advantage of U.S. pork in North American
markets; impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement on Midwest
beef industry; evaluation of 60 varieties of corn for dry milling for
the Mexican market; forums that link international leaders visiting
Iowa State University with agribusiness leaders; linkages between
international and Midwest business interests; and profiles on several
overseas companies suitable as trading partners. Several business
agreements and a considerable amount of trade has resulted from these
activities. The primary audience is small to medium-sized agribusiness
firms because they often lack the resources to conduct studies or
acquire sufficient marketing information to engage in international
trade. As a result of much work to establish trading relationships with
China, the Des Moines sister-city of Shijiazhuang, China established a
trade office in Des Moines.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1992.
The appropriation for fiscal years 1992-1993 was $700,000 per year;
fiscal year 1994, $658,000; and fiscal years 1995-1999, $592,000 per
year. A total of $5,018,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: $185,495 State appropriations and $373,897 industry for
a total of $559,392 in 1992; $183,192 State appropriations and $318,966
industry for a total of $502,158 in 1993; $127,948 State appropriations
and $500,394 industry for a total of $628,342 in 1994; $258,053 State
appropriations and $389,834 industry for a total of $647,887 for 1995;
$165,425 State appropriations for 1996; $162,883 State appropriations
for 1997; and $143,850 State appropriations and $51,384 industry for a
total of $195,234 in 1998. Industry contributions were not reported for
1996-1997.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The program is carried out by Iowa State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original proposal in 1992 was for a period of 24
months, however, the objective of expanding the export capacity of
small to medium-sized agribusiness firms is an ongoing regional and
national concern. The current phase of the program will be completed in
2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in January
1998, as it evaluated the project proposal for 1998, and concluded that
``the project has sound objectives and procedures that are helping
agribusiness effectively expand markets for U.S. agricultural products
leading to a highly competitive agricultural production system and
enhanced economic opportunity for Americans''. Research results appear
in several peer-reviewed professional journals and the popular press.
milk safety, pennsylvania
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the milk safety grant.
Answer. The overall goal of the milk safety program is to provide
insight into factors that help ensure an adequate and safe milk supply.
Toward that end, the research has focused on factors that affect milk
production, processing, manufacturing, and consumption. Special
attention has been given to ways of preventing and/or treating
pathogens that enter the milk supply. Projects are selected for funding
each year based on competitive, peer reviews by scientists outside the
recipient institution. The fiscal year 1999 grant will support research
through June 30, 2000. CSREES has requested the University to submit a
proposal in support of fiscal year 1999 funds, but the proposal has not
yet been received due to the University's merit review process to
select projects for funding.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that the question of
microbial safety is of paramount interest to the milk/dairy industry at
all levels--national, regional and local. Dairy products have been
associated with several large outbreaks of staphylococcal food
poisoning. Coagulase negative Staphylococcus infections are one of the
most common intramammary infections of dairy cattle, and bovine
mastitis, the most important infectious disease affecting the quality
and quantity of milk produced in the nation, costs producers an average
$180 per cow per year. Listeria monocytogenes is present in about 4
percent of raw milk and has the potential to grow to dangerous levels
during refrigerated storage making pasteurization critical in
preventing foodborne illnesses from this organism. The population of
infants, elderly, and immunosuppressed individuals at risk for
Listeriosis in the United States continues to grow rapidly.
Understanding the growth of Listeria will provide pathways to minimize
the occurrence of food poisoning related to milk and dairy products.
Pathogenic E. coli species, including E. coli O157:H7, are of public
health concern. For products which receive minimal thermal processing
or which may be preserved primarily by acidification, development of
additional means of controlling the growth of these foodborne pathogens
is of critical importance in guaranteeing a safe milk supply. Ensuring
safety of dairy products impacts not only consumer health and
confidence in the safety of the food supply, but economic viability as
well.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The research is aimed at minimizing or eliminating future
foodborne disease outbreaks from milk and dairy products. Researchers
demonstrated that when subjected to a sublethal heat shock prior to
pasteurization, Listeria monocytogenes becomes much more heat-resistant
than previously thought, likely requiring the design of new
pasteurization guidelines to ensure the safety of dairy products. They
also developed a simple, fast, sensitive, specific, and inexpensive
method for the detection of Listeria monocytogenes in dairy products
that will allow dairy processors to rapidly and easily screen for the
presence of this pathogen in their products and in the processing
environment. A computer model of Listeria monocytogenes growth in dairy
foods under dynamic refrigeration conditions and during extended
storage is under development to provide producers and processors a
technology for further enhancing the safety of fluid milk and related
products. Researchers have identified potential approaches for
enhancing natural defense mechanisms of the bovine mammary gland
through vaccination and immunoregulation. Discoveries of factors
influencing growth of Staphylococcus aureus could be used to prevent or
contain growth of this pathogen in foods. Researchers have identified
and sequenced a gene from this bacterium that is essential for growth
under stressful conditions. Consumer research has identified
characteristics of consumers most likely to have a high general concern
about milk and dairy product safety and nutrition.
Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded for milk consumption and milk
safety from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal years 1986 through
1989, $285,000 per year; fiscal year 1990, $281,000; fiscal year 1991,
$283,000; fiscal year 1992, $284,000; fiscal year 1993, $184,000;
fiscal years 1994-1998, $268,000 per year; and fiscal year 1999,
$250,000. A total of $3,762,000 has been appropriated for milk safety
and milk consumption.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The University estimates that non-federal funds contributed
to this project include the following costs and salaries: $265,000 for
fiscal year 1991; $224,700 for fiscal year 1992; $142,600 for fiscal
year 1993; and $252,168 for fiscal year 1995. No data are currently
available for other fiscal years.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The research is being conducted at the Pennsylvania State
University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The researchers anticipate that research supported by this
grant should be concluded in 1999. Continuing and evolving needs
related to the safety of milk and dairy products are expected to reveal
new related objectives.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of the
proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual basis.
The proposal supporting the fiscal year 1998 appropriation was reviewed
on April 23, 1998, and the agency science specialist concluded that the
projects addressed important issues related to safety of milk and dairy
products, were scientifically sound, and that satisfactory progress was
being demonstrated using previously awarded grant funds.
minor use animal drugs
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the minor use animal drug program grant.
Answer. The National Agricultural Program to Approve Animal Drugs
for Minor Species and Uses--NRSP-7--was established to obtain the Food
and Drug Administration approval of animal drugs intended for use in
minor species and for minor uses in major species. The objectives of
the program are to identify the animal drug needs for minor species and
minor uses in major species; generate and disseminate data for the
safe, effective, and legal use of drugs used primarily in therapy or
reproductive management of minor animal species; and facilitate the
Food and Drug Administration--FDA--in obtaining approvals for minor
uses. Studies are conducted to determine efficacy, target animal
safety, human food safety, and environmental safety. The shortage of
drugs for minor food animal uses is a concern well recognized by animal
producers, veterinarians, animal scientists, and regulators. The funds
for the special research grant are divided between the four regional
animal drug coordinators and the headquarters at Cornell University for
support of the drug approval program. The NRSP-7 funds are being
utilized by the State Agricultural Experiment Stations where the
regional animal drug coordinators are located as well as by other
stations to develop data required for meeting approval requirements.
Participants in the research program consist of the regional
coordinators, State Agricultural Experiment Stations, USDA's
Agricultural Research Service, schools of veterinary medicine, and the
pharmaceutical companies. Research priorities are continually updated
through workshops and meetings with producer groups representing
species categories such as small ruminants, game birds, fur-bearing
animals, and aquaculture species. Each request for drug approval is
evaluated by the technical committee according to established criteria
which include significance to the animal industry, cost of developing
the necessary data, availability of a pharmaceutical sponsor, and food
safety implications. The fiscal year 1998 research grants terminate in
April 2000. The 1999 grant proposals have been requested by the agency.
All grants are reviewed for relevance to industry needs and undergo
scientific peer review.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. Animal agriculture throughout the United States has relied
on chemical and pharmaceutical companies to provide their industry safe
and efficacious drugs to combat diseases and parasites. The high cost
incurred to obtain data to approve these drugs, when coupled with
limited economic returns, has limited the availability of approved
drugs for minor uses and minor species. The economic losses due to the
unavailability of drugs to producers for minor species and minor uses
threatens the economic viability of some segments of the animal
industry. The need for approved drugs to control diseases in minor
species and for minor uses in major species has increased with
intensified production units and consumer demand for residue-free meat
and animal products. The program provides research needed to develop
and ultimately culminate in drug approval by FDA for the above
purposes. The goals are accomplished through the use of regional animal
drug coordinators as well as a national coordinator to prioritize the
need, secure investigators at Federal, state and private institutions,
and oversee the research and data compilation necessary to meet Federal
regulations for approval. All drug approvals are national, although
industry use may be regional. For example, certain aquaculture and the
game bird industries are concentrated in specific geographic sections
of the country. The administration believes this research to be of
national, regional, or local need.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original NRSP-7 goal to obtain approval by the Food and
Drug Administration for animal drugs intended for use in minor species
and for minor uses in major species remains as the dominant goal of the
program. In recent years, the research program has expanded or given
additional emphasis to aquaculture species, veal calves, and sheep. In
addition, several new animal drug requests were recently received for
game birds. The importance of environmental assessment, residue
withdrawals, and occupational safety have increasingly been given more
attention during the approval process to help assure consumer
protection. To date, 299 drug requests have been submitted to the Minor
Use Animal Drug Program for the development of data in support of the
submission of a New Animal Drug Approval. Working in conjunction with
many universities, 25 public master files have been published in the
Federal Register providing approval for drug use in minor species.
Currently, 24 active research projects are being conducted in 15 states
involving 18 animal species and 17 different drugs. Whereas a total of
299 animal drug requests have been submitted to the program since 1983,
program funding has been available for only about one out of every five
requests. In 1998, four FDA reviews were completed and will be
published as Public Master Files. They were tilmicosin for the
treatment of chronic respiratory disease in sheep; clorsulon for the
treatment of hepatic disease caused by Fasciola hepatica; long-acting
oxytetracycline in sheep for bacterial pneumonia; and ivermectin
injection for the treatment of Ostertagia ostertagia in American bison.
Through this safe and efficient process, consumers can be assured that
human health is not jeopardized in any way. Moreover, the Minor Use
Animal Drug Program has averaged only $200,000 in Federal funding for
each of the drugs that have been approved for minor species. The Center
for Veterinary Medicine of the Food and Drug Administration is
cooperating and supporting this program to the fullest extent. The
program is a prime example of Federal interagency cooperation in
coordination with academic institutions, pharmaceutical industries, and
commodity interests to effectively meet an urgent need.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from appropriated funds in the
amount of $240,000 per year for fiscal years 1982-1985; $229,000 per
year for fiscal years 1986-1989; $226,000 for fiscal year 1990;
$450,000 for fiscal year 1991; $464,000 per year for fiscal years 1992
and 1993; $611,000 for fiscal year 1994; and $550,000 per year for
fiscal years 1995-1999. A total of $6,841,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $156,099 state appropriations, $29,409 industry
contributions and $11,365 miscellaneous in 1991; $265,523 state
appropriations, $1,182 product sales, $10,805 industry contributions,
and $59 miscellaneous in 1992; $212,004 state appropriations, $315
industry contributions, and $103 miscellaneous in 1993; $157,690 state
appropriations and $7,103 miscellaneous in 1994; $84,359 state
appropriations in 1995; $191,835 non-federal support in 1996; $357,099
non-federal support in 1997; and $104,596 state appropriations and
$97,375 industry contributions in 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The grants have been awarded to the four regional animal
drug coordinators located at Cornell University, the University of
Florida, Michigan State University, and the University of California-
Davis, and to program Headquarters at Cornell University. Research is
conducted at these universities and through allocation of these funds
for specific experiments at the State Agricultural Experiment Stations,
the Agricultural Research Service, the U.S. Department of Interior, and
in conjunction with several pharmaceutical companies.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Selected categories of the Special Research Grants program
address important national/regional research initiatives. The overall
objectives established cooperatively with FDA and industry remain
valid. However, specific objectives continually are met and revised to
reflect the changing priorities for FDA, industry, and consumers.
Research projects for this program have involved 20 different animal
and aquaculture species with emphasis given in recent years to research
on drugs for the expanding aquaculture industry and increasing number
of requests from the sheep, veal calf, and game bird industries. The
program involves research on biological systems that by their nature
are ever changing and presenting new challenges and/or threats to
agriculture. Especially with the new sensitivities about food safety
and environment protection, there is a high priority for continuation
of these ongoing projects.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency conducted a formal review of the Minor Use
Animal Drug Program in 1997. An external review team of experts
representing animal drug research and development, the veterinary
profession, the pharmaceutical industry, and academia found the program
to be very productive. Recommendations from the review included: (a)
improve the visibility of the Minor Use Animal Drug Program, (b)
improve working relationships with the veterinary and pharmaceutical
communities, and (c) acquire additional support for the program by
pharmaceutical companies, universities, and the Federal government to
meet the identified national needs with emphasis on responsiveness to
industry needs and food and environmental safety. Annually, grant
proposals are scientifically peer reviewed, and twice a year the agency
and program representatives meet with the Food and Drug Administration
representatives to evaluate progress and to prioritize research
requests. Workshops are held periodically to identify priorities for
the program whereby producers, pharmaceutical companies, FDA, and
researchers participate.
molluscan shellfish, oregon
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Molluscan Shellfish grant.
Answer. The research under this program was initiated in fiscal
year 1995. A germplasm repository for molluscan shellfish was
established and is serving as a source of genetic material for genetic
improvement of cultured shellfish stocks. A broodstock selection
program was implemented in partnership with industry and is currently
evaluating selected families for commercial production. This repository
was also used to establish a population of tetraploid pacific oysters
for use in the production in triploid oysters and has established a
population of Kumamoto oysters. The proposal is put though the
university's peer review process and is reviewed by the CSREES Program
Manager.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The researchers indicate that there is a national need for
a molluscan broodstock development program to benefit the commercial
industry through conservation, genetic manipulation, and wise
management of the genetic resources of molluscan shellfish.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goals of this research program are to establish a
repository for molluscan shellfish germplasm, to establish breeding
programs for commercial production of molluscan shellfish, and to
establish a resource center for the industry researchers and other
interested parties in the U.S. and abroad. The oyster broodstock
selection program was implemented in partnership with industry and
performance trials of selected stocks continue at commercial sites.
Tetraploid oysters are being produced for use in the production of
triploid seedstock to be used in commercial production trials. A
temperature-controlled algae culture facility has been constructed to
provide adequate nutrition to the oysters used in the studies. Oyster
broodstock conditioning systems have been developed. Approximately 150
families have been produced from wild broodstock, and these are
currently being evaluated at commercial grow-out sites in Alaska,
Oregon, California, and Washington.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1995
with an appropriation of $250,000; fiscal year 1996 was $300,000; and
fiscal years 1997 through 1999 was $400,000. A total of $1,750,000 has
been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The university estimates a total of $135,454 of non-federal
funding in fiscal year 1995 primarily from state sources; in fiscal
year 1996, 1997, and 1998 no cost sharing was provided.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted at Oregon State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Although the specific research objectives outlined in the
original proposal were to be completed in 1996, researchers anticipated
that the original broad objectives would be completed in 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. CSREES Program manager evaluates the progress of this
project on an annual basis. The university is required to submit an
accomplishment report when the new proposal is submitted to CSREES for
funding. The 1998 review indicated that the researchers were well
qualified to conduct the research and work in close cooperation with
the private sector. The research addresses an important opportunity for
the industry, and the work complements other research being funded
though USDA on molluscan shellfish. The 1999 CSREES review will be
completed within three weeks of submission of the proposal. The
researchers are asked to the develop a research proposal consistent
with the National Science and Technology Council's Strategic Plans for
Aquaculture Research and Development.
multi-commodity research, oregon
Question. Please provide a description of the research done under
the multi-commodity research program?
Answer. This research provides agricultural market research and
analysis to support Pacific Northwest producers and agribusiness in
penetrating new and expanding Pacific Rim markets for value-added
products. It examines the potential for increasing the competitiveness
and economic value-added by Pacific Northwest agriculture through
improvements in food production, processing, and trade by assisting
decision makers in developing economic and business strategies. The
grant is not competitively awarded at the state or regional level, but
the proposal is merit reviewed at the Experiment Station and the
departmental levels.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher states that Oregon and other
Pacific Northwest States produce a wide variety of agricultural
commodities and products with commercial potential for export to
Pacific Rim countries. Research and analysis are necessary to guide
agricultural producers and processors in assessing markets and
developing market strategies and value-added products, and in
developing marketing strategics tailored to specific Pacific Rim
markets. The principal researcher believes this research to be of
national, regional and local need.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. This research is to gain better specific understanding of
the technical, economic, and social relationships that define Oregon's
value-added agricultural sector, and examine how these factors affect
the economic performance of the sector. This project investigates and
develops innovations in value-added agriculture to improve the economic
performance of the agricultural and food manufacturing sectors in the
Pacific Northwest. The current research plan examines the economic
variables that underlie competition in food production, processing, and
marketing in the Pacific Rim; addresses technological challenges in
transportation, storage, and quality maintenance; assists in testing
and evaluating new product ideas; and monitors economic performance of
the Oregon value-added agricultural industry. Work in progress has
resulted in research output in four topic areas: market research,
packaging research, sensory research, and food processing industry
strategic planning. Output includes development of a World Wide Web
site for Pacific Northwest exports, data bases, survey work, and
collaborative research activity with industry and with institute and
university researchers in selected Asian countries. Manuscripts,
working papers, journal articles, and graduate theses are outputs to
date.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The research began in fiscal year 1993 with an
appropriation of $300,000. The fiscal year 1994 appropriation was
$282,000, and fiscal years 1995 through 1999 appropriations were
$364,000 for each year. The total amount appropriated is $2,402,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-federal funding for this grant was $168,824 in State
appropriations in fiscal year 1991, $177,574 in State appropriations in
1993, and $162,394 in State appropriations in fiscal year 1994. This
project involves the use of Oregon State University administrative
personnel, equipment, utilities and facilities that are indirect costs
to the project. These costs constitute an Oregon State University
contribution to this project which is not allowable as a reimbursable
expense. Due to a change in university policy regarding indirect costs,
the university has not reported the amount of non-federal funds
appropriated for fiscal years 1995-1999.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The research is carried out at Oregon State University in
Corvallis and at the Northwest Food Innovation Center in Portland,
Oregon.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. This Special Grant is awarded on a year-by-year basis.
Oregon State University traditionally requests funds for this project
on an annual basis and has budgeted the funds to individual sub-
projects on that basis. Progress on the original objectives is as
follows: baseline data have been accumulated; an economic growth
assessment model is being refined; global competitiveness is being
assessed for value-added Pacific Northwest agricultural products;
targets for performance are being worked out with agricultural
industries; and trade teams have been involved in assessing the ability
of U.S. based industries to meet the demands for noodle production for
Asian markets. The anticipated completion date is 1999.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. CSREES reviews project reports, succeeding annual project
proposals, research studies, and educational programs. A CSREES merit
review was dated August 1998. The work was found to be scientifically
sound and of high priority to the region.
multi-cropping strategies for aquaculture, hawaii
Question. Please provide a description of the research funded under
the multi-cropping strategies for aquaculture research grant in Hawaii.
Answer. The original goal of this program was to identify and
develop the sustainable and commercial opportunities inherent in the
Molokai aquaculture community while maintaining the cultural and
physical environment unique to Molokai. In fiscal year 1993, the
university redirected this research program to address the
opportunities of alternative aquaculture production systems, including
the ancient Hawaiian fish ponds on the island of Molokai. A community-
based research identification process has been used to identify and
develop specific research projects and prioritize objectives in this
program. Current research includes work in the area of water quality
characterization to accelerate permitting of aquaculture systems. Field
testing of alternative species is underway. The proposal is placed
through the university's peer review process and is reviewed by the
CSREES Program Manager.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researchers indicate that the primary need
for this research is to assist the native Hawaiians in improving the
profitability and sustainability of the ancient Hawaiian fish ponds and
other appropriate aquaculture systems as part of a total community
development program.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this program was to develop technology
for the co-production of shrimp and oysters in aquacultural production
systems. Research led to the development of oyster production systems
that have been field tested under commercial conditions. The overall
goal of the current project is to identify and develop sustainable and
commercial opportunities inherent in the Molokai aquaculture community
while maintaining the cultural and physical environment unique to
Molokai. Multidimensional field testing and evaluation of existing and
restored ancient Hawaiian fish ponds is currently underway. Hatchery
techniques have been developed for the culture of the Pacific
threadfin, Moi, and seaweed. Techniques for the culture of two edible
aquatic plants have been refined. Researchers are currently
characterizing differences in water quality in fish ponds to establish
criteria for fish pond permitting and management. Current studies
involve shrimp and ornamental fish production and integration of
agriculture and aquaculture systems.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. This research was initiated in fiscal year 1987 and
$152,000 per year was appropriated in fiscal years 1987 through 1989.
The fiscal year 1990-1993 appropriations were $150,000 per year;
$141,000 in fiscal year 1994; and $127,000 per year in fiscal years
1995-1999. A total of $1,832,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The university reports a total of $137,286 of non-federal
funding for this program in fiscal years 1991-1994, $318,468 in fiscal
years 1995-1996, $116,730 in fiscal year 1997, and $197,000 in fiscal
year 1998. The primary source of non-federal funding was from state,
county, and private sources.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted through the University of
Hawaii on the island of Molokai.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The completion date for the original project was 1993. The
original objectives were met. The specific research outlined in the
current proposal will be completed in fiscal year 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency evaluates the progress of this project on an
annual basis. The university is required to provide an accomplishment
report when the new grant proposal is submitted to CSREES for funding.
The 1998 review indicated that progress has been made in the
implementation of the program despite the challenges of developing a
community-based program in such a unique social and cultural
environment. Progress in the implementation of the program is well
documented. The 1999 CSREES review will be completed within two weeks
of submission of the proposal. The researchers are asked to the develop
a research proposal consistent with the National Science and Technology
Council's Strategic Plan for Aquaculture Research and Development.
national biological impact assessment program
Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the National Biological Impact Assessment Program grant.
Answer. The National Biological Impact Assessment Program supports
the environmentally-responsible use of biotechnology products to
benefit agriculture and the environment. This grant supports the
Information Systems for Biotechnology which is a national resource in
agricultural biotechnology information. This system serves the research
community by providing information about biotechnology regulations and
the environmental issues associated with small-and large-scale releases
of genetically-modified organisms. It provides searchable databases,
documents, and resource lists on the internet, a monthly News Report,
custom software to assist in risk assessment and risk management, and
printed reference materials.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. During the last decade there has been an explosion of new
information produced by rapid advances in biotechnology and its
beneficial application to agriculture and the environment. This program
fulfills an important national need to provide scientists easy access
to relevant information that will facilitate conducting research that
complies with the oversight and regulatory requirements for testing
biotechnology products, and foster the safe application of
biotechnology to benefit agriculture and the environment. The
Information System for Biotechnology was the first on-line system to
address the information needs of the national agricultural
biotechnology research community, and it continues to be one of the
most comprehensive sources of information on this topic.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of the Program remains in force today: to
facilitate and assess the safe application of new techniques for the
genetic modification of plants, animals, and microorganisms to benefit
agriculture and the environment. Since its inception in 1989, the
Program has developed tools and resources to provide scientists,
regulators, teachers, administrators, and the interested public with
value-added information in a readily-accessible form. It has fostered
the development of a computer-based information system that has grown
into an internet site serving more than 4,200 requests per month from
over 40 countries. The site carries documents pertaining to regulatory
oversight of biotechnology products, policy statements, and risk
assessment and risk management information. Searchable databases
include records of all environmental releases of genetically-engineered
organisms conducted under authority of the Department of Agriculture,
institutional biosafety committees, state regulatory contacts, and
biotechnology research centers and companies. A monthly News Report,
covering research, regulatory, legal, and international issues, is
distributed to 1,500 e-mail and 500 print subscribers. In previous
years, biosafety training workshops were conducted for public and
private sector scientists and state regulatory officials. Major
activities now underway include a risk assessment workshop on
Ecological Effects of Pest Resistance Genes in Managed Ecosystems, to
be held January 31-February 3, 1999, and publication of ``Greenhouse
Research with Transgenic Plants and Microbes: A Common Sense Guide to
Containment,'' a guidebook for safely conducting research in
greenhouses.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1989, $125,000; fiscal year 1990, $123,000; fiscal
years 1991-1993, $300,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $282,000; and
fiscal years 1995-1999, $254,000 per year. A total of $2,700,000 has
been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. This program is administered through the Department of
Biochemistry at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University--
VPISU. The university contributes administrative and clerical support
which amounts to approximately $5,000 per year.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The grant award is with VPISU. Former and current partners
in the program include the Pennsylvania State University, Louisiana
State University, North Carolina Biotechnology Center, Michigan State
University, Arizona State University, National Agricultural Library,
and Institute for Biotechnology Information.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. There remains a continuing critical need to address the
safety of genetically-modified organisms to benefit agriculture and the
environment. Application of Biotechnology is expanding rapidly.
Increasing amounts of new information needs to be properly integrated
into the computerized information system each year. This program has
been very successful in providing essential, updated information on the
conduct of safe field experiments. Thus, the program remains a high
priority and needs to be continued.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. An external panel of scientists reviewed this program in
1994. The review report was highly complimentary of this project and
recommended continuation of the program. Another external review and
site visit is being planned for the year 2000. The current proposal was
peer-reviewed at VPISU prior to submission.
nematode resistance genetic engineering, new mexico
Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Nematode Resistance Genetic Engineering Project grant.
Answer. This research is designed to investigate naturally-
occurring compounds from diverse sources that may confer pesticidal
resistance if introduced into agronomic plants. The main target pests
are plant parasitic nematodes. The work is using molecular biological
techniques to incorporate genes into agronomic plants which will
shorten the time frame to produce transgenic plants. This project was
not awarded competitively but has undergone peer review at the
university level and merit review at CSREES.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that the successful
development of these techniques and subsequence transfer of nematode
resistant genes into agronomic plants will provide an environmentally-
sound system for all plants susceptible to plant parasitic nematodes.
The principal researcher believes that this project has the potential
for both regional and national application.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to provide an
alternative approach for the control of plant parasitic nematodes
through the use of molecular biological technologies to transfer
pesticide resistance to plants. A nematode-stimulated promoter element
was engineered for insertion in front of a bacteria toxin. A unique
technique utilizing insect intestinal membrane vesicles were used as
tools for detection of specific protein binding domains. The synthetic
gene, CRY3A Bt, has been successful in field trails on potato and
eggplants.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991
and the appropriations for fiscal years 1991-1993 were $150,000 per
year; $141,000 in 1994; and $127,000 per year in fiscal years 1995-
1999. A total of $1,226,000 has been appropriated thus far.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $65,000 state appropriations in 1991; $62,000 in state
appropriations in 1992; $75,000 in state appropriations in 1994; and
$75,000 state appropriations in 1995. For 1996, the University and the
Plant Genetic Engineering Laboratory provided matching contributions in
faculty and staff salaries, facilities, equipment maintenance and
replacement, and administrative support. In 1997, there were no
matching non-federal funds. In 1998, $48,000 state appropriated funds
were provided. In 1999, $62,747 is being appropriated in non-federal
funds.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at the New Mexico State
University, and at collaborating universities in the region.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objectives have not as yet been met. The
estimated completion date for this project is in 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The last evaluation of this project was a merit review
conducted in January, 1998. In summary, the overall goal of this
project is to use molecular technology to develop pesticide capability
in plants of agronomic importance. A plant transformation system was
developed to improve the historically difficult transformation
efficiently of monocots. In field trails of transformed eggplants and
potatoes, high levels of effectiveness against insects have been found.
Several potato and alfalfa lines have been transformed and established
in field plots and are being tested at this time. Other constructs are
being used in many crops to determine resistance to nematodes and other
crop pests.
nonfood agricultural products program, nebraska
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Nonfood Agricultural Products Program grant.
Answer. This work focuses on the identification of specific market
niches that can be filled by products produced from agricultural
materials, developing the needed technology to produce the product, and
working with the private sector to transfer the technology into
commercial practice. Major areas of application include starch-based
polymers, use of tallow as diesel fuel, improvements in ethanol
production, use of vegetable oil as drip oil for irrigation wells,
production of levulinic acid, the extraction of wax from grain sorghum,
and production of microcrystalline cellulose from crop biomass. The
Dean and Director of Agricultural Research has initiated a review
process that parallels the process used for Experiment Station
projects. Two to three faculty member are asked to critically review
the proposal using criteria as described by Cooperative State Research,
Education and Extension Service in the letter soliciting proposals for
1999.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes our ability to produce
agricultural commodities exceeds our needs for food and feed. These
commodities are environmentally-friendly feedstocks which can be used
in the production of many biochemicals and biomaterials that have
traditionally been produced from petroleum. The production of the
commodities and the value-added processing of these commodities is
regional in scope.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The objectives are to identify niche markets for industrial
utilization of agricultural products; improve and develop conversion
processes as needed for specific product isolation and utilization;
provide technical, marketing, and business assistance to industries;
and coordinate agricultural industrial materials research at the
University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Accomplishments include
commercialization of soybean-based drip oil for irrigation wells.
Bruning Grain Co. Is marketing ``Soy Bio Drip.'' MCC Technologies, Inc.
continues to refine the processing requirement and develop a business
plan for production of microcrystalline cellulose from crop residues
such as corn cobs, wheat straw, and cellulose via a reactive extrusion
process developed by the university's Industrial Agricultural Products
Center. Commercialization activities continue in the area of printable
plastics. The Center is currently negotiating a royalty position with a
major producer of smart cards. There are continuing activities with the
areas of phone cards and credit cards. The Center also is currently
negotiating a royalty position with a company for the use of
biodegradable loose-fill packaging technology developed at the Center.
Various hardness grades of plastic particle media blast using a
combination of commercially-available biodegradable polymers have been
produced, and two formulations are currently being tested by U.S.
Technology Corporation. All of these commercialization projects are the
result of research efforts, most of which have been supported by the
Nonfood Agricultural Products Program.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The funding levels for this project are $109,000 in 1990;
$110,000 per year in fiscal years 1991-1993; $103,000 in fiscal year
1994; $93,000 in fiscal year 1995; and $64,000 in fiscal years 1996-
1999 per year. A total of $891,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-Federal funding for this project is: in fiscal year
1992, $315,000; fiscal year 1993, $330,000; fiscal year 1994, $330,000;
fiscal year 1995, $309,000; fiscal year 1996, $251,000; fiscal year
1997, $250,000; and fiscal year 1998, $340,000. These funds were from
Nebraska Corn, Soybean, Wheat, Sorghum, and Beef Boards, World Wildlife
Fund, Nebraska Bankers Association, United Soybean Board and National
Corn Growers Association, Bioplastics, Inc., Biofoam, Inc. and M.C.C.
Technologies, Inc.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This work is being conducted at the Industrial Agricultural
Products Center, L.W. Chase Hall, University of Nebraska, East Campus,
Lincoln, Nebraska.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The objectives of the original projects have been
completed. Specific objectives have been identified in each renewal
request.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This project is evaluated based on the annual progress
report. The cognizant staff scientist has reviewed the project and
determined that the research is conducted in accordance with the
mission of this agency.
oil resources from desert plants, new mexico
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the Oil Resources from Desert Plants, New Mexico.
Answer. The Plant Genetic Engineering Laboratory has been exploring
the potential for the production of high value industrial oils from
agricultural products. The effort has been focused on transferring the
unique oil producing capability of jojoba into oilseed rape and
soybean. With the development of technology to both isolate the enzyme
components of oil biosynthesis and successfully transform the target
plants, significant advances have been made with jojoba. In addition,
oil enzymes have been studied in castor, oilseed rape, desert primrose,
cyanobacteria, and meadowfoam. A panel of scientists is scheduled to
re-evaluate the scientific merit of the project on February 9, 1999.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes desert plant sources of
valuable oils for industrial applications are typically low yielding
and limited in climatic areas for farm production. Genetic engineering
offers an opportunity to move genetic capability to high yielding major
crops. Many of the oils and their derivative acids, waxes, and others
can directly substitute for imports of similar polymer materials,
especially petroleum.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of the research is to transfer the unique oil
producing capability of jojoba and other native shrubs into higher
yielding crops such as oilseed rape and soybean. This is a form of
metabolic engineering, and it requires the transfer of coordinated
groups of genes and enzymes into the host plant to catalyze the
necessary biochemical reactions. Recent progress includes successful
transformation of tobacco and alfalfa plants with oil metabolism genes
from the meadowfoam plant and a cyanobacterium.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. This research began in fiscal year 1989 with a $100,000
grant under the Supplemental and Alternative Crops program. Grants have
been awarded under the Special Research Grants program as follows:
fiscal year 1990, $148,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $200,000 per year;
fiscal year 1994, $188,000; fiscal years 1995-1996, $169,000 each year;
and fiscal years 1997 through 1999, $175,000 per year. A total of
$1,899,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Matching funds in the amount of $27,747 from State and
private sources were used to help fund this project in fiscal year
1998. New Mexico State University and the Plant Genetic Engineering
Laboratory also provide $90,000 for in-kind support per year including
faculty salaries, graduate student stipends, facilities, equipment
maintenance, and administrative support services.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research is being conducted by the Plant Genetics
Engineering Laboratory at New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New
Mexico.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. An estimate of the total time in Federal funds required to
complete all phases of the project is 3-4 years. The application of
this research for improved management of natural resources will evolve
and expand as technology in the area advances .
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The Oil Resources from Desert Plants, New Mexico project
was evaluated for scientific merit by an agency peer review panel on
January 29, 1998. The panel recommended approval of the project pending
receipt of supplemental information on administrative aspects of the
project. The Institution conducts an internal peer review of this
project by scientists with expertise in this area of research. A panel
of scientists is scheduled to re-evaluate the scientific merit of the
project for the agency on February 9, 1999.
organic waste utilization, new mexico
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Organic Waste Utilization, New Mexico grant.
Answer. Composted dairy waste is utilized as a pretreatment to land
application. Composting dairy waste before land application may
alleviate many of the potential problems associated with dairy waste
use in agronomic production systems. Composting may also add value to
the dairy waste as a potential landscape or potting medium. High
temperatures maintained in the composting process may be sufficient for
killing enteric pathogens and weed seeds in dairy waste. Noxious odors
and water content may be reduced via composting. Composted dairy waste
may be easier to apply, produce better seed beds, and not increase soil
salinity as much as uncomposted dairy waste. Changes in the physical
structure of the soil are being monitored for the effects of composted
vs uncomposted amendments. This project undergoes annual peer review
from academic institutions and experts from government and state
agencies, and industrial partners.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes the research will address
the utilization of dairy waste combined with other high-carbon waste
from agriculture and industry, including potash and paper waste, for
composting. This approach to waste management will have high impact for
states where dairy and agriculture are important industry sectors. This
is especially true for New Mexico and the southwest United States where
the dairy business is growing rapidly. This research will also provide
an additional pollution prevention tool for the industrial sectors
dealing with potash and paper waste. The principal investigator
believes this research to be of local, regional and national
importance.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of the research was and continues to
determine the feasibility of simultaneously composting dairy waste from
agriculture and industry. The research will determine effects of
utilizing composted waste, as opposed to raw waste, as a soil amendment
on plant growth, irrigation requirements, and nutrient and heavy metal
uptake. Phase I, to determine the feasibility of simultaneous
composting dairy waste with available high carbon wastes from
agriculture and industry, has been completed. Phase II, to determine
the appropriate ratios of waste to carbon substrate for successful
composting is completed. Phase III, to determine the kinetics of
nutrient release and effects of composted material on heavy metal
uptake will be completed this year.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1996
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1996 was $150,000, and for fiscal
years 1997 through 1999, $100,000 per year. A total of $450,000 has
been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds for the duration of this grant from
the state appropriation is $75,000. There is another $50,000 in-kind
support from the industrial partners. Additionally, a sum of $15,000
from the New Mexico State Highway Department has been leveraged by this
project.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This work is being carried out in New Mexico under the
direction of the Waste-Management Education and Research Consortium in
collaboration with The Composting Council and industrial partners, such
as Envio in Ohio, Plains Electric, and McKinley Paper in New Mexico.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Completion date of the initial phases will be March 2000.
Objectives are being met as the project continues. The project has been
progressing according to the specified targets. Phases I and II have
been completed. Phase IV has been added in order to evaluate the multi-
year compost application on parameters such as plant growth, soil water
retention, and soil salinity.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This project has been evaluated based on the semi-annual
progress report and research findings presented at conferences. The
cognizant staff scientist has reviewed the project and determined that
this research is conducted in accordance with the mission of this
agency.
pasture & forage research, utah
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Pasture and Forage Research, Utah grant.
Answer. This is a multidisciplinary effort to develop profitable
and sustainable pasture and forage management systems. CSREES has
requested the university to submit a grant proposal that has not yet
been received.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The proposed research under this Special Research Grant
will address issues related to forage production and utilization in
Utah.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this project is to develop a
comprehensive guide for the management of irrigated pastures to assist
livestock producers reduce cost and increase net returns.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1997
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1997 was $200,000, and for fiscal
years 1998 and 1999, $225,000 per year. A total of $650,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-federal funds in support of this project and related
activities were $360,200 for 1997 and $356,000 for 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted at the Utah Agricultural
Experiment Station.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The principal investigators anticipate the completion date
for these objectives to be in 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The grant is peer reviewed annually through the
institutions project approval process as well as by CSREES National
Program Leader.
peach tree short life in south carolina
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Peach Tree Short Life in South Carolina grant.
Answer. Progress continued in 1998 with focus on the evaluation and
longevity and productivity of Guardian rootstocks on peach tree short
life sites in the southeast and replant sites throughout North America.
More fundamental work has involved the biochemical characterization of
the egg-kill factor produced by a bacteria on nematode eggs. Other
basic studies involved the cloning of genes associated with production
and expression of toxins from bacteria. New studies were initiated on
the use of solarization to reduce nematode populations for peach tree
replant. This project was not awarded competitively but has undergone
peer review at the university level and merit review at CSREES.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. According to the principal researcher, the problem of
disease on peach, nectarine, and plum trees in the southeastern United
States effects is very great. More than 70 percent of peach acreage in
the southeast is effected. Research continued on the improvement of
rootstocks and the use of the cultivar Guardian BY520-9 which has now
been released in 22 states including California, New Jersey, and
Michigan where bacterial canker is a problem.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of this research was the continued evaluation of
productivity of peach Guardian BY520-9 rootstocks on peach tree short
life and investigations into novel management for ring nematodes by
bacteria. Recent accomplishments include the increase in bulk
commercial production of Guardian seed while two new Guardian
selections have had very good nursery trails. Guardian rootstock
continues to be tested in 22 states and is performing well. A marker
for a gene for rootstock resistance to two root-knot nematode species
was sequenced and successfully use to correctly sort current commercial
rootstocks according to their known nematode resistance or
susceptibility. A major find is that the egg-kill factor produced by
the bacteria kill root-knot nematode eggs as well as ring nematode
eggs.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1981, $100,000; fiscal years 1982-1985, $192,000
per year; fiscal years 1986-1988, $183,000 per year; fiscal year 1989,
$192,000; fiscal year 1990, $190,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $192,000
per year; fiscal year 1994, $180,000; fiscal years 1995-1999, $162,000
per year. A total of $3,365,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources for this grant were as
follows: $149,281 state appropriations in 1991; $153,276 state
appropriations in 1992; $149,918 state appropriations in 1993; $211,090
state appropriations in 1994; $193,976 in state appropriations in 1995;
$169,806 in state appropriations in 1996 and 1997; $150,693 in state
appropriations in 1998; and $92,099 in state appropriations in 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This research is being conducted at South Carolina
Agricultural Experiment Station.
Question. What as the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The researchers anticipate that the work may be completed
in fiscal year 2000. Adequate progress has been made to assure that the
objectives will be met before the completion date.
Question. What was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The last agency evaluation of this project was a merit
review completed January, 1998. In summary, the evaluation of peach
rootstocks with resistance to peach tree short life is of continued
importance in managing this disease. The use of biological control
strategies in suppression of plant parasitic nematodes are a
complementary area of research in that it can enhance disease
management by protecting the peach rootstocks. Solarization of orchard
sites prior to peach tree replanting significantly altered the
microbial community and suppressed nematode multiplication in the
rhizosphere. Some accomplishments were the increased production and
release of commercial Guardian seed and continued evaluation of
rootstock in 22 states and provinces. A molecular techniques that
separates resistant and susceptible peach rootstocks was validated.
pest control alternatives, south carolina
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Pest Control Alternatives grant.
Answer. This grant supports research and technology transfer to
provide growers with alternatives for managing pests and to implement
the use of new alternatives reducing the sole reliance on chemical
pesticides.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The investigators contributing to the research and
technology transfer at South Carolina believe that need for the
development of alternatives for managing pests on vegetables is a
regional and national problem. Contributions from the South Carolina
work are projected by South Carolina to impact vegetable production in
the Southern region and consumers of vegetable production from the
Southern region. Research on pest management alternatives of national
significance could potentially be supported by competitive grants
awarded under the Pest Management Alternatives Program.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of this program is to investigate alternative
methods of managing insects, plant diseases, and nematodes in vegetable
crops as complements to or as substitutes for conventional chemical
sprays. The role of indigenous predators, parasites, and pathogens in
controlling insect pests are being evaluated. Technology transfer to
conventional and Integrated Pest Management--IPM--systems has resulted
in modified thresholds for caterpillar pests in collards and tomatoes
which incorporate the impact of beneficial insects in the system and a
sampling plan for tomato fruitworm which considers numbers of
parasitized eggs used to schedule insecticide sprays. Several vegetable
crops have been successfully grown without chemical insecticides.
Refinements in field scouting techniques for insect pests of cole crops
has translated into reliable treatment decisions--using microbial
materials--with substantial savings in time required for field
scouting. Biological control agents have been isolated, identified, and
used in tests to demonstrate their potential in reducing dependence on
chemical insecticides. The value of indigenous biological control
agents has been demonstrated. The impacts of these against target pests
have been shown along with the adverse effects of chemical insecticides
on these natural control agents--especially predators and parasites.
There are now crops--cole crops, for example--for which the use of
chemical insecticides is avoided altogether, with no loss in yield and
quality. However, other crops--e.g. tomato, peas, beans--still require
chemicals for pest control, until alternatives can be found.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. This work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1992
and the appropriation for fiscal years 1992 and 1993 was $125,000 per
year. In fiscal year 1994 the appropriation was $118,000 and in fiscal
years 1995 through 1999, $106,000 per year. A total of $898,000 has
been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. South Carolina has provided approximately $200,000 in
personnel support and operating dollars per year from State
appropriations based on the Principal Investigator's estimate.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. This research and technology transfer program is being
conducted at the South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station,
Clemson University at Clemson, Florence, and Charleston, South
Carolina.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objectives of the project were for five years.
The project has been revised in 1998. Research on objective A: Develop
and evaluate microbial pest control agents for control of plant
pathogens and insect pests of vegetables, is defuse and non-conclusive.
It would be far superior for continued work in this area to be
submitted to competitive peer review programs where the investigators
would need to clearly focus specific activities and receive the benefit
of the comments of peer scientists. Objective B: Determine the efficacy
of innovative cultural practices for vegetable production systems in
South Carolina. Objective C: Assess the role of indigenous predators,
parasites, and pathogens in controlling insect pests; determine
environmental and biological factors that influence the abundance and
distribution of these indigenous beneficials; and consider the presence
of natural enemies, as well as pests, in management decisions, is the
area where the most progress appears evident and has been cited in the
accomplishments. We feel that the base of information and orientation
of the research in this area is adequate and of quality that the
investigators could compete well in competitive grant programs such as
sustainable agriculture or regional IPM grant programs, and would
benefit from the peer review process. Progress in this area is an
ongoing process as explanations are sought for the results being
obtained. Objectives D: Evaluate and develop germplasm, breeding lines
and cultivars for resistance to major pathogens of commercially
important vegetables. Objective E: Transfer new technology to user
groups, has not demonstrated any progress that would not be anticipated
from ongoing conventional sources of funds.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. We evaluate this project annually when we process the grant
and plan to evaluate this project through a site visit during early
summer of 1999.
pesticide impact assessment program
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Pesticide Impact Assessment grant?
Answer. Research funded by the Pesticide Impact Assessment
Program--PIAP--discovers, gathers, publishes, and distributes crop and
livestock profiles which address the information needs for
implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act--FQPA. These data
include the use and effectiveness of pest management alternatives which
is essential to the maintenance of economically competitive U.S. crops
and livestock production systems. This program produces and publishes
crop and livestock production profiles which are documents that
evaluate the biologic and economic impact, implications and
consequences of replacing existing pest management options with
alternatives. By coordinating PIAP data collections in conjunction with
the survey activities of the National Agricultural Statistic Service--
NASS--and the Agricultural Marketing Service's--AMS--Pesticide Data
Program, special pest management information needs of small acreage and
minor crop farmers are better served.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. This program provides the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency--EPA--and USDA with information on the use, importance, and
effectiveness of pest management alternatives essential to U.S.
agricultural crops and livestock production. This program, in
responding to the information needs of the EPA, is supporting the
national implementation of the FQPA. In recent years, a special focus
of the PIAP has been directed into minor crop production systems. To
ensure relevance and focus on minor crops, this program solicits pest
management needs assessments from producers, gathered by the NASS,
Land-Grant University System scientists, and the Department's Office of
Pest Management Policy--OPMP. The EPA uses these data in making
environmentally-sound regulatory decisions. The USDA uses scientists
from the Land-Grant University System to identify commodities where
critical pests threaten the production system, for FQPA risk
assessments, and for identification of risk management options for
specific production systems. Through this cooperative interaction, USDA
and EPA receive state-generated agricultural information needed for
sound regulatory decisionmaking. The state partner receives Federal
funds, participatory input into the regulatory process, and direct
access to timely regulatory information.
Question. What was the original and current goal of this research
and what has been accomplished to date?
Answer. The PIAP has been an on-going research effort whose
original goal in 1977 was to gather data to provide comprehensive
assessments documenting the probable impact on agriculture if certain
pesticides would no longer be available. A Federally-coordinated
network of state scientist contacts has been established in the
intervening years as broader and more environmentally-enlightened goals
evolved within this program. Today the PIAP goals are defined as: (1)
to focus on the collection and delivery of high quality science-based
pest management information for use in the regulatory process; and (2)
to maintain and enhance a strong partnership between USDA and the Land
Grant System in order to continue the positive interactive flow of
vital pest management information between USDA, the regulatory
community, and production agriculture.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal years 1977-1981, $1,810,000 per year; fiscal years
1982-1985, $2,069,000 per year; fiscal years 1986-1988, $1,968,000 per
year; fiscal year 1989, $2,218,000; fiscal year 1990, $2,437,000;
fiscal years 1991-1993, $2,968,000 per year; fiscal year 1994,
$1,474,000; and fiscal years l995-1999, $1,327,000 per year. A total of
$44,898,000 has been appropriated since fiscal year 1977.
Question. What is the source and amount of the non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The majority of the cost of the state scientist and the
PIAP program is born by the state partner. The exact contribution of
each state is not known, nor has this information been requested to be
reported by the states to the Federal partner during the duration of
this program. The Federal program funds provided to the states by
CSREES have been used by state partners to partially defray their costs
of staffing a PIAP State Liaison Representative on their Land Grant
campus. The remaining program expenses, above the Federal contribution,
are born by each state and include the cost of program participant
salaries, facility/clerical expenditures, travel, and supplies. These
costs, several times beyond the Federal contribution, are considered
the non-federal support for this program. The size of the state
contribution varies from state to state, but estimates of matching
support for this program range from 3 to 6 times the Federal dollar
investment.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Work on the PIAP is underway at State Agricultural
Experiment Stations in 50 states and 5 Territories. The distribution of
competitively-awarded PIAP Regional Grants is coordinated through the
Agricultural Experiment Station in a lead state in each of the four
regions of the United States: namely, California in the western region;
Michigan in the north central region; Pennsylvania in the northeastern
region; and Florida in the southern region.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The PIAP has been an on-going research effort which gathers
relevant pest management information necessary for the changing
regulatory scene. A Federally-coordinated network of state scientist
contacts has been developed to address the information needs of the
regulatory community. With leadership from OPMP, this multi-agency
program coordinates the gathering of high quality pest management
information from our State partners. The combined data needs of FQPA,
EPA, and The Government Performance and Results Act--GPRA--have
resulted in a growing need for accurate and timely pest management
information in 1999. Thus, the original 1977 objectives of the PIAP
have been met but the information needs of production agriculture and
U. S. citizen's continue to grow with the empowering regulations of new
legislation which require the continuation of these activities to
demonstrate responsible and responsive federal engagement on pesticide
issues.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. A comprehensive evaluation and review of the PIAP was
conducted in February 1995. The review panel's report was published in
June 1995. The review team was composed of 10 scientists representing
EPA, Industry, agricultural commodity groups, the Federal government,
and the Land Grant System. This thorough review directed the program to
focus on data collection relating to pesticide usage on minor crops,
the efficacy of pest management alternatives, and issues responsive to
stakeholder's needs. In response to these recommendations, CSREES
brought together the programmatic and budgetary components of the
program into a single coordinated PIAP effort. During fiscal year 1999,
OPMP enhanced it's leadership input to this program focusing on
information which supports the timely and rational implementation FQPA.
pest management alternatives
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Pest Management Alternatives special grant.
Answer. This special research grant supports projects that help
farmers respond to the environmental and regulatory issues confronting
agriculture. These special grant funds support research that provides
farmers with replacement technologies for pesticides that are under
consideration for regulatory action by the Environmental Protection
Agency--EPA--and for which producers do not have effective
alternatives. The passage of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996--
FQPA--makes this special research grant of critical importance to the
Nation's farmers.
New pest management tools are being developed to address critical
pest problems identified by farmers and others in a crop production
region, and to identify new approaches to managing pests without some
of the most widely used pesticides. Farmers have identified the lack of
effective alternative pest management tactics as a primary reason for
not implementing Integrated Pest Management--IPM--on their farms. Where
effective alternative tactics have been developed, they are widely and
rapidly implemented by farmers. These special research grant funds are
distributed on a competitive basis to all eligible research
institutions through the Pest Management Alternatives Program or PMAP.
Research priorities for PMAP are established with the help of a
database analysis system, which draws upon the expertise of the land-
grant university system, commodity groups, and others.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The ability of the Nation's agricultural production system
to keep pace with domestic and global demand for food and fiber is
dependant on access to safe, profitable and reliable pest management
systems. For a variety of factors, farmers and other pest managers have
fewer chemical control options available to them than they did at the
beginning of the decade, and this trend is likely to continue at an
accelerated rate. The FQPA will have significant impacts on pest
management systems in the United States over the next decade, and the
``minor use''--high value crops grown on relatively few acres--will be
particularly hard hit. For these reasons and others, it is essential
that farmers be provided with new pest management tools and better
information so they can remain competitive in today's global
marketplace.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. This research is conducted to help farmers respond to the
environmental and regulatory issues confronting agriculture by
providing them with new options for managing pests. The research
supported by this special grant is identifying new ways to manage pests
without key pesticides that may no longer be available as FQPA is
implemented. Some highlights of the research funded through PMAP
include progress on surface amendments to reduce air pollution by
Telone, a fumigant; latent infection assessment and fungicide mixtures
for brown rot control; development of a pesticide use/pesticide
recommendation database; implementation of alternatives to carbofuran
for control of rice water weevil; substitution of behavioral control
for organophosphate sprays against apple maggot; pheromone mating
disruption in orchards; application technology; and integration of
natural enemy thresholds for greenbug management in wheat. Progress on
additional research has been made to collect data on alternatives for
pest management in watermelon insects and diseases of cucurbit crops in
the South Central States; on developing IPM and monitoring networks in
Northeastern vegetation crops; assessment of insecticide and IPM usage
in alfalfa and small grains; and alternative management practices for
minor tree fruit crops.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal years 1996 through 1999, $1,623,000 each year. A total
of $6,492,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-federal funds are not required by this grants program.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. All State Agricultural Experiment Stations, all colleges
and universities, other research institutions and organizations,
Federal agencies, private organizations or corporations, and
individuals are eligible to compete for this funding. This research is
currently being carried out by State Agricultural Experiment Stations
and other research organizations located in 20 states.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The economic and environmental pressures facing U.S.
agriculture today are greater today than in 1996 when Federal funds
were first appropriated for this special research grant. There will be
a need for continued investment in research to develop new approaches
to managing pests for the foreseeable future as the FQPA is
implemented.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Each new draft of Request for Proposals--RFP--and all
project proposals are evaluated annually by multi-disciplinary
relevancy and merit review panels. A joint USDA/EPA workshop to
evaluate the progress and scope of PMAP is planned for May 1999. The
projects supported by this special research grant have consistently
provided key knowledge needed in developing new approaches to pest
management. The focus on pesticides targeted by FQPA assures that
critical pest management alternatives are being addressed. PMAP has
supported 57 projects in 25 States since it started four years ago--
just enough time for the first cycle of projects to be completed.
Promising results could soon be put into practice in the field.
phytophthora root rot, new mexico
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Phytophthora Root Rot grant.
Answer. Work has continued to focus in general on the development
of strategies for sustainable vegetable production in irrigated lands.
Work has continued on the search for Phytophthora root rot resistance
in chilies, identification of molecular markers for rot tolerant genes,
investigation on irrigation modification as a means to manage root rot,
and soil bed temperature control as a means to manage disease. This
project was not awarded competitively but has undergone peer review at
the university level and merit review at CSREES.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that since Phytophthora
disease threatens chili production in west Texas, New Mexico, and
Eastern Arizona, this problem is of state-and regional significance.
Question. What is the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal was to improve chile production through
genetically-superior cultivars, combined with new improved cultural
practices. Researchers have developed a highly effective disease screen
that selects resistant seedlings, found that genes for resistance to
root rot do not provide protection against Phytophthora foliar blight,
that a wild species of Capsicum is immune to the fungus, and that
molecular markers are useful to introgress genes for tolerance. They
also found that alternate row irrigation and drip irrigation
significantly reduce Phytophthora root rot. Control of soil temperature
with soil mulches can greatly impede the progression of root rot in the
irrigated field.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991
with an appropriation of $125,000 for that year. The fiscal years 1992-
1993 appropriation was $150,000 per year; $141,000 in fiscal year 1994;
and $127,000 per year in fiscal years 1995-1999. A total of $1,201,000
has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-federal funds from state appropriations and the
California Pepper Commission were $255,614 in 1997; $253,614 in 1998;
and state appropriations in 1999 are $260,682.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at New Mexico State University.
be to develop educational and outreach material
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
was 1995. These objectives have not been met. Related programs deal
with research and development efforts designed to prevent or manage
diseases impacting vegetable production in irrigated areas, and
cooperators estimate that the objectives of these programs should be
met by 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The last merit review was made in January, 1998. In
summary, the development of resistant cultivars and research on
interactions of Capsicum and Phytophthora for developing strategies for
irrigated crop growers to be competitive in the international economic
arena continued. More than 30,050 seedlings were screened for
resistance to root rot and/or foliar blight in the greenhouse. This
technique allows the resistant plants to be saved and used in the
breeding program. Field evaluations of advanced lines continued with 11
green chile lines, 11 red chile lines, 18 advanced paprika lines, and 8
jalapeno lines were evaluated for released by this program.
plant, drought, and disease resistance gene cataloging
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Plant, Drought, and Disease Resistance Gene
Cataloging grant.
Answer. The purpose of this work is to identify, characterize, and
catalog important genes in crop plants that result in the ability to
resist stress caused by drought and disease organisms. The specific
objectives are: construct, curate, and distribute cDNA libraries for
genes that are differentially expressed in response to drought or
disease pressure; sequence DNA of these genes; characterize the pattern
of expression; and develop databases to share information with other
scientists.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The long term goal of this research is to improve plant
resistant to drought and disease for New Mexico and U.S. crops. This
information has application throughout the nation, especially in the
arid/semi-arid regions. The principal researchers believe this research
to be of national, regional, and local need. Genetic research of
national significance could potentially be supported by competitive
grants awarded under the National Research Initiative or the Initiative
for Future Food and Agricultural Systems.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The long term goal of this research is to produce better
adapted crops for New Mexico and the U.S. In year one, New Mexico State
University established the facility, developed a database to catalogue
cDNAs, and began the initial work of sequencing and cataloging genes
into biologically informative groups. To date, they have isolated the
appropriate DNA to construct libraries of drought-stress induced
transcripts from three different chile genotypes, one grass, and one
clover. Additionally, they have selected the germplasm to characterize
for other species.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998
and the appropriation for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 is $150,000 per
year for a total of $300,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of nonfederal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, New Mexico Agricultural Experiment
Station provided $8,444 in nonfederal funds. The funds covered a
portion of the salary for the two principle investigators.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research is primarily conducted at New Mexico State
University. Collaborations with Los Alamos National Lab, Los Alamos,
New Mexico, and the National Center for Genome Resources, Santa Fe, New
Mexico, have been established.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. This project, which began in 1998, was designed to
demonstrate significant accomplishments within a five-year time frame.
The principle investigators report significant progress on year one
objectives.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project began in fiscal year 1998 and the head of the
Department of Agronomy and Horticulture has established a scientific
peer review process for this project based on the review tool used for
Hatch projects at New Mexico State University.
postharvest rice straw, california
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Postharvest Rice Straw, California grant.
Answer. The postharvest rice straw special grant was initiated in
May 1997 and has two main objectives: first, characterize current
capabilities, costs, and constraints in harvesting and handling rice
straw as a renewable material for commercial products; and second,
investigate alternative harvest and handling systems and evaluate their
specialized equipment and system designs.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. California legislation mandates reduction in the amount of
open rice straw burning, the principal method of rice straw disposal.
Efficient harvest and handling may make rice straw a suitable raw
material for user businesses while meeting straw burning regulations
and improving air quality. The principal researcher believes this
research to be of regional and local need.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal is to demonstrate efficient and economic rice
straw harvest and handling, thereby establishing rice straw as a
feedstock for value-added manufacturing and other uses. This project is
only recently initiated and is fully organized, including outreach to
the rice industry.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1997.
The appropriation for fiscal year 1997 was $100,000 and in fiscal years
1998 and 1999 was $300,000 per year. A total of $700,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The California Rice Industry Association and the California
Rice Research Board are potential supporters. The University of
California at Davis is cost sharing on salary of the investigators.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted at the Department of Biological
and Agricultural Engineering, University of California-Davis,
California and at field sites in the rice growing region
Question. What was the anticipated date for the original objectives
of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the anticipated
completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. It is anticipated by the University of California-Davis
that the postharvest rice straw project will be complete in 2002. The
project is on track for the objectives pertaining to current equipment
assessment, economic and systems modeling including geographical
information systems, and environmental issues.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The evaluation of the projected was completed at the end of
January 1999 based on the 1998 summary of accomplishments.
potato research
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Potato Research grant.
Answer. Scientists at several of the State Agricultural Experiment
Stations in the Northeast, Northwest, and North Central States are
breeding new potato varieties, high yielding, disease and insect
resistant potato cultivars adapted to the growing conditions in their
particular areas, both for the fresh market and processing. Research is
being conducted in such areas as protoplast regeneration, somoclonal
variation, storage, propagation, germplasm preservation, and cultural
practices. Congressional language for fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999
has directed CSREES to award these funds on a competitive basis. In
1997 and 1998, CSREES published a request for proposals in the Federal
Register and awarded grants competitively based on a scientific peer
review; the number of grants were eight in 1997 and ten in 1998.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes this research effort
addresses needs of the potato producers and processors. Research areas
being studied include storage and postharvest handling of potatoes and
their effect on potato quality. Potato producer and processor needs are
breeding and genetics, culture factors, and pest control on potato
production.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal was to improve potato production through
genetics and cultural practices as well as improve storage for quality
potatoes for processing and fresh market. This research has resulted in
a number of new high yielding, good quality, disease and insect
resistant cultivars, which are now being used in the processing
industry and in the fresh market. Regional comprehensive breeding
programs have been developed to produce cultivars targeted to the
specific growing conditions of that region. A number of the new
cultivars have also been adaptable to other regions. These programs
have also had success in identifying resistance to pests and pathogens
in wild germplasm and are developing expertise to incorporate genetic
engineering approaches as traditional components of the program.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1983, $200,000; fiscal year 1984, $400,000; fiscal
year 1985, $600,000; fiscal years 1986-1987, $761,000 per year; fiscal
year 1988, $997,000; fiscal year 1989, $1,177,000; fiscal year 1990,
$1,310,000; fiscal year 1991, $1,371,000; fiscal years 1992 and 1993,
$1,435,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $1,349,000; fiscal years 1995
through 1998, $1,214,000; and fiscal year 1999, $1,300,000. A total of
$17,952,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $401,424 state appropriations, $4,897 product sales,
$249,830 industry, and $30,092 miscellaneous in 1991; $567,626 state
appropriations, $6,182 product sales, $334,478 industry, and $44,323
miscellaneous in 1992; $556,291 state appropriations, $9,341 product
sales, $409,541 industry, and $44,859 miscellaneous in 1993; $696,079
state appropriations, $21,467 product sales, $321,214 industry, and
$226,363 miscellaneous in 1994; $935,702 state appropriations, $35,376
product sales, $494,891 industry, and $230,080 miscellaneous in 1995;
and an estimated $900,000 state appropriations, $10,000 product sales,
$400,000 industry, and $200,000 miscellaneous in each of 1996, 1997 and
1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research work is being carried out at the Cornell,
Idaho, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
and Washington State Agricultural Experiment Stations.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The project was initiated to accomplish significant results
in about five years. Because the research is based on genetic varietal
development, progress is developing new potato varieties takes from 5
to 10 years.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Beginning in fiscal year 1997, these funds have been
awarded on a competitive basis using a scientific peer review. In
addition, the agency conducts a formal meeting with representatives
from the potato industry to review research needs and provide input to
the agency on the merits of the proposals.
precision agriculture, kentucky
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Precision Agriculture, KY grant.
Answer. CSREES has requested the university to submit a grant
proposal that has not yet been received. Research will evaluate site-
specific practices for production of corn and soy beans under field
conditions. The work will compare various combinations of management
practices using site-specific technology and evaluate economics of its
application.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The need for this research is to provide objective
information about precision agriculture technologies to assist farmers
in the development of management systems that are productive,
economical, and environmentally benign.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research is to evaluate site
specified technologies and develop recommendations for their use in
crop management systems.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 1999 and
the appropriation for fiscal year 1999 is $500,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. This is a new project which has not yet begun and,
therefore, no non-federal funds have been used.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research will be conducted at the Kentucky Agricultural
Experiment Station.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for this project is 2003.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project will be evaluated upon receipt of the required
grant proposal.
precision agriculture, mississippi
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Precision Agriculture, MS grant.
Answer. CSREES has requested the university to submit a grant
proposal that has not yet been received. This research will evaluate
the use of site-specific technology and assess the economics of its
application. Cultural practices will be studied and integrated into a
management system using site-specific technology to monitor yield and
variable rate application. This project will expand on work conducted
under the Special Technology Special Research Grant funded at $350,000
in fiscal year 1997 and $600,000 in 1998.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, why national, regional or local need for this research?
Answer. The need for this research is to provide farmers with
unbiased information on the application and economics of site specific
technologies for cotton production in the mid-south.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to evaluate site
specific technologies and develop recommendations for management
decisions related to fertilization, pest control, and other cultural
practices.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 1999
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1999 is $1,000,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of nonfederal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds provided for this grant are $620,300.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research will be conducted on various Mississippi
Agricultural Experiment Station branch locations around the state.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The Principle Investigators anticipated the completion date
for the original objective to be in fiscal year 2004.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project was subject to an initial evaluation at its
start in fiscal year 1998.
pre-harvest food safety, kansas
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been conducted under the Pre-Harvest Food Safety, Kansas grant.
Answer. Longitudinal studies on the fecal shedding of Escherichia
coli 0157:H7 by cattle on beef cow-calf ranches are being done to
determine the impact of various routine management practices on the
shedding rate. The purpose of the research is to develop an
understanding of the management factors that contribute to the
incidence of E. coli 0157:H7 in beef cattle. The project also allows
for a comparison of large vs small cow-calf operations.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for the
research?
Answer. The presence of E. coli in beef animals sent to slaughter
can contribute to the contamination of meat products produced from such
animals. This has increased the need for control measures that could
reduce the incidence of such food-borne human pathogens in food animals
during the production cycle. This type of research has been identified
as critical by all food animal commodity groups as well as public
health officials and consumers.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal was to determine the incidence of E. coli
0157:H7 in large vs small beef cow-calf operations and describe the
management factors that contribute to or affect the rate of shedding of
organisms in the feces of such animals. E. coli 0157:H7 has been
detected in 3.11 percent of monthly fecal samples--n=3152--, with 4.57
percent of the 2,058 animals having at least one positive sample. Fecal
shedding was normally transient; only one animal was positive on more
than one sampling date. In addition, there was a difference in
prevalence between farms. Sources of drinking water were also examined
and 3.5 percent of 199 water samples were positive. Management
practices on the ten farms are being examined to determine if there are
specific risk factors that can be identified.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1996.
The appropriations for fiscal years 1996 through 1999 was $212,000 per
year. A total of $848,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds by
fiscal year?
Answer. Non-Federal funds have been contributed to this project as
follows: In fiscal year 1996 non-federal funds provided to this project
were $150,000 in state appropriations and $91,450 in contributed
indirect costs; 1997 non-federal funds provided to this project were
$165,000 in state appropriated funds and $90,300 in contributed
indirect costs; 1998 non-federal funds provided to this project were
$175,000 in state funds and 91,500 in contributed indirect costs.
Question. Where is this work being performed?
Answer. This research is being conducted at Kansas State
University, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and at ranches in Kansas,
Nebraska, and Colorado.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date was October 1, 1998, for
the original objectives. However, the project was not initiated until
several months after the expected date of October 1995 so they should
finish the original objectives in late spring of 1999. As the project
has progressed, the Principal Investigator has added other important
questions to the original research plan and has planned to look more
closely at management interventions that could help reduce the
incidence of E. coli shedding in beef cattle. Thus, the project should
continue for some time after the original expected period of time.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project was evaluated by an on-site visit on October
28-29, 1997 by CSREES. The project team was doing an excellent job and
the interactive collaboration was outstanding. The research team has
also been successful in bringing other participants into the program.
Also, the project leader provided a very comprehensive written report
on November 1998, including manuscripts currently under review for
publication, which has permitted a further assessment of the continued
progress on this important project.
preservation and processing research, oklahoma
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the preservation and processing grant.
Answer. Research has focused on the effects of preharvest and
postharvest factors on the market quality of fresh and minimally
processed horticultural products, including marigolds, pecans,
watermelons, and peaches. Researchers are developing harvester
prototypes for marigold flowers and drying and threshing systems for
marigold petal drying and separation. A fruit orienting mechanism is
being developed for incorporation into an on-line grading system. An
integrated harvesting and postharvest handling system is being
developed for fresh market and processing market horticultural
products. Research continues on methods to determine textural
properties of pecans, determine optimum operating parameters for
supercritical carbon dioxide and other alternative partial oil
extraction, and develop and optimize modified atmosphere packaging
techniques for pecan shelf life extension. fiscal year 1998 funds are
supporting research through June 30, 2000. CSREES has requested, but
not yet received, a proposal in support of the fiscal year 1999
appropriation.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that technological
improvements in fruit, nut, and vegetable handling systems are needed
to supply domestic markets and support continued participation in
international commerce, which is a national need. New environmentally-
friendly processing systems have been developed and are being
commercialized in Oklahoma, with broad application to numerous crops
with international marketing potential. Processing systems under
development for commercial adaptation will support market expansion of
pecans, affecting product market potential and value regionally.
Improvements in postharvest handling and processing are necessary to
support growth of the industry and ensure competitive involvement in
national and international commerce of horticultural commodities
uniquely suited for production in Oklahoma. New extraction facilities
will also have a positive impact on local economies, incorporating a
new value added processing industry and providing local employment
opportunities.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of the research has been to define the major
limitations for maintaining quality of harvested fruits, vegetables and
tree nuts and prescribe appropriate harvesting, handling, and
processing protocols to extend shelf life and marketability of
harvested horticultural commodities, thus maintaining profitability of
production systems and assuring an economic market niche for Oklahoma
producers and food processors. A systems approach to develop
complementary cropping, harvesting, handling, and processing operations
has resulted in development of improved handling systems for cucurbit
and tree fruit crops. Nondestructive processing systems for partial oil
reduction of tree nuts have been developed to extend shelf life and
lower the calorie content for the raw or processed product. Funding has
been secured for construction of a commercial nut extraction facility
in Oklahoma, pending successful pilot testing which is underway.
Technologies and procedures previously developed for cucurbit and tree
fruit systems are being applied to development of okra, pepper, sage,
basil, tree nut, sweet corn, and marigold cropping, handling, and light
processing systems, with a targeted completion date of 2001. Research
from this project provided the basis for commercial high relative
humidity storage of peaches and to attract companies to the state to
construct new value added food processing facilities.
Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1985, $100,000; fiscal year 1986, $142,000; fiscal
year 1987, $242,000; fiscal years 1988 and 1989, $267,000 per year;
fiscal year 1990, $264,000; fiscal year 1991, $265,000; fiscal year
1992, $282,000; fiscal year 1993, $267,000; fiscal year 1994, $251,000;
and fiscal years 1995-1999, $226,000 each year. A total of $3,477,000
has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. State funds have been provided as follows: fiscal year
1991, $126,900; fiscal year 1992, $209,783; fiscal year 1993, $219,243;
fiscal year 1994, $308,421; fiscal year 1995, $229,489; year 1996,
$366,570; fiscal year 1997, $397,881; and fiscal year 1998, $205,662.
The State also provided $16,100,000 for development of an Agricultural
Products and Food Processing Center and approximately $2,000,000 to
staff the facility.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. This work is being conducted at the Oklahoma State
Agricultural Experiment Station, in conjunction with ongoing production
research at the Wes Watkins Agricultural Research and Extension Center
and the South Central Agricultural Research Laboratories.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. It is expected that ongoing research will be completed in
2002. Additional related objectives beyond this date would address
further opportunities for horticulture industry growth and economic
development.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of the
proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual basis.
A review of the proposal supporting the fiscal year 1998 appropriation
was conducted on January 16, 1998. The project was evaluated as part of
a comprehensive CSREES program site review in the fall of 1995, with a
recommendation by the review team to continue the value-added product
development.
rangeland ecosystems, nm
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Rangeland Ecosystems, NM grant?
Answer. Current research is focused on the ecology of noxious and
invasive weeds that are endemic to New Mexico's rangelands. Competitive
research grants have been awarded that deal with studying the
physiological and toxicological effects of these weeds on livestock.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researchers, what is the national, regional, or local focus for this
research?
Answer. Noxious weeds are a serious problem in the southwestern
United States. About one-fifth of the rangeland in Texas and more than
one-half in New Mexico is infested to some degree. Under this program,
researchers are working to develop an integrated weed management
approach.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished?
Answer. Accomplished research led to understanding of broom
snakeweed and other noxious weeds including a better understanding of
plant's strategy for invasion and persistence. The primary focus of
research at this time is addressing the need for an integrated weed
management approach for noxious weeds, especially broom snakeweed.
Research is addressing three general areas which are ecology and
management, biological control, and toxicology and animal health. One
specific accomplishment is the biological control arena; several plant
pathogens and insects are proving to be effective in broom snakeweed's
control.
Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1989, $100,000; fiscal year 1990, $148,000; fiscal
year 1991, $150,000; fiscal years 1992 and 1993, $200,000 per year;
fiscal year 1994, $188,000; fiscal years 1995 and 1996, $169,000 each
year; fiscal year 1997, $175,000; fiscal year 1998, $185,000; and
fiscal year 1999, $200,000. A total of $1,884,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $249,251 state appropriations in 1991; $200,110 state
appropriations in 1992; $334,779 state appropriations in 1993; $302,793
state appropriations in 1994; $294,451 state appropriations in 1995;
and an estimated $300,000 in state appropriations in each fiscal year
of 1996, 1997, and 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at New Mexico State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The project was initiated in 1989. Currently, additional
and related objectives have evolved and anticipated completion date for
these is 2000. Considerable progress has been made on many of the
objectives. Anticipated completion date of the additional and related
objectives that have resulted based on the current work would indicate
another 5 years.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Each year the grant is peer reviewed with oversight by an
administrative executive committee within the College of Agriculture
and Home Economics at New Mexico State University. Additionally,
CSREES' senior scientific staff review the progress of the grant. Those
reviews indicated progress in achieving the objectives.
regional barley gene mapping project
Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Regional Barley Gene Mapping Project grant.
Answer. The Regional Barley Genome Mapping Project is a multi-
disciplinary, multi-institutional project to develop a genome map of
barley. Specific objectives are to: construct a publicly-available
medium resolution barley genome map; use the map to identify and locate
loci, especially quantitative trait loci controlling economically-
important traits such as yield, maturity, adaptation, resistance to
biotic and abiotic stresses, malting quality, and feed value; provide
the framework for efficient molecular marker-assisted selection
strategies in barley varietal development; identify chromosome regions
for further, higher resolution mapping with the objective of
characterizing and utilizing genes of interest; and establish a
cooperative mapping project ranging from molecular genetics to breeding
that will be an organizational model for cereals and other crop plants.
All funds are awarded on a competitive basis.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes barley breeders
nationwide need information about the location of agriculturally-
important genes controlling resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses,
yield, and quality factors in order to rapidly develop new, improved
cultivars and respond to disease and pest threats. This project
provides that information along with appropriate molecular markers to
track these traits through the breeding and selection process.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this project was to develop a
restriction fragment length polymorphism map for barley and associated
important genetic traits to provide closely linked molecular markers
for barley breeders. The project has developed comprehensive linkage
maps defining the entire barley genome in three experimental
populations and determined the location, number, effect, and
interaction of genes determining a range of economically-important
traits. Additionally, the project has supported the development and use
of an array of genomics tools that are publicly available. Technical
papers have been published to report results to the scientific
community.
Question. How long has this work been under way and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1990, $153,000; fiscal year 1991, $262,000; fiscal
years 1992-1993, $412,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $387,000; fiscal
years 1995-1998, $348,000 each year; and fiscal year 1999, $400,000. A
total of $3,418,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of nonfederal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The nonfederal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $203,760 from industry in 1991; $212,750 from industry
in 1992; $115,000 from industry in 1993; $89,000 from industry in 1994;
and $35,000 from the State of Washington and $108,000 in other
nonfederal funding, for a total of $143,000 in 1995. Nonfederal funds
were $163,000 for 1996 and $178,240 in 1997. In 1998, the project
received $35,000 from industry.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted in the state agricultural
experiment stations of Oregon, Colorado, Washington, Montana, Idaho,
North Dakota, Minnesota, New York, Virginia, and California.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objective was to produce a genetic map of
agronomically-important traits of the barley genome. The anticipated
time to complete this task was estimated at 10 years with completion in
1999. The initial goals have been exceeded; however, maps are never
``done''. The next step will be physical mapping of gene rich regions
in order to study the genes and understand pathways. Researchers will
focus on quality and disease resistance.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. In 1998, the special grant proposal was subjected to the
project approval process at Oregon State University, which is the lead
university, and reviewed by a CSREES scientist. This project is made up
of many competitively-awarded mini-grants. A subgroup of the National
Barley Improvement Committee, which is composed of elected
representatives of research, growers, and industry, serves as the peer
panel to review and select proposals based on relevance to the original
objectives and scientific merit. Multi-disciplinary, multi-
institutional, and continuing projects are given the highest priority.
The overall project and its mini-grants have been judged to be
scientifically sound and appropriate for the stated objectives, based
on comments and rating from peer scientists which is done on each
support prior to selection.
regionalized implications of farm programs
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the program on regionalized implications of farm
programs grant.
Answer. The purpose of this research is to estimate the impacts of
farm, trade, fiscal policies and monetary programs, and assess their
alternatives on the economic viability of typical crop and livestock
production operations located in different regions of the United
States.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. There is a national need for research that provides an
assessment and evaluation of the potential impacts of Federal farm,
trade, and fiscal policies on the economic viability and
competitiveness of farmers located in different regions of the United
States. Policy impacts vary regionally because of differences in farm
productivity, input costs, climate, farm enterprises, and size. The
research results are widely used by farmers and public policymakers
concerned about minimizing policy and program inequities between
regions and farm sizes.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original, as well as current, goal was and continues to
be to provide the farm community, agribusiness groups, and public
officials information about farm, trade, and fiscal policy implications
by developing regionalized models that reflect farming characteristics
for major production regions of the United States. The researchers have
developed a farm level policy analysis system encompassing major U.S.
farm production regions. This system interfaces with existing
agricultural sector models used for farm, macroeconomic, and trade
policy analysis. The universities have expanded the number and types of
representative farms to 80. Typical farm models also are being
developed for Mexico and Canada under a collaborative agreement for use
in analyzing impacts of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Policy studies completed this past year at the request of
policymakers and farm groups included analyses of the impacts of
marketing loan provisions on farmers' economic viability; drought on
farm income and farm viability; early provision of market transition
payments, risk management accounts; and other crop insurance and
disaster assistance alternatives.
Results of these analyses were presented to more than 60 different
groups across the U.S., including, of course, both congressional
agriculture committees. The Agricultural Food Policy Center web site,
which contains copies of all Working and Briefing Papers, was visited
more than 345,000 times during May-November, 1998 and more than
2,000,000,000 bytes of information was transferred.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1990
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1990 was $346,000. The fiscal
years 1991-1993 appropriations were $348,000 per year; $327,000 in
fiscal year 1994; and $294,000 in each of the fiscal years 1995 through
1999. A total of $3,187,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $288,843 State appropriations and $46,773 industry for
a total of $335,616 in 1991; $45,661 State appropriations in 1992;
$33,979 State appropriations in 1993; $40,967 State appropriations in
1994; $161,876 State appropriations in 1995; $187,717 State
appropriations for 1996; $137,100 for 1997; and $161,400 for 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted by the Texas A&M University and
University of Missouri at Columbia.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. This program is of a continuing nature for the purpose of
assessing the impacts of existing policies and issues and proposed
policy and program changes at the individual firm level for feed grain,
wheat, cotton, rice, oilseed, and livestock producers. In addition, the
representative farms are constantly being updated as farming practices
change. Currently the researchers are making adjustments for the
increasing use of Bt and Round-Up Ready seeds.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. No formal evaluation of this project has been carried out;
however, the CSREES representative is in frequent communication with
the principal investigator concerning policy analyses procedures and
studies.
rice modeling
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Rice Modeling grant.
Answer. The purpose of this research project is to develop a
regional, national, and global rice industry model for use in analyzing
the impact of changes in domestic and foreign public policies on
production, trade, stocks, substitute crops, farm prices, and domestic
as well as global consumption.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. Research is needed to assist both the U.S. rice industry
and national policymakers in assessing the impact of existing and
proposed changes in public policies for rice. This research enables
improved analysis of both international and domestic policy changes on
rice production, stocks, prices of substitute crops, and consumption.
It has been, and is being used to analyze the impacts of farm policy
proposals on the U.S. rice industry, to analyze the impact of the World
Trade Organization and the Uruguay Round agreements on U.S. trade, to
analyze the impact of emerging rice importing and exporting countries
on U.S. rice exports, and to analyze the market for different rice
types--qualities--and seasonal demand and supply factors that affect
the global rice market. The principal researcher believes this research
addresses national, regional, and local needs.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to develop
international, national, and regional models to analyze the impact of
foreign and domestic policy changes and forecast changes in production,
trade, stocks, prices of substitute crops, farm prices, and
consumption.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work actually began about four years ago and federal
research grants from various sources have totaled roughly $2,000,000
prior to this year. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal
year 1996. The appropriation for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 was
$395,000 per year; for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, $296,000 per year,
for a total of $1,382,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds over the 4 years prior to this year
totaled approximately $500,000. For the 1996 fiscal year, state
appropriations were $178,000; and for 1997 and 1998, $150,000.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The research is being carried out at the University of
Arkansas-Fayetteville and the University of Missouri-Columbia.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The domestic portion of the rice model has been completed.
The international modeling research is a little over half completed,
and the researchers estimate another five years is required. The
purpose of constructing the models, however, is to provide on-going
analyses of the impact of various policy proposals on the U.S. rice
industry.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. We have conducted no formal evaluation of this project.
However, annual proposals are peer reviewed for relevance and
scientific merit. Also, each annual budget proposal is carefully
reviewed for adherence to stated objectives and annual progress is
discussed with the principal investigators.
rural development centers
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Rural Development Centers Program grant.
Answer. The overall objectives of the research agenda of the five
rural development centers are to: Improve economic competitiveness and
diversification in rural areas; support management and strategic
planning for economic development; create community capacity through
leadership; assist in family and community adjustments to stress and
change; and promote constructive use of the environment. The function
of the Centers is to increase the productivity of regional faculty both
in doing research on rural issues and in using that research to do
effective outreach with rural communities. These projects have
undergone a merit review.
Question. According to the research proposal, or one of the
principal investigators, what is the national, regional or local need
for this research?
Answer. The number of research faculty who are addressing broader
rural issues is declining in many places. The multi-disciplinary,
multi-state work supported by the Centers becomes even more crucial in
a period of reduced research emphasis. Critical needs are being met by
Center support including public lands policy, changing rural migration
patterns, fiscal alternatives for local-governments, and forest
stewardship education. Specific needs for regional research are
reviewed annually by the Centers. The focus of proposals varies from
year-to-year depending on the shifting priorities of rural clients.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The Rural Development Center mission is to strengthen rural
families, communities, and businesses by facilitating collaborative
socio-economic research and extension through higher education
institutions in the various regions. Research programs are undertaken
after evaluating broader regional and national priorities. Following
are some accomplishments of selected research activities conducted
under the auspices of various centers.
Industrial recruitment is one of the most popular methods of
economic development in the northeast U.S. But increasingly the cost
effectiveness of this strategy is being questioned. More and more,
communities are capitalizing on an alternative strategy called Business
Retention and Expansion--BR&E. BR&E seeks to catalyze on local economic
development efforts by creating a team of local leaders to help the
community improve its business climate, identify and address
impediments to growth, and retention of existing businesses. The
Northeast Center supported the development of BR&E materials that have
been used in training workshops across the country. Business Retention
and Expansion International sponsored the workshops. Economic
development professionals in 31 states in the U.S. and in Canada have
purchased these BR&E materials to develop programs in their local
communities to retain and expand existing businesses, and reduce the
high costs associated with industrial recruitment strategies. The
materials also have been translated into French and Polish and shared
internationally.
A research study funded by the Northeast Rural Development Center
assessed the consumer credit knowledge of rural poor and ethnic
minorities and determined their use and management practices. An
educational program that focuses on the wise use of consumer credit was
developed and offered to a diverse extension audience. In-service
workshops also were offered to extension educators in several states in
the Northeast. Two additional Northeastern states, New York and New
Jersey, have duplicated the curriculum for distribution to all
counties. This program was coordinated with and contributed to the
development of a short video that promotes the MONEY 2000 program, a
program that encourages participants to save and/or reduce debt by
$2,000 by the end of the year 2000. The video was distributed widely to
extension personnel within the region and nation and to financial
counselors at several military bases.
University of Rhode Island teamed up to perform a mid-term
assessment of the MONEY 2000 program that has been operating
successfully in New Jersey and New York for several years. MONEY 2000
was created to help families who are living paycheck-to-paycheck and
struggling with low savings or high household debt. The goal of the
program is to help participants either reduce debt or increase savings
by $2,000 by the year 2,000. The analysis will focus on participants'
behavioral changes and be used to suggest ways extension educators
could improve the program. Results will be disseminated to state
project leaders through the national MONEY 2000 listserv. Since it was
launched in 1996, MONEY 2000 has helped over 7,000 people in more than
30 states increase their net worth by more that $3,000,000.
The Southern Rural Development Center partially funded and provided
all logistical support for a National Conference, ``Linking Family and
Community Strengths.'' The conference was also supported by CSREES, W.
K. Kellogg Foundation, Farm Foundation, National 4-H Council and the
other regional rural development centers. The conference was funded to
support 12 mini-grant, $1,000 projects that would transform learning at
the conference to action. One example of outcomes is noted by the
Virginia report. The grantee used her funding to support the cost of
providing ``Life in the State of Poverty'' simulation exercise in her
state. Five social service agencies partnered to present the exercise
in Fauquier County. Within a week after the activity, people began
discussing ways ``to repair the community safety net.'' The County
Administrator took seriously the dialogue of the training. He requested
the Cooperative Extension Service staff to investigate creation of a
volunteer coordinator position to track the resources available for
families dropped from welfare roles. He even pledged county money. Word
of this activity spread to the Governor's office requesting information
abut what was happening in the county. A member of the U.S. House of
Representatives has asked about a visit to Faquier County to observe
the positive changes taking place. The Virginia Cooperative Extension
Service, because of involvement in this training, continues to take the
lead in educating limited resource families to move from self-
sufficiency and to move the community toward support of all families.
Workers who commute can make important economic, fiscal, and social
differences in both the county of their residence and the one where
they work. When people cross state as well as county lines to get to
work, these impacts can be multiplied. The Western Rural Development
Center--WRDC--has funded a project to evaluate the effects of workers
commuting across the Idaho/Wyoming and Nevada/Arizona state lines. The
Idaho/Wyoming work is further along at this point. In the Idaho
community 20 percent of the total personal income comes from the
neighboring Teton county in Wyoming. And the Idaho commuters account
for 75 percent of the commuters coming into the Jackson, Wyoming
community. These workers are crossing a very tough mountain pass that
is frequently closed with slides in the winter. The school, day care,
housing, and other services are a difficult issue on the Idaho
communities with very limited tax bases to support the needed services.
The research is serving as a basis for discussions between the
communities.
Using a Western Rural Development Center supported Business R&E
retention and expansion program, New Mexico State University Extension
has assisted seven communities expand their economic base by saving and
creating local jobs. Seven jobs were saved in Silver City when task
force members facilitated a propane company's move to a new location.
The Clovis task force intervened with city officials to save a
$1,000,000 business complex. The R&E staff in Torrance County created
75 jobs by helping a commercial greenhouse find suitable land. BC Hydro
in Burnaby, British Columbia recently requested and received permission
to adapt the Business R&E program materials for use in rural Canada.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1971, $75,000; fiscal year 1972, $225,000; fiscal
year 1973, $317,000; fiscal years 1974-1981, $300,000 per year; fiscal
years 1982-1985, $311,000 per year; fiscal years 1986-1987, $363,000
per year; fiscal year 1988, $475,000; fiscal year 1989, $500,000;
fiscal year 1990, $494,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $500,000 per year;
fiscal year 1994, $470,000; fiscal years 1995-1998, $423,000 per year;
and fiscal year 1999, $523,000. A total of $10,641,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-federal funds available to the four Regional Centers
for Rural Development were: fiscal year 1991, $1,117,000; fiscal year
1992, $790,000; fiscal year 1993, $900,000; fiscal year 1994, $776,591;
and fiscal year 1995, $710,0050; for a total of $4,293,641 across the
five years for which there are complete data.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The regional rural development centers include the
following. Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development,
Pennsylvania State University; North Central Regional Center for Rural
Development at Iowa State University; Southern Rural Development Center
at Mississippi State University; and Western Rural Development Center
at Oregon State University. There is also a rural development project
at North Dakota State University which receives funding from the annual
Rural Development Centers appropriation. Most of the research sponsored
by the four regional centers is actually performed by resident faculty
at land-grant universities in the respective region through
subcontracts from that center's grant.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives.
Answer. The regional rural development centers were established to
provide an on-going ``value added'' component to link research and
extension and by doing so to increase rural development under the
special conditions in each region. The work of the Centers is being
carried out in all 50 states and in some territories. The Centers
compile a report of annual accomplishments and share those with the
states in the region. The list of needs is constantly evolving and is
being addressed through projects that are matched to the constantly
shifting local agenda. The current phase of the program will be
completed in 1999.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The Centers enlist the help of academic and private/public
foundations personnel on advisory committees and boards of directors to
help establish operating rules and provide professional, technical
counsel and peer evaluation of Center projects and the principal
investigators. The projects are evaluated annually by the advisory
committees and the boards of directors against the five key issue areas
and the objectives of each project for relevance, achievement, and
initial impacts. Follow-up evaluation is carried out by the Center
staffs in order to assess long-term impacts of these projects on local
communities.
rural policies institute
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Rural Policies Institute grant.
Answer. The Rural Policy Research Institute--RUPRI--is a consortium
of three universities designed to create a comprehensive approach to
rural policy analysis. The Institute conducts research and facilitates
public dialogue to increase public understanding of the rural impacts
of national, regional, state, and local policies on rural areas of the
United States.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. There is a need to estimate the impacts of changing state
and national programs and policies on rural people and places.
Objective public policy analysis can provide timely and accurate
estimates of the impacts of proposed policy changes to allow more
reasoned policy discussions and decisions. The principal researcher
believes this research meets national, regional, and local needs.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of the Rural Policy Research Institute
was to create a new model to provide timely, accurate, and unbiased
estimates of the impacts of policies and new policy initiatives on
rural people and places. The Institute has completed a number of
successful policy research projects and developed three analytic models
central to its mission. These projects focus on the rural implications
of devolution, health care, education, housing, rural development,
welfare reform, tax and telecommunications policy proposals. In
addition, the Institute uses expert panels to provide policy decision
support to a number of policy making groups at national and State
levels. The expert panels and other collaborative research have, over
the life of RUPRI, involved 150 scientists representing 16 different
disciplines in 60 universities, 40 states, and three foreign countries.
Currently, 50 nationally-recognized scientists and policy practitioners
from 38 institutions and organizations serve on RUPRI panels, task
forces, or work groups.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by these grants began in fiscal year
1991, and the appropriation for fiscal year 1991 was $375,000. The
fiscal year 1992 appropriation was $525,000; for fiscal year 1993,
$692,000; for fiscal year 1994, $494,000; and fiscal years 1995-1999,
$644,000 each year. A total of $5,306,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Aggregated non-federal funds to support the Rural Policy
Research Institute across the three universities involved include
unrecovered indirect costs, salary support from university and other
non-federal sources, and various other grants, contracts, and
reimbursable agreements. They amounted to $316,458 for fiscal year
1991; $417,456 in fiscal year 1992; $605,302 in fiscal year 1993;
$537,834 in fiscal year 1994; $584,516 in fiscal year 1995; for fiscal
year 1996, $576,782; $186,859 in 1997; $153,614 for 1998; and an
estimated $168,450 for 1999. Total to date including the 1999 estimate,
is $3,547,271.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The Institute's member universities are: the University of
Missouri-Columbia; the University of Nebraska-Lincoln; and Iowa State
University, Ames.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Current funding will sustain activity through January 1998;
however the original objectives were directed at building a permanent
policy analytical capability.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. We have conducted no formal evaluation, however, annual
project proposals are peer reviewed for relevance and scientific merit.
russian wheat aphid, colorado
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Russian Wheat Aphid, Colorado grant.
Answer. Funding will support two key areas of research that are
needed to assure long-term and sustainable Russian wheat aphid
management. These are: (1) discovering new crop genes which provide
resistance to the Russian wheat aphid--RWA--and incorporating them into
commercially-acceptable wheat varieties, and (2) integrating the
available control tactics into the most effective, efficient, and
environmentally-sound production systems for the Great Plains.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The Russian wheat aphid is an exotic pest that entered the
western United States without its normal complement of biological
control agents. This insect has rapidly become the most important
insect pest of wheat in the western United States. From 1986-1991 the
total economic impact was estimated to be in excess of $657,000,000. In
the same period, some 17,500,000 pounds of insecticides were used
nationally for Russian wheat aphid control. The cost to American
farmers of insecticide treatments was over $70,000,000. In addition,
the intense use of insecticides on a crop that previously received
little insecticide treatment raised concerns about the impact on water
quality, human health, food safety, non-target organisms, and general
environmental quality. Direct losses in Colorado have been as high as
$27,000,000 in a single year with an average direct loss of above
$11,000,000 per year, since 1987. Pest management research of national
significance is supported by competitive grants awarded under the
Integrated Pest Management program.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goals of the research are to: (1) discover new crop
genes which provide resistance to the Russian wheat aphid and
incorporate them into commercially-acceptable wheat varieties, and (2)
integrate the available control tactics into the most effective,
efficient, and environmentally-sound production systems for the Great
Plains. The techniques of molecular genetics are being employed to
reach the goal of identifying new genes for resistance to RWA and
incorporating them into commercially-acceptable wheat varieties.
Several DNA marker technologies used in other plant species have been
successfully adapted for mapping RWA resistance genes in wheat. These
include restriction fragment length polymorphism--RFLP--and amplified
fragment length polymorphism--AFLP--techniques as well as
microsatellite markers. RFLP markers were initially used to map two RWA
resistance genes--Dn4, the one used in the resistant cultivar `Halt'
and Dn2, an additional resistance gene that might be suitable for
inclusion in a cultivar containing two resistance genes. Using AFLP,
researchers have identified a DNA marker that is more tightly linked to
DN4 than the previously identified closest RFLP marker. Recently, a
microsatellite marker was identified that is tightly linked to Dn2. A
combination of several DNA marker technologies is essential for finding
DNA markers tightly linked to RWA resistance genes in wheat. Finding
and identifying tightly linked markers are important achievements
because tight linkages are critical to using this technology to
expedite the development of RWA resistant wheat cultivars and are
required for cloning the genes via positional cloning--an essential
goal of the project. A new RWA resistance gene--Dn7--was identified by
other researchers in South Africa. The gene comes from rye and is
contained in a wheat/rye translocation that is carried in a wheat
background. This material has been obtained and has been crossed with
susceptible wheat to generate materials for use in molecular genetic
analysis of Dn7 and to incorporate the gene into wheat. Dn7 is one of
the resistance genes that is being targeted for molecular cloning in
the Colorado State University program. Progress has also been made in
Integrating Tactics for Management of RWA. In 1998, experimental
dryland cropping systems were established in eastern Colorado. Two of
these are located in growers fields and have been designed with grower
input and are managed jointly with the grower-cooperator. Long-term
studies were initiated to compare the experimental systems with typical
wheat production systems in the area. The experimental systems were
designed to optimize the effects of environmentally-sound pest
management tactics--particularly resistant cultivars, the effects of
cultural practices [such as planting date, harvesting date, grazing,
etc.--, and biological control--reducing RWA numbers through the
actions of predators and parasites. In addition, the experimental
systems were designed to optimize water use efficiency and other
agronomic and profitability factors. At each location, wheat and other
adapted dryland crops are grown in proximity to each other so that
interactions among various crops and various production practices can
be studied. Rotations over time of wheat with other crops also are
being investigated. These large-scale experimental systems will be
ideal arenas in which to determine the best way to apply the knowledge
already gained about specific aspects of RWA biology and ecology,
production practices, and the effectiveness of naturally occurring RWA
parasites and predators. These large-scale experimental cropping
systems also will provide valuable information on RWA management to
wheat growers who are considering adding additional crops to their
dryland cropping systems.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998
and the appropriation for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 is $200,000 per
year for a total of $400,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year.
Answer. State appropriations and the Colorado Wheat Administrative
Committee have demonstrated strong support for this effort. The total
per year is approximately $775,000 in new funding from the state of
Colorado and redirected funds from within the university.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted on the campus of Colorado State
University, at Colorado State University research stations, and on the
farms of cooperators throughout Colorado. Outreach and extension
activities will be focused on wheat growers in Colorado, Nebraska,
Wyoming, Kansas, New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. This is a new project. It is anticipated to continue for a
total of five years with a completion date of July 2003.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This project will be evaluated by a CSREES site visit on
February 4 and 5, 1999.
seafood harvesting, processing, and marketing, mississippi
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the seafood harvesting, processing, and marketing
grant.
Answer. Research related to seafood safety, quality, and by-product
utilization has been supported by this grant. Funds from the fiscal
year 1998 grant are supporting research through September 30, 1999.
CSREES has requested the University to submit a proposal, which has not
yet been received, in support of fiscal year 1999 funds. For fiscal
1999, funds will support research on: microbial population changes
during retail display of shrimp; development of an impedance-based
method to rapidly detect microorganisms on shrimp; determine physical,
chemical, microbiological, and sensory differences between pond and
tank aquaculture tilapia; and evaluate processes for utilization of
uncooked shrimp processing by-products for production of flavor
extracts.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that national needs
reflected in the project include providing consumers with affordable
alternative seafood products. Alternative sources of seafood protein
are needed because of a drastic decline in natural harvests due to
overexploitation. Other national needs addressed in this project
include reducing pollution during seafood and aquaculture food
processing by converting byproducts into value-added food ingredients
or materials. Regionally, much is unknown about the short-and long-term
effects of the new seafood Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point--
HACCP--regulations on the livelihood of Mississippi seafood and
aquaculture food producers and processors who are typically small and
lack sufficient resources to remain competitive. Continuation of this
project will provide continued assistance to Gulf-Coast seafood
processors in meeting new U.S. regulations as well as new international
regulations that are important for Mississippi export products.
Locally, catfish processors are a major employer of the severely
economically depressed Delta region of Mississippi. By further
enhancing the value of catfish products, this project seeks to improve
the livelihood of individuals both on the Gulf coast and in the
aquaculture region of the state.
Question. What was the original goal of the research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goals of the research were to improve the
quality and safety of catfish and improve the utilization of catfish
byproducts and underutilized marine species. Due to successes of the
original project, subsequent efforts are focusing on additional uses of
seafood and aquaculture foods by improving processing strategies and
providing alternative products from waste materials. The project has
thus expanded to include crab, shrimp, oysters, freshwater prawns,
hybrid striped bass, tilapia, and crawfish. The Food and Drug
Administration has passed rulings affecting the potential viability of
Mississippi seafood and aquaculture harvesters and processors; emphasis
is thus being placed on addressing possible adverse consequences
resulting from these changes.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1990
when $368,000 was appropriated for this project. The appropriations for
fiscal years 1991-1993 were $361,000 per year; fiscal year 1994,
$339,000; and fiscal years 1995-1999, $305,000 each year. A total of
$3,315,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The State of Mississippi contributed $1,949 to this project
in fiscal year 1991; $41,286 in fiscal year 1992; $67,072 in fiscal
year 1993; $91,215 in fiscal year 1994; $147,911 in fiscal year 1995;
and $61,848 in fiscal year 1996. Product sales contributed $7,044 in
1991, $13,481 in 1992, $13,704 in 1993, and $5,901 in 1994. Industry
grants contributed $14 in 1992 and $31,796 in 1993. Other non-federal
funds contributed $80 in fiscal year 1991, $838 in 1992, and $17,823 in
1993. The total non-federal funds contributed to this project from 1991
through 1996 was $501,962. In fiscal year 1998, $151,286 in state
funds, $8,790 in self-generated funds, and $23,877 in other non-federal
funds were obtained.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted by scientists in the
Departments of Food Science and Technology and Agricultural Economics
of the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station at
Mississippi State University and at the Coastal Research and Extension
Center, Seafood Processing Laboratory, in Pascagoula, Mississippi.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The principal investigators anticipate that research on the
original objectives will be completed in 1999. Continuing needs by
Mississippi seafood and aquaculture harvesters and processors related
to improved quality, safety, and utilization will require research and
development of new technologies to expand this industry.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of the
proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual basis.
The last review of the proposal was conducted on April 13, 1998. At
that time, the agency science specialist believed that the projects
addressed needs and interests of the regional seafood and aquaculture
industries.
small fruit research
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Small Fruit Research grant.
Answer. Funding for this special grant has been used to enhance the
production and quality of small fruits--blackberry, blueberry,
caneberry, cranberry, marionberry, raspberry, strawberry, and grape in
the Pacific Northwestern states of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.
Research has been focused on crop genetics, production/physiology, pest
management, berry/grape processing, marketing, and wine production.
Proposals are selected after examination of their relevance to
priorities identified within the region.
Question. According the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional and local need for this
research?
Answer. There is a considerable demand for fresh and processed
berry products in the United States. The demand is also high in urban
Asian markets where consumer interest for berry products is strong.
Currently, international marketing of Northwest small fruit commodities
involves the sale of traditional products. Research on international
consumer preferences, packaging, and products continues to be
essential. The importance of berry and grape crops to the region has
long been recognized by the three Northwest states: Washington, Idaho,
and Oregon. These crops are mainstays of high-value, specialty
horticulture. The universities and small fruits industry have made a
strong commitment to the improvement of these crops as evidenced by the
high level of internally-developed resources for research and
marketing. Thus, the Northwest Center for Small Fruit Research has
developed effectively over the last 8-10 years into its present fully
established form.
Question. What was the original goal of this research, and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. Genetic improvement of small fruit cultivars continues to
be a powerful tool using germplasm collection and identification, field
evaluation of new germplasm, and advanced selections from breeding
programs, virus identification and elimination, and approaches that
utilize genetic engineering. Research is identifying cultivars and
developing cultural practices that growers can utilize to reduce crop
losses. Research is evaluating and investigating nutritional factors,
cultural management, temperature stress, effects of pruning, micro
propagation, cold hardiness/low temperature injury, and effects of
viticulture practices on wine quality of winery processing on wine
quality. Small fruit research continues to reap acclaim for its
components involving industry-driven cooperation between industry,
state, and Federal research. Its genesis as a small-fruits program
reflects the contributions of plant biology, the commitment to
facilitating the efficiency of research and the coordination of
marketing throughout a multi-state region. The Center represents an
innovative organization which has created a cooperative strategy for
university, USDA's Agricultural Research Service--ARS--and industry
small fruit programs.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999.
Answer. The initial support for this grant was an appropriation in
fiscal year 1991 for $125,000. The appropriation for fiscal years 1992
and 1993 was $187,000 per year; fiscal year 1994 was $235,000; fiscal
years 1995-1998, $212,000 each year; and fiscal year 1999, $300,000. A
total of $1,882,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. This project involves the use of Oregon State University--
OSU--administrative personnel, equipment, utilities and facilities that
are indirect costs to the project. These costs constitute an OSU
contribution to this research project, which is not allowable as a
reimbursable expense under this project. The recent passage of Oregon's
tax limitation laws reduce revenues that restrict our ability to cost
share. Thus, our policy is that we do not provide any cost sharing or
matching funds for this or other agreements in which we receive no
indirect costs. We are committed to providing the required
collaborative efforts by Oregon State University scientists and
administrators to complete the work described in this proposal. And in
an effort to satisfy the request for a dollar amount for non-Federal
funds, an approximation could be found by applying CPI values to
estimate expenditures on this program since 1996.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The research is being conducted at Oregon State University,
Washington State University, and the University of Idaho. Oregon State
University is the lead institution for this project.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objectives are still valid researchable
issues, therefore this is a continuing process with priorities annually
re-evaluated to appropriately adjust research direction within the
project objectives.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project evaluation process is accomplished annually by
peer reviewers whom are chosen and organized by expertise according to
the five technical working groups with input from the designated
Agricultural Experiment Station Representatives in Washington, Oregon,
and Idaho. The Program Administrator in each state contacts possible
reviewers for each proposal. The chair of the review process annually
rotate between the Agricultural Experiment Station representatives.
Each submitted proposal is peer-reviewed by a panel of five
individuals--three scientists and two industry representatives--and is
grouped into one of the Center Technical Working Groups, namely
genetics, pest management, production/physiology, processing/packaging,
and marketing. Proposals are evaluated on the following criteria: (1)
the nature of the proposed research and its relevance to the needs of
the small fruit industries; (2) the relevance of the proposal to
current small fruit research designated priorities; (3) the scientific
expertise of the scientists involved--training, experience, and
accomplishments relative to specific areas of small fruit research; (4)
the appropriateness of the level of funding requested, vis-a-vis,
availability of funds; and (5) the likelihood of success. Reviewers
complete an evaluation sheet for each proposal, rating the five
criteria on a scale of one to ten, with ten being the best. Previously
awarded projects are given special consideration in order to allow for
funding for up to three years--when appropriate progress is
demonstrated. Compilation of evaluations are distributed to the three
Agricultural Experiment Station Directors and the USDA-ARS
Horticultural Crops Research Laboratory Research Leader, who make the
final determination of funding for each proposed project. Notification
of awards are made in December. The peer review of all proposals is
coordinated and processed through the Northwest Center for Small Fruit.
southwest consortium for plant genetics and water resources
Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
funded under the Southwest Consortium for Plant Genetics and Water
Resources Program grant.
Answer. New Mexico State University, Los Alamos National
Laboratory, Texas Tech University, the University of Arizona, and the
University of California at Riverside entered into a cooperative
interdisciplinary research agreement constituted as the Southwest
Consortium for Plant Genetics and Water Resources to facilitate
research relevant to crop adaptation to arid and semi-arid regions. The
overall goal of the Consortium is to bring together multi-disciplinary
scientific teams to develop innovative advances in plant biotechnology
and related areas to bear on agriculture and water use in and semi-arid
regions. All grants made to the participating Institutions are awarded
competitively by a scientific peer review process.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The Consortium is addressing the need for an integrated
program that identifies specific problems of southwest agriculture,
coordinates water and biotechnology research aimed at solving these
problems, and facilitates the transfer of this information for
commercialization. The specific research objectives of the Consortium
include the development of crops with resistance to: drought and
temperature extremes; adverse soil conditions; and pests and parasites.
This research is highly significant to national, regional, and local
needs. Biotechnology research of national significance is supported by
competitive grants under the National Research Initiative and the
Initiative for Future Food and Agricultural Systems.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this Consortium is to facilitate
research to provide solutions for arid and semi-arid crop adaptation.
Five participating institutions have developed research plans
consistent with the Consortium's goals. Mini-grants to support research
that would solve problems unique to southwest agriculture are awarded
competitively following peer review. Specific attention is given to
interdisciplinary agricultural research. Since its inception in 1985,
the Consortium has provided essential support for the establishment of
baseline data on new, forward thinking research relevant to the
improvement of arid lands agriculture. Accomplishments include:
identification of chromosome regions conferring water use and
transpiration efficiency in wheat; analysis of the impact of water
stress on host plant resistance to aphids and whiteflies on melon; and
evaluation of genetic variation of water-soluble carbohydrates in
spring wheat and salt-tolerance mechanisms.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1986, $285,000; fiscal years 1987-1989, $385,000
per year; fiscal year 1990, $380,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $400,000
per year; fiscal year 1994, $376,000; and fiscal years 1995-1999,
$338,000 each year. A total of $5,086,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The Consortium's lead institution, New Mexico State
University, reports matching non-federal funds of $80,000 in state
appropriations in 1992 and $100,000 in 1993-1998. Nonfederal funds
spent on this project originate from the five institutions that
participate in the Consortium and support researchers' salaries,
facilities, equipment maintenance, and administrative assistance.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted by the member institutions of
the consortium: New Mexico State University; Los Alamos National
Laboratory; Texas Tech University; the University of Arizona; and the
University of California at Riverside.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The project was initiated in 1986 and accomplished
significant results in the first five years. Additional and related
objectives have been developed and anticipated completion date for
these is 2001. The Consortium is successfully achieving its objectives
through the funding of new interdisciplinary projects each year.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Mini-grants are awarded competitively to support research
that would solve problems unique to southwest agriculture. The mini-
grant selection process is competitive. Proposals are evaluated by
external peer reviewers, the Consortium Steering Committee, and the
Consortium Scientific Committee. The review process includes: (1)
preproposal screening by the Consortium Steering and Scientific
committees; (2) request for proposals sent to those projects with
preproposals that best meet the Consortium goals; and (3) external and
internal review of all new proposals. After external and internal
reviews, awards of up to $50,000 for up to two years of funding per
project are made. An internal review of a progress report on each
project is completed before the second year of funding is released.
soybean cyst nematode, missouri
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Soybean Cyst Nematode grant.
Answer. The research being funded by this grant is crucial to the
development of effective management strategies to understand host
parasite relationships of the pathosystems and each of its components.
Work has dealt mainly with identifying Heterodera glycines-resistant
genes and incorporating them into agronomically-superior cultivars.
Basic studies elucidate the fundamental biology of the cyst nematode in
regard to new management strategies. Applied work dealt with evaluating
production systems and to new management strategies. This project was
not awarded competitively but has undergone peer review at the
university level and merit review at CSREES.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for the
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that although this
research is focused on the soybean cyst nematodes in Missouri, the
problems are of regional and national significance. The soybean cyst
nematode, Heterodera glycines is the most serious pest of soybean in
the United States. The problems continue to increase in the Midwest
where 12 states have yield reductions in soybean because of this
nematode. Due to the nematodes ability to adapt to resistant varieties
over time, new varieties are continually needed. Genetic research of
national significance could potentially be supported by competitive
grants awarded under the National Research Initiative or the Initiative
for Future Food and Agricultural Systems.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of this research is managing soybean cyst nematode
through the various management strategies including the development of
new resistant soybean varieties. To date, several nematode resistant
soybean lines have been or will be released. The need for breeding
soybean lines to develop resistant varieties with a broad spectrum of
resistance continues. More fundamental research involves the
utilization of new molecular technologies to identify genes responsible
for resistance. Other aspects of the work relates to field management
strategies for these nematodes.
Question. How long has work been underway and how much has been
appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1979, $150,000; fiscal years 1980-1981, $250,000
per year; fiscal year 1982, $240,000; fiscal years 1983-1985, $300,000
per year; fiscal years 1986-1989, $285,000 per year; fiscal year 1990,
$281,000, fiscal year 1991, $330,000; fiscal years 1992-1993, $359,000;
fiscal year 1994, $337,000; fiscal years 1995-1997, $303,000 per year;
fiscal year 1998, $450,000; and fiscal year 1999, $475,000. A total of
$6,430,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $105,012 state appropriations in 1991; $84,368 state
appropriations in 1992; $168.017 state appropriations in 1993; $118,725
state appropriations in 1994; $33,498 in 1995 and 1996; $33,723 in
state appropriations in 1997; $37,445 in state appropriations in 1998;
and $201,994 in 1999.
Question. Where is this work carried out?
Answer. This research is being conducted at the Missouri
Agriculture Experiment Station and the University of Missouri.
Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Many objectives are being met, but genetic interaction of
the soybean cyst nematode/soybean is extremely complex. The anticipated
completion date of the continuing research is in 2000.
Question. What was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The last evaluation of this project was a merit review in
January, 1998, and the renewal project will be evaluated in 1999. In
summary, continued development of new management strategies for the
soybean cyst nematode is extremely important. Progress in meeting the
objectives in each goal continues with new varieties with nematode
resistance being released yearly as well as excellent progress in other
management strategies. The released lines include Delsoy 5710 and
MPV437-NRR, while another nematode resistant strain is being evaluated
in the uniform tests. More fundamental research involves the
utilization of new molecular technologies to identify genes responsible
for resistance. Over 118 PI lines have been fingerprinted to identify
genetically diverse sources of nematode resistance. Gene fusion was
utilized to monitor changes in soybean to determine effects on
nodulation and nematodes. Other aspects of the works relates to field
management strategies for these nematodes including effects of nutrient
uptake on nematode development. Environmental effects on race
development in nematodes has indicated that it is not soybean genotype
driven but dependent on time of sampling and other factors not
reflected in conventional nematode tests.
steep iii-water quality in the pacific northwest
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the STEEP III--Water Quality in the Pacific Northwest
grant.
Answer. The STEEP III study was established in 1996 as the third
phase of the tristate STEEP Program entitled ``Solutions to
Environmental and Economic Problems,'' to meet the needs of farmers and
ranchers in the Pacific Northwest in solving severe problems with soil
erosion and water quality, while maintaining economically and
environmentally sustainable agricultural production. An open call for
research proposals is held by three cooperating states, Idaho, Oregon,
and Washington. Awards are made competitively after both internal and
external peer reviews within the states, and merit review by the
agency.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. According to the research proposal, the soils of the
Pacific Northwest wheat region are subject to severe wind and water
erosion, which has taken a heavy toll of the topsoil in a little more
than 100 years of farming. Due to the hilly terrain, water erosion has
reduced potential soil productivity in the high rainfall areas of the
region by about 50 percent. Wind erosion has reduced productivity on
the sandy soils in the lower rainfall areas. Also, off-site
environmental costs of water erosion are large. Although many of these
are difficult to measure, they include damage from sediment to
recreational areas, roadways, and other areas which costs taxpayers
millions of dollars annually. Wind erosion, which occurs mostly in the
spring and fall, also can be costly and environmentally damaging to air
quality, and causes increasing concerns for human health and safety
from blowing dusts. Water quality degradation is of increasing concern
in the agricultural areas of this region, since sediment is a major
pollutant of surface water runoff which may also carry potential
chemical contaminants. The complex hydrology of the region's landscape
has made it difficult to identify the sources of these chemicals in
surface and ground waters. Water quality research of national
significance could potentially be supported by competitive grants under
the Water Quality Program.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The primary goals are: to obtain and integrate new
technical/scientific information on soils, crop plants, pests, energy,
and farm profitability into sustainable, management systems; to develop
tools for assessing the impacts of farming practices on soil erosion
and water quality; and to disseminate conservation technology to the
farm.
The original STEEP and following STEEP II and STEEP III projects
for erosion and water quality control, have provided growers a steady
flow of information and technologies that have helped them meet
economic, environmental, and resource conservation goals. Through the
adoption of these technologies, the researchers believe that growers of
wheat, barley, and other alternative crops have been able to reduce
soil and wind erosion, improve water quality, and maintain or increase
farm profitability. This has been accomplished through a tri-state,
multi-disciplinary, multi-agency approach of basic and applied
research, along with technology transfer and on-farm testing to assist
growers with applying these research findings on their farms. The on-
farm testing program has directly involved growers and stakeholders in
the planning and conduct of the research and educational efforts--and
has helped growers evaluate conservation options, such as residue
management, to meet conservation compliance requirements.
STEEP programs have helped position farmers with new conservation
technologies, such as direct seeding management systems, well in
advance of deadlines to meet current and anticipated policy
requirements. This preparation protects farmers against potential
penalties and loss of government program benefits.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991,
and the appropriations for fiscal years 1991-1993 were $980,000 per
year; in fiscal year 1994, $921,000; in fiscal year 1995, $829,000; and
in fiscal years 1996-1999, $500,000 per year. A total of $6,690,000 has
been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $938,812 state appropriations, $63,954 product sales,
$156,656 industry, and $16,994 miscellaneous in 1991; $1,025,534 state
appropriations, $75,795 product sales, $124,919 industry, and $88,696
miscellaneous in 1992; $962,921 state appropriations, $62,776 product
sales, $177,109 industry and $11,028 miscellaneous in 1993; $1,069,396
state appropriations, $46,582 product sales, $169,628 industry, and
$22,697 miscellaneous in 1994; and $1,013,562 state appropriations,
$31,314 industry, and $107,151 miscellaneous in 1995. In 1996,
Washington received $231,724 state appropriations; Oregon passed
Measure 5 which reduced revenues and imposed funding restrictions so
they were unable to provide any non-federal cost-sharing or matching
funds; and Idaho contributed $81,525 state support, and $86,242 in
estimated non-federal grant support, for a total non-federal
contribution of $167,767. In 1997, Washington received $197,234 state
appropriations; Oregon continues to have Measure 5 as law and continues
to be unable to provide any non-federal cost-sharing or matching funds;
and Idaho contributed $27,235 state support and $24,525 in estimated
non-federal grant support for a total non-federal contribution of
$51,760. In 1998, these same general levels of support have been
continued.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work under STEEP III will be done at laboratories and
field research sites at the University of Idaho, Oregon State
University, and Washington State University. Cooperative on-farm
testing will be conducted in cooperation with growers on their fields
in Idaho, Oregon and Washington.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The STEEP II project was completed in 1995, and the results
were compiled in a final, five-year report in January 1997 showing that
the original objectives have largely been met. The STEEP III project
started in 1996 and will continue through the year 2000 as a five-year
project.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency's program manager annually reviews progress
reports, proposes new research on the STEEP Program, and attends the
annual meetings to assess progress. The program is evaluated within the
states each year by three committees: grower, technical, and
administrative. Annual progress is reported at an annual meeting and
compiled into written reports. These reports and the meeting are
reviewed annually. Grower and industry input is solicited at the annual
meeting on research objectives and accomplishments. The most recent
evaluation was made at the January 1999 annual meeting which
highlighted direct-seeding technology. This highly successful meeting
attracted over 900 growers, scientists, and agricultural experts from
the tri-state region. Farmer surveys are also distributed at each
annual meeting, and results compiled to assess whether objectives are
being successfully achieved.
sustainable agriculture, michigan
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Sustainable Agriculture, Michigan program grant.
Answer. This project is intended to develop agricultural production
systems that are highly productive and profitable as well as being
environmentally sustainable. More specifically, this project examines
how to achieve a high nutrient flow from soil to crops and animals, and
back to soil, with low loss to ground and surface waters. Pesticide
application rates are also reduced. The grant is allocated by the
Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station to priority areas within the
general area of sustainable agriculture. Within each of those areas,
grants are awarded based on research merit and proposal submission. The
projects and proposals undergo annual formal review within the Michigan
System prior to submission to CSREES, and then review within CSREES.
Question. According to the research proposal or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research.
Answer. The principal researcher believes there is a need to better
understand the biological processes occurring in Michigan's high-
nutrient-flow crop and animal systems. With high water tables, networks
of lakes and slow-moving streams, and concern about environmental
standards, field contamination by agricultural production materials is
a high priority.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The specific goals of this research are to develop an
agroecological framework for decision-making, develop crop and cover
crop rotations, develop water table management strategies, and develop
rotational grazing systems. Accomplishments to date include an
extension publication on field crop ecology, development of on-farm
compost demonstration sites, collection of research data and computer
software models on water table management, completion of initial
research trials on rotational grazing at three sites in Michigan,
widespread testing of cover crops in several crop rotation systems, and
tests of the use of nematology community structure as a method of
detecting difference among farming systems. Findings from this project
have demonstrated that rotational grazing reduces production costs and
increases net profits, compared to traditional cow management. This
project has also shown that composting is an effective way of
stabilizing livestock waste, controlling odor, and improving nutrient
composition for later land application. The computer modeling done with
this project has shown reduced contamination of groundwater through
alternative management practices employed in the project.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much as been
appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1994
with an appropriation of $494,000; $445,000 were appropriated in fiscal
years 1995 through 1999, bringing total appropriations to $2,719,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Matching funds were provided at the state level for
$511,900 in fiscal year 1994, $372,319 for fiscal year 1995, and
$359,679 in fiscal year 1996. Matching support was not reported in
fiscal years 1997 or 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This work is being carried out in Michigan at several
locations by Michigan State University. Locations include the Kellogg
Biological Station, the Upper Peninsula Experiment Station, and farms
around the state.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of this project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original project, begun in 1994, was proposed through
April of 1997. Its specific objectives were met, with additional
objectives addressed in subsequent related proposals. The current
project is currently scheduled to go through September 30, 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last agency evaluation conducted.
Answer. A formal evaluation of the Principal Investigator's program
was concluded in 1997, commissioned by the C. S. Mott Foundation
through an independent consultant. The project continues to have annual
peer review. According to the Principal Investigator, the proposal has
gone through the normal Michigan State University review process.
First, all teams and collaborators of the project have met and reviewed
the entire proposal with several suggestions and changes being
incorporated. Secondly, research administrators in the fields of
agronomy/soil science and entomology/pest management covering the major
dimensions of the proposal have reviewed it for scientific
appropriateness and accuracy as well as for overall balance and
likelihood of achieving objectives. Their comments have been included
as revisions to the proposal.
sustainable agriculture systems for nebraska
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Sustainable Agriculture Systems for Nebraska
grant.
Answer. This project is aimed at integration of field crops, animal
production, agroforestry, livestock waste management, and diversified
enterprises to meet production, economic, and environmental quality
goals. The grant was awarded competitively within the University of
Nebraska, and the integrated farm project has been reviewed annually
for technical merit and progress toward goals by the internal review
process of the university.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Farmers and ranchers in Nebraska and throughout the Midwest
face increasing difficulties in maintaining profitable operations that
are sustainable under increased production costs and more stringent
environmental regulations. They continue to seek alternative production
systems, integration of crop and animal enterprises, value-added
products, including those from woody perennials, and new marketing
approaches to secure more of the food dollar. Work on crop residue
utilization is highly important to assess the loss of erosion
mitigation when grazing occurs as well as the benefits of winter forage
to production of lean beef. Erosion is still a major problem with
monoculture cropping, and work with contour strips, residue management,
and animal grazing is essential to provide good recommendations to
farmers for how to manage fragile lands.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. This project has involved several components, with a number
of results to date. In improving erosion control through grazing,
calves were fed cornstalks from October through March, and fed some
supplements. The calves had lower costs of production and reduced need
for grain feed. The researcher's work on integrative cropping and
agroforestry has shown that diversifying rotations centered around
soybeans has provided increased economic returns. In the objective
dealing with compost utilization, compost has provided increased
sources of nitrogen and improved soil quality. Reports from this
project have been disseminated through extension and through a
sustainable agriculture newsletter.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. This project began in fiscal year 1992 with an
appropriation of $70,000; subsequent appropriations are as follows:
$70,000 in fiscal year 1993; $66,000 in fiscal year 1994; and $59,000
per year in fiscal years 1995 through 1999. Total appropriations to
date are $501,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Matching funds provided for this research include state
funds in the amount of $25,313 for fiscal year 1992; $26,384 for fiscal
year 1993; $27,306 for fiscal year 1994; $36,091 in fiscal year 1995,
and $24,267 in fiscal year 1996. Matching funds were not reported in
fiscal year 1997 or fiscal year 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted by the University of Nebraska
at several locations in Nebraska, with the major part of the project at
the Agricultural Research and Development Center near Mead, Nebraska.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of this project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original project proposed work through March of 1994.
The current project proposes work addressing additional related
objectives through March 31, 1999. It is expected that current
objectives of the project will be met by this time period.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last agency evaluation conducted.
Answer. There has not been a formal evaluation of this project, but
progress reports have been submitted to the agency and reviewed by our
scientific staff. There are no plans to do a performance evaluation in
the future.
sustainable and natural resources, pennsylvania
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resources,
Pennsylvania, project?
Answer. This project studies the cycling of nutrients in soil and
crops with special emphasis on the development of indices for
measurement of soil health. The project undergoes regular internal
evaluation and assessment as part of Pennsylvania State University's
major effort in soil quality and nutrient management research.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Degradation of soil health/quality is a most serious
problem for agriculture both in the mid-Atlantic region and throughout
the nation. State governments, both regionally and nationally, are
attempting to address the issue of soil and water degradation in
cropping systems and in intensive animal agriculture. Traditional soil
test results are not providing the needed answers for effective
nutrient management.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to understand the
cycling of nutrients from animal agricultural production systems
through soil and water into crops and back to food for animals or
directly to humans in the case of vegetable production, and to use that
knowledge to develop practical indicators of soil quality and health.
If farmers are to manage their farm lands properly, indicators of soil
quality and health must be developed that can be used by agricultural
producers and consultants. Efforts under this project have been devoted
to this goal with significant accomplishments to date. Management
practices have been found to affect soil microbiology, and the fate of
nutrients from crop residues and legume cover crops is being
elucidated. A significant indicator of soil quality has been
identified: measurement of the decomposition of filter paper has been
shown to be an effective indicator of plant residue decomposition,
which in turn has been shown to be highly correlated to nitrogen
mineralization and also shows promise as an indicator of soil
biological activity.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported under this grant began in fiscal year
1993. The appropriation for fiscal year 1993 was $100,000; $94,000 per
year in fiscal years 1994 through 1998; and $95,000 in fiscal year 1999
for a total of $665,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. A total of $369,574 in matching support from university,
state, and private industry sources was provided in fiscal year 1997.
Matching support was not reported in fiscal year 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted by the Pennsylvania State
University with cooperators throughout the state including the Rodale
Institute Research Center and farms around the state.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of this project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The project has met the specific objectives set forth in
the original project which began in 1993 with an ending date in 1995.
The continuing project addresses additional objectives related to the
overall goal. The ending date for the current project objectives is
June 30, 1999.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last agency evaluation conducted.
Answer. There has not been a formal evaluation of this project, but
progress reports have been submitted to the agency and reviewed by our
scientific staff. There are no plans to do a performance evaluation in
the future.
sustainable beef supply, mt
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Sustainable Beef Supply, Montana grant.
Answer. This is a new project. Its purpose is to develop,
implement, and evaluate a Montana Beef Quality Assurance Program for
beef producers. It will center on training beef producers with regard
to the best management practices to ensure food safety, feeder calf
quality, and consistency.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The need for this research is to develop a reliable and
predictable supply of safe, consumer-friendly beef of high quality. A
National Beef Quality audit conducted by the National Cattlemen's Beef
Association revealed that lack of proper quality control resulted in a
loss of $103.16 per head slaughtered. Research will be used to develop
a verifiable and certifiable beef supply that has been produced through
a beef quality and assurance program.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goals of this project are: develop a Beef
Quality Assurance program for beef producers, implement a feeder calf
certification program for Beef Quality Assurance-trained producers,
implement an electronic identification and trucking system to document
productivity of calves through various production schemes, and conduct
producer educational programs focused on ranch financial management.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 1999
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1999 is $500,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The State of Montana will contribute approximately $189,000
in fiscal year 1999 to cover the salary of faculty at Montana State
University involved with this project. In addition, the Montana
Stockgrowers Association has contributed $15,000 this year to the
project and will likely contribute additional funding.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted at Montana State University and
on cooperating Montana ranches.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. This project will be initiated in fiscal year 1999 and will
likely require three years to complete the objectives.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This is a new project. It will undergo a peer-review at the
University before submission. The proposal, when received, will also be
reviewed for merit prior to funding.
sustainable pest management for dryland wheat, montana
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Sustainable Pest Management for Dryland Wheat,
Montana grant.
Answer. Montana State University researchers are studying the
influence of four cropping sequences and two tillage systems on
insects, weeds, plant pathogens, nutrient management, physical and
biological properties of soil, economic profitability, and
environmental benefits. The research is being conducted on large
experimental blocks in three different dryland farming regions--
northern, central, and eastern--in Montana. Each site differs
climatologically and agronomically from one another yet represents a
significant production area within the state.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. This project addresses pest management issues under
different cropping sequences and tillage practices utilized in the
Northern Great Plains for dryland wheat production. The wheat-fallow-
wheat system used by many farmers in the region favors the build up of
many pests. Dollar losses due to insects, competitive weeds, and plant
pathogens in dryland wheat production in Montana alone are staggering.
For example, annual losses attributed to wheat stem sawfly exceeds
$25,000,000; wild oat infestations causes an estimated $50,000,000 in
harvest losses and management costs; and wheat streak mosaic has a
monetary loss of $37,500,000. These and other pests also increase
reliance on pesticides for crop protection which impacts environmental
quality, increases production costs, and causes secondary pest
outbreaks and resistance. The agronomic, environmental, and economical
benefits of diversified crop rotations are numerous, but these benefits
are largely unknown or not documented in dryland wheat production. As a
result of this multi-disciplinary project, we can significantly reduce
the economic impact of agriculturally important pests, improve soil
health, reduce production costs, and improve production efficiency.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goals of the research are to investigate the physical,
chemical, and biological interactions of cropping sequences, and
tillage systems on soil attributes, water and nutrient use, weed
species composition, presence of plant pathogens, and above and below
ground insect populations. Profitability, marketing, and environmental
benefits of diversified cropping systems will be examined so farmers
can realize the risks and benefits of adopting these systems. Study
results will be assimilated and transferred into practical solutions to
farmers' problems relative to the constraints of dryland wheat
production.
The first cropping season has been completed. Data were collected
on 26 different cropping sequences. Crops grown included spring wheat,
pulses--pea, chickpea, and lentil--cool oilseed--mustard--warm
oilseed--safflower--and sunflower. Numerous physical and chemical
attributes of the soil were measured including available nutrients,
soil aggregate characteristics, pH, forms of N, bulk density, salinity,
water flow rates, and water holding capacity. Plant diseases were
documented and soil samples taken for common root rot inoculum. Crop
data taken included dates of plant emergence, vegetative dry matter,
yield components, and straw residue. Insects in different crop
rotations were estimated by sweep samples, sticky traps and pheromone
traps. These results will be a valuable tool in assisting producers in
understanding the interactions of cropping sequences and tillage
systems as they impact pests and soil health. This work will also
provide producers with a better opportunity to consider producing
alternate crops under the Federal Agriculture Improvement Reform Act.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. This work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1997
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1997 was $200,000, and fiscal
years 1998 and 1999, $400,000 per year. A total of $1,000,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-federal funds of $42,000 from the Montana Wheat and
Barley Committee were provided for project support during 1997. Non-
federal funds of $80,000 from the Montana Wheat and Barley Committee
were provided for project support during 1998.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted in three distinct dryland areas
of Montana--north, central, and northeast--located on producer owned
land. Each field site is within 45 miles of a Montana State University
Agricultural Experiment Station research center.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The project was initially proposed for a duration of 3
years.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Yearly progress reports will be used to track the
effectiveness of the program of research. Assessment of the precision
of biological control organisms and estimates of profitability,
marketability, and risk will be used to assess progress.
swine waste management, north carolina
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Swine Waste Management, North Carolina, grant.
Answer. During the past year, this multi-disciplinary project has
expanded existing university efforts that have included plans to
develop a prototype system for the treatment of animal waste which will
be used to study and optimize new and innovative swine waste treatment
processes. Specifically, the current project is focusing on the
following topics: biological safety and nutrient quality of phosphoric
acid-preserved animal mortality products processed by rendering,
extrusion, and fluidized-bed cooking/dehydration; beneficial effects of
swine manure biosolids on plant disease suppression; evaluation of
alternative compost products; use of processed animal waste as a
nitrogen and phosphorus source for Fraser Fir Christmas trees;
production of a commercially-viable feed ingredient from animal wastes,
cull sweet potatoes, and soybean hulls; routine techniques for
monitoring the nutritional value of processed animal waste; and
residual dietary phytase activity and phosphorus, calcium, and nitrogen
content in fresh and composted manure.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The urgency for addressing environmental concerns relative
to the intensive production of livestock and poultry continues to
intensify in the United States. This is currently being reflected by
strategies jointly proposed be U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
and U. S. Department of Agriculture. In North Carolina, where livestock
and poultry production account for approximately $5,000,000,000 in farm
gate income annually, issues of adequate land area for recycling animal
manures for crop uptake of nitrogen and phosphorus in some counties of
intensive animal agriculture is especially sensitive. North Carolina is
also currently in the process of implementing odor rules that will
impact animal agriculture. Several other states and local regions are
facing the same concerns. It is anticipated that deliverables from this
research project will have a local, state and national impact.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The specific goals for this project include the following:
utilize the North Carolina State University Animal Poultry Waste
Management Center waste processing facility to develop optimum methods
of screening, blending, fermenting, pelleting, extruding, and further
processing animal waste-based nutrients for use as value-added
products; installation of solid separation system at university swine
research facility proximate to the Animal Poultry Waste Management
Center waste processing facility; collect samples and establish supply
sources of various types of animal waste by-products for conducting
commercial scale processing and end-product evaluations; evaluate for
targeted nutrient content and nutrient availability of processed
materials targeted for use as plant nutrients; and evaluate materials
processed for feedstuffs for targeted nutrient content and anti-
nutritional factors.
These goals required assimilation of a multi-disciplinary research
team, and completion of facilities that are able to heat treat,
dehydrate, blend, extrude, compost, and pelletize the by-products to
produce potentially valuable organic fertilizers or feed supplements.
These tasks have been completed and the individual projects described
previously are underway.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1997
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1997 was $215,000; fiscal year
1998 was $300,000; and fiscal year 1999 is $500,000. A total of
$1,015,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. During fiscal year 1998 there were $244,622 in state funds
provided in contract to North Carolina State University--NSCU--from
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and $80,460 in industry
funds provided by membership monies from the members of the NCSU Animal
and Poultry Waste Management Center in support of objectives related to
this project.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This work is being conducted at North Carolina State
University in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Question. What was the anticipated date for the original objectives
of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the anticipated
completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original anticipated completion date was February 28,
1999. Project objectives will not be completed by this date. The time
to complete processes associated with equipment, facilities, and safety
plans required for this project, coupled with unavoidable
administrative delays in the secondary award process from Federal and
university levels for this project, required a request for extension of
the completion date to 2/29/00.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service conducted an evaluation of the progress of this work during
January, 1999.
tillage, silviculture, and waste management, louisiana
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Tillage, Silviculture, and Waste Management
Research Grant?
Answer. This research has five components: Rice and Cotton Tillage,
Bald Cypress and Water Tupelo Silviculture, and Dairy and Poultry Waste
Management. More specifically, the Rice Scientist are looking for ways
to improve stand establishment; the Cotton Scientists are focusing on
the use of tillage systems to combat harmful insect populations; the
Waste Management Scientist are quantifying the environmental and
economic effectiveness of approved dairy and poultry waste disposal
systems; and the Silviculturists are conducting a problem analysis on
factors affecting Bald Cypress and Water Tupelo regeneration. The
project is annually subjected to the university's merit review process.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researchers hypothesize that the crops,
forests, and waste issues addressed by this project extend beyond the
state borders, thus this research has, at a minimum, multi-state to
regional application.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goals were to: improve conservation tillage in
rice and cotton farming; determine the effectiveness of no-discharge
dairy waste treatment facilities; determine acceptable land treatment
levels for poultry waste disposal; and to evaluate wetland forest
regeneration processes. All components of the project have established
research studies and are monitoring progress. For fiscal year 1998 the
silviculture component was placed on hold and a sweet potato project
was added. This decision was prompted by a staffing change in the
Department of Forestry and Wildlife. Prior to this decision, an
annotated bibliography of Bald Cypress Silviculture was completed and
the responsible scientists had begun work on Water Tupelo regeneration.
Louisiana State University's Agriculture Experiment Station Director
remains actively engaged in the project by participating in the
development and delivery of the annual proposal. Moreover, through his
annual review process he fosters collegiality and professional
discourse across Departments.
Question. How long has the project been underway, and how much has
been appropriated, by fiscal year, through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work began in fiscal year 1994. The appropriation for
fiscal year 1994 was $235,000. For fiscal years 1995-1999 the
appropriation was $212,000 per year. This sums $1,295,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. State funding in support of these areas of research exceeds
$750,000 annually.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Investigations are being conducted on the main campus at
Louisiana State University as well as the Experiment Stations at
Calhoun, Crowley, Chase, Winnsboro, St. Joseph, and Washington Parish,
Louisiana.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related projects?
Answer. The original work was scheduled for completion in 1999.
Early term objectives have been met. The added experiments have closing
dates ranging from 1999 to 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted?
Answer. The last field evaluation was completed on December 12,
1995. The evaluation summary complimented the scientists on the
interdisciplinary components associated with this project, along with
their investigative procedures, report writing, and external
networking.
tomato wilt virus, georgia
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the tomato wilt virus research program grant.
Answer. This is a new project that will provide the research to
help in the reduction of major crop losses in the southeastern United
Sates due to tomato spotted wilt disease. Research will focus on the
vector biology and the virus transmitted by the vector. This project
was not awarded competitively but has undergone peer review at the
university level and merit review at CSREES.
Question. According to this research proposal, or the principal
investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Tomato Wilt Virus has become a major yield-limiting
constraint on a number of very important food crops. This is a problem
world-wide, but in the last ten years has spread throughout the
Southeastern states. Since this virus was first observed in Georgia in
1986, it has caused an estimated $100,000,000 crop loss to the state.
The wide host range of the virus and its vector make this a disease
that is difficult to manage. The new strategies to manage this virus in
Georgia will be applicable to all states where it occurs.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of this research is to reduce losses in the major
crops grown in the Southwest due to spotted wilt. This requires
identifying the sources of virus and vectors, determining the dynamics
of the thrips species that transmit the virus, elucidating how the
virus is acquired by thrips to identify possible genes to enhance virus
resistance in plants, and adapting to crops in the Southeast the Risk
Assessment Index for spotted wilt that is currently in implementation
and refinement at the University of Georgia for peanut.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 1999
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1999 is $200,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of nonfederal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds provided for this grant are $84,736
for 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being carried out at the University of Georgia
and The Coastal Plain Experiment Station.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Since this is a new program, the original objectives have
not yet been met.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project is under peer review at the University level
and agency merit review.
tropical and subtropical research
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the tropical and subtropical research program grant.
Answer. The Tropical and Subtropical Research--T STAR--Program is
operating in coordination with the T STAR Caribbean and the T STAR
Pacific Administrative Groups. State Agricultural Experiment Stations
that are members of the Caribbean group are Florida, Puerto Rico, and
the Virgin Islands; members of the Pacific group are Hawaii and Guam.
The proposals are peer reviewed and are then selected for funding by
the administrative groups.
Non-member institutional interests are represented by the Executive
Director of the Southern Region Agricultural Experiment Station
Directors, who is a member of the Caribbean group, and the Executive
Director of the Western Region Agricultural Experiment Station
Directors, who is a member of the Pacific group. The Agricultural
Research Service also has representation on the two groups, as does the
CSREES scientist who manages the T STAR grant program.
Funds for the program are divided equally between the two Basin
Administrative Groups. The research objective of the program developed
by the principal is to improve the agricultural productivity of many of
the subtropical and tropical parts of the United States. Special
research grants have been awarded for research on controlling insect,
disease, and weed pests of crops; increasing the production and quality
of tropical fruits, vegetables, and agronomic crops; promoting
increased beef production through development of superior pastures;
detection of heartwater disease of cattle and the influence of heat
stress on dairy cattle reproduction; better use of land and water
resources; developing computer models for efficient crop production
systems and animal feeding systems; developing computer models for
land-use decisions; using biotechnology methodologies for improving
plant resistance to viral and bacterial diseases; using biotechnology
to develop non-chemical, or biological, strategies for controlling
insect pests; and potential for growing new speciality crops. fiscal
year 1999 proposals have been requested.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes there is a need for the T
STAR program to provide research-generated knowledge that enables
informed choices in the responsible use of natural resources,
facilitates the health and well being of American citizens through
improved food safety and nutrition, provides frontline protection for
the rest of the nation's farms and ranches from serious plant and
animal diseases and pests, and enhances the ability of U.S. farmers to
produce crops efficiently and economically and/or to introduce new
crops and agricultural products with export potential to gain market
share abroad. On a regional basis, the T STAR program addresses the
unique challenges of practicing tropical agriculture, that is presence
of pests year-round, heat stress, post-harvest processing to meet
regulatory requirements for export, etc. The local need of Americans
living in tropical regions of the nation for T STAR knowledge-based
products to design and implement sustainable agricultural development
within fragile tropical agroecosystems--particularly on tropical
islands--and to develop new crops and niche markets.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to increase the
production and quality of tropical crops; control pests and diseases of
plants and animals; promote increased beef production; and conserve
land and water resources. Grants have supported research on control
strategies for Melon thrips; the biochemical nature of resistance to
rust in nutsedge; development of bioherbicides for nutsedges;
development of tomato cultivars with resistance to the spotted wilt
virus; development of pheromones for monitoring and controlling the
citrus root weevil; reducing the effects of heat stress in dairy
cattle; development of a decision support system for vegetable
production; finding cucurbits with resistance to silverleaf; developing
a computer program for optimal supplementation strategies for beef and
dairy cattle on tropical pastures; characterizing new strains of citrus
tristeza virus in the Caribbean basin; determining the economic
threshold for the citrus leaf miner on limes; using viral replicase
genes to engineer rapid detection methods for geminiviruses; developing
makers of bacterial spot resistance genes in tomato; breeding snap and
kidney beans for resistance to golden mosaic virus and for heat
tolerance; searching for resistance to papaya bunchy top disease;
developing weed control for yam production; and bioengineering ringspot
virus resistance in papaya.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The operation of the tropical and subtropical research
program was transferred from ARS to CSREES, with CSREES funding being
first provided in fiscal year 1983. Funds in the amount of $2,980,000
per year were appropriated in fiscal years 1983 and 1984. In fiscal
year 1985, $3,250,000 was appropriated. In fiscal years 1986, 1987, and
1988, $3,091,000 was appropriated each year. $3,341,000 was
appropriated in fiscal year 1989. The fiscal year 1990 appropriation
was $3,299,000. The fiscal years 1991-1993 appropriations were
$3,320,000 per year; $3,121,000 in fiscal year 1994; $2,809,000 in
fiscal years 1995-1996; and $2,724,000 per year in fiscal years 1997
through 1999. A total of $51,994,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. For fiscal year 1997, more than $1,000,000 of nonfederal
were provided to the T STAR program from state appropriations, and for
1998 $85,600. These state funds were in the form of faculty salary time
commitments and indirect costs covered by the institutions.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This research is being conducted in Florida, Puerto Rico,
Virgin Islands, Hawaii, and Guam. Work is also being done in other
Pacific and Caribbean countries through agreements between institutions
but not using Federal funds.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Research on tropical crop and animal agriculture is to
increase productivity net profits, decrease harmful environmental
impacts, conserve water, and natural resources. The need to continue
with this project has been expressed by producers in the area,
importers in the U.S. mainland and the institutions involved.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The projects that are funded by the T STAR Special Research
Grant have been peer reviewed by panels of scientists in the U.S. to
assure that good science is undertaken. Also, as part of the grant
renewal process, progress reports are reviewed by the two
Administrative Groups and by the grant manager at the national level.
Workshops in which research results and their application for
agricultural production are developed every two years. Research papers
are published in the appropriate regional, national, and international
forums available.
The development in 1995 of the Strategic Plan for T STAR provided a
mechanism to define priorities, examine program direction, and
recommend operational changes. One of the principal points considered
was to bring the Caribbean and Pacific Basin components closer and
better coordinated. T STAR and the coordination which it implies was an
outcome that will make this program better. Each sub project is peer
reviewed annually at the initiating institution by the T STAR panel and
by CSREES National Program Leaders.
turkey coronavirus, indiana
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Turkey Coronavirus, Indiana, grant.
Answer. This is a new grant in fiscal year 1999. CSREES has
requested the university to submit a grant proposal that has not yet
been received. The objectives of the research will be to: (1) develop
enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for detecting antibody to turkey
coronavirus and turkey coronavirus antigen in turkey flocks, (2)
elucidate immune responses in turkey poults infected with turkey
coronavirus, and (3) determine which immunity, humoral and /or
cellular, will provide the most effective protection for turkey poults
against turkey coronavirus infection.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The need for this research is that the turkey industry
plays a major role in animal agriculture in the U.S. This enteric
disease of young turkey poults, called turkey poult enteritis or poult
enteritis mortality syndrome, has contributed to significant economic
losses by producers in Indiana, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Virginia and other states. The cost to the industry is in the millions.
Currently, no effective medication or vaccination is available for
control and prevention of the disease. Although turkey poults that
recover from the coronaviral enteritis may develop long-term immunity,
little is known about the specific immunity. The proposed research will
lead to further study on the understanding of immunological interaction
between turkey poults and individual turkey coronaviral proteins and
subsequent development of recombinant or a deoxyribonucleic acid
vaccine for effective prevention of the disease. The enzyme-linked
immunosorbent assays that will be developed in this research will
provide an efficient tool for diagnosis and control of turkey poult
enteritis.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The research is a new proposal so nothing has been
accomplished to date. The goal of the research will be to develop
enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays for monitoring antibody to turkey
coronavirus and turkey coronavirus antigen in turkey flocks during
acute outbreaks or recovery and in routine health monitoring and to
develop effective vaccines to protect turkey poults against turkey
coronavirus infection.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 1999
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1999 is $200,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. This is a new proposal for fiscal year 1999. No non-federal
funds will be provided in this fiscal year.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted at Purdue University in the
Department of Veterinary Pathobiology and the Animal Disease Diagnostic
Laboratory.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
is December 31, 2001.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Since this is a new proposal, no evaluation has been
conducted. However, it is anticipated that it will be reviewed by a
CSREES specialist shortly after it is received by the agency.
urban pests, georgia
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Urban Pests, Georgia grant.
Answer. This research is focused on urban pests with specific
emphasis on termites and ants. This project has been evaluated annually
by CSREES.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes subterranean termites and
ants are significant economic pests in the Southeastern United States.
Damage and control costs for termites in Georgia were estimated at
$44,500,000 in 1993. It is estimated that professional pest control
operators apply over 23,000,000 pounds of active ingredients in and
around homes each year. Chemicals currently registered for controlling
these pests are less efficacious than desired and applied at an
intensity that exceeds most agricultural settings.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of the termite research is to better understand
the biology of subterranean termites and their responses to selected
environmental cues in order to design monitoring, risk assessment, and
precision-targeting control strategies using conventional and
alternative methods. Additionally, an objective is to improve the
identification of subterranean termites to the species level through
studies of the termite genome, cuticular chemistry, morphometric
characteristics, and termite behavior. Specific accomplishments in the
termite research are as follows: Collection of three full years of data
on over 80 different subterranean termite colonies in four of the major
soil provinces in Georgia was completed in 1997. This data set has been
compiled and is currently being analyzed using spacial analysis to
assist in developing risk assessment models and precision-targeting of
treatment options. Research with reduced-risk insecticides have
provided data that will assist in registration of several novel
chemistries within the next few years. Work with biological control
agents has suggested that application of a naturally-occurring fungus
to the structural components involved in a subterranean termite
infestation should be efficacious in removing that infestation.
Research continues to raise questions concerning the concept of baits
as a termite control tactic. Recent data from termite behavior and
genome studies indicate that the conventional concept of the monogyne--
one pair of parents--social structure of a termite colony is not valid
raising questions about the real-world composition of subterranean
termite societies.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. This work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991
and the appropriation for fiscal years 1991--1993 was $76,000 per year.
In fiscal year 1994 the appropriation was $71,000 and in fiscal years
1995 through 1999 the appropriation was $64,000 each year. A total of
$619,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
by fiscal year were as follows: 1991--none, 1992--$26,000, 1993--
$18,000, 1994--$59,530, 1995--$59,539, 1996--$30,000, 1997-$80,00,
1998-$50,000.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. This research and technology transfer program is being
conducted at the University of Georgia, Department of Entomology,
Athens, Georgia..
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The grants have been processed on a year to year basis
pending the availability of funds, however, the original objectives
were essentially a five-to eight-year plan of work. CSREES
entomologists judge that progress has been made on foraging behavior
and the identification and development of termite baits. There has also
been a publication of the research results.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This project has been evaluated on an annual basis by
CSREES, through the progress reports. Progress has been excellent.
vidalia onions
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Vidalia Onion Grant.
Answer. The research has concentrated on developing pungency
testing procedures to improve quality and sensory consistency of
Vidalia onions.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for the
research?
Answer. Vidalia onions are a specialty crop of extreme importance
to the economy of certain areas of Georgia. The project is directed
toward improving product quality and the nationally-and
internationally-economic competitiveness of this production system.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The research has demonstrated that chemical tests can be
used to accurately predict the pungency of onions prior to harvest, and
perhaps flavor categorization, to consumers. The results have also
indicated that several diseases affecting onions are the most serious
problem in regard to quality and production.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The project began in fiscal year 1998 with an appropriation
of $84,000 and for $100,000 in fiscal year 1999. A total of $184,000
has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year.
Answer. The non-federal funding for this project for the last two
years was $193,137 from the state of Georgia and $251,427 in private
funding.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The work is being conducted at the Coastal Plain Experiment
Station in Tifton, Georgia and in test plots in several commercial
field sites.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objections of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated duration for the original project was five
years. The initial objective of establishing procedures for pungency
testing has proceeded ahead of schedule. The plant disease problems
that have emerged will likely require several additional years,
although the incidence and severity of these diseases are highly
variable from year to year.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This project is in it's second year, and the emphasis and
objectives have changed from pungency research in fiscal year 1998 to
onion disease research in fiscal year 1999. A CSREES review or
evaluation has not yet been done on this project with plans to postpone
the review until the end of the 1999 growing season when both aspects
of the research project could be evaluated.
viticulture consortium, new york & california
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Viticulture Consortium grant.
Answer. The University of California and Cornell University in New
York conducted research on varietal responses of grapes, modeling of
water requirements, management of diseases including Phyloxera, and
other cultural aspects of grape production. Funds were used by the lead
institutions to fund projects in the various grape-producing states
within their region. Grants were made based on peer reviewed proposals
and selected competitively by regional groups based on priorities
developed by researchers, extension, and industry personnel.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The research being carried out is designed to help the
viticulture and wine industries remain competitive in the U.S. and in
the global market. Further, disease and insect problems are a concern
of the industry, especially in new strains of phyloxera while overall
improvement in all cultural management approaches to grape production
need to continue.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research is to maintain or
enhance the competitiveness of the U. S. Viticulture and wine industry
in the global market.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal years 1996-1997, $500,000 per year; fiscal year 1998,
$800,000; and fiscal year 1999, $1,000,000. A total of $2,800,000 has
been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Each year the viticulture industry provides matching
contributions in excess of the appropriated federal funds.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being carried out in nine eastern states and
California.
Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The research priorities set by the guidance group have not
been met. The research is varied and complex and will take many years
to complete.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project underwent merit review in January, 1998. The
research proposals are peer-reviewed in both regions before selection.
The review group is composed on industry, research, and extension
personnel that are experts in viticulture.
water conservation, kansas
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the water conservation program grant.
Answer. This research program is designed to develop and
disseminate technical and economic information on the efficient use of
water for irrigated crop production in western Kansas. The program has
the following objectives:
--Develop regression models to estimate the longevity of subsurface
drip irrigation systems using calculations of annual system
performance deterioration based on 13 years of operating
pressures and flow rates;
--Evaluate utilization of livestock effluent with subsurface drip
irrigation and its effect on water redistribution and corn
water use patterns;
--Develop best management practices for nitrogen fertigation using
subsurface drip irrigation systems for corn;
--Estimate the long run economic impacts of irrigation efficiency
improvements for irrigated corn, wheat, and grain sorghum in
the farm sector and affiliated sectors of the High Plains
economy;
--Disseminate irrigation research information and best management
practice recommendations to Kansas irrigators through a series
of extension bulletins and updates based on research-based
information.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher indicates that corn is the
principal irrigated crop in Kansas and throughout the Great Plains. The
principal researcher believes any realistic attempt to address
overdraft of the High Plains Aquifer must address improvements in
irrigation efficiency in corn production. The most common irrigation
methods are furrow and sprinkler irrigation. The need to conserve water
has focused attention on more efficient alternatives such as subsurface
drip irrigation. This research will be of particular significance
within the state and region. However, it also has national and
international applications as advanced irrigation systems, such as
subsurface drip irrigation, will be needed to improve irrigation water
use efficiency in the next century.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The research goal is to determine the feasibility of
subsurface drip irrigation and other alternative irrigation systems in
western Kansas to sustain irrigated corn production to support the beef
feedlot industry. The project also supports an educational effort
through collection and dissemination of information on efficient
irrigation methods. Subsurface drip irrigation acreage is increasing in
Kansas and farmers are obtaining results on their own farms.
The computer program Irrigation Economies Evaluation Svstem--IEES--
is complete and is being distributed by the Kansas State University
Cooperative Extension Service. A report has been published which
documents the data requirements and algorithms used in the model. A
users guide is also available.
Education poster sessions have been presented at three meetings.
These posters were designed to inform potential users about the
advantages of using the IEES software to evaluate irrigation options
for farms in the Great Plains.
A report entitled ``Economic Analysis of Alternative Irrigation
Systems for Continuous Corn and Grain Sorghum in Western Kansas,'' has
been completed. The results of this study indicate that a low drift
nozzle center pivot system is the most profitable center pivot system
to use for irrigation of corn and grain sorghum. Overall, a surge flood
system was the most profitable because of its relatively low ownership
costs. Although the subsurface drip system shows some potential, it is
only economically feasible when above-average crop yield and price
conditions exist.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1993
with an appropriation of $94,000; $88,000 in fiscal year 1994; and
$79,000 in fiscal years 1995-1999 each year. The total funds
appropriated are $577,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $781,232 state appropriations, $55,205 product sales,
$60,907 industry and miscellaneous in 1991; $868,408 state
appropriations, $37,543 product sales, $35,484 industry and
miscellaneous in 1992; $833,324 state appropriations, $54,964 product
sales, $144,225 industry and miscellaneous in 1993. Amounts for other
years should be similar.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research is being conducted at Kansas State University.
The field portion of the research is being conducted on Research
Centers at Colby and Garden City, Kansas. Additional work is being
carried out on campus at the Departments of Agronomy and Agricultural
Economics in Manhattan, Kansas.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original anticipated completion date for the project
was 1998. One of the most important objectives of the study is to
evaluate longevity of the subsurface drip irrigation systems. These
sites are unique to the region and very little information is available
on system longevity. Pressing water quality problems of a regional and
national scope has necessitated a change in the objectives to
developing nutrient management practices under subsurface drip
irrigation and utilization of livestock wastewater with subsurface drip
irrigation. Additionally, changes in the federal farm program which
allow greater planting flexibility has an effect on how irrigators make
water/land allocation decisions. Field and economic studies related to
allocation strategies, nutrient management, and wastewater utilization
should be completed in three years.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project has been peer reviewed. The reviewers felt the
project concept to be valid and the timetable for accomplishments to be
on target.
water quality
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Water Quality special research grant.
Answer. The agency continues support of the national,
competitively-awarded grants program as part of the Department's Water
Quality Initiative. This program supports research to investigate the
impacts of non-point source pollution from agriculture on water
quality, and to develop improved, sustainable agricultural practices
and systems that protect the environment and are economically
profitable. This program is conducted jointly with the State
Agricultural Experiment Stations, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Agricultural Research Service and Natural Resources Conservation
Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Geological
Survey, extension specialists and other Federal, State, and local
agencies. The water quality grants have supported more than 300
research projects across the country. In fiscal years 1996 and 1997,
funds were awarded to the five Management Systems Evaluation Areas
projects in the Midwest to continue the water quality systems research
started in 1990. In 1996, new projects were initiated as Agricultural
Systems for Environmental Quality. The new projects focus on watershed-
scale agriculture production systems that reduce pollution of soil and
water while maintaining productivity and profitability.
In 1998, the U.S. Department of Agriculture joined with the
Environmental Protection Agency and the National Science Foundation in
the national Water and Watersheds program which focuses on watershed-
scale systems to improve water quality. Three projects have been funded
under this new program.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The public is concerned about the possible risks to the
environment, to soil quality, and to water quality resulting from the
use of agricultural chemicals. Improved methods of detection of very
minor amounts of chemicals in water have made the public, farmers, and
policymakers more concerned about the use and management of these
agricultural chemicals and wastes, while meeting the challenge of
maintaining the efficiency and productivity of agricultural production
systems. Water quality continues to be of high priority at local,
regional and national levels. Results from the research are providing
technologies to reduce pollutants, guidelines for site-specific
farming, and improved farming systems.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goals of the program were to determine the
extent to which agriculture has impacted groundwater quality, and to
develop new and improved, cost effective agricultural systems that
enhance ground water quality. During the past three years, focus and
allocation of resources have increased for surface water quality. Major
progress has already been made on these goals. Examples of some of the
results of recently completed research include the following:
--Nebraska's water quality research indicates that irrigated corn can
be produced profitability with less water and nitrogen than
most farmers apply.
--Ohio's Lake Erie Agricultural Systems for Environmental Quality
project, along with other State and Federal projects, is making
excellent progress in reducing phosphorus loading in two major
watersheds that discharge into Lake Erie. Watershed phosphorus
budgets indicate that the net annual accumulation of phosphorus
in the Maumee watershed has dropped from 23,000 metric tons to
2,600 metric tons. Farmers are no longer applying ``buildup''
levels of phosphorus to their fields--a major cultural change.
--In North Carolina, a 7-acre wetland is effectively removing
nitrates from the runoff and drainage of a 950-acre watershed
during the warm season; a Site-Specific Farming workshop was
held at Greensboro, North Carolina, and attracted some 200
participants; and several industrial and educational displays
have been developed for the Agricultural Systems for
Environmental Quality project.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work under the Water Quality Program began in fiscal
year 1990 with an appropriation of $6,615,000. The subsequent
appropriations were as follows: $8,000,000 in fiscal year 1991;
$9,000,000 in fiscal year 1992; $8,950,000 in fiscal year 1993;
$4,230,000 in fiscal year 1994; $2,757,000 in fiscal years 1995-1997;
$2,461,000 in fiscal year 1998; and $3,461,000 in fiscal year 1999. A
total of $50,988,000 has been appropriated for the Special Research
Grants Water Quality Program.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds in support of the Water Quality
program, provided by state appropriations, industry, product sales and
other local sources, have averaged approximately $1,000,000 per year
since the program began in 1990.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Funds provided under the Water Quality Program have been
awarded to institutions in virtually every state, so work is being
carried out in all parts of the country. The Management System
Evaluation Area projects of the Midwest Initiative on Water Quality are
headquartered in Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and Ohio, with
satellite locations in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Three
new projects located in Indiana, North Carolina, and Ohio were
initiated in fiscal year 1995. Three new projects located in Illinois,
North Carolina, and Utah were initiated in 1998.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original goals of the Department's Water Quality
Research Plan were to: (1) assess the seriousness and extent of
agriculture's impact on groundwater quality, and (2) develop new and
improved agricultural systems that are cost effective and enhance
ground water quality. These original goals have been met; however,
water quality programs need to have a long-term focus. The physical
processes that link production practices to water quality and the
socioeconomic processes that characterize adoption can both be of long
duration. The adoption process, from first learning about a practice
through implementation, can take years. While assistance is designed to
speed up this process, overall progress can still be slow. Therefore,
adequate resources must be made available for an extended period of
time to ensure successful completion of the project.
The original project was developed for five years with the
expectation that it would be reviewed and possibly extended beyond the
five-year period if warranted. The 1995 review of the program
identified a need for increased attention to surface water quality
problems. In 1996 and 1997, new water quality problems emerged;
hypoxia, pfiesteria, etc.--which required renewed efforts. The research
funded under the Special Research Grants Program has produced
significant progress in understanding the impacts of agricultural
practices on surface and groundwater pollution and in developing
improved agricultural systems that are economically and environmentally
sustainable. Implementation of some of these improved agricultural
systems is already underway in a number of states. The focus over the
next five years will be on developing and implementing agricultural
systems that reduce the nutrient and contaminant loadings in our waters
and watersheds.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. An external review team evaluated the Management System
Evaluation Areas and associated component projects in 1995. All
Management System Evaluation Area projects have an impressive record of
successfully implemented interdisciplinary teams to study water quality
problems. A major conference on Management System Evaluation Area and
Agricultural Systems for Environmental Quality results is scheduled in
June 1999. Criteria used to evaluate the success of the Midwest
Management System Evaluation Areas project included:
--The relationship of the program to national and regional
priorities.
--Contributions of the program to rural communities, to education of
scientists, and to the quality of life in rural communities.
Methods used to transfer the project results to the customers and
clients.
--Future opportunities and needs for environmental programs.
--Progress toward accomplishing objectives.
weed control, north dakota
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Weed Control, North Dakota grant.
Answer. A major focus has been developing and evaluating systems to
reduce herbicide use in crop production. The experiments of longest
duration are field evaluations of sustainable, reduced tillage, and
conventional crop rotation systems to ascertain changes in weed species
and densities and in economic returns over time when weed management is
reduced. Another emphasis has been weed biology, particularly
understanding the unique physiological and genetic traits of herbicide-
resistant kochia and wild oat in an effort to recommend the most cost-
effective management alternatives. Another goal has been to improve the
efficiency of postemergent herbicide use by utilizing additives that
maximize weed control with reduced amounts of herbicide and by reducing
spray volume and adapting new nozzle designs that improve application
techniques.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The research address new methods to control weeds using
systems control. The principles concerning effective use of additives
with postemergent herbicides are being applied to improving the
efficiency of postemergent herbicide use across the nation. Similarly,
adaptation of herbicide application technology that allows reduced
spray volumes while sustaining herbicide effectiveness is of nationwide
benefit. The increased understanding of the inheritance and management
of herbicide resistance in kochia and wild oat will be beneficial to
management of these weeds in the central and northern regions of the
United States where these weeds are abundant and cause major losses
annually. The long-term field experiments should provide useful
information on the positive and negative impacts of reduced weed
management systems wherever spring-sown small grains are the primary
crop.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The initial major activity was a long-term series of
experiments to evaluate changes in weed species and populations and the
economic returns in conventional, sustainable, and reduced tillage
systems with rotations that are up to four years long. The research was
initiated in 1993, but atypical wet conditions occurred for the first
three years. It is felt that at least two complete cycles of crop
rotations--eight years--will be necessary to accurately assess what
farmers can expect from adopting new management systems.
The research to improve the efficiency of herbicides lead to
development of the principle that effectiveness of many postemergent
herbicides can be improved by using additives that dissolve the
herbicide. And this principle was utilized to develop a basic pH
adjuvant that improves the effectiveness of several postemergent
herbicides.
The research with genetics of herbicide-resistant kochia has
determined that inbreeding depression occurs when this naturally cross-
pollinated plant is self-pollinated to develop genetically uniform
plants, which are desirable for many research objectives related to
inheritance of genetic traits. However, this discovery also
demonstrates that cross-pollination must be maintained in kochia for
research intended to accurately simulate genetic changes and
competition with crops that may occur in a field.
Resistance of wild oat to many of the major herbicides used for its
control in the United States has been documented, including resistance
to imazamethabenz which has not been reported previously. Molecular
biology and physiological studies have been initiated to better
understand the cause of imazamethabenz resistance in wild oat, so
management strategies can be recommended. Initial research has
demonstrated that weed control by herbicides applied to weeds of
recommended size has been equally effective when spray-drift-reducing
or conventional nozzles are used. Because drift-reducing nozzles
produce large droplets, the next step of evaluation is being initiated
to determine whether small weeds are treated and controlled effectively
when drift-reducing nozzles are used.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through year 1999?
Answer. The support by this grant began in fiscal year 1992 and
appropriation for fiscal years 1992 and 1993 was $500,000 per year;
$470,000 in fiscal year 1994; and $423,000 per year in fiscal years
1995 through 1999. A total of $3,585,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $27,030 state appropriations in 1992; $48,472 state
appropriations in 1993; $41,969 state appropriations in 1994; $71,847
state appropriations in 1995; $62,134 state appropriations in 1996;
$78,579 state appropriations in 1997; and an estimated $70,000 state
appropriations in 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at the North Dakota State
University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original completion date for the long-term rotation
experiment, utilizing the conventional, reduced tillage and sustainable
management systems, was anticipated to be a minimum of 5 years, but the
experience with atypically environmental conditions suggest that 8 to
10 years will be necessary to attain a relatively steady state or
logical end of the research. The current intent is to continue the
research until at least 2002. The problems encountered due to the
inbreeding depression in kochia suggests that it will be difficult to
determine the true genetic nature of inheritance of herbicide
resistance in this weed as quickly as projected. And due to the
discovery of herbicide resistance of wild oat to imazamethabenz, the
genetic and molecular biology research to characterize the nature of
this resistance is just getting a good start. It is anticipated that
the genetic and biology research with kochia and wild oat will need to
continue until at least 2002.
Question. When was the last Agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. A scientific peer review of the written proposal was
conducted in fiscal year 1998 by CSREES prior to awarding the grant.
Based on comments from the reviewers, CSREES required that the
university revise and resubmit the proposal. The resubmitted proposal
was approved with the caveat that within one year a scientific peer,
onsite, progress review would be conducted by CSREES. That progress
review has not yet been completed.
wetland plants, la
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Wetland Plants, Louisiana, grant.
Answer. CSREES has requested the university to submit a grant
proposal that is currently in preparation.
Question. According to the principal researcher, what is the
national, regional, or local need for this research?
Answer. There is local, regional, and national need for this
research. Coastal wetlands erosion is a serious environmental problem
in many coastal locations around the United States. The problem is
particularly severe in Louisiana where an acre of coastal wetlands is
lost to erosion every 20 minutes. Current technologies, even at great
expense, can only slightly reduce these losses. The research this grant
is funding has the potential to provide a significant improvement with
respect to both the magnitude and expense of future coastal erosion
control efforts.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to develop an
economically-feasible approach to controlling coastal wetlands erosion
that would utilize vegetation to retain areas threatened by erosion and
to rebuild lost land. To accomplish this, a system that incorporates
agricultural principles involved in crop production is required.
Specifically, a seed-based system utilizing appropriate planting
material is required. While this is the first year of funding for this
project from CSREES, progress has been rapid in developing this seed-
based system, and field trials in the marsh are already planned for
1999.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year
1999, and the appropriation for fiscal year 1999 is $600,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: $18,391 state appropriations, $5,319 industry grants,
and $8,691 miscellaneous in 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted at the Louisiana Agricultural
Experiment Station.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Since this is a new program, the original objectives have
not yet been met.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This is a new project, and there has been no prior agency
evaluation. An agency evaluation is planned for fiscal year 2000
following one year of project operation.
wheat genetics
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Wheat Genetics grant.
Answer. This project provides partial support for the Wheat
Genetics Resource Center at the University of Kansas. The Center
focuses on collection, evaluation, maintenance, and distribution of
exotic wheat-related germplasm needed to develop new wheat cultivars
resistant to disease, insects, and environmental stress.
Question. According to the research proposal or the principal
research, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes most cultivated varieties
of wheat are derived from common sources. They lack the rich genetic
diversity needed to develop resistance to diseases, insects, and
environmental stress. The replacement of genetically-rich primitive
cultivar and land races by modern, more uniform cultivars all over the
world is causing erosion of wheat germplasm resources. New pests or
those that have overcome varietal resistance pose a constant threat to
the Nation's wheat production. Genetic resistance often resides in wild
relatives of wheat. The researchers believe this program, which was
established in Kansas, is providing service to wheat breeders
nationally and internationally.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this research was to enhance the
genetic diversity available to wheat breeders nationally and
internationally by collecting, evaluating, maintaining, and
distributing germplasm derived from wild relatives of wheat. To date,
39 germplasm releases have been made containing new genes for
resistance to such pests as Hessian fly, greenbug, leaf rust, soil-
borne mosaic virus and Russian wheat aphid. Germplasm stocks with
resistance to leaf rust and powdery mildew are under development.
Evaluation of germplasm for important resistance genes was carried out
by Center scientists and cooperating institutions. Center scientists
have introduced antifungal protein genes into the wheat plant to
enhance its survival against pathogen attacks. One transgenic wheat
line gave enhanced resistance to wheat scab, a devastating disease of
wheat. In 1998, the Center filled 20 requests from U.S. wheat breeders
for seed from the germplasm collection and 10 requests for seed of
germplasm releases, as well as 34 requests from international breeders.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1989.
Appropriations were for fiscal year 1989, $100,000; fiscal year 1990,
$99,000; fiscal year 1991, $149,000; fiscal years 1992-1993, $159,000
per year; fiscal year 1994, $196,000; fiscal years 1995-1997, $176,000
each year, and $261,000 each year in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. A
total of $1,912,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of nonfederal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The nonfederal funds provided for this grant were as
follows: $609,309 in 1991; $531,167 in 1992; and $730,082 in 1993,
$468,960 in 1994; $563,671 in 1995; $457,840 in 1996; $495,820 in 1997;
and $155,279 in 1998. Sources include state appropriations, product
sales, and other organizations, such as state commodity associations.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This research is being conducted at Kansas State University
at the Wheat Genetics Resource Center. The principle investigator also
reports collaborative projects with other departments at Kansas State
University, as well as other institutions in the U.S.
Question. When was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The collection, evaluation, and enhancement of wheat
germplasm is a continual process. Therefore, this project does not have
a defined completion date.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The project was peer reviewed by the institution, Kansas
Agricultural Experiment Station, and was found to address critically-
important issues in the winter wheat industry in Kansas and other
states. As an ongoing project, the research has been productive based
on germplasm releases and peer-reviewed journal articles and other
publications. Additionally, each annual proposal is reviewed by a
CSREES scientist.
wood utilization research
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the wood utilization grant.
Answer. The research includes: developing processes to upgrade low
quality wood so it is suitable for higher value structural
applications; catalyzing the formation of new business enterprises; and
reducing environmental impact while improving systems for timber
harvesting and forest products manufacturing.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researchers, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The forest products industry is very fragmented with many
small firms which need publicly-sponsored research in order to remain
economically viable. Research provides the woodworking machinery and
tooling industry with technology to be more competitive in the global
economy. Most of the companies helped through this research are too
small to afford in-house research groups.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal is to generate new knowledge that will benefit the
wood industry and the environment. New scientists are trained.
Consumers benefit from better and more environmentally-sound products.
Among the major accomplishments of the six centers are (1) design of
glued-laminated beams that are reinforced with plastics to save 25-40
percent of the wood fiber that would otherwise be needed, (2)
technology to apply wood preservatives using super fluids to reduce
environmental problems associated with present commercial treatments,
(3) better harvesting systems that are efficient and environmentally
acceptable, (4) increase of wood machining speeds and reduction of saw
blade width to increase productivity and save raw material, (5) a
patented system to apply pressure and vibration to prevent enzymatic
sapstain which degrades hardwood lumber by $70,000,000 to $200,000,000
per year, (6) reduction of quantity of wood bleaching chemicals needed
by wood pulp producers, (7) design and strength of wood furniture
frames to minimize wood requirements, and (8) adoption of European
frame saw technology to composite lumber to provide a new raw material
source for industry.
Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1985, $3,000,000; fiscal years 1986 through 1989,
$2,852,000 per year; fiscal year 1990, $2,816,000; fiscal years 1991
and 1992, $2,852,000 per year; fiscal year 1993, $4,153,000; fiscal
year 1994, $4,176,000; fiscal years 1995 and 1996, $3,758,000 per year;
fiscal years 1997 and 1998, $3,536,000 per year; and $5,136,000 in
fiscal year 1999, which provided a $500,000 increase for the six
existing centers, and $1,000,000 for two new centers. A total of
$50,981,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Mississippi State University non-federal funds were: State
appropriations, $2,498,800, $2,178,725, $2,353,225, 2,331,691,
$2,650,230, $2,778,535, $2,582,617, and 2,543,017 for 1991, 1992, 1993,
1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998, respectively. In addition, industrial
funds averaged $783,458 for the 5 years from 1994 to 1998 in support of
the Mississippi Forest Products Laboratory. Oregon State University
state appropriations were: $1,337,962, $1,394,304, $1,256,750,
$1,252,750, $1,417,755, $1,117,000, $1,100,000, $1,352,000 for 1991,
1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998, respectively. Estimated
non-public support was $670,000 this year. Michigan State University
non-federal contributions for 1997 totaled $605,000. Three new
locations were added in 1994: University of Minnesota-Duluth non-
federal match was $590,000, $550,000, $560,000, $371,930, and $307,532
for 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998; North Carolina State University
was $126,000, $165,000, $135,000, $163,216, and $323,134 for 1994,
1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998; University of Maine was $600,000, $445,723,
$459,100, $477,464, and $526,210 for 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. There are six locations. The initial three--Oregon State
University, Mississippi State University, and Michigan State
University--were joined by the University of Minnesota-Duluth, North
Carolina State University, and the University of Maine in fiscal year
1994. For 1999, they will be joined by a center at the University of
Tennessee, and a second center at the University of Idaho, which will
include a consortium of Idaho, Montana, and Washington State.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objective was to build and maintain three
strong regional centers of wood utilization research. These centers
have been established, and five more centers have been added. Projects
begun in 1998 will be completed by 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. On site reviews of centers are conducted on a rotating
basis. Each center's plans are reviewed yearly or more frequently.
Progress reports are reviewed yearly. Center directors last met
together for joint planning in June 1996 and will be meeting again in
February 1999. Centers all have advisory committees or research
committees which meet periodically. We conduct informal on-site reviews
periodically. The Minnesota and Oregon sites were visited in 1996, and
the North Carolina site was visited in 1997. Oregon State was visited
in 1998. A Departmental panel reviewed the original three centers in
1992 and 1993. At that time, the original objectives were broadened to
include more consideration for environmental concerns. The centers have
increased their focus on helping industry meet environmental objectives
by conducting research leading to sustained timber production;
extending the timber supply through improved processing; developing new
structural applications for wood; and developing wood extractives to
substitute for pesticides, preservatives, and adhesives.
wool research
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the wool research grant.
Answer. The overall goals for this research are to develop
objective measures of wool, mohair, cashmere, and other animal fibers
to improve the quality of wool products while enhancing the
profitability of the U.S. sheep and Angora goat industries. Specific
objectives include: develop and evaluate measurement techniques for
rapid objective evaluation of wool, mohair, cashmere, and other animal
fibers; increase the use of objective measurements to increase fiber
production, quality, and income to producers; and increase consumer
acceptance of fabrics made from these fibers. The fiscal year 1998
grants terminate between August 1999 and April 2000. The 1999 grant
proposals have been requested by the agency. All grants are reviewed
for relevance to industry needs and undergo scientific peer review.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. Collaboration exists among researchers in Texas, Wyoming,
and Montana associated with this grant and other Federal, university,
and industry scientists to assure responsiveness to the needs of those
involved in wool and mohair production, marketing, and processing. The
sheep and goat industries and the principal researchers believe that
this research to be of national, regional, and local need. The research
on wool, conducted by means of this grant, represents the only research
efforts in the U.S. focused on improving the efficiency of measuring
and assuring wool, mohair, and cashmere quality for garments made from
these fibers.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The overall goal for this research is to develop objective
measures of wool, mohair, cashmere, and other animal fibers with a
focus on improving the efficiency of determining the quality of
products made from these fibers while enhancing the profitability of
the sheep and Angora goat industries. Research accomplishments included
the development of rapid and inexpensive measurements of fiber
diameter, distribution of animal fibers, and other fiber properties
such as fiber length and color. Each of these properties are very
important for grading and processing to determine ultimate softness,
durability, dye characteristics, comfort, and garment price. Laser and
near-infrared spectroscopy techniques were evaluated cooperatively with
industry for the purpose of determining mohair yield, fiber diameter,
and medullation. Research data from the program contributed to national
and international programs designed to accelerate the use of the new
technology by sheep and goat industries. The scientists also cooperated
on several experiments by providing measured fiber data to improve
selection, nutrition, management, and marketing studies with sheep,
Angora, and Cashmere goats. Textiles manufacturers have expressed a
willingness to pay premium prices for the improved preparation of U.S.
wool. Investigators in the program found that the classing of raw wool,
skirting, and the removal of belly wood provides a more desirable
product to the textile manufacturer providing greater profits to the
producer. These measurements impact the efficiency of the sheep and
Angora goat industries, the effectiveness of monitoring the quality and
consistency of imported products, and the satisfaction of buyers of
wool, mohair and cashmere textiles. Historically, wool products were
considered a strategic commodity in the United States for military use.
It is important that the U.S. producers of wool, mohair, and cashmere
are competitive in the world market and that consumers are assured high
quality textiles.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from appropriated funds in the
amount of $150,000 per year for fiscal years 1984-1985; $142,000 per
year for fiscal years 1986-1989; $144,000 for fiscal year 1990;
$198,000 for fiscal year 1991; $250,000 per year for fiscal years 1992-
1993; $235,000 for fiscal year 1994; $212,000 per year for fiscal years
1995-1997; and $300,000 per year for fiscal years 1998-1999. A total of
$3,181,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $150,913 state appropriations, $11,800 product sales,
$5,817 industry, and $3,556 miscellaneous in 1991; $111,394 state
appropriations, $25,451 product sales, $41,442 industry contributions
and $3,068 miscellaneous in 1992; $152,699 state appropriations,
$39,443 product sales, $40,804 industry contributions, and $3,556
miscellaneous in 1993; $150,094 state appropriations, $35,284 product
sales, $36,484 industry contributions, and $3,556 miscellaneous in
1994; $67,345 state appropriations, $10,000 product sales, and $34,325
industry contributions in 1995; $39,033 non-federal support in 1996;
$174,486 non-federal support in 1997; and $200,307 state appropriations
and $13,000 industry contributions in 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research is in progress at the Texas A&M University,
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station at San Angelo, the University of
Wyoming at Laramie, and Montana State University at Bozeman.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objectives to improve the efficiency and
profitability of wool, mohair, and cashmere production and marketing
are still valid. Specific objectives for individual laboratories and
experiments are continually revised to reflect the changing research
priorities for the wool, mohair, and cashmere industries and to satisfy
consumer demands for products from these fibers. It is anticipated that
five years will be required to complete the current research.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. An external review of the overall wool research program was
conducted in 1998 in Las Cruces, New Mexico by a team consisting of
industry experts and peers from the scientific community. The review
team concluded that the program was very productive and beneficial to
the United States wool, mohair, and cashmere producers as well as the
allied fiber industries. Research achievements, noted by the review
team, included program input for testing methods and standards used to
buy and sell wool for international trade. This has been very important
in advancing issues important to domestic producers and maintaining
competitiveness in the world market. World-wide acceptance of standards
for the objective measurement of natural animal fibers due, in part, to
the program has set the stage for the electronic marketing of wool and
other fibers to aid the United States fiber industries in remaining
competitive in the world market. Viable sheep and goat industries will
support jobs for people in rural areas, supply alternative foods for
public consumption, use natural means of brush control to abate fire on
rangeland and inhabited areas, and provide alternative uses of land
unsuitable for cultivation and cattle grazing.
In addition to the program review, grant proposals are annually
reviewed and the research facilities are periodically visited. The most
recent visit and program assessment was in 1994 whereby it was
determined that the stated objectives were being addressed and that
they were consistent with industry needs. The principal investigators
meet annually to evaluate progress and re-evaluate research priorities
according to industry needs. Because the research encompassed in this
grant is a component of a regional research project, accomplishments
are reported annually to scientific peers and representatives from the
sheep, goat, wool, mohair, and cashmere industries. In addition, the
overall regional research project is peer reviewed every third year.
agricultural development in the american pacific
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Agricultural Development in the American Pacific
program.
Answer. The Agricultural Development in the American Pacific
project called ADAP is a primary means for Land Grant research,
extension, and instruction programs of the five participating
institutions of American Samoa Community College, College of
Micronesia, Northern Marianas College, University of Guam, and
University of Hawaii, to collaborate and cooperate to enhance their
impact on Pacific tropical agriculture and communities. ADAP is a
mechanism to address common regional client-based issues while
maintaining cultural, rural, economic, and environmental integrity.
This special research grant is awarded noncompetitively to a program
planned and approved by the five involved land grant institutions.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes the five participating
institutions are geographically dispersed yet facing many similar
issues which can best be served through extensive networking and
communication. ADAP facilitates communications and seeks to raise
levels of academic achievement and improve the quality of education.
ADAP's most unique feature is that twice each year it brings together
the five Deans/Directors to discuss agriculture and human resources
issues facing isolated, tropical ecosystems in the Pacific, and to plan
and implement activities to address those issues. Priorities are
categorized in three areas: sustainable systems, collaborations/
partnerships, and communication systems. Activities range from joint
and collaborative efforts to overcome taro leaf blight in the Pacific,
to seeking recognition of Pacific tropical agriculture by the National
Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. ADAP's goals are to develop human resources within the
institutions, to more effectively manage agricultural programs within
and among the institutions, and to focus available resources on
critical agricultural issues of the Pacific. Ongoing projects include
animal health surveys, livestock waste management, dietary guidelines
for Pacific foods, youth-at-risk assessment, artificial insemination
demonstration/education, and market information collaboration with
``state'' Departments of Agriculture. ADAP is now working jointly with
the 22-nation Secretariat of the Pacific in developing a paraveterinary
program. This program will use distance learning and site visits to
train students from the cooperating nations and territories in animal
health. This is a critical need for the Pacific region. Both ADAP and
the Secretariat of the Pacific will contribute money as well as skilled
personnel to assist in this project. In another regional cooperative
effort, ADAP is planning a retreat for strategic planning among the
``state'' and national Departments of Agriculture in the Pacific
region, to be held in July 1999.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated, by fiscal year, through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. This work was funded for seven years with an annual
appropriation of $650,000 to the former Extension Service. In fiscal
year 1994, an appropriation of $608,000 was made to CSREES to continue
the ADAP program. The fiscal years 1996 through 1999 appropriations
were $564,000 each year. The appropriation total to CSREES is
$2,864,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-federal funds are not provided. Unspecified in-kind
support, such as facilities, equipment, and administrative support, are
provided by each institution and, in some specific projects, by non-
ADAP collaborating institutions.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This work is being carried out by American Samoa Community
College, College of Micronesia, Northern Marianas College, University
of Guam, and the University of Hawaii.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The ADAP program has been achieving original program
objectives, particularly in the areas of improvement in institutional
capacity and communications. It is anticipated that an additional 5 to
10 years will be needed to fully achieve collaborative integration of
the American Pacific land grant programs.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. A formal review of the ADAP program was conducted July 1-
10, 1997, and included visits by review team members to American Samoa
Community College, College of Micronesia, Northern Marianas College,
University of Guam, and University of Hawaii. ADAP incorporated review
recommendations in preparing and adopting a new five-year 1997
strategic plan. An agency specialist conducts a merit review of the
proposals submitted in support of the appropriation annually. In a
review of the proposal on April 23, 1998, progress was judged
satisfactory.
agricultural waste utilization, west virginia
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Agricultural Waste Management, West Virginia
grant.
Answer. The West Virginia Department of Agriculture is conducting a
project to validate the applicability and effectiveness of anaerobic
filtration for treating municipal and agricultural wastes. POWER
anaerobic filtration is a leading-edge technology specifically
developed to biologically recover nutrients and energy from organic
waste streams and produce an effluent which meets discharge permit
requirements.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The current need for this technology is local, national,
and international. The beneficiaries of this technology will be both
the people and the environment anywhere in the world where problems of
food, fertilizer, and energy shortages are currently in conflict with
the preservation of environmental quality. The direct benefits include
enhanced and expanded waste water treatment capacity, creation of new
jobs, and revenue from by-products and water quality improvement.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal will go beyond the testing of waste materials in
the digester and proceed with a program to compare the microbiological
loading of rivers, where known environmental pollution is measurable,
and where the total bacterial concentration in the rivers could be
determined in real-time with a bioprobe. Specific microbial analysis
may be able to correlate with farming activities.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1998 was $360,000 and for fiscal
year 1999 is $250,000. A total of $610,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-Federal funds are not being expended.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research will be conducted at Moorefield, West Virginia
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date of the original objectives
is approximately two years. These objectives are within the original
schedule.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The evaluation of the project was conducted at the end of
January 1999 when the 1998 summary report was submitted.
animal waste management, oklahoma
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Animal Waste Management, Oklahoma grant.
Answer. This research project is designed to develop sustainable,
environmentally-safe, and ecologically-sound best management principles
and practices for beneficial animal waste applications for ``High
Plains Agriculture'' in support of rural economic development through a
Federal-state-local partnership. Emphasis will be placed on the rapidly
expanding hog industry in the semiarid region, but information gained
will also be applicable to the beef and dairy industries.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The Oklahoma Panhandle is the most productive agricultural
region in the state with agricultural receipts in excess of
$800,000,000. Nationally, Texas County in the Oklahoma Panhandle ranks
number one in the state and in the top 15 of all counties in the United
States relative to cash receipts. The rapid expansion of the hog
industry in this semiarid region will only strengthen that position.
The rapidly expanding swine industry was projected to add $650,000,000
in pork and value added products in Oklahoma in 1997 with the slaughter
and processing of over 4,000,000 hogs per year. Information gained from
this study will provide the data base to develop best management
practices to maximize beneficial nutrient use and minimize nuisance
odor in semiarid and rangeland production systems. Practices developed
will have significant implications regionally, nationally, and
internationally. The semiarid agro-ecosystem is unique with climatic
conditions consisting of low rainfall that promotes both dryland and
irrigated agricultural practices; extremes in high and low
temperatures; and soils characterized with alkaline pH, low in organic
matter and high in calcium carbonate. This unique agro-ecosystem makes
information gained from more humid environments inapplicable.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. Field work has been initiated and initial work shows a
positive response to animal waste applications. Initial studies of
ammonia loss from applications indicate there can be significant losses
following land applications. The original goal of this research is to
develop best management practices that will protect ground water
supplies from pollution of nutrients, salts, and pathogens; maintain
air quality; and minimize odors derived from the entire hog-house,
lagoon, land-application, and or rangeland production system, thus
maintaining the quality of life in the rural sector.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998
and the appropriation for the fiscal years 1998 and 1999 is $250,000
per year. A total of $500,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The research is matched by $554,000 non-federal funding.
Other sources include state and industry.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This work has been initiated at The Oklahoma Panhandle
Research and Extension Center located in Goodwell, Oklahoma. Further
work will continue to be done at this site. The Center will provide the
land area and a portion of the facilities and equipment necessary to
conduct the major portion of the study. Other study sites will be
developed on private land in cooperation with hog operations in the
panhandle region.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original completion date was February 29, 2000. To
document the results for these objectives more than one growing season
will be needed. Completion of these objectives and additional
objectives related to these will be February 28, 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This project was evaluated at the end of January 1999 when
the summary report of the 1998 accomplishments was submitted. Results
showed that a significant amount of ammonia will be volatilized almost
immediately when the swine effluent is surface applied to crop land.
Field plots have been established in order to receive various rates and
methods of swine effluent applications. Plans have been made for a
regional meeting titled, High Plains Animal Water Management
Conference.
center for agriculture and rural development
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the Center for Agriculture and Rural Development
program.
Answer. The research provides current economic information on
international trade in agriculture and analyses of the implications of
trade policy alternatives on the agricultural sector of the United
States and other countries.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. According to the proposal, trade negotiations and
agreements are of national concern to policymakers, farmers, and
agribusiness industries because of the implications for maintaining or
opening markets and establishing improved terms of trade and prices.
Typical agreements are extremely complex, requiring analysis by
specialists to determine outcomes and to provide objective and accurate
information to those impacted by such agreements. The specific research
done under this project directly addresses national needs but has
national, regional, and local implications.
Question. What was the original goal of this research, and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal is to assess and evaluate various proposals
affecting agricultural trade, to provide analytical support to the
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and to provide information to
farmers and agribusiness firms on the competitive implications of trade
agreements. Theoretical studies and empirical and descriptive analyses
of policy issues and technical problems pertaining to the Uruguay round
of negotiations were completed and provided to negotiators and the
agribusiness community. Knowledge developed in this phase is now being
used to monitor the effects of the Uruguay Round Agricultural
Agreement--URAA.
This grant supports six projects focusing on URAA and the World
Trade Organization--WTO--monitoring and implementation problems;
implications of the URAA and WTO for Eastern Europe, Baltic, and the
Newly Independent States; development of a model to assess the North
American Free Trade Agreement and its linkages with the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; trade implications of U.S. food and
development aid in developing countries; integration of China into
world agricultural markets; and special projects as requested for the
U.S. Trade Representative's office. Major emphasis is placed on
developing and improving international livestock and grain sector
models.
This grant supports six projects focusing on the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade monitoring and implementation problems;
implications of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade for Eastern
Europe, Baltic, and the Newly Independent States; development of a
model to assess the North American Free Trade Agreement and its
linkages with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; trade
implications of U.S. food and development aid in developing countries;
integration of China into world agricultural markets; and special
projects as requested for the U.S. Trade Representative's office.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated, by fiscal year, through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. This research program was initiated in fiscal year 1989.
Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal
year 1989, $750,000; fiscal years 1990 and 1991, $74l,000 per year;
fiscal years 1992-1993, $750,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $705,000;
fiscal year 1995, $612,000; fiscal year 1996, $655,000; and fiscal
years 1997 through 1999 $355,000. A total of $6,769,000 has been
appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: $111,210 State appropriations and $175,616
miscellaneous for a total of $286,826 in 1991; $113,779 State
appropriations and $173,117 miscellaneous for a total of $286,896 in
1992; $120,138 State appropriations and $164,707 miscellaneous for a
total of $284,845 in 1993; $161,673 State appropriations and $32,000
miscellaneous for a total of $193,673 in 1994; $161,000 State and
$30,000 miscellaneous for a total of $191,000 in 1995; $70,000 State
appropriations and $44,000 miscellaneous for a total of $114,000 in
1996; $60,325 in State appropriations and $61,500 in miscellaneous
funds for a total of $121,825 in 1997; and $72,000 in State
appropriations and $75,000 in miscellaneous funds for a total of
$147,000 in 1998.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The research program is carried out by the Center for
Agriculture and Rural Development at Iowa State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objectives of the project envisioned the
development of models capable of providing guidance to policymakers,
researchers, and farmers and others of the impact of agricultural trade
proposals on the U.S. agricultural sector. As such the objectives are
on-going.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. We have conducted no formal evaluations; however, each
annual proposal is peer reviewed for relevance and scientific merit.
Also, an informal evaluation of this project takes place as a part of
each annual project review and approval process.
center for north american studies, texas
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been done under the Center for North American Studies program.
Answer. The purpose of this grant is to develop linkages with
educational and other institutions in Mexico and Canada in order to
share data and faculty, conduct research identifying trade
opportunities and marketing problems, conduct policy analysis, and
develop a broad range of training programs preparing agricultural/
agribusiness firms for international marketing opportunities. The
research proposal received a merit review at the university prior to
submission to CSREES.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The program director believes that citizens of the United
States, Mexico, and Canada have some similar concerns about the impact
of the North American Free Trade Agreement--NAFTA--and that new,
innovative approaches involving international cooperation are needed to
assess and evaluate these issues. Research and training are needed to
provide information to evaluate alternatives for expanding U.S. exports
and to resolve potential social, economic, and environmental conflicts.
Question. What was the original goal of this research, and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal is to promote strong agricultural ties among the
three North American countries, foster greater cooperation in resolving
critical agricultural issues of common interest, and ensure the
continued competitiveness of U.S. agriculture. Institutional linkages
with Mexican and Canadian universities continued to be developed and
joint research and educational programs conducted. An international
agribusiness information system, AGRINET, was created on the Internet
and is accessible by firms from all three countries. A compilation of
6,600 articles on agricultural issues is available electronically
throughout the region. An international video conference enabled U.S.
faculty to make presentations at a Mexican trade conference. Research
focused on potential markets in Mexico for U.S. products, such as rice,
dairy, livestock, meat, feed, fresh fruits, and vegetables. A new model
is being developed to analyze the impact of international trade
agreements on farm and trade policy of NAFTA countries. Training
programs included several seminars and conferences to increase the
international capacity of U.S. firms; over 2,800 people attended in
1997. New international agribusiness courses were offered at several
Texas institutions. Some of these educational programs were developed
with faculty from Mexican and Canadian institutions and used with
audiences in those countries.
Question. How long has this work been underway, and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Work supported by this grant began with an appropriation of
$94,000 in fiscal year 1994; $81,000 in fiscal year 1995; and $87,000
per year for fiscal years 1996 through 1999. A total of $523,000 has
been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
are as follows: $39,000 State appropriations in fiscal year 1994;
$54,000 in 1995; $60,000 in 1996 and 1997; and $84,500 in 1998.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The program is being carried out at Texas A&M University
through the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station in collaboration with
other segments of the Texas A&M University System and Louisiana State
University Agricultural Center.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original proposal in 1994 was for a period of 12
months. The current phase of the program will be completed in the year
2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation.
Answer. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in February
1998, as it evaluated the 1998 project proposal, and concluded that the
project has sound objectives and procedures for helping U.S. firms to
be successful in North American markets for agricultural products,
thereby achieving CSREES goals of a highly competitive agricultural
production system and enhanced economic opportunity for Americans. The
principal investigator is well recognized for his leadership in the
area of international trade.
data information system
Question. Please provide a description of system development
activities that have been funded.
Answer. Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service--CSREES--continues to fund activities under contract with a
major information technology firm for the design and development of the
Research, Education, and Economics Information System--REEIS.
Previously-funded tasks that have been completed include the conduct of
an inventory of databases targeted for inclusion in REEIS, the conduct
of a comprehensive needs assessment focusing on information needs and
practices within the Research, Education, and Economics mission
agencies and State partner institutions, the design and development of
a Web accessible catalog of databases identified in the inventory, and
specifications for a retrieval language--a controlled vocabulary--for
assisting users in accessing and searching REEIS databases. An
additional task was completed under a separate contract that provided
for an outside expert to conduct a review and evaluation of Web
interfaces to the REEIS Database Catalog. A cooperative agreement with
the University of Arkansas was also established to provide national
leadership in coordinating the efforts of a National Steering Committee
charged with guiding the development of the system. The Committee has
met on three previous occasions, and a fourth meeting is planned in
June, 1999. Currently underway, and critical to the development of
REEIS, is a comprehensive review of state-of-the-art information
technology systems that are available for use in developing the system.
This will provide information needed by REEIS decision makers, systems
staff, and other stakeholders to review the available information
systems and technology options, and it will identify a representative
set of tools and technologies that will serve as the basis for
conducting benchmark studies and development of system prototypes.
Funding is also provided under the REEIS initiative for enhancement of
the Cooperative Extension System Plan of Work and Reporting System
which has been targeted for ultimate inclusion in REEIS.
Question. What is the national, regional or local need for this
activity?
Answer. At present, USDA's Research, Education, and Economics--
REE--mission agencies and their university partners lack a central,
integrated, user-friendly electronic information system capable of
providing access to thousands of programs and projects for which they
are responsible that focus on food, agriculture, natural resources, and
rural development. Such an information system is increasingly needed to
enable the Department and its partners to readily conduct baseline and
ongoing assessments and evaluations of research, education, extension,
and economic programs and projects. In recent years, this need has
become more urgent for several reasons. First, the United States needs
a visionary publicly-funded research and development program to produce
essential knowledge and innovations for meeting growing competition in
a global market--which is largely attributable to the expanding
research and development efforts of foreign nations. Second, a
comprehensive information system is needed to serve as a primary
reference source for development of new research and education projects
on such diverse issues as increasing productivity in agriculture and
processing, improving the safety and quality of food, and enhancing the
sustainability of the environment and rural communities. Third,
Federal/State policy makers and administrators are requiring empirical
analyses to account for historical, current, and future use of public
funds to provide a basis for redirecting funds to higher priority
issues. Fourth, the Government Performance and Results Act--GPRA--has
imposed reporting demands which current databases and decentralized
information systems are not prepared to adequately satisfy. It is also
envisioned that REEIS will play a key role in implementation of the
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act--AREERA--of
1998. In this regard, REEIS would be well positioned to: Provide
linkages for decision making among REE agencies, enable consistent
reporting on identical or similar issues, provide the public with
understanding of the role and mission of REE agencies,Expand REE's
outreach to a broader base of constituencies, Provide a better vehicle
to facilitate interaction among REE agencies and their university
partners, Link commonalities of research, extension, and teaching
projects and programs through a single interface, and foster global
interactions.
Additionally, REEIS would serve to expand the Federal partnership
by facilitating coalition-building with other Federal agencies.
Question. What was the original goal of this initiative and what
has been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this initiative was to develop an
information system that provides real-time tracking of research,
extension, and education projects and programs; has the capability to
communicate vertically between field, State, and Federal locations;
enables the REE agencies and their partners to conduct rapid and
comprehensive policy assessments and program evaluation analysis;
facilitates assessment of technologies and practices employed in
extension, education, economics, and research activities at the field
and/or regional levels; provides clear and transparent public access to
relevant parts of the information; and provides information management
tools to enhance the timeliness and accuracy of REE-wide responses to
inquiries about program objectives and expenditures.
Over the last year-and-a-half, substantial system planning and
development work has been completed. Work accomplished under five
multi-task contracts awarded during this period was instrumental in
meeting major milestones considered to be critical components and a
prerequisite to the design, development, and implementation of REEIS.
Major tasks included the conduct of a comprehensive strategic
information audit of information practices and needs within the REE
agencies and partner institutions; the identification and inventory of
major research, extension, education, and economics/statistics
databases maintained or supported by the REE mission agencies; the
design, development, and preparation of the REEIS Database Catalog
Prototype that affords Web access to the inventory of 38 databases
initially identified as candidates for inclusion in REEIS; and the
design and evaluation of the Web interface to the REEIS Database
Catalog.
The Needs Assessment, the main component of the strategic
information audit, was recently completed. The purpose of the study was
to identify system requirements as a prerequisite to development of
detailed system specifications for a functional and physical design for
REEIS. Over 130 system requirements are identified in the study which
was undertaken with broad participation by REE agency personnel, State
partners, and key stakeholders. A review and prioritization of the set
of requirements by REE agency national program leaders, commodity
specialists, and senior managers is currently underway.
In further response to Congressional legislation, a comprehensive
review is underway to identify state-of-the-art information systems
that are available for use in developing REEIS. The first report
resulting from the review provides a set of criteria for product
selection and evaluation and an initial data warehousing product suite
list. The final set of system products and tools will be included in an
updated and maintained Information Systems Technology database for
subsequent use in REEIS system development activity.
Plans in fiscal year 1999 include the development of functional and
physical specifications for REEIS, technical assessments of candidate
databases for inclusion in REEIS, development and assessment of
alternative system architectures, development and testing of a REEIS
prototype, and updating and maintenance of the Information Systems
Technology database and the REEIS Database Catalog. Implementation of
the REEIS system, including training of REEIS users and technical
system operators, is targeted for fiscal year 2000. The President's
fiscal year 2000 budget requests $2,000,000 to support these efforts.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Congress first appropriated $400,000 REEIS in fiscal year
1997 to begin planning its design and development. An additional
$800,000 was appropriated in fiscal year 1998 and $1,000,000 was
appropriated in fiscal year 1999 for a total of $2,200,000 in fiscal
year 1997 the REEIS National Steering Committee was established to
provide advice and guidance throughout the development and
implementation process. Since its inception, the Committee has met
three times, first recommending a plan of action and work
specifications for conducting a strategic information audit and
comprehensive needs assessment, and at its second and third meetings to
review and evaluate contract deliverables, develop recommendations, and
participate in assessing progress and plans for REEIS. The Committee
will meet again this year in Washington, D.C. in June. Also in fiscal
year 1997, a private information technology firm was engaged to conduct
Phase I of a two-phase strategic information audit. Phase I resulted in
a project management plan and specifications for the needs assessment,
a REEIS database catalog, and controlled vocabulary.
In fiscal year 1998 Phase II was launched with full-scale
implementation of the needs assessment. Phase II has resulted in a
comprehensive list of more than 130 system requirements and a detailed
analysis of information needs and practices of potential REEIS users.
Findings of the study are based on responses from administrators,
budget, and GPRA staff, senior managers, and program leaders within REE
as well as administrators, policy officials, and faculty from State
partner institutions, and other stakeholders. Results of the needs
assessment were formally presented in February, 1999 in Washington,
D.C. Also funded in fiscal year 1998 was work to enhance the REEIS
database catalog; advisory services for conducting an outside review of
Web interfaces to the REEIS database catalog prototype; and cooperative
agreements for constructing a Web site for Human Sciences Research and
enhancement of the Cooperative Extension System Plan of Work and
Reporting System. Funds were also provided in fiscal year 1998 for
conducting a comprehensive review of state-of-the-art information
technology systems. The first deliverable from this contract is a list
of evaluation criteria for software systems and system product
selection and an initial data warehousing product suite list. A final
report from this effort will provide information needed by REEIS
decision makers, system staff, and other stakeholders to review
information systems and technology options that are available for use
in developing the REEIS system. Additionally, the identification of a
representative set of tools and technologies resulting from this effort
will serve as the basis for conducting benchmark studies and prototypes
in subsequent REEIS design and development activities.
Projects to be funded in fiscal year 1999 include development of
functional and physical specifications for REEIS, detailed technical
assessments of candidate databases for inclusion in REEIS, assessments
of alternative system architectures, development and testing of a REEIS
prototype, and updating and maintenance of the Information Systems
Technology database and the REEIS Database Catalog and its Web
interface.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Non-federal funding does not apply at this time.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Leadership responsibility for REEIS resides within the
CSREES Science and Education Resources Development division in
Washington, DC. This provides for effective linkage within the REEIS
platform of the Current Research Information System, the Food and
Agricultural Education Information System, and appropriate extension
databases. CSREES is working closely with all REE mission agencies and
with the university system via a cooperative agreement with the
University of Arkansas. We hope also to use the Intergovernmental
Personnel Act to secure an IPA from another university to carry out
REEIS essential management responsibilities. One staff person is
assigned full time to manage and coordinate agency contracting
activities and serves as the REEIS technical information program
manager.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. It is anticipated that REEIS will become operational during
the year 2000. The fiscal year 1997 appropriation of $400,000 covered
start-up costs such as establishment of a National Steering Committee,
preparation and specifications for contracting with an outside firm,
contractor selection, project planning, and pre-design analyses
conducted under contract with a major private sector information
technology firm. Contract work completed included preparation of an
inventory and prototype catalog of REE mission agency databases, a
World Wide Web user interface to the catalog, specifications for a
comprehensive needs assessment, and specifications for a controlled
vocabulary for assisting user access to REEIS databases.
The fiscal year 1998 appropriation of $800,000 allowed for the
conduct of a comprehensive needs assessment within the REE mission
agencies and partner institutions; implementation, testing, refining,
and maintaining the catalog prototype and its Web interface; funding of
cooperative agreements for enhancing the Cooperative Extension System
Plan of Work and Reporting System and developing a Human Sciences
Research Web site; and contract work, currently underway for conducting
a review of information technology systems for use in developing the
REEIS system. A portion of fiscal year 1998 funds is also targeted for
creation of a data dictionary of core REEIS databases and the
development of detailed specifications for a system design.
The fiscal year 1999 appropriation of $1,000,000 will allow for the
preparation of a REEIS system foundation and REEIS prototype. This
includes the preparation of detailed technical descriptions of core
REEIS databases; expansion, updating and maintenance of the data
dictionary; preparation of REEIS architectural alternatives; completion
of functional and physical system specifications for a system design;
and development of prototypes.
The requested increase for fiscal year 2000 is required to achieve
broad implementation. REEIS will undertake system design, conduct
benchmark tests of alternative architectures, continue development and
testing of the REEIS prototype, and launch the operating system.
Included is the need to conduct ongoing, iterative needs assessments
within the agency and with its partners to align information system
products and services with strategic information requirements necessary
for meeting agency mission and goals and satisfying GPRA reporting
requirements. Updating and maintenance of technical system assessments,
conducting ongoing information technology evaluations, and enhancements
of REEIS user interfaces will be needed to ensure currency and
responsiveness over the life of the system. This entails the
enlistment, training, and retention of essential personnel and staff
and the purchase of computer hardware and software and related computer
programming and technical services. Additionally, several current
databases must be enhanced to distinguish the basis of investment--
county, State, or Federal funds--to provide information on planned
expenditures, and to link investments to accomplishments and impact.
Initial implementation is expected to be completed by the end of the
year 2000.
The strategic information audit, with participation of the REE
mission agencies and university partners, has been completed and has
resulted in a comprehensive list of system requirements that will serve
as input to the development of detailed system specifications for
REEIS. Currently underway is a comprehensive review of information
technology systems which will identify a representative set of tools
and technologies for REEIS development and serve as the basis for
conducting benchmark studies and developing prototypes.
The Research, Education, and Economics Information System meets a
high priority national need for an operational, up-to-date and
continually responsive national information system. REEIS is being
designed to meet the data information needs of all REE agencies and
their university and private sector cooperators. It will link data
systems on research, education, extension, and economics. To achieve
effective response for it users, annual maintenance costs will be
ongoing.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Progress and accomplishments from the REEIS initiative have
undergone and continue to undergo review and evaluation by the REE
mission agencies, the REEIS National Steering Committee, our State
partner institutions, and outside sources. The most recent evaluation
of this project was conducted at the September, 1998, meeting of the
REEIS National Steering Committee, comprised of representatives of the
REE mission agencies, university partners, and other stakeholders. The
evaluation specifically targeted preliminary findings from the REEIS
Needs Assessment that were based on responses from a series of focus
groups and interview sessions of policy officials, senior managers, and
other stakeholders within the USDA/State university land-grant system.
In addition, three work groups comprised of members of the Committee
were charged with evaluating and critiquing a detailed questionnaire
for use in completing the final segment of the needs assessment,
serving as participants in an actual focus group session and critiquing
its methodology, and reviewing and critiquing the Web version of the
REEIS Database Catalog. Both oral and written reports from these work
groups were presented and several of the work groups' recommendations
are being implemented. Evaluations by REE agency policy officials,
budget and GPRA staff, national program leaders, and senior managers of
the final set of system requirements resulting from the needs
assessment have been scheduled for completion by spring of 1999.
geographic information system
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the geographic information system program.
Answer. The purpose of this program is to promote collaborative and
innovative transfer of systems technologies to state and local
governments and others in the public and private sectors. The current
program is being carried out by the non-profit National Center for
Resource Innovations. The directors and participants of the Center are
the sub-contractors who are carrying out the program by working on
agro-environmental problems at the national, regional, state, and
neighborhood levels. They represent a wide spectrum of site-based
expertise including four academic institutions, one regional
development authority, one non-profit corporation, and the Southwest
Indian Polytechnic Institute site added by Congress in 1997. This
institutional arrangement has helped fill a role in linking some of the
otherwise disparate efforts of agencies and academic institutions to
apply them in the now seven regions of the country.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher believes that local officials are
facing increasingly complex land management issues that require rapid
access to resource knowledge and databases for decisionmaking. This
project is needed to transfer relevant technology to state and local
governments, including Native American communities, whose limited
training budgets and sometimes-isolated location make it difficult to
use the latest technology. The technology developed in the Center
program is useful in improving the management of natural resources.
While concentrating on issues related to agriculture, the independent,
non-profit nature of the National Center for Resource Innovations
facilitates linkages across disciplinary and institutional barriers and
makes it possible to use analyses at the state and local levels which
were initiated at the Federal level. While the early phases of the
geographic information system concentrated on building information
systems related to rural, physical, and natural resources, the current
challenge is to integrate human economic, social, and demographic
information in order to better understand the relationship of human
communities to the landscape. At the other end of the spatial scale,
the role of the public sector in geographic information system-based
precision farming technologies, data capture, and information synthesis
is the subject of a current study group.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this work was to serve as a pilot
project for the transfer of geographic information systems technology
related to natural resources to local governments.
The Center has carried out this function. Economic and biological
data are being presented in various formats to state and local
governments and individuals. Through its seven regionally distributed
sites, including the new Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute site in
New Mexico, the Center has implemented a variety of geographic systems
technologies to local governments--both rural and urban. These include
the recent expansion of transfer of geographic information technology
through various distance education and Internet technologies.
It is anticipated that the fiscal year 1999 grant will support work
under this program through March 2000. The proposal for this work in
1999 has been received and reviewed.
Question. How long has this work been under way and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1990, $494,000; fiscal year 1991, $747,000; fiscal
years 1992 and 1993, $1,000,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $1,011,000;
fiscal year 1995, $877,000; fiscal year 1996, $939,000; and fiscal
years 1997 through 1999, $844,000 per year. A total of $8,600,000 has
been appropriated since the beginning of the program.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. To date, the work in this program for fiscal year 1990
through fiscal year 1997, had $5,009,834 in non-federal support. In
fiscal year 1990, non-federal support was $714,940 consisting of
equipment, databases, and other miscellaneous contributions from
foundations, city, and state governments. In fiscal year 1991, non-
federal support was $25,000 from county government. In fiscal year
1992, non-federal support was $366,016 from county government, computer
companies, and state governments consisting of equipment, software,
facilities, and miscellaneous support. In fiscal year 1993, non-Federal
support was $713,900 consisting of financial and miscellaneous support
from foundations, county and state governments. In fiscal year 1994,
the non-federal support was $713,643. In fiscal year 1995, the non-
federal support was $987,000. In fiscal year 1996, it was $567,173. It
was $456,582 in fiscal year 1997. In 1998, non-federal dollars exceeded
$1,000,000, and it is anticipated that they will again in 1999.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The National Center for Resource Innovation-Chesapeake Bay
is located in Rosslyn, Virginia. This group is working under a
cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural
Resources Conservation Service to work with 13 northeastern states. The
southeastern center in Valdosta, Georgia, in affiliation with the South
Georgia Regional Development Center, has developed a comprehensive plan
of the City of Adel as a model for other urban centers in the ten-
county region. The southwestern center, in Fayetteville-Arkansas,
serves several local governments through its training facilities at the
University of Arkansas, basing its technical approach on expertise and
past experiences with the Federally-developed system known as GRASS.
They have developed pilot projects for some local jurisdictions and
state level databases, which they have provided online. Central
Washington University focuses on training for state planning and on
three local governments and the Yakima Nation in the Yakima watershed.
The north central center in Grand Forks, North Dakota, in affiliation
with the University of North Dakota, focuses on relating real time
weather data to other spatial attributes. The University of Wisconsin-
Madison, functioning as the Great Lakes center, continues a long
history of involvement in the application of this technology at the
local level with strong focus on soils/land-use and the institutional
aspects of the integration of a new technology. Native American
communities are being reached through the newly-developed Southwestern
Indian Polytechnic Institute facilities in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objectives to build institutional frameworks
for developing and disseminating geographic and related information to
local decisionmakers is constantly evolving. Each site has developed
approaches to addressing regional needs for modern technologies, and
many innovative applications have been implemented. Technologies,
including Internet-based educational and information exchange, have
been developed to respond to the Center's customers. The Center has
been asked to include these new technologies in order to bring its
primarily rural users into new eras of public education and information
management.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Proposals have been internally reviewed by Departmental
personnel in different agencies. Beginning in 1995, the program has
also been externally reviewed by local advisory committees and
qualified professionals inside and outside of government. Their various
comments and suggestions are sent to the agency for merit reviews.
gulf coast shrimp aquaculture
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Gulf Coast Shrimp Aquaculture grant.
Answer. Research funded under this program has provided much of the
required information necessary for a viable U.S. marine shrimp farming
industry. Studies have been conducted on biosecurity and environmental
protection in shrimp production systems, prevention and detection of
diseases via molecular biological techniques, and the development of
high health and genetically-improved stocks for seed production.
Performance trials on selected stocks in various production systems
have been conducted, and seed production systems have reached
commercial feasibility. A number of important viral pathogens of marine
shrimp have been identified and protocols have been established for the
detection of these viral pathogens that have decimated the shrimp
industry world-wide. Improved viral detection techniques have led to
the development of specific pathogen-free stocks of commercial
importance. Researchers have responded rapidly to viral infections that
have impacted the U.S. shrimp farming industry. Researchers will
intensify efforts aimed at preventing new introductions of exotic viral
pathogens.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. The principal researcher indicates that there is potential
to enhance domestic production of marine shrimp through aquaculture in
order to reduce the approximately $2,000,000,000 annual trade deficit
in marine shrimp. Research should result in improving the supply of
high quality seed, improved shrimp health management, improved
biosecurity and environmental protection, and enhanced production
efficiency in shrimp culture systems. The U.S. has the opportunity to
become a major exporter of shrimp seed and broodstock and disease
control and biosecurity technologies, products, and services.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal was to increase domestic production of
marine shrimp through aquaculture. Recent studies have focused on the
prevention and detection of diseases, production of specific-pathogen
free and specific-pathogen resistant seed and broodstock, biosecure and
environmentally-compatible productions systems, and improved feeds and
feeding strategies for broodstock maturation and larval production.
Researchers have responded to severe disease outbreaks caused by the
introduction of exotic viral pathogens into U.S. shrimp farms.
Diagnostic and disinfection techniques for a number of important viral
pathogens have been developed. In addition, scientists are currently
addressing this problem by developing high health genetically-improved
stocks and evaluating these animals under commercial production
conditions. Biosecurity protocols and biosecure system technologies
have been developed to prevent additional introductions of viral
disease agents and escape of non-native species of shrimp.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year, through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
follows: fiscal year 1985, $1,050,000; fiscal year 1986, $1,236,000;
fiscal year 1987, $2,026,000; fiscal year 1988, $2,236,000; fiscal year
1989, $2,736,000; fiscal year 1990, $3,195,000; fiscal year 1991,
$3,365,000; fiscal years 1992-1993, $3,500,000 per year; fiscal year
1994, $3,290,000; fiscal year 1995, $2,852,000; fiscal year 1996,
$3,054,000; and fiscal years 1997 through 1999, $3,354,000. A total of
$42,102,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming Consortium--USMSFC--
estimates that non-federal funding for this program approaches 50
percent of the Federal funding for fiscal years 1991-1997 and
$1,240,297 in fiscal year 1998. The source of non-federal funding is
primarily from state and miscellaneous sources.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work is being carried out through grants awarded to the
Oceanic Institute, Hawaii, and the Gulf Coast Research Laboratory in
Mississippi. In addition, research is conducted through subcontracts at
the University of Southern Mississippi, Tufts University, the Waddell
Mariculture Center in South Carolina, the Texas Agricultural Experiment
Station, and the University of Arizona.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original specific
research objectives was 1987. The original specific objectives have
been met, however broader research goals have not been met. Researchers
anticipate that the specific research outlined in the current proposal
will be completed in fiscal year 1999.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. This program is reviewed annually by CSREES Program
Managers. Participating institutions are required to submit a detailed
accomplishment report with the submission of each new grant proposal.
In addition, the agency conducts an in-depth on site review of the
program every four years. The 1999 review of the program found that the
progress during the last twelve months has been well documented and the
proposal is well written. Research objectives are being met and the
proposed research is consistent with the National Science and
Technology Council's Strategic Plan for Aquaculture Research and
Development. Facilities and expertise are very good and the close
linkages between the researchers involved and the U.S. shrimp farming
industry has greatly enhanced the commercialization of the research
findings from this project. The USMSFC continues to address important
research needs of the industry and has played a critical role in
developing management strategies for protecting both wild and cultured
stocks from the introduction of viral pathogens.
mariculture, north carolina
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Mariculture, North Carolina grant.
Answer. The proposal represents a new research and development
initiative in marine finfish species for commercial aquaculture in the
U.S. The long-term goal of the project is to develop methods for mass
propagation of marine finfish for commercial cultivation and possible
stock enhancement. Specific objectives include: development of captive
sexually-mature snapper broodstock; control of maturation and
reproduction; standardize methods for induced and natural spawning of
conditioned fish; and establish environmental conditions for rearing of
larvae. The proposal is put through the university's peer review
process and is reviewed by the CSREES Program Manager.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. The researchers indicate that there is a regional and
national need to develop aquacultural production systems for a variety
of marine finfish. The researchers also indicate that the proposed
research is consistent with the National Science and Technology
Council's--NSTC--Strategic Plan for Aquaculture Research and
Development.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of this research program is to develop sustainable
aquaculture production systems for marine finfish. The researchers are
developing culture technologies and evaluating marine finfish species
that have potential for commercial aquaculture production. Captive
snapper were successfully matured and spawned and larvae reared through
juvenile stages. Juveniles were supplied to commercial and governmental
organizations for grow-out trials. Initial results appear promising
with good survival rates and excellent feed conversion ratios.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998.
The appropriation for fiscal year 1998 was $150,000, and for fiscal
year 1999 is $250,000. A total of $400,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The university estimates a minimum of $115,000 of non-
federal funding in fiscal year 1998 primarily from state and private
sources.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The research will be conducted at the Center for Marine
Science Research at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
is fiscal year 1999. The project was initiated in fiscal year 1998.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency evaluates the progress of this project on an
annual basis. The university is required to submit an accomplishment
report each year when the new proposal is submitted to CSREES for
funding. The researchers have been asked to develop a research proposal
consistent with the NSTC's Strategic Plans for Aquaculture Research and
Development. The proposal is well-written and the objectives are
clearly stated. The methodology and experimental design are generally
sound. The research is relevant and addresses a potential opportunity
for the aquaculture industry. The feasibility of attaining the
objectives of the proposed research is good. The researcher is well
qualified and has the appropriate background to conduct the research.
Facilities are adequate and would be enhanced through this grant.
mississippi valley state university
Question. Please provide a description of the project that has been
funded under the Curriculum Development and Strengthening-Mississippi
Valley State University grant.
Answer. Academic programs have been broadened to include more
agriculture-related courses consistent with the needs of students from
the Mississippi Delta. Funds were used for curriculum development and
to generally strengthen academic programs, including accreditation and
reaccreditation efforts. Of the ten programs eligible for
accreditation, nine have been accredited. Courses continue to be
modified to reflect the needs of graduates as well as employers in the
Mississippi Delta, with particular emphasis on those areas that
employers have the greatest need. The funds continue to provide
enhancements related to other program and administrative
responsibilities support areas that positively impact program delivery
and administration at Mississippi Valley State University. Curriculum
additions have had a positive impact on student enrollment. The project
has been merit reviewed.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
proposal?
Answer. The primary need for this project is to satisfy a state and
local need. The need is for strengthening university capacity and
curriculum development at Mississippi Valley State University. Emphasis
has been on degree programs that produce graduates with potential for
improving the quality of life in rural areas. The Criminal Justice
program has been developed and administered in a departmental unit with
social work to provide for improved administration and academic
counseling. A master's degree program in Criminal Justice is now
offered. The baccalaureate major in Elementary education has been
reinstated.
Question. What was the original goal of this project and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal was to provide funding to strengthen the
academic programs of the university. The academic programs have been
strengthened as evidenced by student recruitment, which has improved to
show a positive ratio between applications received and students
admitted. Approximately one half of the applicants are enrolled.
Increased quality of instruction and programs have benefitted students.
This is reflected in the higher graduation rate, increased student
enrollment, enriched faculty, and improved community relationship.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated, by fiscal year, through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. This program was initiated in fiscal year 1987. Grants have
been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal year 1987,
$750,000; fiscal years 1988 and 1989, $625,000 per year; fiscal year
1990, $617,000; fiscal year 1991, $642,000; fiscal years 1992 and 1993,
$668,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $593,000; fiscal year 1995,
$544,000; fiscal years 1996-1999, $583,000 per year. A total of
$8,064,000 was appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Mississippi Valley State University provided reports to
document State and private funding during the period of this grant. The
State figures provided here are for enhancement funds gained above the
University's standard formula generated funds. The sources and amounts
are as listed:
SOURCE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year State Private Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1987............................................................ .............. $168,640 $168,640
1988............................................................ .............. 186,036 186,036
1989............................................................ $68,658 190,258 258,916
1990............................................................ 207,879 369,358 577,237
1991............................................................ 333,263 337,700 670,963
1992............................................................ 349,427 470,220 819,647
1993............................................................ 35,750 358,680 394,430
1994............................................................ 590,890 568,970 1,159,860
1995............................................................ 841,654 530,300 1,371,954
1996............................................................ 1,197,917 590,824 1,788,741
1997............................................................ 309,717 755,629 1,065,346
1998............................................................ 313,738 538,423 852,161
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The program has been carried out on the campus at Itta Bena
and at off-campus sites in Anguilla and Greenville and the Greenwood
Center since the Spring Semester of 1996.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objectives completion date was June 1992, and
the primary objective of erasing the financial deficit was accomplished
at that time. The university has been operating on a sound financial
basis as of July 1993. Curriculum and strengthening objectives are
progressing very well. The objective of the current grant will be
completed by September 30, 1999.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The program has been evaluated on an annual basis by the
agency. The annual progress report for fiscal year 1998 revealed
progress in the academic programs. For example, the Social Work
Department had significant positive changes in the quantity and quality
of the faculty. The Business Department offered a component dealing
with Agricultural land lease in the business law classes, and the other
classes had topics on input and output analysis, agricultural
stimulations, and initial farm planning. The major objectives of this
project have been met. The funds are now used to maintain the level
attained since receiving these funds. The fiscal year 1999 proposal
will be peer reviewed. The last on-site visit was conducted on April
21-23, 1993. Mississippi Valley State University has responded
positively to recommendations of the on-site review team. The
university has implemented a time and effort reporting system. Funds
are requested on a reimbursable basis and are deposited in interest
bearing accounts. The payment method for receiving USDA funds was
changed to the electronic transfer system. Property acquired through
Federal Grants are identified as such in the university property
records, and the Drug-Free Workplace Policy had been implemented.
national alternative fuels laboratory
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the National Alternative Fuels Laboratory--NAFL--
grant.
Answer. Through a nationally-marketed collaboration program in
which the NAFL matches about half of its USDA funding with non-federal
money to work on industry-relevant projects, NAFL researchers have (1)
resolved ethanol-in-gasoline performance and environmental issues to
accelerate the use of ethanol, (2) developed a lead-free ethanol-and
biodiesel-containing alternative to leaded aviation gasoline, (3)
initiated new biomass fuel technologies including an agricultural co-
products-to-ethanol process and an ethanol extraction process for
removing contamination from fungus-infected wheat and barley, (4)
initiated a program to increase E85--85 percent ethanol-15 percent
gasoline--fuel economy and evaluate automobile exhaust emissions, (5)
initiated and coordinated the 27-member Red River Valley Clean Cities--
RRVCC--Coalition to increase the number of alternative fuel vehicles in
regional public and private fleets, and (6) built E85 refueling sites
in North Dakota.
Question. According to the research proposal or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research.
Answer. Our Nation needs to develop commercially-viable
alternatives to fossil fuels to ensure energy security, improve air
quality, and provide employment. It is crucial to national security and
economic development that these new fuels are accurately represented in
the marketplace and given an opportunity to compete fairly with
traditional fossil fuels. The NAFL provides unbiased scientific data on
fuel performance and environmental effects. Regional need for the
research derives from the need to support regional agriculture and
associated industries through (1) development of economic uses for
agricultural co-products and (2) development of economic uses for
mycotoxin-contaminated grains.
Question. What was the original goal of this research, and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The primary original goal was to develop a database of at-
the-pump-sampled conventional, reformulated, and alternative
transportation fuels sold in the upper Midwest and throughout the U.S.
to enable comparison of current and historical fuels on the basis of
chemical and physical properties. The database is being expanded to
include how gasoline chemistry affects air quality and fuel
performance. Another original goal was to provide information on
conversion of crop residues, agriculture processing wastes, high-
cellulose content municipal wastes, and other biomass materials to
alternative fuels. The NAFL program supported North Dakota's first two
public E85 refueling sites, an ongoing industry-supported effort to
develop and build a new ethanol plant in the Grand Forks region, and
resolved ethanol blend fuel economy and tailpipe emissions issues, and
E85 engine cold-start problems.
Question. How long has this work been underway, and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The NAFL work began in fiscal year 1991 and was, in part,
sponsored by this grant. USDA appropriations in fiscal year 1991
through fiscal year 1993 were $250,000 per year. Later awards were
$235,000 in fiscal year 1994, $204,000 in fiscal year 1995, and
$218,000 per year in fiscal years 1996 through 1999. A total of
$2,061,000 has been appropriated over 9 years.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. To date, in fiscal year 1998, more than $60,000 in non-
federal collaborative funding has been secured from corn grower
organizations, a state public service department, alternative fuels
technology companies, the city of Winnipeg, and Ford Motor Company. An
additional $40,000 in fiscal year 1998 non-federal funding is
anticipated through projects proposed to the Kraus Group--an
alternative fuels technology provider--and the Minnesota Chamber of
Commerce. A total of $1,045,000 in non-federal funds has been secured
for performance of NAFL program objectives over the duration of this
grant. During fiscal year 1991 through fiscal year 1993, non-federal
funding from the State of Illinois totaled $630,000. For fiscal year
1994, non-federal funding of $105,000 was secured from the American
Corn Growers' Association, the Renewable Fuels Association, and others.
fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997 non-federal funding totals of
$50,000, $60,000, and $140,000, respectively, were secured from corn
grower organizations, state agriculture departments, alternative fuels
technology companies, and regional economic development agencies.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The University of North Dakota Energy and Environmental
Research Center--EERC--located in Grand Forks performs this work. The
EERC is a research, development, demonstration, and commercialization
facility that employs about 200 scientists, technicians, and support
personnel.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The completion date for the original objectives was April
30, 1992. The objectives were met. The work was then expanded to
include partnerships with industry and agriculture. NAFL has been
established as a center of expertise for development and demonstration
of bio-based fuels, investigating fuel chemistry effects on engine
performance and air quality, dissemination of accurate and objective
information regarding ethanol in gasoline, and ethanol feedstock
assessment and process development. Additional tasks which have been
added include: the Red River Valley Clean Cities Coalition,
implementing agricultural co-product-to-ethanol plant project, and
commercializing an ethanol-based aviation fuel. These tasks should be
completed by 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation.
Answer. In June of 1998, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
conducted an on-site evaluation, and the NAFL program was given a very
favorable review. The program continues to be a model for Federal-
private sector collaborations. Personnel have continued to meet or
exceed program objectives detailed at the initiation of each annual
performance period.
national center for peanut competitiveness
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the National Center for Peanut Competitiveness.
Answer. The grant supports an interdisciplinary research and
education program to enhance the competitiveness of the U.S. peanut
industry by examining alternative production systems, developing new
products and new markets, and improving product safety.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
research?
Answer. Peanuts are a very important crop in several southern
states. In many counties, peanuts provide more than 50 percent of all
crop income. Peanut producers have been major beneficiaries of
government income protection programs, but Federal farm and trade
policies are changing and producers must become more competitive and
market oriented.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The project helps peanut producers be more competitive in
the global market. In the first year of the project--1998--a
computerized expert system was adapted for hand-held computers that
were used to help farmers reduce pest control costs. In addition,
economic factors were added to a computerized disease risk management
system which includes a large number of factors involved in the onset
of a very destructive wilt. For every one-point improvement in the
``wilt index,'' a farmer's net income is increased $9-14 an acre. USDA
funds were used to leverage an additional $124,000 for research by the
Center for Peanut Competitiveness.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998
with an appropriation of $150,000. The appropriation for fiscal year
1999 is $300,000, making a total of $450,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. In fiscal year 1998, the state of Georgia contributed
$141,181 and the state of Alabama, $15,000.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The Center is located at the University of Georgia at
Griffen and involves cooperators from nearby peanut producing states,
such as Auburn University in Alabama.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original proposal in 1998 was for a period of 36
months, however, the need to improve the competitiveness of U.S. peanut
growers continues to grow. The fiscal year 1999 proposal extends the
project until 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. CSREES reviewed and approved the project proposal in
February 1998. We believe its scientific objectives and procedures will
enable the Center to improve the competitiveness of U.S. peanut
producers.
pm-10 study, california and washington
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the PM-10 study, California and Washington research
grant.
Answer. The PM-10 study in California and Washington addresses the
effects of emissions of PM-10 and PM-2.5 sized particulates, or dust,
from agricultural land on air quality and development of control
strategies. These studies are being conducted by scientists at the
University of California-Davis and the Washington State University, in
cooperation with Federal, state, and local agricultural, environmental,
and health agencies, and farmers and growers in both states. The
California program has focused on developing and refining methods to
accurately measure and detect the sources of PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions
from various agricultural practices and to investigate alternative
practices for reducing potential air pollution on susceptible
California crops and soils. In addition, the California research has
been expanded to include dust and gaseous emissions from cattle
feedlots, dairies, and the poultry industry. This is in direct response
to the increased public concern with odors and air quality problems
possibly related to livestock operations. The Washington State
University scientists are using refined instruments on field sites to
measure and predict the effects of wind erosion and agricultural
practices in the Columbia River Basin region on PM-10 and PM-2.5
emissions, under both natural wind erosion and with portable wind
tunnel studies. Alternative cropping and tillage practices, residue
management, and weed control practices are being developed and compared
for control of PM-10 and PM-2.5 emission pollution under Columbia River
Basin conditions.
Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
research?
Answer. There has been growing national concern over the potential
health and safety aspects of air pollution from dusts and suspended
particulate matter resulting in passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act, as
well as state air quality laws in both California and Washington.
Because of particular problems from PM-10 and PM-2.5 emission in the
arid regions of the Western United States, research on the role of
agricultural operations in intensively cultivated soils in California
and the Columbia River Basin, as sources of PM-10 and PM-2.5 pollution,
will assist growers to develop alternative agricultural management
practices to control PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions.
Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goals of this research were to measure the PM-
10 emission rates from significant crop and tillage practices, to
determine the source of PM-10 emissions on soils in agricultural
regions of central and southern California and the Columbia River Basin
in the Pacific Northwest, and to explore cost-effective alternative
agricultural practices to control these emissions. More recently,
studies of finer PM-2.5 particulates have been included because of
their recognized potential health risks. In California, field
measurements are being continued on both PM-2.5 and PM-10 emissions on
production practices on almonds, figs, walnuts, cotton, wheat, and on
ammonia emissions from dairy farms and feedlots. Similar studies in the
Columbia River Basin are being conducted in Washington on a number of
agricultural practices in the rain-fed and dryland croplands.
Susceptible climatic and soil conditions and tillage and cropping
practices have been identified and are being used to develop prediction
tools to assist growers to adopt alternative practices to reduce
potential air pollution by PM-10 and PM-2.5 particulate emissions.
A Light Detection and Ranging system has been developed at the
University of California at Davis that makes it possible to take a
snapshot of the shape of an emission plume from a source such as a
harvester, and to make estimates on the amount of particulate material
emitted into the atmosphere and its subsequent transport.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in March 1994. The
appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $940,000; fiscal year 1995,
$815,000; and for fiscal years 1996 through 1999, $873,000 per year. A
total of $5,247,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. In California, the program is matched by State funds in the
form of salaries, benefits, and operating costs. In Washington, there
were no state or non-Federal funds in support of the PM-10 project in
1994 and 1995. In 1996, state support was $22,566, and in 1997, state
support was $102,364. Similar funding was continued in 1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. This work is being directed by participating scientists at
the University of California-Davis and at the Washington State
University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date of the original objectives
of this project is 2000. The first four objectives of the project on
soil particle characterization are anticipated to be completed in 1999.
The objectives on field control will continue. In 1998, a manual for
practices was developed and circulated for use by growers in Washington
State to reduce wind erosion on agricultural land. Implementation and
development of these management practices will be a major role of this
project in the future. Quarterly and annual reports on the Washington
State project to date are available.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency's Program Manager annually reviews the research
progress reports and proposed new research and attends the annual
meetings of the program to assess progress. The program is also
evaluated each year by technical, administrative, and agency personnel.
Progress is reported at research review meetings three times a year,
with the November 1998 meeting in Washington involving strong
participation of a large number of growers and public advisory
committee members. A formal on-site review by a panel of experts was
conducted of the Washington program in November 1997, and a similar
review of the California program is planned in the near future.
ag in the classroom
Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
been funded under the Ag in the Classroom grant.
Answer. Ag in the Classroom is an extension outreach program
designed to promote agricultural literacy among pre K-12 students.
Funds appropriated for this program are used to leverage agricultural
literacy activities in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and
U.S. territories by providing national leadership and guidance to the
agricultural education community. This community serves the educational
needs of more than 5,000,000 students through a network of more than
120,000 teachers.
Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
project?
Answer. This extension outreach program is directed toward the
youth of America. In the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act
of 1996--Public Law 104-127--Congress stated the importance of
increasing the number of young Americans pursuing a baccalaureate or
higher degrees in the food and agricultural sciences--section 805d.
Agricultural literacy is a first step in creating both an interest and
awareness of career opportunities in the food and agricultural
sciences.
Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original purpose of this extension outreach program was
to promote agricultural literacy among this nation's youth. The
Secretary of Agriculture established the Ag in the Classroom Program in
1981 to help ensure that future generations are agriculturally
literate. The mission of Ag in the Classroom is to help K-12 students
understand the complexity of the total food and fiber system,
appreciate its impact on our economy and society, and become citizens
who are able to support wise agricultural policies. The Program
encourages educators to integrate the critical role of agriculture in
our economy and society into their teaching. The Program helps
coordinate programs in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the
U.S. territories. It provides leadership, counsel, and educational
materials, and maintains a nationwide network of individual farmers,
educators, agribusinesses, and local government officials who actively
support the Ag in the Classroom mission.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal years to date?
Answer. A total of $2,253,880 has been appropriated for this
program as follows: fiscal year 1986, $76,000; fiscal years 1987 and
1988, $74,000 per year; fiscal year 1989 $87,000; fiscal year 1990,
$135,000; fiscal year 1991, $170,000; fiscal years 1992 and 1993,
$208,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $185,000; fiscal year 1995,
$208,000; fiscal year 1996, $204,880; and fiscal years 1997 through
1999, $208,000 per year.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. This is not a grants program and does not require matching
funds. However, the original intent was to have an Ag in the Classroom
Program in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and in the U.S.
territories. This has been accomplished. These state programs receive
no Federal dollars. Thus, the Federal Ag in the Classroom Program is
highly leveraged, albeit indirectly, because the states support their
own activities.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The work of Ag in the Classroom is being carried out in all
50 states, the District of Columbia, and in the U.S. territories. The
national program impacts an estimated 120,000 teachers and over
5,000,000 students in grades K-12.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related activities?
Answer. Ag in the Classroom is an extension outreach program. Given
the original goals of the program were to promote agricultural literacy
among America's youth and that we do not have a population fixed in
time, this is a continuing effort. Indeed, as each generation becomes
further removed from the agricultural heritage of this Nation, the need
for Ag in the Classroom becomes more paramount.
Current plans include the development of cooperative support
agreements to develop a high quality web site to coordinate activities
and curriculum modules among each of the Ag in the Classroom state
coordinators, sponsor national teaching awards at the K-12 level, and
to streamline the development and dissemination of materials. Ag in the
Classroom will also continue its role in sponsoring the coordination of
a national, annual conference, for the purpose of bringing the Ag in
the Classroom community together to share experiences, ideas,
materials, information, and techniques among state programs, educators,
governmental agencies, agribusinesses and agricultural organizations.
The state Ag in the Classroom Program coordinators--including the
District of Columbia and the U.S. territories--have formed a National
Ag in the Classroom Consortium.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Several efforts have been made to evaluate various aspects
of the Ag in the Classroom program. A survey was conducted of
constituents through the Ag in the Classroom newsletter evaluating the
population affiliation to and involvement with Ag in the Classroom and
topics that would affect the future direction of projects within the
program. Findings from this survey indicated that readers wanted to
know specific information about successful projects/program in the Ag
in the Classroom community, access to age-specific lesson plans,
updates on resource guides, and information on specific agricultural
topics. The respondents were highly supportive of Ag in the Classroom.
During the annual national conference, formal evaluations were
conducted regarding the conference and future projects. Findings from
these conferences indicated that the target audience found the
conference extremely valuable for sharing ideas on local Ag in the
Classroom projects/programs. In addition, they found the conference
very useful for obtaining resource materials. Conference attendees
indicated that they would like to see attention focused at the national
level to develop a ``teacher friendly'' web site. They also indicated
an interest in materials associated with agricultures' environmentalism
role. A third issue that arose is the need for the national level to
continue its role in the dissemination of resource guides and
materials.
The National Ag in the Classroom Consortium provides USDA with
another source of stakeholder input for assistance in identifying and
setting priorities. Evaluations have been conducted in several states
by the state coordinator on different projects such as: newsletters,
videos, and various other products/activities. Many of these findings
are brought forward to the Executive Committee of the National Ag in
the Classroom Consortium. Comments are then brought forward from the
Executive Committee to the attention of the National Program Leader
through a monthly conference call. This provides a model for continuous
process improvement.
beef improvement--arkansas
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded as the Arkansas Beef Improvement Program.
Answer. The Arkansas Beef Improvement Program uses three
educational methods to demonstrate the decision making process and
cost-effective management practices. The educational methods include
demonstration farms that are enrolled in the program for five years,
county workshops conducted over three evenings for two hours each
evening, and five Beef Improvement special projects that were
implemented this past year. An Arkansas Beef Improvement Executive
Committee provides the overall direction for the program.
Question. What is the national, regional or local need for this
program?
Answer. The implementation of specific cost-effective management
practices vary from year to year, region to region, and state to state.
The primary teaching objective of the Arkansas Beef Improvement Program
is the decisionmaking process rather than specific management
practices. Goal setting, evaluation of resources, and the process of
selecting cost-effective management practices are emphasized in the
decisionmaking process.
Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The overall goal of the Arkansas Beef Improvement Program
was to enhance the efficiency and profitability of the Arkansas cattle
producer. The program is still using demonstration farms to implement
and evaluate cost-effective management practices, but during this past
year, Beef Improvement Special Projects were implemented. There are
five special projects. They are calving and breeding seasons; pasture
renovation; hay quality and supplemental feeding; stocker cattle; and
cow herd performance. Each project has its own requirements and
objectives. Thirteen counties were selected to participate in the
projects. Only one project per county was allowed. The objectives for
the special projects were to concentrate on specific production
problems and allow a means for more county agents and producers to
become involved with the Arkansas Beef Improvement Program.
Additional accomplishments for the Beef Improvement Program.
--In 1997, four farms completed the five-year Arkansas Beef
Improvement program. Their accomplishments included: Mature cow
calf crop increased from 85 to 92 percent,Farms increased the
average number of mature cows by 68 percent,Total pounds of
beef sold per animal unit was 38 pounds higher the fifth year
of the program compared to the first year; The average gross
margin per farm increased by 138 percent--$28,664 vs.
$12,423,If the farms received the same selling price in 1997 as
they did in 1993, the average gross margin per animal unit
would be 12 percent higher--$129.72 vs. $145.4 andPounds weaned
per cow exposed increased 7.1 percent
--Benchmark data for the four new farms added to the program in 1997
were collected. Data included beef cattle production
information, cow-calf budgets, soil test, forage test, cow herd
performance information, and forage inventory.
--Arkansas Beef Improvement Workshops were delivered through county
Extension offices. Overall, the participants found the workshop
to be very meaningful to their operation and planned to
implement many of the production practices discussed.
Question. How long has the program been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. $200,000 has been devoted to this project from Fiscal Years
1993 through 1995 and in fiscal years 1996 through 1999, $197,000 was
appropriated for a total of $1,388,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. $95,000 has been provided annually from 1993 to 1997 from
state funds. Arkansas provided $118,154 this past fiscal year.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. Since the initiation of the Arkansas Beef Improvement
Program, ten demonstration farms in Arkansas--from ten different
counties--completed their fifth year. Currently, there are four
demonstration farms in the second year of the program. Thirteen Special
Projects were implemented this past year. Arkansas Beef Improvement
Workshops were conducted in 17 counties. Therefore, 44 counties have
participated in the Arkansas Beef Improvement Program. By involving
more counties, a better representation of the Arkansas cattle industry
was obtained.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. Currently there are four demonstration farms enrolled in
the program. These farms are on their second year. It was agreed the
Extension team would work with these farms for five years. Data from
the final year as well as an Arkansas Beef Improvement Producer Survey
and County Agent Survey will be collected and summarized for
evaluation. Commitments to the Arkansas Beef Improvement Special
Projects vary in length, depending on the project and farm situation.
Most Special Projects will last 3 to 5 years. The first year of the
Special Projects is primarily devoted to collection of benchmark data.
In the second year, management practices are implemented and the impact
measured. The Arkansas Beef Improvement Workshops are an ongoing
program in the counties.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. A CSREES review of the project is conducted annually. The
1998 review noted the project is taking a sound approach to improving
beef production efficiency and profitability in Arkansas. The review
advised that project results and materials be widely disseminated
through publications and educational programs for the benefit of other
producers in Arkansas and beyond.
delta teachers academy
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded under the Delta Teachers Academy project.
Answer. The National Academy proposes to continue its Delta
Teachers Academy in the Lower Mississippi Delta Region--a region of 219
counties and parishes clustered around the Mississippi River
encompassing portions of Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee--focusing on educational
improvement in the core subject areas. Specifically, the program will
provide long-term academic enrichment to approximately 525 elementary
and secondary school teachers at 35 sites by teaming them with
university scholars for in-service training sessions during the school
year and continuing with summer institutes. Through its Fellows Program
the Delta Teachers Academy will also sustain the professional
development of over 650 Academy graduates throughout the region. The
Delta Teachers Academy grant is not awarded competitively; however, we
require annual applications reporting the previous year's
accomplishments and describing activities and expenditures planned for
the upcoming year. These applications undergo merit review by at least
three of our Ph.D. level staff before grant awards are made.
Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
project?
Answer. According to the grant recipient, 33 percent of the
children in the 219-county area comprising the Lower Mississippi Delta
region live below the poverty line compared to 20.5 percent nationally.
In 1996 the Children's Defense Fund stated that seven out of ten poor
Southern families with children had at least one working family member.
In 1996, 60 percent of Louisiana's public schools sampled ranked
``below basic'' on the National Assessment of Education Progress test
for eighth-graders. Poor educational performance, rural poverty, and
limited economic development are strongly correlated as depicted in a
1995 report from USDA's Economic Research Service. In its report to
Congress in 1990, the Delta Development Commission cited serious
educational problems including poor student performance in core content
areas, demoralized teachers with little or no opportunity for academic
development, and region-wide difficulty in recruiting and retaining
qualified teachers. The Commission also stressed the links between
these problems and the pervasive poverty and depressed economic
conditions that characterize much of the seven-state Delta region. The
Commission's report also cited that 75 percent of the region's
workforce lacks the basic reading skills necessary for technical
training and specifically cites the need for improved teacher training
as one means for breaking the cycle of poverty and economic non-
competitiveness.
Question. What was the original goal of the program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original and continuing goal of the project is to
address the problem of insufficient professional development
opportunities for the elementary and secondary teachers of the seven-
state region. The Academy project has focused on the core subjects of
English, geography, history, mathematics, and science. Humanities,
language arts, social studies, reading, civics, and interdisciplinary
subjects are also covered by some sites. The Delta Teachers Academy
began by offering educational development activities for 100 teachers
from approximately 50 rural districts at 10 sites. Training has now
been expanded to include 525 teachers at 35 new sites across the entire
seven-state region. In addition, there are over 650 graduates of the
program whose professional development is sustained through the
Academy's Fellows Program and who are leading teacher in-service
training back at their home schools. The project has helped improve
student performance and teacher training, morale, recruitment, and
retention in the region.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. A total of $20,661,000 dollars has been appropriated to the
Department of Agriculture for this project, including $2,000,000
dollars in fiscal year 1994, $3,935,000 dollars in fiscal year 1995,
$3,876,000 dollars in fiscal year 1996, $3,850,000 dollars in fiscal
year 1997, and $3,500,000 dollars per year in fiscal years 1998 and
1999.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. There are no non-federal funds identified for this project.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The Delta Teachers Academy project is coordinated out of
The National Faculty's Southern Region office in New Orleans,
Louisiana. The project is being conducted at 35 sites selected from
within the seven-state Lower Mississippi Delta region including the
states of Arkansas, Kentucky, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Missouri, and Tennessee.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original objective was to provide three full years of
training to each faculty team established by the Delta Teachers Academy
program. Training consists of four two-day academic sessions and one
two-week summer institute for each team. This objective has been met
for the original 24 faculty teams first funded under the Fiscal Year
1994 Department of Agriculture grant, for the 15 additional teams
established in 1995, and for the one new team established in fiscal
year 1996. The 20 new teams established in fiscal year 1997 have
received two years of training, and the 14 new teams established in
fiscal year 1998 have received one year of training. As of the end of
the Fiscal Year 1997 grant, 40 of the 41 faculty teams established by
the Delta Teachers Academy will have met the original objective of the
program. Objectives for the fiscal year 1999 grant include providing
ongoing professional development of 33 teams consisting of 600
participants; add two additional teams to maintain their general level
of service to 35 teams throughout the region; instituting several new
procedures for better meeting their clienteles needs based on the
independent review completed by Westat; intensify its individual and
field-based approach; and draft individual work plans for each site.
The anticipated project completion date for the 35 current sites is
September 30, 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. An assessment of the short-term impact of the Delta
Teachers Academy by Westat, Inc. of Rockville, Maryland was completed
in August 1997. Westat's study found that the vast majority of
participants reported that the Academy had met their personal and
professional needs by renewing their enthusiasm for teaching, improving
their self-confidence, increasing their sense of professionalism,
improving their knowledge of specific content areas, enhancing their
teaching methods, and providing opportunities to interact with peers.
The study also provided considerable evidence that teachers are
applying what they have learned from the Academy in their own
classrooms. For example:
--90 percent reported applying academic content from the program in
their classrooms.
--78 percent reported incorporating skills and strategies learned
developed at the Academy into their classroom teaching.
--83 percent reported that their teaching approaches have become more
effective in improving student learning.
--88 percent said the Academy had prepared them to assume leadership
roles in their schools.
--89 percent noted changes in their students' work habits, attitudes,
aspirations, and achievements.
A United States General Accounting Office review of the Academy's
programs was also conducted in fiscal year 1995. The General Accounting
Office report--GAO/RCED-95-208 included summary statistics on over
1,000 teacher evaluations of Academy sessions as well as the General
Accounting Office's own survey of participants. The General Accounting
Office found that on average, participants reported that the Academy
was more effective than any other teacher development program they had
participated in, was very effective in renewing or enhancing knowledge
in one or more academic subjects, and was generally effective in
enhancing the teaching skills and strategies required for teaching
challenging academic content.
In addition, a site visit of the Delta Teachers Academy offices in
New Orleans, Louisiana and of the National Faculty's Summer Institute
at Tulane University was conducted by the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service's National Program Leader for Higher
Education and Evaluation, during July 1996. The site visit confirmed
that participating teachers are very enthusiastic about the Delta
Teachers Academy program, that the instruction provided by The National
Faculty's university scholars is on target and appropriate to the K-12
teachers' needs, and that the facilities are very well suited to
program requirements. The site visit further confirmed that the Delta
Teachers Academy has strengthened the participating teachers' ability
to teach by improving their content knowledge base, helped them become
leaders of other teachers by requiring them to conduct staff
development back at their home schools, and had a positive impact on
student learning. School superintendents report greater student
enthusiasm, more homework, and higher test scores for students whose
teachers were in the Delta Teachers Academy program. As determined by
such sources as reports from school superintendents, an outside expert
evaluation, a GAO review, and site visits and merit reviews by Federal
program staff, it appears that the project has met its original
objective of providing increased teacher professional development
opportunities in the seven-state Lower Mississippi Delta Region.
diabetes detection and prevention, washington and hawaii
Question. Please provide a description of the extension activity
that has been funded under the Diabetes Detection and Prevention,
Washington and Hawaii grant.
Answer. CSREES has met with representatives of the Joslin Diabetes
Centers and conversed with representatives of its State Cooperative
Extension Partners in Washington and Hawaii. The grant will support
demonstration and outreach activities designed to detect undiagnosed
diabetes through use of a non-invasive ocular fluorescence technique.
CSREES has requested that a revised proposal be submitted from the
Joslin Diabetes Center.
Question. According to the proposal, or the project director, what
is the national, regional or local need for this extension program?
Answer. The need for this demonstration program grows out of a need
to reach more of the millions of Americans who have undiagnosed
diabetes. Diabetes is currently one of the leading causes of death and
disability in the U.S. adult population, and is highest among certain
racial and ethnic populations, especially Native Americans, African
Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asians and Pacific Islanders.
Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of this extension outreach project will be to
provide (1) screening for diabetes among selected rural minority
patient populations in Washington and Hawaii using innovative detection
technology and blood glucose measures; (2) diabetes education
prevention and care materials; and (3) case management support and
follow-up services for patient referrals.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 1999
and the appropriation for fiscal year 1999 is $550,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. There are no non-federal funds and sources expected for
this grant.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The program will be conducted at Joslin Diabetes Centers at
Swedish Hospital in Seattle, Washington, and Straub Medical Center in
Hawaii. In addition, the Cooperative Extension offices in selected
counties in Hawaii and Washington will be involved in program
implementation.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
is 2002.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Because this is the first year of the project's funding,
and it is in fact just getting underway, the Agency evaluation has not
yet occurred. A mid-year evaluation of program outputs and the delivery
process to date will occur in July 1999.
extension specialist, arkansas (small farm management and marketing
education project)
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded under the Small Farm Management and Marketing Education Project.
Answer. The Small Family Farm Management and Marketing Education
program provides farm financial education and support materials that
are necessary for family farm enterprises to develop and maintain an
effective financial management system for their operations. The program
is located at the Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research Center located at
Booneville, Arkansas, in a transition zone where horticultural crops,
both warm and cool season forages, and ruminant animal issues may be
researched. It relates to 151,000,000 acres of major land resource area
in the United States and is specifically representative of 72,000,000
acres in the upper mid-South. This program extends research on
technical and efficiency issues to the limited resource hill-land
family farmers located in the area. The program promotes the use of
land resources, labor, and capital in a whole-farm context intended to
sustain small family farms.
Question. What is the national, regional or local need for this
program?
Answer. This program fills the need to evaluate the economic
applicability of research conducted at the Center and to transfer the
applicable results to operators of small family farms. This research
considers the limitations and potentials faced by farmers as they
decide how to improve their operations through the use of new
technologies, minimize risk when risk capital is limited, combine
enterprises on limited acreages to make better use of labor, and select
and use equipment for multiple enterprises. Within the region and in
local situations, feasible alternative enterprises are identified and
methods to improve biological and economic efficiency are advanced.
Value-added markets are being explored as a means of enhancing incomes
and promoting the sustainability of small family farms.
Question. What is the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of the project continues to be to develop a small/
family farm management and marketing education program based upon the
Center's mission, extend the research information to family farmers in
the mid-South, provide support to county and state Extension
professionals providing education on alternative agricultural
management and marketing, and be a resource to faculty, agency
personnel, and the public in farm management and marketing. An
ambitious set of objectives include identifying niche marketing for
alternative enterprises, encouraging use of computerized farm record
systems, provide guidance on the development of whole-farm management
systems, and conduct in-service and other training for relevant groups.
In fiscal year 1998, the record keeping system was updated to include
soil tests, fertilizer and chemical use, manure analyses, and other
measures in addition to financial information. Tested programs and
procedures in alternative agriculture have been disseminated to more
than 13,000 producers through Extension publications, newspapers, and
other media. Assistance has been provided to more than 17,500
stakeholders in Arkansas, 27 other states, and two foreign countries.
Program faculty have provided in-depth training on production practices
and record keeping to 785 producers and worked with an extensive group
of private and public organizations to form networks that provide
programming to enhance production, profitability, and longevity in
family farm enterprises.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The project has been underway since 1992. Appropriations of
$100,000 have been made in each of the fiscal years 1992 through 1995.
Appropriations in fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 1999 were
$99,000 for each year. A total of $796,000 has been appropriated.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. State matching funds have been provided through the
Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service in fiscal year 1992 through
fiscal year 1999. The amounts are $59,040 in fiscal year 1992, $55,680
in fiscal year 1993, $54,250 in fiscal year 1994, $54,446 in fiscal
year 1995, $54,446 in fiscal year 1996, $46,347 in fiscal year 1997 and
$40,467 in fiscal year 1998. The total is $364,676.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The central location is the Dale Bumpers Small Farms
Research Center at Booneville, Arkansas. It is being carried out
primarily in the 10-state area served by the Center. These states are
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original proposal, one year in length, was extended as
the research results continued to evolve and the educational needs of
the target audience increased. During the coming year, the emphasis is
on alternative enterprises, niche marketing, market reporting, farm
management information, and record keeping. Contact is maintained with
Extension personnel and other organizations.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. A merit review of the current proposal is conducted each
year when it is received using internal criteria that examine
objectives, procedures, timelines, anticipated product, and the
competency and experience of the project directors. The evaluation
indicates that this is a productive project, especially in terms of its
outreach. It complements the ongoing research at the Center, assessing
economic feasibility, and developing farm management applications. The
value of the work is evident in the growing number of stakeholders
which are involved and in the expanded networking with private sector
organizations.
extension specialist, mississippi
(basic weather service for research and extension project)
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded as the Basic Weather Service for Research and Extension Project.
Answer. The Basic Weather Service and Extension project is designed
to fill a void in weather data due to closure of the Ag Weather Service
facility in Stoneville, Mississippi. The funding will be used to gather
and disseminate critical agricultural weather data for producers and
researchers in Mississippi and surrounding states.
Question. What is the national, regional or local need for this
program?
Answer. The grant proposal states that the Ag Weather Service
facility was closed at Stoneville, Mississippi. This action has created
a void in the availability of and access to critical weather data that
producers and researchers use to make management decisions and to
formulate work plans within the state and region.
Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of the project is to collect, maintain, and
disseminate weather information for producers and researchers in
Mississippi and surrounding states. Electronic weather stations and
links with other web sites to deliver weather data have been installed
and developed. The project is providing timely data to producers in the
Delta.
Question. How long has the program been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through 1999?
Answer. The funding for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 was $50,000 each
year and for 1999 $100,000 was appropriated for a total of $200,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The State of Mississippi, through the Mississippi
Cooperative Extension Service and Delta Research and Extension Center,
provided $41,350 in state appropriated funds to support this project in
1997 and 1998.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The project will be conducted at the Delta Research and
Extension Center in Stoneville, Mississippi.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of the additional or related objectives?
Answer. One of the original objectives, installation of equipment
to collect weather data and establishment of a website, has been
completed. The agriculture community--producers, markets, supplier of
goods and services, and financial institutions--depend upon weather
information as a guide for business planning and decision making. The
National Weather Service has eliminated certain critical services to
rural areas and to agriculture clientele. As agriculture implements new
programs in pest management, crop production, and site-specific
farming, near real-time weather data is critical to success of these
programs. Weather services provided by the Stoneville project will be
in cooperation with and complementary to services provided by the
National Weather Service. Additional objectives relating to the
continuing need to collect, process, and disseminate timely weather
data are critical to the Delta Region. Current funding supports the
objectives to ensure these weather services are available to the
region.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Evaluation of the project and Internet website is being
conducted with an on-line survey instrument and through e-mail
responses about the site. An advisory group has been identified and is
functioning to provide evaluative feedback on the weather center's
current status as well as assessing needs for future plans for the
project's continued mission.
income enhancement demonstration, ohio
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded under the Income Enhancement Demonstration Project for Northwest
Ohio.
Answer. The Federal funds support the Agricultural Business
Enhancement Center which plays a major role in the development of the
agricultural sector of Northwest Ohio. The Center provides a variety of
management training programs, helps farmers and other agribusinesses
develop comprehensive business plans, and facilitates business
networking. CSREES performs an annual merit review of this project.
Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
program?
Answer. The Center seeks to enhance the competitiveness for
agricultural firms in Northwest Ohio and create greater economic
opportunity for local residents. To be successful in business, farmers
and other agribusiness firms must be able to adapt to a large number of
major changes affecting the entire food system from the farmer to the
consumer. These include changes in farm programs, globalization of
markets, new technologies, information systems, consumers' concerns for
food safety and nutrition, and society's concern for protecting the
environment. Individuals, families, firms, and communities in Northwest
Ohio need to understand the changes, and develop and implement
effective strategies for dealing with change.
Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of the project was to help people develop
new businesses and restructure and expand existing businesses in order
to enhance incomes in Northwest Ohio. The Agricultural Business
Enhancement Center conducts economic research on market opportunities,
provides a variety of management training programs, helps individual
farms and other agribusinesses develop comprehensive business plans,
and facilitates networking with businesses in other regions of the
United States and around the world. During 1997, for example, six
business plans were completed--three firms decided to pursue financing
and startup, and three firms decided to abandon their idea. Seven
additional plans were in various stages of development. Out of 150
women attending ``Women in Agriculture'' workshop, 85 percent said
workshop participation would improve management of the family farm, 80
percent said it would improve family relationships, and 22 percent said
it would improve farm income. The Center completed its tomato
processing plant feasibility study and accompanying business plan but
was unsuccessful in finding a sufficient number of producers to invest
in a cooperative or to find a private investor. A new study is underway
to determine the feasibility of farmers markets at Ohio Turnpike
plazas.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The project began in 1991. Appropriations have been as
follows:$145,000 in fiscal year 1991; $250,000 per year in fiscal years
1992 through 1995; and $246,000 per year in fiscal years 1996 through
1999. Appropriations to date total $2,129,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The State of Ohio has appropriated the following funds:
$35,100 in fiscal year 1991; $72,368 in 1992; $56,930 in 1993; $30,547
in 1994; $49,935 in 1995; $51,432 in 1996; $48,664 in 1997; and $53,736
in 1998.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The Agricultural Business Enhancement Center is located in
Bowling Green, Ohio and serves eight counties in the Toledo
Metropolitan Area. Project leadership is being provided by the
Department of Agricultural Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus,
Ohio.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original proposal in 1991 was for a period of 12
months, however, the ongoing needs of producers and agribusinesses to
adjust to major changes in the agricultural sector continues to provide
the Center with many challenges. The current phase of the program will
be completed in September 1999.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in March
1998 as it evaluated the proposal for that year, and concluded that the
project has a good track record of providing relevant and useful
management and marketing education to local farmers and agribusinesses.
However, the project leader was asked to submit plans for evaluating
the impact of the project before funds would be released. The
evaluation plan was approved in July 1998 and funds released in August.
integrated cow-calf management--iowa
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded as ``CHIPS: Cow-Calf Integrated Resource Management Program.''
Answer. The CHIPS program is a grass roots, technical assistance
program designed to provide management assistance services to Iowa cow-
calf producers. This integrated resource management--IRM--program was
developed to impact the area's rural economy by maximizing the profit
potential of individual livestock producers. Participating cooperators
work one-on-one with trained technicians, utilizing a variety of
management services designed to assist these producers as enterprise
decisions are finalized. The CHIPS program was originally targeted in
an 11-county area of southeast Iowa. The program has systematically
grown to extend services to over 190 beef producers in over 60 Iowa
counties.
Question. What is the national, regional or local need for this
program?
Answer. The agricultural economy of Iowa has experienced
significant changes over the past several years. These changes have
impacted the economic structure and health of local and regional
agricultural entities. Weather conditions, floods, depressed market
prices, and industry changes have all contributed to these economic and
industry changes.
CHIPS has adjusted program focus and direction to respond to the
economic conditions existing in the volatile cattle industry. This
approach provides CHIPS cooperators with individualized alternatives to
address the situation at hand. Technicians work with cooperators to
address industry issues, including grain substitution options during
high corn/soybean prices, management recommendations as the
Conservation Reserve Program--CRP--acres are released, and updates
regarding market programs. These examples reflect CHIPS long-term
sustainable approach as sound management and economic decisions are
finalized by cooperators. Through the CHIPS program, producers will
have a performance and economic perspective of their beef operation.
Decisions made from data collection and management recommendations are
imperative as producers address these economic challenges. This
approach supports both individual economic survival as well as
strengthening the local and regional economic community.
Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The overall goal of CHIPS is to have a positive effect on
the area's economy by improving the long-term profit potential of the
local cattle industry. To address this broad project goal, CHIPS has
established the following objectives:
--Improve profit potential of cooperator farms.
--Identify issues and trends in management data.
--Raise awareness and understanding of over 2,000 agricultural
producers in Iowa about cow-calf production on highly erosive
land and integrated resource management.
--Provide CHIPS cooperators intensive technical assistance to develop
goals and individualized farm recommendations, including
management areas such as pasture and forage production,
rations, utilization of resources, record systems, and
government farm program compliance. Over 190 cow-calf
operations were involved in this technical assistance program
during 1998.
--Assist producers as they develop management skills to improve
efficiency and reduce costs of production as CHIPS
recommendations are implemented.
During 1998, over 190 cooperators, involving approximately 16,000
beef cows, participated in CHIPS. This program has expanded in
cooperator numbers and geographical area. CHIPS has grown from one
technician and 11 counties in 1992 to seven FTE technicians servicing
60 counties in Iowa. The infrastructure has also changed. This
expansion includes formation of CHIPS, Inc., a CHIPS Employee Handbook,
administrative interaction with Iowa State University, Pathfinders
RC&D, and Southern Iowa RC&D.
During 1997-98, CHIPS technicians conducted 1,189 one-on-one farm
consultations. Numerous management areas were reviewed, with over 9,900
calves weighed, 3,500 beef cows weighed, and more than 4,100 head
permanently identified. This information was utilized by the
technicians to complete and analyze 69 Cow Herd Appraisal of
Performance Software--CHAPS--and 19 Standardized Performance Analysis--
SPA--records. These contacts involve a wide variety of technical
assistance, with primary emphasis on nutrition, cost-effective ration
development, genetic evaluation, value-added practices, and cow
production concerns. Included were more than 300 forage samples, with
over 250 specific rations and projections distributed. Over 77 pasture
consultations were conducted, 8 newsletters distributed to over 1,300
agribusiness producers and representatives, and 44 soil samples
collected. An educational Beef Value Added Tour to Kansas was
coordinated by CHIPS, with 54 people attending the two-day event. Over
650 people participated in 44 educational programs and presentations
involving CHIPS technicians and support staff.
Question. How long has the program been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. $138,000 was approved for fiscal year 1992; $138,000 for
fiscal year 1993; $276,000 for fiscal year 1994; $350,000 for fiscal
year 1995; $345,000 for fiscal year 1996; $345,000 for fiscal year
1997; and $300,000 per year in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. Federal
funding through fiscal year 1999 totals $2,192,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. CHIPS cooperators pay client fees of approximately $3.00
per cow. This fee structure is on a sliding scale that adjusts for cow
herd size. Approximately $45,000 client fees were collected from
cooperators during fiscal year 1998.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The CHIPS program is being operated in six designated
technician areas in Iowa. These include approximately 60 counties in
the following Iowa areas: southeast--16 counties; south central--8
counties; southwest--8 counties; northwest--8 counties; east central--8
counties; and central--12 counties.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The CHIPS program was initially projected to address the
goals and objectives of the project in a three-year time frame. As the
program expanded, new services were extended to new geographical areas.
As this expansion progressed, CHIPS adjusted the focus and direction of
services to meet the rapidly changing needs of the cattle industry. The
level of technical assistance and program delivery will require
continued adaptation to emerging issues. Over the past several years,
producers have been challenged by low forage quality and quantity due
to excessive moisture and flooding, record high grain prices, closure
of the Monfort beef packing plant in Des Moines, and depressed prices.
As this occurred, CHIPS responded by adapting services and technical
assistance to cooperators.
The objectives and goals of CHIPS will continue to be modified and
adapted to meet needs of the cooperators. CHIPS is developing an
agreement with the Iowa Cattlemen's Association--ICA. The goal is to
expand services to CHIPS clientele and support the value added Iowa
Quality Beef program. This relationship is the direct result of
discussions with the ICA, the Iowa Beef Center at Iowa State
University, Precision Beef Alliance, and CHIPS. Cooperating beef groups
will determine the services and administrative structure of CHIPS in
the future.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. A CSREES review of this project is conducted annually. In
addition, three Iowa State University Extension personnel have been
requested to conduct a CHIPS program evaluation. Included in this
request is a review of CHAPS and SPA records to evaluate short-and
long-term impacts, identification of production and management changes
incorporated by cooperators due to CHIPS, and future services needed by
clientele. This information will be essential to determine the
financial and production impact of the program, and to determine what
services and technical assistance should be supported. Preliminary
information from the record evaluation indicates changes in production
have had a positive impact on the operations involved in the CHIPS
program. This evaluation process is to be completed by June, 1999.
national education center for agricultural safety
Question. Please provide a description of the extension project
that has been funded under the National Education Center for
Agricultural Safety grant.
Answer. The National Education Center for Agricultural Safety is
dedicated to reducing the level of preventable illnesses, injuries, and
fatalities among farmers, ranchers, their families, and employees. The
National Education Center for Agricultural Safety translates current
research into training programs on the safety and health hazards that
impact the agricultural workplace. Training methods include the use of
real-life scenarios and simulations for the purpose of enhancing
trainee knowledge and positively changing work behaviors so that unsafe
work practices can be reduced and eliminated among the at-risk
audiences. An 11,000 square foot training center developed with a
$1,000,000 grant from Iowa houses the resources and simulators used in
the hands-on training.
Question. According to the extension proposal, or the project
director, what is the national, regional or local need for this
project?
Answer. The project director believes this training to be of
national, regional, and local need. Farming continues to be one of the
most dangerous occupations in the United States. 1998 data provided by
the National Safety Council showed that 830 farmers, ranchers, family
members, and farm employees suffered fatal injuries while performing
farm work. Most of these incidents were classified as preventable. The
adoption of safe work habits is dependent upon the relevance,
affordability and availability of safety training for at-risk and
underserved agricultural audiences. It is the mission of the National
Education Center for Agricultural Safety to make practical, hands-on
training available in order to reduce the level of preventable
illnesses, injuries, and fatalities in production agriculture.
Question. What was the original goal of this training center and
what has been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original, and continuing goal of this project was to
test the efficacy of adapting practical, hands-on training methods for
reducing the level of preventable farm work incidents in the United
States. Research indicates that trainees and students will positively
respond to agricultural safety training if it simulates real life
conditions of farming hazards. The National Education Center for
Agricultural Safety is offering practical training initiatives
concentrating on the hazards that negatively impact farm work,
including hazards associated with the farm machinery, agrichemicals,
livestock, confined spaces, and grain.
During fiscal year 1998, over 400 individuals received training
coordinated by National Education Center for Agricultural Safety. Among
these trainees were emergency medical service personnel, farm
cooperative patrons, agricultural youth, and high school agriculture
teachers. Mail and phone follow-ups with many of these trainees have
shown that most are sharing critical safety and health information with
their peers, parents, and other at-risk audiences. For example, one
Montana family trained during the National Education Center for
Agricultural Safety AG Families--USA program, have conducted seven
community-based programs for adults and children in Western Montana.
Another dairy farm family from the Milwaukee, Wisconsin, area, planned
and conducted a comprehensive farm safety day camp for over 100 farm
youth in eastern Wisconsin.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal years through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998,
and the appropriation for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 is $195,000 per
year for a total of $390,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The non-federal funds and sources provided for this grant
were as follows: $450,000 state appropriations dedicated for
construction of the Phase II training sites at the National Education
Center for Agricultural Safety, and $75,000 miscellaneous cash and in-
kind donations during fiscal year 1998. Non-federal funds were provided
by Deere & Company, DuPont Corp., Double L Group, Ltd., Melroe Company,
Dubuque Racing Association, and the Theisens' Farm, Home and Auto
Company.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Training under this grant will be conducted at the National
Education Center for Agricultural Safety, located on the campus of
Northeast Iowa Community College in Peosta, Iowa.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The anticipated completion date of the original objectives
is approximately March 31, 1999. Many of these objectives have already
been met. Anticipated completion date of additional objectives is March
31, 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. A CSREES merit review of the project application was
conducted in the spring of 1998. The project will be completing its
first year March 31, 1999. The National Education Center for
Agricultural Safety will utilize multiple evaluation tools such as pre
and post testing, follow-up surveys to determine knowledge gain and
behavior change, external evaluators, and an advisory committee.
pilot technology project, wisconsin
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded under the Wisconsin Pilot Technology Project.
Answer. Primary industrial extension activity of the Manufacturing
Technology Transfer program is the delivery of technical assistance to
manufacturing companies. Executive direction in determining the
assistance required will be provided by the University of Wisconsin--
Stout's Northwest Wisconsin Manufacturing Outreach Center--NWMOC--with
direct consultation and long-term in-plant assistance delivered
primarily through the efforts of university Project Managers and Co-op
students. Direct assistance may be delivered through staff of the
University of Wisconsin System, both two-and four-year institutions,
and Extension services; the Wisconsin Technical college System;
secondary schools; the private sector, professional societies, and
private consultants, or attendance at state or national seminars. The
project also draws on many other state resources to add expertise and
capacity to network facilitation and in-plant extension activities. The
project has undergone a merit review.
Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
program?
Answer. America's manufacturers continue to face tremendous global
competition. There are enormous pressures to improve the quality of
products; reduce the time consumed to bring new products to market; and
there remains an ever increasing demand to reduce the costs of
products. Currently there is a strong movement in manufacturing to use
speed-to-market combined with new product introduction as a tool to
obtain a competitive advantage. While high quality and cost
efficiencies continue to be mandatory commitments for today's
manufacturers, great value is now being placed on speed-to-market.
Large companies are not the only ones influenced by these trends.
Small-and medium-size manufacturers often supply larger firms. Hence,
they must be able to quickly process large amounts of information and
solve complex problems.
Question. What is the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The Manufacturing Technology Transfer program's principal
objective is the development of a competitive, secure manufacturing
base through the mechanism of industrial extension. The program
principally targets small and medium-size manufacturers in rural
Wisconsin. This funding will: continue to provide valuable industrial
extension service to the target audience; support the continued
empirical development of an industrial extension model; and investigate
the use of new manufacturing technologies to support global
competitiveness of manufacturers. Productivity improvements were
reported by the companies showing impressive economic impact to the
region through implementation of:
--Client operations assessment/plant evaluation and strategy
development
--Opportunities for productivity improvements.
--Implement new organizational and operational methods
--Investigate new manufacturing technologies.
--Establish quality assurance/total quality systems.
--Establish ongoing training programs.
--Deliver on-site instruction in new technologies, improved methods
and processes.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. This project has been underway since fiscal year 1992 and
was funded for $165,000 per year in fiscal years 1992 through 1995, and
for $163,000 in fiscal years 1996 through 1999 for a total of
$1,312,000.
Question. What is the source of and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. No non-federal funds have been provided for this project.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work will be carried out by the University of
Wisconsin-Stout.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original proposal in 1992 was for a period of 12
months. However, the Manufacturing Technology Transfer Program was
developed as a continuously evolving industrial extension strategy for
serving the needs of the manufacturing community. The Manufacturing
Technology Transfer Program is measured by success in meeting the
objectives of the past five years' proposals, including the delivery of
modernization assistance and development of an industrial extension
model. The current phase of the program will be completed in 1999.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. To measure the success of the project, a client evaluation
process has been developed which includes an evaluation questionnaire.
Evaluations indicate significant forward strides in job creation, new
businesses, expanded productivity, and enhanced international
competitiveness. An agency evaluation of this project was last
performed by the Department of Commerce in 1997.
range policy development, new mexico
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded under the Range Policy Development research grant.
Answer. The Range Policy Development project has collected local
economic data throughout the State. Local data have been used to
develop an economic model to help explain the relationships among local
economies and primary industries. The model is intended to enable
policymakers to better understand how local and State economies are
tied to primary industries, especially those industries that use public
lands. The initial focus of the project has been on the livestock
grazing industry. The project has undergone merit review within CSREES,
and funds have been awarded to the institution following
recommendations by the review panel.
Question. What is the local, regional, or national need for this
program?
Answer. In New Mexico and throughout the western states, many local
economies are dependent on the use and management of public range and
forest lands. However, there exists a great deal of disagreement about
the true level of dependence of individual communities on these public
land-based industries, and, consequently, disagreement about the local,
statewide, and regional impacts of public policies that alter the use
and management of these lands. Through better understanding of how
public lands impact local and regional economies, we may be better able
to predict the outcomes of potential legislation or amended land use
policies, resulting in policies that enhance, rather that detract from,
local economies.
Early results from this project have been encouraging and have
spawned a six-state collaboration to design a regional economic model
based on the New Mexico prototype. This regional coalition has been
seeking funds from multiple sources, including the Fund for Rural
America.
Question. What is the goal of this program and what has been
accomplished to date?
Answer. New Mexico is in the process of developing detailed input-
output models for each county from local and state tax revenue data.
The economists are following up with workshops across the state to
present information from economic forecasts to local decisionmakers.
Further, the project calls for increasing the utility of the models by
expanding the scope of the database to include industries in addition
to the grazing enterprises.
Question. How long has this work been under way and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. This project was initiated in December 1994. It has been
funded year-to-year to accomplish annual objectives. The first tier of
objectives were met in 2 years. The second phase is currently scheduled
for completion during 1999. The total appropriation for the project has
been $964,240. Of that total, $197,000 appropriated for fiscal year
1998 has been extended through November 1999. The 1999 appropriation of
$197,000 has yet to be awarded, as we have yet to receive and review a
request from the institution.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds to
support this project?
Answer. The project budget does not indicate any non-federal
support. However, Agricultural Research Stations in five other States
have economists currently working together on a Regional Research
Project, with the intent of improving and expanding upon the New Mexico
project.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Research is being conducted statewide based from New Mexico
State University in Las Cruces, New Mexico.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. According to the project director, most of the original
objectives have been accomplished. In this second phase of the project,
the investigators are collecting data to allow incorporation of other
industry and government sectors into the model. Objectives for this
phase should be completed near the end of 1999.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The proposal for continued funding most recently underwent
merit review by a team of CSREES National Program Staff in May 1998,
and a review of progress-to-date was conducted by the project liaison
in September 1997. The reviews focused on criteria including the
relevance of the project goals, the suitability of the proposed
research methods, and the extent of progress made toward addressing the
goals of the project. Both reviews found that phase one objectives had
been met and that adequate progress had been made toward the objectives
of the second phase of the project. A more comprehensive evaluation of
the project, originally scheduled for Fall 1998, has been rescheduled
for December 1999 to coincide with the no-cost extension requested by
the project managers at New Mexico State.
rural development, oklahoma
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded under the Rural Development, Oklahoma Project.
Answer. This program provides financial and technical assistance to
small business to create and retain jobs in rural Oklahoma and to
stimulate the local economies. The program is carried out through
financial services, business incubators, problem-solving assistance to
small-and medium-sized manufacturers, and technical assistance to rural
small businesses. The program is expanding to include assistance to
rural small businesses to enter international trade. The program
continues to evaluate new products and processes that may result in new
industries or be applied to improve existing manufacturing processes.
The project has undergone a merit review.
Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
program?
Answer. The increased demand for small business financing and
technical assistance verifies the need for the program. Each year
financing secured for small businesses has significantly increased. The
demand for business incubators is also on the rise. Last year, Rural
Enterprises--REI--agreed to mange two more business incubators bringing
the total REI-managed facilities to thirteen. Also, small businesses
continue to need access to technical and business management
assistance, worker training, and international trade assistance in
order to stay competitive in domestic and world markets.
Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished?
Answer. The original goal of the program was to create jobs in
rural Oklahoma by providing systematic access to improved technology,
training, financial, and business management assistance. REI is a
Certified Development Corporation for the small Business Administration
as well as a designated Certified Development Financial Institution. As
a result, REI has been successful in obtaining financing for
entrepreneurs and rural small businesses totaling $119,060,129. Special
technical assistance efforts have included problem-solving assistance
to small manufacturers; training and dissemination of information on
ISO9000 to assist rural businesses compete with a global market;
providing manufacturers with a ``Quick View Assessment'' program which
enables manufacturers to compare their facilities and operations with
other companies across the United States; and working one-on-one with
small businesses providing on-site assistance with inventory control,
cash flow management, and marketing.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Appropriations to date are as follows: $433,000 per year in
fiscal years 1988-89; $430,000 in fiscal year 1990; $431,000 in fiscal
year 1991, $300,000 per year in fiscal years 1992-95; $296,000 per year
in fiscal years 1996-97; $150,000 per year in fiscal years 1998-1999.
Appropriations total $3,819,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. No non-federal funds have been provided for this project.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work is being carried out at Rural Enterprises, Inc.,
REI, in Durant, Oklahoma.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original proposal in 1988 was for a period of 12
months. However, the objectives of Rural Enterprises, Inc. are on-going
because of the nature of the activity. The clientele is diverse and
decentralized. The engineering and management consultation model being
pursued with individual clients results in a situation where hundreds
of problems are being pursued simultaneously and when solved are
replaced by new issues resulting from international competition,
regulations, training needs, and changeover costs. The next phase of
the program will be completed in 1999.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. REI itself conducts an on-going evaluation process to
measure the organization's effectiveness and efficiency in
accomplishing its objectives, and this is documented on a quarterly
basis through our reporting system. Over 6,000 jobs have been created
and retained for new and expanding businesses as a result of this
program. While the program has met its key objective of job creation in
rural Oklahoma, the nature of its outreach effort continues to evolve
and change as business sustainability and profitably confront new
challenges within small and rural communities. CSREES has not conducted
an evaluation of the Rural Enterprises, Inc. project.
rural development through tourism, new mexico
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded under the Rural Economic Development Through Tourism--REDTT--
Project in New Mexico.
Answer. The Rural Economic Development Through Tourism Project
involves applied research and outreach focused on locally-based tourism
development strategies to enhance economic opportunity in small and
rural communities in New Mexico. Components of the agenda support
training of local leadership and tourism professionals, strategic
planning and market development, and technical assistance to
communities. The proposals submitted are submitted for internal review
and evaluation within the agency. Recommendations are presented to
enhance impact on regional and national agendas.
Question. What is the national, regional or local need for this
program?
Answer. This is an on-going pilot to demonstrate the effective
development and implementation of applied research, training,
education, and technical assistance related to rural tourism as a
development strategy. The grant has demonstrated that a long-term
commitment of resources and activity can lead to effective development
of tourism resources and build new market opportunities and tourism
products for small communities. This project would provide an excellent
proposal for the Fund for Rural America.
Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished?
Answer. The applied research and outreach project was designed by
the State Cooperative Extension Organization to increase the ability of
the public sector to enhance economic opportunity for rural communities
through tourism development. A regional task force composed of
Extension professionals and community leaders from business, industry,
education, and government--local, state, and Federal--was developed to
guide and advise the development and implementation of locally-based
programming and research. The results include video training materials,
a public relations package, image studies and profiles, regional
tourism guides, development of tourism bus packages, festival planning
workshops, development of regional tours, and a mini-grants program for
tourism development.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. In fiscal years 1992 through 1995 the amount of $230,000
was appropriated. The appropriation for fiscal years 1996 and 1977 was
$227,000 per year; for fiscal year 1998 was $247,000; and for fiscal
year 1999 was $280,000. Total appropriated funds to date is $1,901,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. fiscal year 1992 included $38,764 in state matching funds.
fiscal years 1993,1994, 1995, and 1996 included $39,360 of state
matching funds. fiscal years 1997 and 1998 include $39,040 state
matching funds.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. Applied research and outreach is being carried out through
New Mexico State University.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original completion date was September 30, 1993. The
original objectives of this research have been met. The additional
objectives being presented for the current year will be completed by
September 30, 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency evaluates the merit of research proposals as
they are submitted. No formal evaluation of this project has been
conducted. The principal investigators and project managers submit
annual reports to the agency to document impact of the project. Each
year, the project has demonstrated significant accomplishment in the
reports submitted. Impacts include significant increases in attendance
of local festivals, increase in number of tour bus visits to New
Mexico, training to over 700 tourism employees in the region, and
establishment of a number of new businesses. Agency evaluation of the
project includes peer review of accomplishments and proposal objectives
and targeted outcomes.
rural rehabilitation, georgia
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded under the Rural Rehabilitation project in Georgia.
Answer. The program has tested the feasibility of providing
satellite-based adult literacy education, in association with
vocational rehabilitation services, to handicapped adults in rural
Georgia. The program has developed curriculum, tested and adapted
technology, established student recruitment and retention strategies,
expanded to Statewide coverage, and provided successful adult literacy
education.
Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
program?
Answer. A state task force has estimated that 25 percent of
Georgia's adult population is functionally illiterate. Functional
illiteracy is regarded in Georgia as a form of disability. The extent
of adult functional illiteracy is similar throughout much of rural
America.
Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The original goal of this program was to prove that
distance learning can be an effective tool for reaching and teaching
functionally illiterate adults in rural areas. This program has
demonstrated that satellite-based literacy training, in cooperation
with vocational rehabilitation services, can successfully provide adult
literacy education designed to improve critical reading, writing, and
thinking skills, for handicapped rural adults. Over the past 9 years,
test scores and attendance and completion rates of students in the
satellite-based program have shown that distance learning is an
effective delivery system for instructing low-level readers and non-
readers. Test scores and attendance rates of students in this program
have been comparable to those of students in traditional, urban
classes.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Funding for this program was initially appropriated in
fiscal year 1989, and the program has been in operation since March
1989. Through fiscal year 1998, appropriations for this program have
been as follows: $129,000 in fiscal year 1989; $256,000 per year in
fiscal years 1990, 1991, and 1992; $250,000 per year in fiscal years
1993, 1994, and 1995; and $246,000 per year in fiscal years 1996, 1997,
1998 and 1999. Funds appropriated to date total $2,631,000. These
Federal funds are typically used for program innovation and quality
improvement.
Question. What is the source of and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. The fiscal year 1998 source of non-federal funds provided
for this program are state appropriated funds from the Georgia
Department of Adult Education. Prior years sources also included
private contributions from the Woodruff Foundation and other local
foundations. Through fiscal year 1998, the total amount of non-federal
funds provided the project has been $8,006,901. The breakdown by fiscal
year is: $164,000 in fiscal year 1988; $270,500 in fiscal year 1989;
$809,675 in fiscal year 1990; $656,765 in fiscal year 1991; $65,000 in
fiscal year 1992; $1,019,821 in fiscal year 1993; $20,000 in fiscal
year 1994; $872,500 in fiscal year 1995; $1,500,000 in fiscal year
1996; $1,319,320 in fiscal year 1997; and $1,309,320 in fiscal year
1998.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The Georgia Tech Satellite Literacy Project is sponsored
and operated by four organizations: Georgia Institute of Technology's
Center for Rehabilitation Technology, the Center for Rehabilitation
Technology, Inc., Literacy Action, Inc., and the Georgia Department of
Technical and Adult Education. The program grantee is CRT, Inc., a
private, not-for-profit business advisory board to the Center for
Rehabilitation Technology, College of Architecture, Georgia Institute
of Technology, from which the literacy instruction has been provided.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. It was anticipated that it would take three years to
demonstrate that distance learning can be an effective tool for
reaching and teaching functionally illiterate adults in rural areas.
That original objective was met in Fiscal 1991. Additional objectives
since fiscal year 1991 have been to expand the outreach of the
satellite based adult literacy program to enough additional sites
throughout the State of Georgia so that all potential participants have
reasonable access to the program, and to continually upgrade the
quality of class programming and the technical capacities of the
system. The fiscal year 1997 technological upgrades expanded the
capacity of the program more than 25-fold, from 77 to over 2,000
downlink sites, and a 6-fold increase in broadcast hours, and made
materials available as supplemental tools to all Georgia literacy
classes. As of December 1997, the Georgia Tech Satellite Literacy
Program is in a period of transition from that of providing literacy
instruction via direct television broadcasts to classrooms to that of
development and dissemination of technology-based instructional aids.
The project has been renamed the Lifelong Learning Network, or LNN.
This change is being made based upon the request of the major sponsor,
the Georgia Department of Technical and Adult Education, Office of
Adult Literacy. The LNN will develop and produce video-based
instructional supplements, technology-based curriculum and training for
adult literacy practitioners, and multi-media projects for literacy
students.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. The agency receives annual reports on the project that are
used, together with agency merit review, to assess its progress. Based
on these reports, the agency has found that the project has made steady
progress in demonstrating the feasibility of utilizing distance
learning technology and teaching methods to provide adult literacy
education programs to handicapped adults throughout the State of
Georgia. The project has been successful in applying the latest
distance education technology to both control the program cost per
participant and, most recently, to expand the availability of the
program.
technology transfer projects, oklahoma and mississippi
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded under the Oklahoma and Mississippi Technology Transfer Projects.
Answer. The original work involved the transfer of uncommercialized
technologies from Federal laboratories and universities to rural
businesses and communities. The objectives have evolved to providing
more one-on-one assistance to small manufacturers. This type of
assistance responds to the stated needs of the small manufacturing
community and fills a recognized gap in the existing service provider
community. This project has undergone a merit review.
Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
program?
Answer. Manufacturing extension programs throughout the country
have identified one-on-one engineering technology assistance as a need
for small manufacturers as they attempt to become more competitive and
profitable.
Question. What is the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The primary goal of these programs is to contribute to an
increase in business productivity, employment opportunities, and per
capita income by utilizing technology and information from Federal
laboratories; Rural Enterprises Development Corporation and Industrial
Technology Research and Development Center in Durant, Oklahoma;
Mississippi State Food and Fiber Center; Vocational-Technical Education
System; Center for Local Government Technology; Cooperative Extension
Service; and other university departments and non-campus agencies.
Specific program objectives are to:
--Develop greater profitability of existing enterprises.
--Aid in the acquisition, creation, or expansion of business and
industry in the area.
--Establish an effective response process for technological and
industrial-related inquires.
--Devise effective communication procedures regarding the program for
the relevant audiences.
Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. Funding appropriated to date is as follows: $350,000 per
year in fiscal years 1984 and 1985; $335,000 in fiscal year 1986;
$333,000 per year in fiscal years 1987 through 1990; $331,000 per year
in fiscal years 1991 through 1995; and $326,000 per year in fiscal
years 1996 through 1999. Appropriations to date total $5,326,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Oklahoma State University and Mississippi State University
have provided considerable amounts of matching support from state funds
over the life of the project. Over the past four years, support has
included a significant portion of engineering faculty salaries as well
as the administrative support of county and district extension staff.
Question. Where is this work being carried out?
Answer. The work is being carried out at Mississippi State
University and Oklahoma Sate University.
Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The original proposal in 1984 was for 12 months. The
original objectives have been, and continue to be met. Although
individual client projects have a beginning and end, the technology
transfer process is continuous. Over the past years, specific and
measurable annual objectives and the achievement of objectives have
been documented in annual reports. The objectives of both programs have
been to: continue the delivery of high-quality engineering assistance
and technology transfer services to small manufactures: conduct joint
workshops, client referral, and joint research and application
projects; and demonstrate a value of service to clients many times
project operating costs. The current phase of the program will be
completed in 1999.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. Site visits and merit reviews have been conducted annually
on these projects as well as client surveys by project staff
themselves. Survey results have documented job creation, productivity
enhancement, and local community economic activity. The Technology
Transfer program has impacted the integration of emerging technologies
that are benefitting the citizens, ranging from assisting small
businesses and industries in integrating new computer hardware and
software for conducting electronic commerce, to providing extensive
online information resources. The Technology Transfer Funds have served
as a catalyst for the development of a long range telecommunications
network plan for the total extension service to link all county
extension offices and research centers directly to the Mississippi
data/video backbone and provide access to the Internet.
wood biomass, new york
Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
funded under the Wood Biomass Grant?
Answer. The objective of this project is to expand, implement, and
gain acceptance of wood biomass as a sustainable, renewable and
environmentally-affable fuel source. In addition, the project is deemed
to support the promotion of alternative forest products for the
Nation's Central and Northern Hardwood forests regions.
Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
program?
Answer. The principal researchers hypothesize that the project is
of national interest. Biomass research studies through the U.S.
Departments of Agriculture and Energy span 20 or more years. This work
clearly demonstrates that the nation is in a position to scientifically
produce environmentally-affable fuels for power generation systems.
Except for co-generation plants the current cost of conventional power
supply fuels currently precludes the wholesale adoption of this
technology. Complementing the planned fuel supply are many sidebar
benefits including carbon sequestration, rural economic development,
wildlife habitat, and soil erosion and sedimentation associated with
conventional agriculture.
Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
been accomplished to date?
Answer. The goal of this project is to promote, through applied
research and technology transfer, wood biomass as a sustainable wood
supply for (1) power generation, (2) alternative farm products, (3)
wise stewardship of land resources, and (4) enhanced farm
profitability.
To accommodate these goals, scientists at the State University of
New York are planting willow trials on several sites and under several
conditions. Site preparation and planting has occurred on several
locations, and more are planned. Cornell University, a partner
institution in the project, has hired a technology transfer specialist
to coordinate educational activities resulting from this work. Common
events include field days, news articles, videos, and exhibits.
Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 1999?
Answer. This aspect of the program began with an appropriation of
$200,000 in fiscal year 1995. An additional $197,000 was appropriated
by the Congress for fiscal years 1996 through 1999. This sums $988,000.
Question. What is the source and amount of non-federal funds
provided by fiscal year?
Answer. Four state partners and approximately 18 private partners
contribute resources at a ratio of nearly 1.5 to 1 for this project.
Question. Where is the work being carried out?
Answer. The field work is being conducted on private and state land
near Syracuse, New York. Electronic and print media allows Cornell's
technology transfer activities to extend far beyond that point.
Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
objectives of the project. Have those objectives been met? What is the
completion date of additional or related objectives?
Answer. The completion date for the original objectives of the
project, willow cultivar planting, was September 30, 1996. With the
addition of some new dimensions to the project, the completion date is
now 2003. Because of the timing of one of the fiscal awards, some
weather related problems and some land contract problems all of the
original objectives have not been met. Most of the unmet objectives
should be completed in 2000.
Question. When was the last agency evaluation of the project?
Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
Answer. A field review of the project was conducted on August 20-
21, 1997. Excerpts from the review report include (1) positive
accolades for their quarterly progress reports, (2) positive accolades
for the outreach program being conducted by Cornell University, (3)
praise for the scientific outreach by the principal investigators, (4)
praise for connecting the willow biomass program to the poultry waste
and riparian issues in New York state, and (5) praise for gaining the
acceptance of willow biomass as an agricultural crop for state property
tax purposes. On the concern side, CSREES' project administrator
flagged the delay in establishing the demonstration farm and requested
diligence in bringing this aspect of the project to fruition.
Subsequent reports from the project reveal that this aspect has been
satisfactorily addressed.
______
SUBMITTED QUESTIONS ON GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT
Questions Submitted by Senator Cochran
Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization Corporation
Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within your agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. In accordance with the Act, AARCC has developed a strategic
plan and annual performance plans for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year
2000.
Question. How are your agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. The performance goals and objectives contained in AARCC's
strategic and annual performance plans were taken from AARCC's business
plan, which, together with the by-laws, is the operational framework
for the corporation. The business plan was approved by the AARCC board
of directors and is the basis by which the board measures the
performance of the corporation. As the Executive Director, I am
evaluated, in part, on my ability to have the corporation meet its
annual and strategic goals.
Question. How is performance information being used to manage the
agency?
Answer. Performance against AARCC's business plan targets is a
major consideration in establishing a value for AARCC's portfolio and
preparing the corporation for privatization. Since the business plan
also anticipates a certain level of repayments to the revolving fund
each year, performance information is also used to anticipate the
necessary level of future appropriations. AARCC's budget requests are
developed accordingly.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding requests for fiscal year 2000? Please provide examples.
Answer. AARCC developed its fiscal year 2000 budget request with
the expectation that two to three of its portfolio companies would
complete initial public offerings (IPOs) during the fiscal year. If
these companies complete successful IPOs and become publicly traded,
then their capacity for job creation and growth increases. Returns to
the AARCC revolving fund are also realized through the sale of AARCC's
stock in the company. This contributes to the attainment of all four
objectives in AARCC's annual performance plan: increased economic
development and job creation in rural areas, profitable and efficient
uses of limited natural resources, development of profitable U.S.
companies that manufacture products from renewable agricultural,
forestry, and or animal-based raw materials, and a reduced need for
appropriated funding for AARCC.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the strategic
and annual plans?
Answer. AARCC has not found it necessary to significantly alter its
program in order to accomplish its GPRA goals and objectives. The GPRA
goals and objectives are already expressed as short- and long-term
milestones in the AARCC business plan. In some instances, timetables
for accomplishing these milestones have been extended due to unusual
budget constraints during fiscal year 1999. Nevertheless, AARCC has
still been able to pursue a number of initiatives to support the
accomplishment of its performance targets.
With respect to its performance goal to increase public awareness
of AARCC and its mission, AARCC has recently introduced of the
Industrial Agriculture Clearinghouse, an internet-based service
designed to assist in commercializing new uses for agricultural
products. To date, the Clearinghouse has been visited 3,864 times;
AARCC's fiscal year 1999 performance indicator was 2,800 hits.
Additionally, AARCC has been instrumental in organizing USDA's Bio-
based Products Coordination Council. A primary responsibility of the
Council is the semi-annual publication in the Federal Register of a
bio-based products list. This list provides Federal agencies with a
variety of product alternatives that comply with the environmentally
preferable purchasing requirements of Executive Order 13101, Greening
the Government Through Recycling, Waste Prevention, and Federal
Acquisition. This Executive Order, signed on September 14, 1998,
strengthens and expands the Federal government's commitment to
recycling and buying recycled-content and environmentally preferable
products.
Finally, in an effort to increase awareness of AARCC and bio-based
products within the investment community, AARCC co-sponsored an
investment forum last October and is co-sponsoring another one in June.
These events are targeted to investors with an interest in
environmental technologies. They have been organized to showcase
products and technologies from the bio-based products industry
generally, and AARCC-funded companies specifically.
Another performance goal is to obtain a clean and timely audit
opinion on AARCC's audited financial statements. To this end, AARCC is
working with an outside contractor and USDA's Office of Inspector
General (OIG) to develop a new system of internal controls. These
controls are still being developed and will be implemented later this
fiscal year. Consequently, AARCC's performance goal of obtaining a
clean audit opinion in fiscal year 1999 has been delayed until fiscal
year 2000.
Question. How does the agency budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. AARCC's budget structure is dictated by statute--16 percent
of amounts in the revolving fund (appropriated funds plus return on
investment) are reserved for administrative expenses; 84 percent must
be used to fund new projects. The administrative portion of the budget
supports the salaries, benefits, travel and related expenses of the
AARCC staff and board of directors. This part of the budget also funds
the public education, information technology, and financial management
activities included as management initiatives in AARCC's annual
performance plan. It is by financing new investments, the activity
funded by 84 percent of AARCC's overall budget, that AARCC attempts to
accomplish the performance goals identified in its annual performance
plan.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. Currently, the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
(FAIR) Act requires that a full one percent of AARCC's annual
appropriation be spent to conduct due diligence reviews of prospective
investment projects. Because the size of AARCC's portfolio has grown
considerably since this legislation was enacted, the funds sequestered
by this provision would be better spent to enhance the performance of
the existing portfolio investments. This could be accomplished by
redirecting the one percent to be used for follow-on investments in
existing portfolio companies, or for expenses associated with project
monitoring activity, or both. Making this change, however, would
require an amendment to the FAIR Act.
Question. Does the agency fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance
plan include performance measures for which reliable data are not
likely to be available in time for the first performance report in
March 2000? If so, what steps are planned to improve the reliability of
these measures?
Answer. We anticipate that a reporting of reliable data regarding
AARCC's net present value and the annual rate of return on its
portfolio investments will be delayed by a year. AARCC's performance
plan submitted as part of its fiscal year 2000 budget request showed
hard data as being available at the end of fiscal year 1999. Due to an
unexpected reduction of 50 percent in AARCC's fiscal year 1999
appropriation, funds were not available during fiscal year 1999 to let
the RFP required to secure an outside valuation of the AARCC portfolio.
This activity has been postponed until fiscal year 2000 and will not be
complete in time to meet the March 2000 deadline for issuing AARCC's
first annual performance report.
Question. How will future funding requests take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance?
Answer. AARCC's funding requests are specified in its business
plan, which ties future requests to anticipated returns on the
investment portfolio. AARCC has identified a 20 percent annual rate of
return as a performance goal for fiscal year 2000. This translates into
anticipated cumulative repayments of $1.7 million and a subsequent
appropriation request of $15 million.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
agency performance goals reflect the full costs of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. AARCC has only one performance goal, to accelerate
commercialization of industrial and consumer products made from
renewable agricultural, forestry, and animal by-product raw materials.
Consequently, all resources available to AARCC in a given fiscal year
are dedicated to accomplishing that goal.
Agricultural Marketing Service
Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within your agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. We have developed a strategic plan that includes goals and
objectives that are linked to each budget activity within AMS. Internal
semi-annual and external annual performance reporting ensure the
agency's compliance.
Question. How are your agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. Every AMS senior executive's performance standards include
an element requiring effective leadership and timely action in
implementing established program goals and objectives.
Question. How is performance information being used to manage the
agency?
Answer. Through effective leadership, adapting to changing
priorities, and the ability to develop and carry out goals and
objectives, the agency's senior executive staff manage their respective
programs by utilizing performance data information.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding requests for fiscal year 2000? Please provide examples.
Answer. AMS funding requests for fiscal year 2000 reflect both
program performance and the changing agricultural market structure. For
example, the marketing of U.S. products is increasingly influenced by
changes in the international marketplace. The fiscal year 2000 budget
request includes funding to expand reporting in foreign markets and
development of organic certification to enhance the international
trading of U.S. agricultural products.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the strategic
and annual plans?
Answer. AMS' Strategic Plan and fiscal year 2000 Annual Performance
Plan include specific objectives to improve performance. Two examples
are the implementation of the organic standards program and the
restructuring of the dairy marketing agreements and orders program. AMS
plans to implement national organic production and labeling standards,
and implement an accreditation and certification program using those
standards to achieve its goal of facilitating the strategic marketing
of U.S. agricultural products in domestic and international markets.
Through reorganization and streamlining, AMS continues to reform the
Milk Marketing Order Program to achieve its goal of ensuring fair and
competitive agricultural marketing through marketing tools and
regulations.
Question. How does the agency budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. The performance plan includes a performance goal for each
AMS budget activity.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. Since the linkage is direct, no changes are necessary to
the account and activity structure in the budget justification.
Question. Does the agency fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance
plan include performance measures for which reliable data are not
likely to be available in time for the first performance report in
March 2000? If so, what steps are planned to improve the reliability of
these measures?
Answer. AMS expects to have reliable data for the first performance
report.
Question. How will future funding requests take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance?
Answer. As in the past, future funding decisions will be based on
both program performance and changing marketing structure.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
agency performance goals reflect the full costs of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. Each of AMS' budget requests are associated with goals in
the performance plan and reflect the full agency costs in carrying out
that goal, including overhead.
Agricultural Research Service
Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within your agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act? Answer. As
Administrator, I have supported the development of the Agency's outcome
oriented strategic plan and streamlined the National Program Staff in
order to more effectively manage the research program. Also, I have
strongly supported the GPRA workgroup recommendation to aggregate the
Agency's more than 1,100 research projects into a National Program
structure. These changes have helped to reinforce the attention of ARS
scientists and managers on producing research outcomes that directly
address issues and problems confronting American agriculture. In
addition, the creation of National Programs has greatly strengthened
the interactions between ARS and its customers, partners, and
stakeholders. While many aspects of research do not lend themselves to
a strict performance-based management regime, the changes that have
been made in the management of ARS' research program will move the
Agency in that general direction.
Question. How are your agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. The principal tool for moving the agency towards a greater
focus on performance management is the development and full
implementation of the National Programs. The National Program Staff is
the component primarily responsible for managing the ARS research
program. Each National Program Leader has an element in his/her
performance standards that require him/her to plan, organize, and hold
customer workshops that are essential to shaping each National Program.
The Annual Performance Plan and the Annual CRIS Project Report, were
just completely revised to make them more responsive to performance-
based management.
Question. How is performance information being used to manage the
agency?
Answer. The 23 new National Programs are the principal components
of the Agency's approach to programmatic accountability. The National
Programs support the ARS Strategic Plan 1997-2002 and each is focused
on specific short- and long-term outcomes. Performance information
(both current and projected up to two years) is the basis of the Annual
Performance Plan and the Annual Performance Report. The National
Program Staff is currently developing a brief annual report for each of
the 23 National Programs which will be available on the ARS home page
this summer. NPS also plans to comprehensively review its performance
information data gathering efforts (both substance and process) before
it begins to collect information on fiscal year 1999 performance.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding requests for fiscal year 2000? Please provide examples.
Answer. In the ARS Annual Performance Plan covering fiscal years
1999 and 2000, the Agency specifically identified performance measures
that will be achieved if Congress concurs with the budget request.
While research does not lend itself easily to the use of numerical
metrics, the enactment of GPRA has begun to change the culture of ARS
by strengthening the Agency's focus on the ultimate outcome of its
work.
As an example of how ARS displays fiscal year 2000 requests for new
or additional funding in its Annual Performance Plan, under Performance
Goal 2.1.2.1, ``Demonstrate new integrated technologies to protect
plants, animals, and ecosystems,'' ARS is requesting increases of:
--$1,667,000 for areawide integrated pest management programs, and
IPM component technology for fruits and vegetables treated with
organophosphates and carbamates and pests under large-scale
action agency eradication.
--$1,500,000 for the Office of Pest Management Policy.
--$900,000 for wheat and barley scab research.
--$1,000,000 for research on brucellosis vaccines for wildlife.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the strategic
and annual plans?
Answer. In response to the enactment of GPRA, ARS completely
changed the way it manages its research program. Traditionally, the
Agency managed its research through 1100 plus individual CRIS projects.
A workgroup was established in 1994 to develop recommendations on how
best to implement GPRA in a research agency. Based on its
recommendations the various research projects were organized into
National Programs. The National Program Staff with considerable input
from ARS scientists, customers, stakeholders, and partners, developed
23 National Programs which are now being refined and implemented
through a series of workshops. The National Program structure will far
more effectively focus the work of the Agency on achieving the goals
and objectives identified in the 5-year Strategic Plan and the
AnnualPerformance Plans than would the previous approach.
Question. How does the agency budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. The performance goals are directly linked between the
Strategic Plan and the Annual Performance Plans. The Performance Plan
is linked, at the level of the five General Goals, to the traditional
budget accounts by a crosswalk.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. No specific changes in the appropriation account and
activity structure are anticipated at this time. However, if the new
National program structure proves to be a useful framework for setting
forth annual program goals for research activities in ways that improve
results and accountability, then the appropriations committees and the
Department may consider changes in the budget activity structure. The
Department would consult with the committees to ensure any changes
would improve the budget appropriation process from both the executive
branch and Congressional perspectives.
Question. Does the agency fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance
plan include performance measures for which reliable data are not
likely to be available in time for the first performance report in
March 2000? If so, what steps are planned to improve the reliability of
these measures?
Answer. After considerable internal study and wide-ranging informal
discussions with other Federal research agencies, ARS concluded that it
could not meaningfully display its accomplishments of its research
program using numerical metrics as envisioned in GPRA. In the
Explanatory Notes that accompanied the Agency's fiscal year 1997 budget
request, ARS provided a preliminary performance plan that counted
scientific publications, new CRADAs, patent applications, and so forth.
The information generated by that approach did not even remotely
address the intent of GPRA. As a result, ARS requested a waiver under
GPRA to use a narrative approach. OMB concurred. Following the
structure of the ARS Strategic Plan 1997-2002, the Annual Performance
Plan for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 identifies approximately 150
specific anticipated accomplishments for each year that, if achieved,
will enable the Agency to meet its performance goals. Even though GPRA
does not require a performance report until March of 2000, ARS decided
to complete its first report covering over 150 milestones that had been
identified in last year's Annual Performance Plan. Each fiscal year
1998 indicator of progress (anticipated accomplishment that
demonstrates progress towards a longer term goal) has a narrative
description of what was actually accomplished and a description of the
outcome or impact of that work. ARS demonstrated its commitment to
programmatic accountability by developing a combined document
containing the Annual Performance Report for fiscal year 1998 and the
Annual Performance Plan for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 a year ahead of
the statutory requirement.
Question. How will future funding requests take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance?
Answer. As mentioned earlier, since it was not possible to
meaningfully track research with numerical measures, ARS requested a
waiver under GPRA to use a narrative approach concurred to by OMB.
Following the structure of the ARS Strategic Plan 1997-2002, the Annual
Performance Plan for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 identifies
approximately 150 specific accomplishments or milestones that the
Agency anticipates achieving in each fiscal year. Successful
achievement of these milestones will indicate progress towards the
broader goals and objectives contained in the strategic plan. If the
agency successfully meets most of these milestones, the Congress can
have confidence that steady progress is being made towards the General
Goals.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
agency performance goals reflect the full costs of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. Because of the ongoing nature of research, the Annual
Performance Plan anticipates milestones and outcomes which the Agency
anticipates accomplishing in fiscal years 1999 and 2000. The Plan does
not associate specific funding to these anticipated accomplishments.
Where the Plan does directly link specific levels of resources with
research activities is in areas where the fiscal year 2000 budget
requests ``new'' money. In the most recent Plan, ARS has identified
over 45 anticipated accomplishments that would occur if Congress
approves the budget request.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within your agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. The APHIS Administrator will incorporate elements into all
senior managers performance standards which help focus management on
desired program results, consistent with Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA) requirements. He has also involved managers
throughout APHIS programs in revisiting their Annual Performance Plan
goals, indicators, and targets; by doing so, they have clarified and
refined the Agency's fiscal year 2000 plans.
Question. How are your agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. The performance of senior managers will be reviewed and
judged based on their attainment of GPRA goals.
Question. How is performance information being used to manage the
agency?
Answer. One of the major benefits of focusing on GPRA requirements
has been the establishment of baseline data to determine where our
programs currently stand in terms of results. This information will
enable us to track progress and trends, set more accurate targets,
communicate results to our stakeholders and customers, and make
management decisions based on actual performance information.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding requests for fiscal year 2000? Please provide examples.
Answer. Program performance was a key factor in the resource
allocation decision process in APHIS. For instance, the success of the
Brucellosis Program as measured by the reduction in the number of
infected herds resulted in the decision to request a reduction in
funding for that line item in fiscal year 2000. APHIS requested
additional funding in the Horse Protection line item to improve program
performance by allocating the additional resources to increase the
number of audits and monitored horse shows, and to expand training for
inspectors.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the strategic
and annual plans?
Answer. Programs in APHIS have established strategic and
operational plans at lower levels in the organization, including field
levels, to ensure that program managers throughout the agency are able
to prioritize their work so that GPRA goals are met and so that Agency
activities are aligned in such a way as to enable successful
accomplishment of targets.
Question. How does the agency budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. They are directly linked. The five functional components of
the agency's budget structure (Pest and Disease Exclusion, Plant and
Animal Health Monitoring, Pest and Disease Management, Animal Care, and
Scientific and Technical Services) correspond to the five general goals
of the APHIS strategic plan. In the annual performance plan, APHIS has
developed a set of annual performance targets for each goal of its
strategic plan. The objectives listed under each goal in the annual
performance plan correspond directly to funded pest and disease
programs under each functional component.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. We do not believe that changes to the budget account and
activity structure would significantly improve the linkage between
resource amounts and performance goals.
Question. Does the agency fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance
plan include performance measures for which reliable data are not
likely to be available in time for the first performance report in
March 2000? If so, what steps are planned to improve the reliability of
these measures?
Answer. There may be measures for which the reliability of the data
used to assess performance could be improved. In other cases, other
measures may be better served by alternative data sources other than
the original data sources identified.
APHIS benefits from focusing Agency attention on performance data
because we can help ensure that as information systems are designed and
implemented, they take into consideration the need for reliable program
performance data. Similarly, as APHIS interacts with other agencies,
with other levels of government (e.g., States), with academia and
private industry, we can focus on identifying other sources of data
outside of APHIS which can help improve our data. We believe that the
reliability of our data sources can be tested and enhanced through the
use of related and supplemental data sources housed elsewhere.
Question. How will future funding requests take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance?
Answer. APHIS will compare projected versus actual accomplishments
and determine the causal factors for differences between the two. This
analysis will be driven by the questions, Are we measuring the right
things? Are we using the right targets/indicators to show the true
results of the program? Are we operating efficiently and effectively?
Have the benefits truly outweighed the costs? There may be times when
unpredicted or external factors may cause us to have to revise or
redefine targets and indicators. These factors, which are difficult to
anticipate, may ultimately have a direct and significant impact on
future funding requests. We intend to constantly monitor and compare
actual performance to target performance, analyze the gaps, and use
this information when considering future funding. There is no doubt
that some changes will occur along the way, to both targets and
indicators, but APHIS challenge will be to keep enough of our measures
constant to be able to truly gauge progress.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
agency performance goals reflect the full costs of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. The dollars associated with specific agency performance
goals are limited by total available funding which consists of
appropriated funds and projected funding from other sources. In the
current budget era, APHIS has had to turn more frequently to its
partners either at other levels of government, in other agencies, or in
private industry to help support its goals. Increases in cooperative
agreements, user fees, and other fee for service opportunities have
helped narrow the gap between diminishing federal funds and true costs
to run agency programs, but there are times when the gap still exists.
Opportunity costs are often incurred by the agricultural community
as well, and they are not necessarily captured in the dollar amounts
reported by APHIS for each performance goal. APHIS may have goals
geared toward eliminating diseases of farm animals, for instance, and
may track APHIS activities focused on assisting farmers in preventing/
managing diseases. However, it is difficult to determine what it really
costs a farmer to have to destroy part of a herd because it was
diseased, even though it helped APHIS to prevent further spread of the
disease. On the other side, it is difficult to gauge the economic
effects of farmers no longer requiring loans from USDA if APHIS has
helped them to enhance their financial solvency through pest and
disease management.
Still other opportunity costs exist. For instance, because most
Americans are disconnected with agriculture, they lose sight of the
difficulties inherent in a system with few producers to provide food
and fiber to a great many consumers. Each time a farmer or rancher goes
out of business because of bad weather conditions or lack of methods
(such as chemicals for crop protection or tools for livestock
depradation control) to protect their agricultural inventories the
agricultural community suffers. Greater responsibility falls upon fewer
producers to supply an increasing population with greater varieties and
quantities of food.
APHIS does not have a separate line item for overhead costs. The
dollars associated with specific performance goals include overhead
costs.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within your agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. Programs managed by the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) are based on five GPRA goals
that were developed over a period of 18 months in consultation with the
land-grant university partners. The allocation of program funds by
CSREES are based on an appropriate response to the goal(s). It becomes
the responsibility of each Director/Administrator receiving funds from
CSREES to develop a performance plan that covers at least 5 years. The
performance plan describes objectives, performance goals, performance
indicators along with outcome and outcome indicators. To assess the
appropriateness and relevance of the performance plan submitted by each
State, a review is conducted of each plan by CSREES National Program
Leaders and Deputy Administrators. This merit review forms the basis
for the allocation of formula funds. Each year, the same institutions
submit an annual performance report to the agency to describe
accomplishments made against the performance plan. Reviews of these
submissions provide the basis for the agency performance plan and
report. Using this procedure, the agency is in a strong position to
eliminate program duplication and recommend the use of funds to address
issues of national importance where Federal research and education can
generate the greatest impact.
Question. How are your agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. The agency strategic and performance plans form the basis
for evaluating agency and executive accomplishments. Each agency
executive is held accountable for his/her influence in setting goals
for the agency and leadership in influencing the development of agency
program priorities. Progress is assessed during regular meetings and in
CSREES executives' mid-year and annual performance reviews.
Question. How is performance information being used to manage the
agency?
Answer. Performance information is being used to frame the agency
performance plan and provide guidance in the USDA budget priority
setting process. The success of this effort is best demonstrated in
joint development and publication of annual impact statements that
highlight significant system achievements in research and education.
The impact statements have focused on issues that are important to the
Nation, and have had a positive impact in helping stakeholders
understand the value added by the investment made in Federal funding
and the need to redirect resources to address relevant issues,
particularly when gaps in information are identified.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding requests for fiscal year 2000? Please provide examples.
Answers. Agency performance is assessed based on how well it
allocates resources and support project needs that are relevant to the
U.S. Department of Agriculture. This was reflected in decisions made in
the President's Budget for fiscal year 2000. The following are examples
of issues that can be addressed by CSREES: Development of new
surveillance methods for foodborne diseases; deliver information to at-
risk populations to improve nutrient intake; focus on animal waste
management to prevent the pollution of air, soil and water resources;
enhance child care programs in targeted communities; develop program
delivery strategies for Native American communities to improve health,
enterprise management and community development and nutrition; improve
entrepreneurial business skills for small farmers to establish viable
farm operations and enterprises; integrate production, processing and
distribution systems for generation of high value products; study how
pathogens are introduced into the production environment, how they
survive to contaminate foods, including fresh fruits and vegetables;
develop alternatives needed for safe substitutes for commonly used
pesticides; etc.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the strategic
and annual plans?
Answer. Developing a comprehensive strategic plan with annual
performance plans has encouraged the agency to focus on things that are
important to the accomplishment of specific goals. It has changed from
a previous organizational culture that tried to ``be all things to all
people''. The agency strategy has created an environment that
recognizes the value of focusing on a few issues that are relevant and
can be accomplished within the resources provided.
Question. How does the agency budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. The agency budget structure links all mechanisms of support
(or budget line items) to the five goals outlined in the strategic plan
through use of a crosswalk budget table. This allows performance goals
and measures to be developed that support the budget and respond to the
Congressional accountability mandate of GPRA. This will result in
output and outcome measures that will be documented in future annual
performance reports prepared by CSREES.
Question. What, if any changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. No specific changes in the appropriation account and
activity structure are anticipated at this time. However, if a
different program structure proves to be a useful framework for setting
forth annual program goals for research activities in ways that improve
results and accountability, then the appropriations committees and the
Department may consider changes in the budget activity structure to
reduce the complexity of crosswalks that we use at the present time.
The Department would consult with the committees to ensure any changes
would improve the budget appropriation process from both the executive
branch and Congressional perspectives.
Question. Does the agency fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance
plan include performance measures for which reliable data are not
likely to be available in time for the first performance report in
March 2000? If so, what steps are planned to improved the reliability
of these measures?
Answer. The agency believes that it will have reliable data in time
for the first performance report in March 2000. We have used the annual
performance report experiences over the past two years to refine
performance measures based on the agency strategic and performance
plans.
Question. How will future funding requests take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance?
Answer. We believe that the Government Performance and Results Act
will require us to document actual performance compared to expected
targeted performance. This lets us learn from past experiences and
become better at projecting targeted performance as an estimate of
resources needed to conduct programs.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
agency performance goals reflect the full costs of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. The dollars associated with the performance goals represent
the total amount appropriated for CSREES programs including federal
administration funds retained by the agency to administer the programs.
In addition, estimated reimbursable funds and mandatory funds for
programs administered by CSREES are included.
Departmental Administration
Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within your agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. In 1998, the Acting Assistant Secretary, began a re-
examination of how the performance goals and objectives were affecting
operations and customer service within Departmental Administration
(DA). New streamlined goals were identified which could better guide
performance to the essential business roles of the DA Staff Offices.
These new goals and objectives stress the two essential elements of DA
business responsibility: Leadership, oversight and coordination to
improve management of program and administrative systems throughout the
Department; and the delivery of timely, reliable and efficient services
to Department agencies.
Last Fall, DA managers met in consultation with the staff of the
House Committee on Government Operations and other staff from the
Congress to explain this change and seek their guidance. A Strategic
Plan was initially drafted and Performance Plans were developed for the
fiscal year 2000 Budget. We are now operating under this Performance
Plan, which was developed by DA senior leadership.
Question. How are your agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 Budget contains a Performance Plan for
fiscal year 1999 and 2000 which relates the DA goals and objectives
directly to accomplishments in each Staff Office area. The new Plan
identifies key elements of accomplishment in areas that can be directly
related to performance in each Staff Office and progress is reviewed on
a regular basis.
Question. How is performance information being used to manage the
agency?
Answer. Under the restricted budget situation in which all DA
operations find themselves today, there are constant questions on how
to best use scarce resources. The Performance Plan provides an index of
progress/accomplishment across the spectrum of DA program activity.
Although the performance factors are relatively new, there is a
potential to manage the allocation of resources by prioritizing program
accomplishments and shifting resources to meet critical program needs.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding requests for fiscal year 2000? Please provide examples.
Answer. In the budget years immediately preceding the fiscal year
2000 Budget, DA operated under strong program priorities aimed at
reversing the negative trends which had been identified in the
Department's civil rights record. Budget decisions followed these
priorities. In the development of the current budget, DA re-examined
other policy support and service responsibilities as well. A new
Strategic Plan and performance goals and objectives were identified in
internal workshops and in consultation with the Congress. The heart of
the current budget proposal is the focus on these performance elements
which reflect the new Strategic Plan focus on customer service.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the strategic
and annual plans?
Answer. As a continuation of the development of the focus on
service to customers, DA is currently engaged in an examination of its
service responsibilities and whether its functions are supported by the
current organizational structure. Some realignment of functions and
organizations may be needed. The objective is to have the program
assignments and organization in place by September 30, 1999.
Question. How does the agency budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. The current Performance Plan and the performance measures
reflect the budget structure. Key performance measures have been
identified in each major area so that the accomplishments can be
measured against the resources used.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. As previously stated, DA is currently undergoing an
examination of its functions and organization. Changes will be
implemented by the end of this fiscal year and will be reflected in the
next budget cycle (fiscal year 2001). As part of the organizational
planning, the budget structure will be adjusted to closely reflect the
key operations and responsibilities of DA.
Question. Does the agency fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance
plan include performance measures for which reliable data are not
likely to be available in time for the first performance report in
March 2000? If so, what steps are planned to improve the reliability of
these measures?
Answer. The current Performance Plan contains measures which can be
tracked and should not present any problems in developing the first
performance report next year. As adjustments are made, the availability
of data to support key measures will continue to be an important
criterium.
Question. How will future funding requests take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance?
Answer. The development of future budgets will assess the
priorities and cost of achieving the performance elements identified in
the Performance Plan. Unproductive or extremely inefficient program
objectives will be de-emphasized in favor of more critical and more
productive program elements. Experience with the performance measures
will be used in assessing the critical budget criteria of: whether the
program/activity should be continued, identifying the appropriate roll
for DA, and determining whether the DA operating plan for the program/
activity is efficient and productive.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
agency performance goals reflect the full costs of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. The current resource costs identified in the Performance
Plan by goal reflect the total amount of full time equivalent (FTE)
employment and dollars used by DA in each area. This includes directly
appropriated funds, reimbursements from customers and working capital
funds. Overhead, such as management, training and facilities costs are
allocated to the goals on a pro rata basis.
Economic Research Service
Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within your agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. The ERS Administrator has taken a number of significant
steps toward achieving performance-based management. The most ambitious
activities relate to evaluating the effectiveness of ERS research and
analysis in achieving the agency mission and goals. They are providing
useful insights into program strengths and weaknesses. Stakeholders and
customers have played a central role in these evaluation efforts, which
include:
--A major 2-year review of the ERS program by the National Academy of
Sciences National Research Council, which is now complete and
will be released in final form very shortly. The report
addresses key aspects of ERS operations, including the need for
formal instruments that allow clients to assess the suitability
of ERS to perform any given analytical task and the need for
peer review of individual scientists. A new process for
accomplishing the latter is already underway. The report also
provides recommendations on means of assessing the balance
between intramural and extramural research, particularly
focusing on ways to expand the extramural program. ERS has
already taken some steps in this direction in its extramural
program in support of the Food and Nutrition Research Program.
--A review of the market for economic information on commodity
markets. The need for, availability of, and access to economic
information on agricultural markets has changed significantly
during the last decade. In response, ERS has undertaken a study
to determine the value placed on different types of
agricultural market information by decisionmakers in the public
and private sectors. The first phase, now nearly complete,
focused on public sector information users, soliciting
information from USDA agencies, the Congress, and other
Government agencies. The second phase will focus on private
sector information users.
The ERS Administrator played a valuable role as a member of the
management advisory team overseeing an assessment of USDA's Interagency
Commodity Estimates Committee process. This cross-cutting review is
aimed at improving the efficiency and efficacy of the Department's
process for developing commodity estimates. ERS not only provided
funding, but is also providing major staff support for implementation.
In addition, in the last year, ERS has begun development of a single
comprehensive tracking system for its products to replace the multiple
tracking systems currently in place, and a system to more
systematically ensure that customers are getting the products and
services they need. Finally, the Administrator has assigned a senior
staff member the responsibility of investigating and developing
evaluation methods and approaches to assure the relevance and quality
of ERS research. Question. How are your agency's senior executives and
other key managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. Responsibility for achieving program goals is written into
the performance elements and standards of all senior executives and
branch chiefs. To make those standards concrete, ERS senior executives
and branch chiefs prepare an integrated set of division plans of work,
articulating expected results that will contribute to achievement of
agency goals. They provide an effective means of linking day-to-day
activities to strategic and performance goals. In addition, the
assessment by the National Research Council, the market information
study, and the systems being developed to track products and customers
all are providing means of evaluating success in achieving results.
Question. How is performance information being used to manage the
agency?
Answer. The recommendations from the National Research Council
report and information from the other assessments currently underway
will provide significant guidance for ERS managers. For example, the
market information study, by examining how the need for and the
availability of economic information on agricultural markets has
changed over the last decade, is assisting ERS in designing a market
outlook program to meet the needs of a dramatically changed U.S.
agriculture. As another example, in 1998, ERS created its first-ever
``inventory'' of all the work underway for each USDA mission area and
then used it to initiate discussions within USDA on how to achieve more
effective collaboration.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding requests for fiscal year 2000? Please provide examples.
Answer. In considering potential budget requests, ERS has always
analyzed its program for gaps that could be filled by additional or
different research and analysis. In deciding on fiscal year 2000
funding requests, that analysis was aided by the framework provided by
ERS strategic and performance plans. Also helpful were increased
efforts to incorporate customer feedback into discussion and decisions
on programs.
For example, ERS has an ongoing program of work in commodity market
analysis. This program provides the analytical underpinning for the
Department and Agency situation and outlook programs. ERS requested
additional funds for this program for fiscal year 2000 after ongoing
and intensive program reviews, along with consultation with other USDA
agencies, and feedback from outside users. It was clear that changes in
the policy and trade environment made it vital for ERS to ensure
sufficient capacity to analyze the structure and performance of
commodity markets and to augment the analytical expertise on which
Department forecasting is based. User feedback also made it clear that
better and quicker access to ERS information was essential. All of
these needs were encompassed in the ERS funding request.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the strategic
and annual plans?
Answer. Within the context provided by the agency's strategic and
annual plans, the need for planning and organizing some types of
research across organizational units of ERS was clarified. As a result,
the agency moved to initiate cross-unit activities where appropriate.
The best example is creation of the Structural Change in Agriculture
Organizing Team. The team, which is composed of researchers from all
three ERS program divisions, is developing a major new agency program
of work. Their efforts promise to provide critical insights that will
significantly contribute to meeting ERS's goal of providing
policymakers and others with quality analyses on issues related to
structural change in agricultural industries. Other groups reflecting
the priorities set in the ERS plans and utilizing cross-agency
expertise are working on revenue insurance, trade and the environment,
biotechnology, and rural amenities.
Since ERS's program is one of research and analysis, a key
performance indicator used for every goal is the percentage of
published research that meets peer review standards. Peer review of ERS
products is a basic tenet of the ERS program. To ensure that the
rewards system for staff reflects the agency's goal of developing high
quality, relevant research, ERS has recently initiated another kind of
peer review--of the positions of individual analysts. The new Economist
Position Classification System is helping to ensure that economists are
recognized for the impacts of their achievements.
Each of the ERS performance goals indicates that information will
be provided to ``policy makers, regulators, program managers, and
organizations shaping public debate'' in a timely fashion. In fiscal
year 1998 and fiscal year 1999, the agency took steps to more
systematically identify ERS customers and manage the information flow
to them. These efforts, which are moving toward implementation, include
the development of an automated system for managing customer services.
The system will provide an economical means of ensuring that customers
have ERS information when they need it and in the form they find most
useful.
Question. How does the agency budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. ERS's budget has one appropriation item, economic analysis
and research. The Performance Plan's five goals are linked and
dependent on funding levels allocated within the agency.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. ERS does not propose any changes to its account structure.
Question. Does the agency's fiscal year 2000 Results Act
performance plan include performance measures for which reliable data
are not likely to be available in time for the first performance report
in March 2000. If so, what steps are planned to improve the reliability
of these measures?
Answer. ERS will have sufficient and reliable data to complete its
March 2000 performance report.
Question. How will future funding requests take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance?
Answer. If actual performance does not reach the target performance
levels, ERS will review the goal to ensure that it is attainable and
the indicators to ensure that they are appropriate. If both are
realistic, the agency will assess the possibility of achieving the
targets by management or programmatic changes. If neither of these non-
budget approaches is likely to attain the desired results, reallocation
of current funds or a request for additional funds will have to be
considered.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
agency performance goals reflect the full costs of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. The dollars associated with agency performance goals fully
reflect the full costs of associated activities in support of the
goals, including overhead costs.
Foreign Agricultural Service
Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within your agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. FAS has adopted the philosophy that, in order to achieve
true performance-based management within the agency, as required by
GPRA, we must institutionalize it at every level of the organization.
To that end, beginning in fiscal year 1997 and continuing in fiscal
year 1998, FAS conducted strategic planning workshops with every
division in the agency.
FAS is currently conducting weekly half-day conferences with a core
group of key agency officials to move the process forward another step
this year. FAS's ultimate goal is to link what every employee is doing
to support the organization-wide goal. Through the business processes
we are implementing, we are building the organizational capacity to
achieve performance-based management within the agency.
Question. How are your agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. Effective October 1, 1998, FAS implemented a performance
reporting system, where each key manager is required to report on a
quarterly basis his or her accomplishments relative to his or her
assigned primary and support responsibilities. The primary and support
responsibilities come directly from the agency's annual performance
plan. All senior executives and managers in the agency have a critical
performance element in their standards of performance which holds them
accountable for this reporting requirement.
Question. How is performance information being used to manage your
agency?
Answer. The performance information currently being reported on a
quarterly basis by executives and managers is being used to make mid-
course adjustments as necessary to help the agency accomplish its goals
and outcome targets. Additionally, FAS is currently in the process of
adding a second stage to its performance reporting system that will
significantly enhance the agency's ability to track performance in a
way that it can be related to results and used to manage the agency
more efficiently and effectively.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding requests for fiscal year 2000? Please provide examples?
Answer. Program performance factored heavily into FAS's budget
request for discretionary spending in fiscal year 2000. For instance,
two new initiatives for fiscal year 2000 determined by FAS to be highly
beneficial to U.S. export promotion are the South African Agricultural
Trade Office (ATO) and the Reverse Trade Missions. The South African
ATO proposal supports the President's Africa Initiative which
recognizes the potential market for U.S. agricultural products. South
Africa is the hub of southern Africa's trade, finance, and
transportation infrastructure. The Commerce Department agrees with FAS'
assessment of U.S. trade potential in southern Africa as it too has
proposed nearly a dozen new Commercial Service positions in the region
for fiscal year 2000. Reverse Trade Missions, that is, bringing foreign
buyers to U.S. trade shows to orient their focus on the quality and
diversity of U.S. agricultural products, is an established and well
utilized program by our competitors. This approach has higher sales
potential per cost, especially for small and medium-sized U.S. firms
without the ability to participate in foreign trade promotion
activities.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve goals established in the strategic and
annual performance plan?
Answer. Two major changes have been made to improve performance and
achieve FAS's strategic goals and objectives. Both focused on improving
customer service. FAS is scheduled to receive the Vice President's
Hammer Award for one of the changes, and the other is being nominated
for a Hammer Award.
The change that resulted in a Hammer Award was focused on improving
the administration of the Food for Progress (FFP) program. FAS
administers the FFP, which provides commodities for donation through
Private Voluntary Organizations (PVOs) to support developing countries
that have made commitments to expand free enterprise in their
agricultural economies. The overall processes of the program had been
layered one on top of each other over the years. This resulted in PVOs'
requests for funds not being turned around in a timely fashion--
administrative delays of up to forty (40) business days were common.
The management team of FAS recognized that something had to be done
to improve efficiency. A management team was organized to tackle the
problem. Over a period of 18 months, the team made tremendous gains in
operational efficiency by eliminating numerous and redundant reviews,
re-evaluating the current tasks and making them more cohesive,
providing more accountability to their customers (in this case the
PVOs), and reducing the average cycle time of transferring
administrative support funds to a particular PVO from forty-one (41) to
seven (7) business days.
The other major program change the agency has made over the past
two years has been the implementation of a Unified Export Strategy
(UES), designed to provide industry partners with the opportunity for
one-stop customer service. The philosophy is that FAS has a suite of
program tools funded by Congress to effect changes in behavior in
markets around the world, which in turn positively influence the
ability of exporters to sell U.S. farm products in foreign markets
around the world. The UES is designed to help FAS deploy its suite of
program tools in a highly integrated manner to maximize the return on
public investment for its services.
Question. How does the agency budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. Strategic objectives in the annual performance plan are a
mirror image of the program activities reported in the agency budget
structure. The stated performance goals underneath each objective in
the performance plan link directly to budgeted resource amounts in the
current fiscal year 1999 budget and the proposed fiscal year 2000
budget.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. A core team of senior managers within the agency is
currently in the process of evaluating alternative options to improve
this linkage. Additionally, as FAS learns more about institutionalizing
performance-based management processes, the potential need may arise
for further changes to adjust the agency's budget and planning
structure to accommodate changes in legislation, international trade,
and technology.
Question. Does the agency fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance
plan include performance measures for which reliable data are not
likely to be available in time for the first performance report in
March 2000? If so, what steps are being planned to improve reliability
of these measures?
Answer. It is possible that the fiscal year 2000 Results Act
performance plan may include performance measures for which reliable
data will not be available in time for the first performance report due
to Congress in March 2000. The process of making GPRA a reality in FAS
is still ongoing. FAS is working to refine its performance measurement
criteria and its performance reporting system to ensure that reliable
data and measures are available in the future to track performance. FAS
believes a more realistic time frame target for ensuring reliable data
is available to it and other government agencies it works with in
achieving its goals would be by the end of fiscal year 2000, not mid-
year.
Question. How will future funding requests take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance?
Answer. Once the agency has a track record to reference, the agency
plans to use actual performance compared to targeted performance,
combined with external factors that may have inhibited reaching a
targeted goal, to set priorities in its future funding requests.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
agency performance goals reflect the full cost of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. The dollars associated with specific agency performance
goals generally reflect the cost of all associated activities performed
in support of that goal. Overhead costs are proportionately
distributed, with approximately 75 percent allocated to General Goal
#1, ``Expand export opportunities,'' and approximately 25 percent
allocated to General Goal #2, ``Promote world food security.''
Farm Service Agency
Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within your agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. In order to achieve performance-based management, as
required by the Results Act, Farm Service Agency (FSA) has:
--Established a Senior Management Planning and Controls Committee
(SMPC). The SMPC's strategic management functions include:
providing leadership, commitment, and guidance to the Agency
strategic planning program; providing strategic direction for
the Agency by establishing strategic goals; overseeing
development and implementation of Agency strategic plans and
annual performance plans required by GPRA; and communicating
GPRA results to Congress, the Administration, customers, and
other stakeholders.
--Established the Strategic Management and Corporate Operations Staff
within the Office of the Administrator, which works closely
with the SMPC to carry out the Agency's strategic management
initiatives.
--Established key contacts in each program/administrative area that
are responsible for developing, implementing, and monitoring
performance goals and measures.
--Developed a strategic plan for fiscal years 1997-2002 and annual
performance plans for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 1999/
2000.
Specific examples of efforts to implement performance based
management include the following.
--The farm loan program annual performance goals and measures are
reflected in the goals for each State. These goals and measures
were developed to achieve the desired results outlined in the
strategic plan. The State Executive Director for each State is
held responsible for achieving these goals.
--The Deputy Administrator for Commodity Operations (DACO) is
conducting a complete review of the Agency's commodity
procurement and warehouse licensing and examination procedures.
This review involves industry and customer interviews,
development and analysis of alternative ways of conducting
these functions, and cost analysis of such alternatives. This
review will result in recommendations to improve the efficiency
and performance of the licensing and procurement operations.
The review team is learning the importance of knowing what
customers want and being pro-active in meeting customers needs.
Question. How are your agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. Performance plans for Agency senior executives contain
performance standards related to achieving Agency goals and objectives,
improving management, and reducing program and administrative costs.
Additionally, FSA's Administrator has a separate performance
agreement on Equal Employment Opportunity/Civil Rights (EEO/CR) which
includes specific goals and measures by which the Administrator will be
rated. The Agency's Deputy Administrators' performance plans contain a
performance element and standards directly linked to accomplishment of
the Administrator's EEO/CR goals.
Question. How is performance information being used to manage the
agency?
Answer. Starting in June 1999, program managers will be responsible
for monitoring performance data and submitting quarterly reports to the
Strategic Management and Corporate Operations Staff. Monitoring
performance on a quarterly basis will allow the Agency to make
adjustments in a timely manner, helping to ensure achievement of
performance goals.
Examples of how the Agency is currently using performance
information include:
Farm Loan Programs
Field office goal accomplishment is monitored at least monthly by
both State and National Offices. This monitoring process reveals trends
and problems as they develop, resulting in FSA revising policies and
redirecting resources, as appropriate.
Commodity Operations
FSA is closely monitoring the timeliness of commodity shipping. FSA
no longer accepts bids from contractors that ship late at bid opening.
Such bids are treated as non-responsive.
DACO is evaluating the possibility of establishing licensing and
examination criteria and fees based on the warehouse operators' past
performance rather than solely on capacity.
DACO is moving to implement Total Quality System Audits (TQSA) for
commodities purchased for feeding programs. Under TQSA, the
manufacturer of such products is responsible for maintaining the
quality of the product.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding requests for fiscal year 2000? Please provide examples.
Answer. Funding decisions for fiscal year 2000 were primarily based
on Agency priorities relative to carrying out the Agency's mission.
However, program performance was considered in developing funding
requests from the standpoint of whether sufficient funds were being
requested to operate a viable program.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the strategic
and annual performance plans?
Answer. The following are specific examples of program changes
implemented by FSA.
Goal 1, Farm Programs
Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP).--During fiscal
year 1998, FSA authorized seven pilot FSA State Offices to approve NAP
areas and supporting market price and crop yield data. Review of the
pilot, assessing increases in timely processing of NAP area requests
and claim payments, will be made in fiscal year 1999. Assuming expected
improvements in processing NAP areas and producer claims, authorization
can be granted to additional States in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year
2000.
Loan Deficiency Payments (LDPs).--Significant policy changes to
help farmers who are experiencing low commodity prices were announced
by Secretary Glickman on September 11, 1998. These policy changes make
producers who harvest eligible wheat, feed grains, or oilseeds in forms
other than whole kernel, such as silage and cobbage, eligible for
marketing assistance loans or LDP's. High moisture commodities,
commodities containing contaminants, such as aflatoxin, and low quality
commodities will also be eligible. It is expected that these program
changes will result in increased producer participation in the
marketing assistance loan and LDP programs in 1999 and future years, as
economic conditions warrant.
Livestock Assistance Program.--Compared to previous livestock feed
assistance programs, the application process for this program was
streamlined and the reporting burden on producers was reduced by
relying heavily on producer certification of losses and not requiring
the producer to purchase feed in order to be eligible for assistance.
Crop Loss Disaster Assistance Program.--Compared to previous ad hoc
disaster programs, the application process was streamlined and the
reporting burden on producers was reduced by using existing information
from losses previously reported to FSA and RMA.
Tobacco Program.--A preliminary BPR package has been completed for
the tobacco program as part of a pilot program to automate the
marketing process for all kinds of tobacco. A pilot project is planned
for the 1999 burley tobacco marketing season to determine the
feasibility of national deployment of the new piloted marketing system.
As funds become available, additional segments of the tobacco program
will be reengineered. Automating the marketing process will result in a
less labor intensive, more efficient program.
Peanut Program.--In an effort to streamline the collection of
peanut marketing assessments (PMAs), the responsibility for day-to-day
reconciliations and oversight of deposits has been assigned to the
three area peanut loan associations. Moving this function, previously
performed by the Tobacco and Peanuts Division (TPD) at headquarters, to
the associations allows the reconciliations to be performed closer to
the buying point and also reduces the workload for TPD personnel. TPD
maintains overall responsibility for the accurate collection of the
PMAs.
Goal 3, Farm Loan Programs
The guaranteed loan program regulation has been totally rewritten
to streamline the process and make it more user friendly. Particular
emphasis was placed on streamlining small loan packaging, adding
program flexibility and developing the Preferred Lender Program. These
changes should reduce processing time frames, maintain a low loss
history, speed delinquency resolution, move direct loans into the
guarantee program, and help the agency target minority farmers. In
addition, the Agency will soon more fully implement the Debt Collection
Improvement Act which will permit the Department of the Treasury to
assist us in the collection of seriously delinquent direct loan
accounts through offset.
Goal 4, Commodity Operations (Warehouse Examination Operations)
DACO has increased the use of available technology to increase the
efficiency of the warehouse examination workforce. Increasing the
efficiency of the examination workforce permits the Agency to conduct
necessary examinations with a reduced workforce.
DACO is expanding the services that warehouse examiners provide in
order to increase sources of revenue for examination operations. By
adding services that are needed and requested by the warehouse
industry, we expect to increase the value of overall United States
Warehouse Act (USWA) functions, which in turn will increase the number
of warehouse operators that elect to be federally licensed.
DACO submitted a draft rewrite of the USWA to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for their review in April 1998. OMB has not
commented on the proposed draft. The rewrite will, among other things,
allow the warehouse industry to increase performance and productivity
through the use of electronic documents of title (i.e., warehouse
receipts, bills of lading, shipping certificates, etc.) for
agricultural commodities.
Goal 4, Commodity Operations (Commodity Procurement Activities)
All domestic distribution program contracts have been changed to a
delivery basis versus shipping period basis. This should improve timely
deliveries since contractors are not paid until products have been
delivered.
The rate of liquidated damages for late shipment was increased to
be commensurate with the value of the commodity.
Several commodities are now purchased for a longer time period than
one month. Certain contracts are now made quarterly or on an annual
basis. This ensures an adequate commodity supply and more of a
partnership relationship with suppliers resulting in better, more
timely performance.
FSA is purchasing more commercial products with brand labels rather
than special USDA labels. This should improve the quality and
timeliness of deliveries.
FSA now purchases peanut butter with specifications equivalent to
national brands. All peanut butter suppliers must have the product
tested prior to FSA allowing the firm to participate in the procurement
program. This qualified product list has resulted in a better quality
product for recipients.
Management Initiative 1, Equal Employment Opportunity and Civil Rights
Civil Rights and Small Business Utilization Staff (CR&SBUS) is
piloting and implementing a new standard operating procedure to perform
CR State and Service Center Management Reviews. A greater emphasis is
placed on the farm loan programs, reviewing fewer Service Center
offices, but focusing more on specific problems in each office. By
fiscal year 2000, we plan to review some of the Headquarter and Kansas
City complexes for EEO problems.
CR&SBUS has instituted tracking systems which will help to quickly
and accurately track the status of settlement cases, program
complaints, EEO informal complaints, formal backlog complaints, and our
EEO informal Early Resolution Program. In addition, these systems
provide the data needed to analyze and identify areas for improvement.
This system was needed because the volume of cases and settlements has
greatly increased since 1997. The Administrator is provided a weekly
update on each of these items.
CR&SBUS has established and trained 15 fact finding employees in
Montgomery, Alabama, who work full-time on gathering the facts of
program complaints and send them to the Headquarters office for
analysis. This new system guarantees independent and fair treatment to
customers, and improves the number of cases processed on-time as stated
in the FSA Annual Performance Plan.
CR&SBUS established an EEO informal Early Resolution Program which
brings complainants and supervisors together early in the process to
resolve differences before they go formal. This has reduced the number
of formal EEO complaints registered as stated in the FSA Annual
Performance Plan. It also helps employee morale by quickly resolving
management/employee differences and is a cost savings to the Agency.
Question. How does the agency budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. The FSA fiscal year 1999/2000 Annual Performance Plan and
Budget discuss the level of resources needed to achieve program
performance goals. The annual performance plan encompasses all program
activities included in the agency's budget request, and reflects the
program activities associated with identified goals. This linkage
enables decision-makers to assess the FTEs and funding requirements of
achieving annual performance goals. Performance goals were developed
for each FSA budget account. These measures are incorporated in budget
material to indicate expected performance to be achieved based on
available funding.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. Currently, there are no plans to change the FSA account
structure for fiscal year 2001, since there is direct linkage between
the account and activity structure in the budget and the associated
GPRA program activities for which performance goals have been
established.
Question. Does the agency fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance
plan include performance measures for which reliable data are not
likely to be available in time for the first performance report in
March 2000? If so, what steps are planned to improve the reliability of
these measures?
Answer. As reflected in the FSA fiscal year 1999/2000 Annual
Performance Plan, some performance measures exist for which resulting
data may not be available for inclusion in the March 2000 Annual
Performance Report. Instances in which data is not available will be
reflected in the Annual Performance Report accompanied by an
explanation supporting the reason data is unavailable and anticipated
time frames to obtain the data. However, prior to preparation of the
March 2000 Annual Performance Report, FSA will diligently strive to
develop systems facilitating the collection and evaluation of all
required data.
Question. How will future funding requests take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or targeted performance?
Answer. The primary reason for requesting funding is to achieve
expected or targeted performance, given certain assumptions.
Uncertainties, however, in developing budget requests and later actual
execution, include unexpected changes in the agricultural economy which
have an impact on results. Given this reality, future funding requests
will continue to reflect agency priorities with consideration given to
performance in the prior year relative to expected or targeted
performance. Although actual performance will be a factor in deciding
on funding requests in future years, it is and will continue to be only
one of many factors considered in determining appropriate funding
levels.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
agency performance goals reflect the full costs of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. Performance goals in the Agency's budgets are not
reflective of the full costs of all associated activities performed in
support of that goal. However, performance goals and program activities
in the budget are linked to the four Agency goals in the annual
performance plan, which are presented on a full cost basis. For
example, each Agency goal, i.e. Farm Programs, includes the salaries
and expenses needed to support that goal. Specific Agency performance
goals in the annual performance plan are not reflective of the full
costs. A basis for determining full cost at this level has not been
developed.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within your agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. The FSIS Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical
Control Point (HACCP) system regulation, finalized in 1996, is a
scientifically based system designed to reduce pathogens on raw
products. The regulation requires meat and poultry slaughter and
processing plants to adopt a HACCP system of process controls to
prevent chemical, physical, and biological food safety hazards. The
regulation contains specific requirements for sanitation and
microbiological testing. By the beginning of this year, 92 percent of
all Federally inspected meat and poultry products have been produced
under a HACCP system. The HACCP regulation is a fundamental shift in
meat and poultry inspection from prescriptive oversight of the
regulated industry to performance-based standards for that industry's
products. As part of HACCP implementation, FSIS is rewriting its
regulations to reflect this shift from prescriptive oversight to
performance-based management. The Agency is also breaking new ground in
establishing performance standards for pathogens. Product samples taken
under the regulation for almonella and E. coli testing will also be
under performance-based standards for the future. At this stage, the
focus is on determining baselines and monitoring prevalence. Future
baseline data gathering and performance-based pathogen testing are
projected for Campylobacter and Listeria as well.
Question. How are your agency's senior executive and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. Senior Agency managers have traditionally been involved in
developing an FSIS strategic planning process resulting in a strategic
plan. To strengthen managers' accountability for achieving results of
initiatives contained in the plan, in 1996 the Administrator
established specific levels of performance for a performance rating of
``outstanding'' and ``superior'' in senior executives' performance
standards. Annual reviews of upper level managers include an evaluation
of how well they have satisfied these agreed-upon performance levels.
Question. How is performance information being used to manage the
agency?
Answer. Through the requirements of sanitation and pathogen testing
contained in the HACCP regulation, the Agency is monitoring the degree
of success of plant performance as indicated by performance-based data.
Plant data generated in E. coli testing, for example, will provide
trend analysis that will enable Agency managers to determine the
appropriateness of critical control points in a plant's HACCP plan.
Performance-based data provide objective monitoring of a plant's
compliance with the regulatory requirements and permit the Agency to
redirect resources to non-compliant plants as necessary. The
Performance-Based Inspection System (PBIS) database is also useful in
helping Agency managers in directing resources to those areas where the
resources are most needed. The Agency believes that the HACCP system
along with performance-based results from micro testing will improve
food safety and reduce foodborne illness.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding requests for fiscal year 2000? Please provide examples.
Answer. The decisions about funding requests for the 2000 budget
reflect support for priority areas of performance both within the
Agency and in cooperative work with the Agency's State partners to
improve food safety on a seamless national basis.
The largest single funding increase is requested for mandatory pay
raises estimated at $21.3 million, which are essential to maintaining
inspection coverage nationwide. Without this increase, FSIS would have
to reduce staffing--primarily in the inspection workforce--and this
would compromise our ability to perform our statutory mission of food
safety inspection oversight.
The program initiatives included in the budget request target key
performance areas to meet the anticipated challenges of new program
demands. Once HACCP is implemented in all inspected establishments,
FSIS must be able to transition its workforce to perform the redefined
regulatory tasks and procedures required by the HACCP final rule. The
requested increase of $10.8 million will effect the proposed salary
upgrades, redeployment, and recruitment to develop a more highly
skilled, better educated, and more versatile workforce that will enable
FSIS to maximize the performance of its inspection workforce.
To strengthen the food safety partnership with the States, $2.9
million is requested through the President's Food Safety Initiative.
This highlights the increasing importance of our cooperative work with
States in performing our food safety mission with both State
Departments of Health and Agriculture in outbreak and recall
investigations and in the Cooperative State Inspection Program.
An additional increase of $1.0 million is requested to carry out
Department-mandated civil rights training and to improve Agency civil
rights programs. This request reflects the importance of civil rights
in our food safety performance day in and day out throughout every area
of FSIS, from the most remote establishment to headquarters program
offices.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the strategic
and annual plans?
Answer. The Agency underwent an organizational restructuring as it
went about implementing HACCP in 1996. FSIS restructured from a region-
area-circuit organization to districts which would provide more
comprehensive service to its customers and improve communications
between the field and headquarters.
FSIS involved all stakeholders and constituencies from the outset
to gain valuable information about the Pathogen Reduction/HACCP
regulation, a core component of the Agency's goal. Through more than
100 public meetings to date, the Agency has sought public comment on
its policies and future direction, resulting in changes in the HACCP
regulation and, ultimately, in program changes for HACCP
implementation.
Question. Could you describe the process used to link your
performance goals to your budget activities? What difficulties, if any,
did you encounter and how did you solve them?
Answer. The Agency recognized the importance early on of linking
the performance goals and the budget activities through the Agency
mission. The goals represent Agency mission objectives, while the
budget activities represent mission activities. On a preliminary basis,
the Agency evaluated the relationship between the budget activities and
the performance goals to determine whether or not changes were needed
in budget activities, and found that the complementary linkage of
performance goals and budget activities to the Agency mission indicated
no immediate need for change.
FSIS is undergoing a transformation in its inspection program from
traditional organoleptic inspection to HACCP-based inspection. The
performance goals are specific to achieving a reduction in foodborne
illness through HACCP and other inspection changes, and primarily focus
on new and anticipated food safety developments. The budget activities
capture all costs for both the traditional inspection program and the
new HACCP-based inspection system now being implemented. The linkage of
performance goals and budget activities will evolve through many stages
as transformation of the inspection program takes place, but the Agency
does not anticipate any further changes in its budget activities at
this time.
Question. To what extent does your performance planning structure
differ from the account and activity structure in your budget
justification? Do you plan to propose any changes to your account and/
or program activity structure for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The FSIS performance planning structure is built around
specific steps that must be carried out to achieve the strategic goal
of minimizing foodborne illness in meat, poultry, and egg products. The
account and activity structure used in the budget submission is
organized along program activity lines that capture the range of
infrastructure and support activities necessary to build a total
inspection program.
At this point in time, it is too early to discuss with any
certainty the likelihood of changes to the account structure. The
proposed program activity structure is broad and flexible enough to
permit linkage with strategic and annual performance goals, especially
as these are fine-tuned or change over time.
Question. Does the agency fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance
plan include performance measures for which reliable data are not
likely to be available in time for the first performance report in
March 2000? If so, what steps are planned to improve the reliability of
these measures?
Answer. During the performance measure design process, FSIS created
measures that would utilize information that is both available and
reliable. The Agency does not anticipate performance-reporting
difficulties in preparing the March 2000 report.
Question. How will future funding requests take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance?
Answer. The Agency's performance measures are designed to measure
performance in areas where performance has never been measured before.
This is clearly a learning period for the Agency and adjustments will
be made as lessons are learned.
FSIS has established performance measures that it believes relate
to each performance goal in question. That is, the measures used
correlate directly to the targeted performance. However, the Agency
believes that it needs more experience before it is able to confidently
predict future budget requirements based on projected performance.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
agency performance goals reflect the full costs of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. Full program cost is captured in the six budgetary Program
Activities (Federal Food Inspection, Import/Export Inspection,
Laboratory Services, Field Automation and Information Management
(FAIM), Grants-to-States, and Special Assistance for State Programs)
which encompass all activities of the Agency's meat, poultry, and egg
inspection mission. The dollar amounts associated with the performance
goals reflect the full Agency cost in carrying out those goals,
including overhead.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within your agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. Beginning with fiscal year 1999, each of the agency's
senior managers will be evaluated on how well they perform in two new
areas, best business practices and outreach. Senior managers will be
expected to identify and use best business practices to deliver quality
service to American agriculture. They must demonstrate innovative and
creative thinking to promote good business that achieves the agency's
mission while being sensitive to customer concerns. Senior managers
must also foster an understanding of the agency's mission, goals, and
objectives and demonstrate empathy for customers' concerns. The end
result is that each senior executive's performance will be directly
linked to the agency's performance and to our customers' needs--both of
which are key aspects of performance-based management.
Question. How are your agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. The agency's senior executives are held accountable for
achieving results. As part of the performance review process, the
agency's senior executives are evaluated on their key accomplishments
for the fiscal year. Furthermore, all senior executives are evaluated
on how well they take affirmative steps to support, promote, and carry
out Administration and Department policy, of which the GPRA is a key
component.
Question. How is performance information being used to manage the
agency?
Answer. The following examples indicate how performance information
is being used to manage the agency's programs. GIPSA plans to increase
the time devoted to analyzing issues involving competitive practices,
financial protection, and trade practices to ensure a fair, open, and
competitive marketplace for livestock, meat, and poultry. Timely
resolution of investigative issues is critical to marketplace
efficiency. The percentage of investigative issues resolved in a year's
time is a critical measure of program performance. The agency, will,
therefore, strive to increase the percentage of investigative issues
resolved within the span of one year with an overall improvement in
marketplace efficiency.
Faster resolution of issues will also result in an increase in the
amount of money recovered for the benefit of livestock producers
suffering economic losses in the marketplace. Using fiscal year 1998 as
the established baseline, GIPSA will continually monitor loss recovery
and focus on those issues having the greatest impact on the producer.
GIPSA has also implemented an enhanced quality assurance and
quality control program to ensure the quality and accuracy of
inspection results nationwide. The program includes a balance of
national and localized monitoring. A greater emphasis is placed on
proactive actions to prevent problems from occurring rather than
reacting to problems once they have occurred. Results from the quality
assurance and quality control program provide the data to monitor the
statistical accuracy of original inspection results and the statistical
accuracy of Official Agency inspection results-two key performance
indicators.
In the near future, GIPSA will complete a telecommunications
network that will allow electronic mail and daily data sharing between
all offices within the official inspection and weighing system. Among
other things, the network will allow GIPSA to create a national grain
quality database that will have many uses, such as providing a dynamic
picture of nationwide grain trends and allowing timely responses to
potential problem areas. The database will also allow GIPSA to monitor
and measure the consistency of grain inspection results--something in
which our customers have a keen interest.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding requests for fiscal year 2000? Please provide examples.
Answer. Program performance factored directly into decisions about
the agency's funding requests for fiscal year 2000. As provided in the
agency's annual performance plan, GIPSA recognizes that a funding level
less than that requested for fiscal year 2000 would restrict the
agency's ability to meet its goals, objectives, and performance
measures for the Packers and Stockyards Programs. Available resources
would be focused on conducting investigations involving competitive
issues and on those issues having the greatest financial impact on the
industry. Reduced funding would result in fewer investigations and
could expand the time frame to complete investigations.
The agency also provided an explanation in its budget request and
performance plan for fiscal year 2000 of why additional funding is
needed for mycotoxin detection, varietal identification, and the study
of future market needs. All three relate directly to the agency's
ability to provide the technology to measure grain quality and quantity
so that the market has ready access to reliable information which, in
turn, reduces market risk and increases market efficiency.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the strategic
and annual plans?
Answer. GIPSA's ability to achieve Goal 1 of its strategic and
annual plans is improved by the Agency's recent restructuring of the
Packers and Stockyards Programs. The restructuring has strengthened
GIPSA's capability to investigate possible unfair and anticompetitive
practices and provides greater flexibility and efficiency in enforcing
the trade practice and payment protection provisions of the Packers and
Stockyards Act. Additional economic, statistical, and legal expertise
have been added to the field offices, thereby increasing the efficiency
and effectiveness of the Packers and Stockyards staff in investigating
anticompetitive practices. The larger field offices will give GIPSA the
critical mass of personnel needed to address complex anticompetitive
issues.
As indicated in a previous response, GIPSA has also implemented an
enhanced quality assurance and quality control program to ensure the
quality and accuracy of inspection results nationwide. Results from the
quality assurance and quality control program provide the data to
monitor the statistical accuracy of original inspection results and the
statistical accuracy of Official Agency inspection results--two key
performance indicators.
Question. How does the agency budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. Each of the agency's budget activities, the Packers and
Stockyards Programs and the Grain Program, is directly linked to a
strategic goal and supporting performance goals and indicators. The
Packers and Stockyards Programs are represented in Goal 1 of the
agency's strategic and annual plans, and the Grain Program is
represented in Goal 2. The end result is that the agency's budget
structure directly links resource amounts to goals.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. No changes are needed at this time.
Question. Does the agency fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance
plan include performance measures for which reliable data are not
likely to be available in time for the first performance report in
March 2000? If so, what steps are planned to improve the reliability of
these measures?
Answer. The agency may not have data for one of the performance
indicators supporting Objective 2.3. As given in the agency performance
plan for fiscal year 2000, the agency projects that that the percentage
of satisfied customers will increase to 88.5 percent in fiscal year
1999. The agency's ability to measure levels of customer satisfaction
is dependent upon approval by the Office of Management and Budget to
conduct customer surveys.
Question. How will future funding requests take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance?
Answer. The agency's senior managers compare actual and expected
performance as they prepare their funding requests. Such comparison is
an integral part of the budgeting process.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
agency performance goals reflect the full costs of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. There is a direct linkage between the agency's strategic
goals and the agency's two program areas, the Packers and Stockyards
Programs and the Grain Program. The goals, in turn, are directly linked
to the agency's budget activities. The end result is that the dollars
associated with specific goals reflect the full cost of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal.
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within your agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. NASS has taken a number of measures to promote performance-
based management. One major tool is the internal NASS Action Plan,
developed from the Agency's GPRA Strategic Plan, which provides
employees with a more detailed blueprint for achievement of the NASS
goals and objectives. This document contains internal performance
targets, strategies, and measures which were developed at the
grassroots level by NASS employees. The NASS Action Plan also includes
the specific performance measures reported in the Agency's Annual
Performance Plan.
To help measure the success of management initiatives, an
organizational climate survey of NASS employees is taken every 2 years,
and the results shared with all employees. Following the most recent
climate survey, the Administrator of NASS appointed an employee
committee to study the survey results and make specific recommendations
to NASS senior managers on areas identified as needing improvement. In
addition, a tailored organizational climate survey was administered to
NASS computer analysts to provide useful information for an April 1999
data processing workshop attended by key data processing staff. The
status of all NASS initiatives and accompanying performance measures
are frequently included on the agenda for senior and middle manager
workshops, meetings, and conferences.
Question. How are your agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. The responsibility for reporting the needed data for the
performance measures reside within the individual NASS work units.
These measures are updated in the Agency's Action Plan, available to
all employees. NASS's senior executive decisionmaking body, the
Strategic Planning Council, reviews specific performance measures in
semi-annual meetings and requests more information from individual
units, as needed. The senior executives' performance standards include
elements related to providing leadership in establishing and
implementing program goals and objectives, and managing the human,
financial, and property resources effectively and efficiently to
accomplish program goals.
Question. How is performance information being used to manage the
agency?
Answer. NASS performance measures represent a mix of internal
measures, such as organizational climate survey results and measures of
the accuracy and timeliness of reports, and external measures, such as
customers' assessments of the usefulness and importance of NASS data.
Managers utilize this information to help them determine how to
allocate resources and shift priorities, modify procedures, develop new
products, and perform strategic planning.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding requests for fiscal year 2000? Please provide examples.
Answer. Customer feedback is a critical part of NASS's annual
performance plan. The NASS fiscal year 2000 budget request includes
initiatives to expand NASS's environmental work, such as the collection
of additional pesticide use data. This is in direct response to
requests from customers, stakeholders, and partners who are pleased
with the current NASS chemical use data set, but want more information
about certain commodities and sectors of agriculture not covered in the
current program. NASS has worked extensively with customers and
stakeholders to receive input into the prioritization of commodities
without usage data, review States involved in the program, and to
discuss the use of commodity rotation in NASS pesticide use data
collection plans. In 1997, NASS implemented an annual postharvest
pesticide use survey to address levels of pesticide residues on
specific commodities that are treated following harvest. To date, four
commodities have been surveyed: apples, potatoes, corn, and wheat.
Plans for 1999 are to collect postharvest application data on soybeans
and oats.
NASS's involvement in Puerto Rico for the census of agriculture
program was directly responsible for the formulation of a budget
initiative for fiscal year 2000. Because USDA is now responsible for
conducting the census of agriculture in Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rico
Department of Agriculture, for the first time, had a lead coordination
role in the conduct of the 1997 Census of Agriculture. It became
obvious after successfully working together on this census that the
same cooperation on other agricultural statistics programs would be
very beneficial to both parties. This prompted a request from the
Secretary of the Puerto Rico Department of Agriculture to establish a
NASS office in Puerto Rico which ultimately resulted in the budget
initiative included in the fiscal year 2000 budget request for NASS.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the strategic
and annual plans?
Answer. NASS has made measurable progress in increasing the percent
of total national agricultural production included in the NASS annual
program, which is a key performance measure in both the GPRA strategic
plan and the annual performance plan. This has been accomplished by
providing agricultural statistics for the equine and aquaculture
sectors and expanded data for the nursery and greenhouse industries.
Question. How does the agency budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. The Annual Performance Plan links the budget and
performance goals by showing the Agency's funding and FTE's allocated
by the five Research, Education, and Economics (REE) Mission Area
general goals. The last page of the NASS Annual Performance Plan
includes a Resource Table matrix displaying the three NASS program
activities according to the REE goals.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. NASS does not anticipate any needed changes at this time.
NASS's present budget accounting structure cross-walked with the REE
general goals allows for the development of meaningful performance
indicators and resource allocations.
Question. Does the agency fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance
plan include performance measures for which reliable data are not
likely to be available in time for the first performance report in
March 2000? If so, what steps are planned to improve the reliability of
these measures?
Answer. No. NASS anticipates having performance data available for
each measure in time for the first performance report.
Question. How will future funding requests take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance?
Answer. The improved accuracy afforded by actual performance data
versus estimated information will allow better decisions to be made
regarding Agency program changes, new initiative requests, reallocation
of resources, and targeting of areas needing improvement.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
agency performance goals reflect the full costs of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. Yes, overhead costs are fully reflected since the total
NASS budget is divided among the five general goals.
National Appeals Division
Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within your agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. The National Appeals Division (NAD) has one mission and
that is to conduct evidentiary administrative appeal hearings and
reviews arising from program operations of assigned agencies. NAD has
one goal: Conduct timely hearings and issue timely and well reasoned
determinations which correctly apply laws and regulations. NAD has
developed performance-based measures using statutory and regulatory
requirements. These measures include: timeliness of appeal hearings;
timeliness for issuing appeal hearing determinations; timeliness for
issuing appeal review determinations; and percent of hearing officer
determinations upheld on review. NAD has implemented NADTrack, a
management information system, which tracks data for these performance
measures. NADTrack data is used to measure and refine priorities while
ensuring that NAD is maximizing its resources.
Question. How are your agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. NADTrack data will be reported on a quarterly basis to key
managers. Reports will be in a standardized format, and will use data
from the GPRA-based NADTrack Subsystem. The report will conform with
the Strategic Plan, Annual Performance Plan and the Annual Performance
Report. These Quarterly Performance Evaluations will be the product of
NAD's internal analysis. The performance goals and indicators for these
objectives have been identified by the key managers.
Question. How is performance information being used to manage the
agency?
Answer. NAD uses its NADTrack system to determine whether
performance meets stated goals and objectives. This information is used
to ensure organizational efficiency and effectiveness are achieved.
Performance information from NADTrack, budget formulation, and other
management tools are used to: identify strategies for allocating
resources, design customized training, prioritize performance
objectives, and (4) measure results of management decisions.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding requests for fiscal year 2000? Please provide examples.
Answer. In the fiscal year 2000 request, NAD asked for additional
money to fund a customized training program. This increase in training
funds was based upon a review of NAD performance factors.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the strategic
and annual plans?
Answer. In fiscal year 1999, NADTrack evolved into a system which
uses consistent and reliable data to maintain and update statistics.
All performance information is measured using identical statistical
methodologies.
Question. How does the agency budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. NAD's budget structure directly links resource amounts to
program goals. The entire appropriation is assigned to a single
performance goal.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. No changes are needed at this time.
Question. Does the agency fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance
plan include performance measures for which reliable data are likely
available in time for the first performance report in March 2000? If
so, what steps are planned to improve the reliability of these
measures?
Answer. The agency's fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance plan
does not include performance measures for which reliable data are not
likely to be available in time for the first performance report in
March 2000.
Question. How will future funding requests take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance?
Answer. Actual performance will be compared to the expected
performance and budget request adjustments made as required.
Adjustments, when required, will be made using current resources to the
maximum extent possible.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
agency performance goals reflect the full costs of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. Because of NAD's single mission, all costs are assigned to
its single performance goal.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within your agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. First, I have ensured that there is a clear focus on
performance-based management at the highest level. I realigned the
headquarters structure, consolidating responsibility for strategic
planning, performance planning and measurement, budget allocation, and
oversight and evaluation under a Deputy Chief for Strategic Planning
and Accountability. I directed the new Deputy Chief to develop and
implement a new accountability system that would provide a balanced,
reliable, and timely picture of the agency's performance. The system
will enable agency managers to estimate the effect of programs on the
condition of natural resources systems, assess the cost-effectiveness
of service delivery, identify opportunities for process improvement,
and respond to customers' needs with strategies and assistance tailored
to local conditions.
Second, I have taken action to ensure that reliable high-quality
information is available to achieve performance based management within
NRCS. In fiscal year 1999, we have begun implementation of the new
accountability system, which includes data in three major categories.
The system provides detailed data on how we spend our time. The
Time and Attendance Report each employee submits every 2 weeks will
report the hours spent for each of 27 programs or initiatives
(Watershed Surveys and Planning, Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative,
etc.) and for each of nine major activities (providing assistance in
developing conservation plans, conducting resource inventories, etc.).
The system was further enhanced in fiscal year 1999 to include a web-
based report database that summarizes NRCS program and activity hours.
The system also provides data on the annual workload and long-term
conservation needs of NRCS and the conservation partnership in each
field office area. We have developed procedures to conduct nationally
consistent analyses of our workload. An initial workload assessment was
completed October 1, 1998. It identifies conservation needs based on
local knowledge and goals, natural resources information from NRCS
inventories, and information from other sources. The analysis develops
estimates of the time, by technical discipline, required to produce the
agency's core work products.
The system also provides complete and consistent data on a limited
number of key performance measures. We have identified key measures
that are adequate indicators of annual progress toward strategic goals.
These indicators are conservation practices and systems that are
defined in NRCS field office technical guides. Basic demographic data
necessary to ensure programs are delivered fairly and equitably will be
reported for all services delivered. In addition to the conservation
practices and systems, which are indicators of outcomes, the new system
will collect data on selected output and input indicators, including
program management items (such as number and acres in contracts, etc.),
on resource inventory and technology development, and on other NRCS
state and national office outputs.
The performance reporting system is being developed and implemented
in phases. The first phase, essentially completed in fiscal year 1998,
permits collection of data on performance measures that are easily
quantifiable activities, such as acres on which erosion control
practices were applied. Beginning in October 1998, a sample of field
offices began entering data. Other offices will be added to the system
later in the year. Throughout this transition year, the effectiveness
of the system will be evaluated and needed adjustments made.
Third, I have strengthened management of performance evaluation and
oversight activities. On October 1, 1999, Oversight and Evaluation
Staffs were realigned to the Operations Management and Oversight
Division, under the Deputy Chief for Strategic Planning and
Accountability, to conduct oversight activities to ensure that NRCS
employees comply with all laws, regulations, and agency policies and
procedures and evaluations to improve the quality and delivery of
services.
Finally, I have taken action to ensure that funding is linked to
performance. New procedures are being implemented to define performance
expectations when budgets are allocated to managers.
Question. How are your agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. Agency-wide goals for key performance measures are set in
the agency performance plan, based on the long-term goals in the
strategic plan. In addition, goals for program-specific activities or
outputs are established. As the performance measurement system becomes
fully operational, specific state goals will be established for each
performance measure. An appropriate element will be included in state
and regional conservationists' individual performance appraisals. The
Regional Conservationists will monitor the progress of states for which
they are responsible and hold state conservationists accountable for
meeting goals. The Deputy Chief for Strategic Planning and
Accountability will monitor performance nationally and report to the
Associate Chief, who will hold Deputy Chiefs and Regional
Conservationists accountable.
Question. How is performance information being used to manage the
agency?
Answer. Measurable long-term outcome strategic objectives that
support the agency's mission are established in the strategic plan.
Annual performance goals are set to move toward achievement of the
strategic goals and objectives. Line managers will be assigned
responsibility for specific portions of each agency goal when they
receive their allocation for a fiscal year. They will develop operating
budgets that use their funds and staff to meet the established goals
and conduct all activities needed to achieve the goals. Employees will
report their accomplishments on key performance measures on a
continuous basis and will report how their time was spent, by program
and major activity. Data will be available on a real-time basis so that
employees and first-line supervisors can monitor progress. Senior
managers will review performance and financial data periodically to
ensure efficient and effective use of resources and to take corrective
action when necessary.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding requests for fiscal year 2000? Please provide examples.
Answer. fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 are transitional
years in our use of performance information. In fiscal year 1998, we
determined that the level of quality of performance data reported
through the existing reporting system was not adequate to meet GPRA
requirements and could not be improved to the necessary degree at an
acceptable cost in field staff time. The systems then in use required
so much time that they actually hampered achievement of service
delivery goals. Therefore, we suspended use of the reporting system
then in use and began development of a new system that would provide
more consistent reporting of key measures with less burden on the field
staff. Fiscal year 1998 performance data for many of the cross-cutting
measures of natural resources improvement were, therefore, not
available for use in developing fiscal year 2000 budget requests.
However, program output data was available and was considered in
formulating the budget requests. In addition, historical performance
data was also available and was considered where appropriate.
For example, the 1996 Act set an acreage goal of 975,000 acres to
be enrolled in the program by the end of 2002. Actual acreage enrolled
through the end of fiscal year 1998 was 665,447 acres. The fiscal year
1999 budget supports a goal of 120,000 acres. For the fiscal year 2000
budget, program manager's information was used to determine that a goal
of 199,826 acres was achievable, which would bring the total enrolled
to the fiscal year 2002 goal. The program manager's information on cost
of enrollment was used to establish a request to support the goal.
In formulating the request for the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program, several kinds of performance-related data were considered.
Program performance data, including program participation, the extent
of the resource concerns to be addressed, and the special needs of
historically underserved customers were considered. Because addressing
concerns about potential problems associated with animal feeding
operations was identified as a major goal of the program, data on the
level of historical performance and the time and cost required for
completing waste management systems was used to estimate the level of
performance that could be anticipated with various levels of funding.
With the new Performance and Results Measurement System, output and
outcome performance data will be used much more extensively in the
future.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the strategic
and annual plans?
Answer. We have made the changes in the headquarters management
structure and in our management information systems described earlier.
In addition, we have established a team to analyze field office
operations and identify internally-imposed requirements and procedures
that add little value and reduce the time that front line staff can
devote to direct services to customers. We are implementing the team's
recommendations, thus allowing employees to focus more attention on
directly serving customers and completing high priority conservation
work.
We are developing plans to ensure that all agency personnel
maintain the level of technical expertise essential to meeting goals.
An interdisciplinary team conducted a review of how we deliver
appropriate conservation technology to field personnel and made
recommendations for improvement, which we are implementing. A separate
review of training for the field offices has resulted in a
comprehensive catalog of training, including self-paced, satellite,
agency-provided formal coursework, and non-agency training available.
The review made further recommendations for improving technical
training. The Technical Guide Committee is continuing to update
conservation practice standards. All practice standards are available
on the World Wide Web so that all technical staff have immediate access
to current technology. We will also shortly begin a focused effort to
develop the Field Office Technical Guide of the Future.
And of course we are continuing to work with the other Service
Center agencies in the ongoing business reengineering process to reduce
duplicative administrative tasks and free up the field to work with
customers.
Question. How does the agency budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. The performance goals established in the agency performance
plan are cross-cutting goals that are supported by multiple activities
in the budget structure. The performance goals provide a way for
managers and the public to see the outcome on the landscape that
results from the agency's services that are funded through separate
accounts. This comprehensive view of agency performance is not possible
when performance is measured program-by-program.
The agency performance plans for fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year
2000 include a summary table that quantifies the relationship between
each program and resource objective in the agency strategic plan. For
programs that support multiple objectives, however, allocation among
objectives is only estimated. The combined data that will be available
from the new time and attendance reporting system and performance
measurement system and the workload analysis activity will provide
information for planning and will be the basis for allocation of funds
to outcomes, enabling managers to ensure that funds and time are
expended on the objectives that were intended.
In addition to the cross-cutting goals, each program in the budget
structure continues to set program-specific goals for activities and
outputs that must be achieved in order to achieve the higher-level
performance measures.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. We are not yet prepared to propose changes to our account
and activity structure. As more detailed information becomes available
through our new performance reporting systems, we will conduct analyses
to evaluate the benefits and identify unintended consequences of
changes in the budget structure.
Question. Does the agency fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance
plan include performance measures for which reliable data are not
likely to be available in time for the first performance report in
March 2000? If so, what steps are planned to improve the reliability of
these measures?
Answer. We expect to have available data that are reliable at the
national level for the key natural resources outcome-related
performance measures in the revised fiscal year 1999 performance plan
that was included in our fiscal year 2000 plan.
The new reporting systems include built-in edit checks to provide a
first level data validation function and help ensure the accuracy of
the data. Internal reviews are conducted to ensure that activities meet
all applicable program, technical, and quality standards and are
properly recorded. Additional data validation/verification plans are
being developed to ensure data are nationally consistent and
comparable.
Question. How will future funding requests take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance?
Answer. When our accountability system is fully implemented, we
will have more detailed information on results achieved and the time
required to achieve them, by geographic area. We will be able to more
accurately estimate expected performance at alternative levels of
funding than was possible with information available earlier, which
generally supported only generalized national estimates. We will be
able to identify the causes of any shortfall in expected performance
and to determine corrective action needed. We will hold managers
accountable for performance goals. Where reliable information
demonstrates that performance shortfalls result from insufficient
resources directed to a problem, we will provide the Congress with a
firm basis for making its decisions on future funding.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
agency performance goals reflect the full costs of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. The fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 performance plans
include a summary table that attempts to allocate all agency funds
among the natural resources objectives established in the strategic
plan, thereby indicating the full costs associated with the objective.
Our time and financial systems in the past have not been designed to
track costs by resource outcome. Therefore, at present we can only
estimate full costs of objectives.
Our new time reporting system is designed to provide detailed
information of the time actually spent in supporting each program's
activities and the time spent in certain major activities, such as
conservation planning or application. Data from the time reporting
system and the financial systems will feed the Actual Cost Recovery and
Evaluation System (ACRES), which will provide data on direct, indirect,
and full cost of programs and of the work activities in the time
reporting system.
We made program time the focus of the initial phase in implementing
our new time reporting system because time funded through the
Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) account is used to assist
planning, and to a lesser degree, application, of conservation systems
that are implemented with cost-share funds from some other source.
Oversight entities and the Congress have expressed interest in having a
clearer view of this interaction between programs. While program and
activity data will be adequate to explain the use of funds for
programs, such as the Wetlands Reserve Program, that primarily address
a single resource goal, it may not permit us to track all costs
associated with all resource outcomes for programs such as CTA that
address multiple goals. Further refinement of the workload analysis
effort may be needed in some cases to allocate time to specific natural
resources goals rather than to work activities. A team has been
established to complete an analysis and develop needed mechanisms to
fully integrate the elements of the accountability system.
Office of Budget and Program Analysis
Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
agency to achieve performance based management within your agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. Employee performance standards for OBPA staff establish the
job performance requirements that have to be met in order to accomplish
the performance goals specified in OBPA's Strategic Plan and Annual
Performance Plan.
Question. How are your agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. Accountability for achieving results is ongoing based on
the nature of the work the office carries out on a day-to-day basis
throughout the year. In addition, senior executives performance ratings
are based on whether the desired level of performance is achieved based
on feedback from Departmental policy officials.
Question. How is performance information being used to manage the
agency?
Answer. Managers and staff are aware of what they are expected to
accomplish based on their annual individual performance standards and
elements. During the year, this performance is closely monitored and
remedial actions are taken as necessary to enhance performance.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding requests for fiscal year 2000? Please provide examples.
Answer. It has become apparent that the desired level of program
performance is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain as staff
resources have decreased and program and budget complexity has
increased. To meet these needs the OBPA budget requests increases for
an additional staff year, as well as funds to replace the office's
outdated information technology system. It is expected that these
increased resources will allow the office to maintain and enhance its
performance.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the strategic
plan?
Answer. OBPA has not found it necessary to make any program
changes. The goals we have set out in our GPRA documents are those we
would strive to achieve whether or not there is a requirement to
formally acknowledge such efforts.
Question. How does the agency budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. The OBPA budget structure consists of a single
appropriation for the office. That appropriation encompasses all of the
performance goals based on staff and other resources dedicated to
accomplishing the goals.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. No changes are needed.
Question. Does the agency fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance
plan include performance for which reliable data are expected to be
available in time for the first performance report in March 2000.
Answer. We expect reliable data to be available in time for the
2000 performance report.
Question. How will future funding requests take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance?
Answer. If expected performance is not achieved we will try to
determine the causes for reduced performance and tailor budget
requests, as appropriate. As mentioned previously, the fiscal year 2000
budget request includes increases necessary to achievement of the
performance goals. In addition, we will look for opportunities for
improved performance within existing resources.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
agency performance goals reflect the full costs of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal. For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to the goals?
Answer. All costs are fully allocated to the goals.
Office of Communications
Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within your agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. I asked the Office of Communications'--OC--management team
to refine the focus of our Performance Plan. During that process we
acknowledged that as a communications support agency, our only goal is
to enhance and assist in accomplishing the Department's three goals;
expand economic and trade opportunities for agricultural producers an
other rural residents; ensure food for the hungry, and a safe,
affordable, nutritious and accessible food supply; and promote sensible
management of our natural resources. To fully assure our success in
meeting OC's goal, we reviewed and added to our means and strategies
section. OC managers contributed to this revision so they understand
the linkage of our plan to their performance and to the staff. Managers
will rank their employees' performance according to their
accomplishment of means and strategies and in recognition of their
contributions toward achieving our goal. We have realigned and
strengthened our performance plan to assure that OC provides high
quality and timely support that will contribute significantly toward
USDA meeting its goals.
Question. How are your agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. Weekly reports are used by these managers, the Director and
Deputy Director of OC to monitor the agency'sperformance. In the case
of specific information initiatives, special meetings will be held to
assess OC's performance in meeting those initiatives. Also, the
Director and Deputy Director evaluate and measure the performance of
OC's senior executives and key managers on an annual basis. The
individual performance plans for senior executives and other key
managers used in this process include performance elements that are
tied to OC's means and strategies for accomplishing its performance
goal.
Question. How is performance information being used to manage the
agency?
Answer. OC uses feedback from the media and the public to evaluate
our performance. Positive or negative performance indicators will be
used in evaluating individual performance. Work accountability will
also be measured by weekly activity and management reports. Remedies
and additional actions will be established should performance fall
below the plan.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding requests for fiscal year 2000? Please provide examples.
Answer. The Office of Communications' staff level has been reduced
by more than 20 per cent since 1993. During this time, little or no
funds have been appropriated to expand communications activities,
improve OC's information technology, or to measure USDA and OC
performance in achieving stated communications goals and objectives.
The increases proposed in the fiscal year 2000 budget will be used to
add technological enhancements that allow measurement of communications
performance (e.g., Internet counters or feedback on use of radio and TV
products); train OC staff in the use of the latest technologies;
effectively and efficiently provide information to under served client
populations; and to obtain a limited amount of consulting assistance to
gain specialized skills not currently available. Our requested funding
for fiscal year 2000 is directly related to our annual performance
plan.
The proposed budget includes $588,000 in fiscal year 2000 for OC
to upgrade its technology and provide staff the training necessary to
make use of advances in communications products, technologies, and
techniques so that all segments of the American public may take full
advantage of USDA programs, initiatives, services and data. For
example, upgraded capabilities would include making teleconferences,
publications, and radio and television recordingsprepared for media use
directly available to the general public via the Internet. This will
dramatically transform the general public's access to USDA materials.
Products which were previously available only through the media outlets
at specified times or were available to a limited number of
participants, will be available at the public's convenience and in a
form that will allow for more effective use. Members of the public can
save materials on their own home computers, making them available for
not only current, but future reference. USDA staff around the country
as well as the public can access teleconferences on a variety of topics
such as, informational programs, policy discussions, technical
guidance, and training. If the requested funds are not provided, OC
will not be able to take full advantage of these technological
advances, which will restrict OC's ability to provide information in
the most effective, timely and cost-efficient manner.
The proposed budget also includes $70,000 in fiscal year 2000 for
OC to improve communications efforts to reach groups working with
citizens in under served communities and geographic areas. Funds will
be used to design, produce, distribute and analyze under served client
population surveys and fund audio and video teleconferences with target
populations and organizations.
The proposed budget also includes $201,000 in fiscal year 2000 for
OC to cover the increased cost of critical Department-level
communications coordination and dissemination. Through thisfunding, OC
will use available communications products, technology and techniques
that reach all segments of the American public, regarding food supply
concerns raised by Year 2000 compliance by the agricultural industry.
OC will use radio and television special programs and the printed media
to alert the consumer that food supplies will be delivered as regularly
scheduled.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the strategic
and annual plans?
Answer. The Office of Communications does not manage programs, but
rather supports the programs of the Department's agencies, therefore
there are no changes to report. However, OC continually modifies its
performance based on internal assessments, weekly staff meetings and
feedback from USDA agencies and other customers. In the fiscal year
2000 budget request OC proposes to enhance its evaluation mechanisms
and upgrade the technology usedto disseminate information to the
public.
Question. How does the agency budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. OC's budget structure is a single line item that fully
supports its one performance goal.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. No change is needed to the OC account and activity
structure in the budget justification to improve this linkage.
Question. Does the agency fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance
plan include performance measures for which reliable data are not
likely to be available in time for the first performance report in
March 2000? If so, what steps are planned to improve the reliability of
these measures?
Answer. The fiscal year 2000 budget request includes a request for
additional funding to expand or enhance the evaluation mechanisms used.
If the requested funding is not provided, OC will use existing feedback
and evaluation techniques. If the Electronic Access initiative is not
funded, this will seriously jeopardize OC's ability to achieve its goal
of expanded and enhanced support of USDA's performance goals.
Question. How will future funding requests take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance?
Answer. Office of Communications will meet its targeted performance
if it receives the additional funds appropriated from the fiscal year
2000 budget request. The Office of Communications has not received a
budget increase in the last three years, which required absorbing pay
raises and increased operating expenses.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
agency performance goals reflect the full costs of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. Since OC has only one performance goal, all of its funding
resources, including overhead costs are devoted to this goal.
Office of the Chief Economist
Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within your agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. Strategic and performance goals have been developed to
achieve performance-based management within the Office of the Chief
Economist--OCE. As head of the agency, I worked with the managers to
identify achievable goals and indicators for measuring and validating
OCE accomplishment. Throughout this process, I have emphasized to all
OCE personnel that annual performance appraisals will be based on
achievement of plan criteria.
Question. How are your agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. Senior executives and other key managers are being held
accountable for achieving results by the fact that their performance
ratings and eligibility for bonuses depend on accomplishment of plan
goals and indicators. Their degree of success in achieving these goals
and indicators is related to the degree to which they achieve the
target quantitative and qualitative indicators specified in the
strategic and performance plans.
Question. How is performance information being used to manage the
agency?
Answer. The managers of each element have been made aware of the
specific goals which they are responsible for accomplishing. As
managers provide feedback based on preliminary indicators, progress is
monitored and, if necessary, remedial steps are initiated to ensure
accomplishment of their assigned goals.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding requests for fiscal year 2000? Please provide examples.
Answer. OCE provides analysis and information critical for
effective Department program performance. Examples are: OCE provides
crop and weather information that is essential for accomplishment of
USDA Strategic Plan Goal 1: Expand Economics and Trade Opportunities
for Agricultural Producers and Other Rural Residents. OCE requested
funding for an initiative to modernize weather and climate data
requisition in fiscal year 2000 to provide the Secretary and other
stakeholders with timely, objective, and accurate information and
analyses required to accomplish this Strategic Goal. This initiative
was required to mitigate data gaps caused by the National Weather
Service's decision to redefine its mission and by USDA's need to
operate a modern world meteorological service.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the strategic
and annual plans?
Answer. OCE has not found it necessary to significantly modify its
program to achieve the goals established in its strategic and
performance plans. However, OCE has implemented a variety of program
adjustments to better achieve goals. For example, OCE received
increased funding in fiscal year 1999 to improve food safety risk
assessment in support of the President's Food Safety Initiative. OCE
also organized coordination activities for USDA efforts in the area of
global climate change and small farms.
Question. How does the agency budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. The agency budget is designed to prioritize limited
resources consistent with GPRA goals. Budget requests and FTE levels
are linked to specific performance goals.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. There is no need for changes in the account and activity
structure to improve this linkage.
Question. Does the agency fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance
plan include performance measures for which reliable data are not
likely available in time for the first performance report in March
2000? If so, what steps are planned to improve the reliability of these
measures?
Answer. OCE's fiscal year 2000 Results Act Performance Plan
includes performance measures for which reliable data are expected to
be available in time for the first performance report in March 2000.
Question. How will future funding requests take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance?
Answer. OCE assumes that actual performance will achieve targeted
performance levels unless externalities present obstacles that cannot
be overcome. OCE makes this assumption because its strategic and
performance goals are compatible with the program activity structure
contained in the President's Budget. Because the strategic plan covers
a five-year period, OCE recognizes the possibility that changes or
modifications in its activities may occur, especially, if funding
levels are insufficient or support from other agencies is inadequate.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
agency performance goals reflect the full costs of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. All costs are fully allocated to the goals of OCE. On a
goal by goal basis, costs are allocated in direct proportion to the
number of FTEs required to achieve performance results.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within your agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. During the year I have served as Chief Financial Officer, I
have undertaken a major revision of our strategic plan that reevaluated
who we are, who we serve, and what definitions others would apply to
us. I have emphasized that while compliance with regulations and
standards make for good business practices, we are here to provide a
more productive work environment that results in cost savings and
access to better financial information for decision making purposes.
Individual performance plans of OCFO managers and employees are
linked to and measured against the performance goals contained in our
strategic and annual performance plans.
To institutionalize performance-based management, my Directors
participated in developing the fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000
annual performance plans and determining the objectives and measures
that would indicate success in meeting those objectives. In
coordination with agency contacts and plans, the Directors determined
the Department-wide financial management goals USDA must achieve to
provide the financial information that USDA decision-makers need to
overcome long standing deficiencies in financial management.
Much of OCFO's efforts are currently directed at the modification
or creation of processes that will enable establishment of performance
information (i.e., baselines, targets). These processes include, but
are not limited to, implementation of cost accounting systems, audit
tracking systems, and integrated financial information systems, and
customer satisfaction levels. Accomplishment of these activities is
necessary to monitor Department-wide progress and conduct performance-
based management activities. To some extent, implementation activities
to modify or create these processes are serving as interim measures.
Question. How are your agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. Each Division Director develops an annual operating plan
that supports the annual performance plan. The annual operating plan
lays out the specifics of what their division intends to accomplish for
the year. This serves as a performance contract that is used in their
individual performance ratings. Accountability is determined based on
the level of performance achieved in line with their plan.
Question. How is performance information being used to manage the
agency?
Answer. We are taking advantage of all available information in
managing the Officethis includes time keeping data on hours of effort
spent on projects and activities that relate to the Annual Performance
Plan, as well as special reports on progress for those larger items
such as the Foundation Financial Information System--FFIS
implementation. We are tracking the available data on our Department-
wide goals, e.g., audit closure statistics, corrections of internal
control weaknesses, and progress toward achieving an unqualified
opinion of financial statements.
As stated earlier, there are weekly reports and periodic retreats
where information is used to assess where we are and what steps are
needed for mid-course correction.
Another source of performance information is the USDA Office of
Inspector General and the General Accounting Office. These two
organizations give us continual feedback information regarding our
performance in the area of Departmental leadership for financial
management via a host of audits, management alerts, and reports.
Also, our staff is in touch with the Congressional staff and the
GAO GPRA plan evaluators, collecting information and using it to focus
our performance management activities.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding requests for fiscal year 2000? Please provide examples.
Answer. As part of our fiscal year 2000 Budget and Program
development process, we recognized deficiencies brought to our
attention by GAO (e.g., Major Management Challenges and Programs Risks,
Performance and Accountability Series), our Inspector General, OMB and
the central guidance agencies. The major areas of these deficiencies
included financial management, systems, and reporting timeliness.
In order to overcome these deficiencies OCFO has analyzed these
deficiencies and determined that additional resources of $2 million and
14 staff years are necessary to accomplish the following: (1) releasing
financial statements on time, (2) correcting the material deficiencies
cited in the recent report of the Inspector General on the Audit of the
1997 Consolidated Financial Statement, (3) adequately implementing
Congressionally mandated debt collection provisions, (4) properly
implementing a financial information architecture that fully complies
with Federal requirements, (5) maintaining guidelines for cost
distribution processes to include guidelines for establishment of fees,
(6) assuring compliance with the Single Audit Act and nonprocurement
debarment and suspension/drug-free workplace requirements, (7)
participating as a key player in Government-wide efforts to continually
define and refine financial information requirements, (8) complying
with new reporting requirements such as the accountability report, (9)
developing and retaining a level of financial management expertise in
the USDA agencies that ensures effective use of financial management
information, (10) conducting oversight and guidance of USDA agencies
GPRA planning and reporting requirements.
These planned accomplishments are reflected in the performance
goals contained in our annual performance plans.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the strategic
and annual plans?
Answer. Our biggest program change was the restructuring of the
Foundation Financial Information System (FFIS) project, which was
undertaken in response to an independent evaluation of that project.
FFIS is the cornerstone of our efforts to implement over the next five
years the integrated financial management mandated for each federal
agency by the CFO Act. With the Secretary's support and guidance, we
obtained a waiver from the Office of Personnel Management to bring an
experienced project management team from another Federal agency that
had successfully implemented a central financial system similar to what
we are using at USDA.
Question. How does the agency budget structure link resources to
performance goals?
Answer. The appropriated budget structure for OCFO is a single line
item. There is a table showing by fiscal year the resources needed to
accomplish each strategic goal in terms of source of funding, e.g,
Appropriated, Working Capital Fund, and reimbursements. The sum of
resources by type of fund needed to meet the strategic goals is shown
in tables at the end of the fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000
annual performance plans.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. No change is needed to the OCFO account and activity
structure in the budget justifications.
Question. Does the agency fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance
plan include performance measures for which reliable data are not
likely to be available in time for the first performance report in
March 2000? If so, what steps are planned to improve the reliability of
these measures?
Answer. Our performance goals are based on information we either
have available or will have available for the performance report. The
verification and validation process will tell us whether or not
performance targets for fiscal year 1999 were reached.
Question. How will future funding requests take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance?
Answer. The development of future budgets will assess the
priorities and cost of achieving the performance elements identified in
the Performance Plan. As a result of the assessment, unproductive or
extremely inefficient program objectives will be de-emphasized in favor
of more critical and more productive program elements. Experience with
the performance measures will be used to determine whether or not a
program/activity should be continued, and determine whether the OCFO
operating plan for the program/activity is efficient and producing the
desired outcomes.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
performance goals reflect the full costs of all associated activities
performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead costs
fully allocated to goals?
Answer. The OCFO appropriated overhead costs are fully allocated
among Strategic Goals 1 and 2 in the Annual Performance Plans. Goal 3
includes our WCF funded activities which operate on a full cost
recovery basis with overhead built into the fee for service charged to
our customers.
Office of Chief Information Officer
Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within you agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. During the fiscal year 2000 budget development process,
OCIO staff made certain that all increases were aligned with the
Strategic plan and with the Annual Performance Plan. OCIO developed
specific performance measures for each increase requested in an effort
to track the progress of OCIO program objectives. Project Management
with specific measures and milestones will be instituted in the way
OCIO manages its work in the coming fiscal year.
In November 1998 and April 1999 the OCIO management team met to
track our progress; look at lessons learned; and develop a tactical
plan (in November 1998) to meet our mission. A full session of the
meeting was devoted to determining ``How OCIO Measured up to its 1999
Annual Performance Plan.'' Findings from the session were that OCIO is
on track to meeting its performance goals for fiscal year 1999.
Question. How are your agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. OCIO has recently established a procedure for having senior
executives and key managers quarterly apprise the CIO and Deputy CIO
(DCIO) of progress towards achieving the fiscal year performance goals.
Individual accountability of managers is defined by means of individual
performance standards. Formal performance evaluations take place once a
year.
Question. How is performance information being used to manage the
agency?
Answer. OCIO utilizes performance information as a tool for
measuring program success. The CIO and DCIO also review these
indicators to determine if in fact they are based on outcomes. If the
performance measure does not yield the intended goal, it is changed to
measure the intended goal.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding requests for fiscal year 2000? Please provide examples.
Answer. During the fiscal year 2000 budget development process,
OCIO staff made certain that all increases were aligned with the
Strategic plan and with the Annual Performance Plan. OCIO developed
specific performance measures for each increase requested in an effort
to track the progress of OCIO program objectives. See the example
below:
Performance Goals and indicators
Establish USDA policy on IT management using the Capital Planning
and Investment Control methodology:
Number of USDA agencies using CPIC in the selection, evaluation,
and control of their IT investment portfolio fiscal year 1997, n/a;
fiscal year 1998, 5; fiscal year 1999, 10; and fiscal year 2000, 20.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the strategic
and annual plans?
Answer. Strategic tactical planning was instituted in fiscal year
1998 to help improve performance and meet the goals established in the
strategic and annual plans.
Question. How does the agency budget structure link resources to
performance goals?
Answer. OCIO directly links its budget resources to performance
goals. During the fiscal year 2000 budget development process, OCIO
staff made certain that all increases were aligned with the Strategic
plan and with the Annual Performance Plan. OCIO developed specific
performance measures for each increase requested in an effort to track
the progress of OCIO program objectives.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. We do not consider changes to be necessary at this time.
Question. Does the agency fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance
plan include performance measures for which reliable data are not
likely to be available in time for the first performance report in
March 2000? If so, what steps are planned to improve the reliability of
these measures?
Answer. OCIO expects that its measures will supply reliable
information for the first report. OCIO performance measures will be
improved with each iteration of its tactical plan.
Question. How will future funding requests take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance?
Answer. The fiscal year 2001 and future budget processes will
follow the previous year's budget development process which directly
linked performance measures with increases and dollars in the base.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
performance goals reflect the full costs of all associated activities
performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead costs
fully allocated to goals?
Answer. All costs associated for a program activity are fully
realized in the OCIO performance goals, including overhead for support
staff.
Office of the General Counsel
Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within your agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. I welcome and act upon feedback from Subcabinet level
officials on the success and timeliness of legal services provided as
it relates to achieving the jointly established performance goals and
objectives as required by the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA). Where additional legal resources are required, I direct senior
OGC managers to reallocate resources to properly reflect priorities set
for the Department by the Secretary of Agriculture, Subcabinet level
officials and agency heads.
For example, a paramount issue that has required increased
assistance and counsel is the issues of concentration in agriculture
and the impact on producers. I have directed the reallocation of legal
resources--a senior level official--to work directly with Subcabinet
policy officials to evaluate, assess and address problems in this area.
Question. How are your agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. In addition to meetings with the senior OGC managers as
issues arise, I meet with them collectively, on a weekly basis, to
assess their progress in achieving the agency goal and objectives.
Managers will be held accountable for achieving results through year
end surveys conducted with agency officials which will reveal whether
managers have done a good job in striving to meet the priority needs of
agency officials. The results of these surveys will be discussed during
yearly performance evaluations to inform, guide and direct management
of the achievement of not only OGC's goal but of the success in
assisting USDA officials in meeting their strategic goals.
I also use the established Incentive Awards Program for managers
that deserve special recognition for performance in the achievement of
OGC's goal and objectives. I have sponsored and held management
conference with senior management throughout the organization in order
to be able to evaluate our performance in achieving agency goals.
Question. How is performance information being used to manage the
agency?
Answer. Within OGC, the information gathered through meetings and
consultation with Subcabinet and agency heads, will enable senior
managers to better provide an understanding of priorities to agency
attorneys. This in turn, will regulate the work flow and lessen, to
some extent, the crisis mode of handling agency legal work. This
performance information will also be used to provide managers with
continuing feedback concerning the development of new issues that
require substantial amounts of OGC input, so that resources can be
effectively managed and/or reallocated.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding requests for fiscal year 2000?
Answer. The process of more carefully prioritizing demands for
legal services is clearly required by the current budget environment.
In this current budget climate, increases in staffing to meet constant
or increasing work loads are unlikely to be forthcoming. Therefore, OGC
must plan how resources will be allocated and agency officials must be
educated to understand that legal resources are limited. The process
envisioned by our performance plan will force managers in OGC to work
and consult more closely with agency officials to determine priorities
for legal services and determine whether or not OGC services were
effective and responsive, taking into account established priorities.
For example, If USDA officials indicate that OGC services were not
effective and responsive, taking into account established priorities,
then OGC will determine the reason for this. If additional resources
are needed, then such information will be included in OGC's budget
submission in order to achieve the goals and objectives set forth in
our plan.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the strategic
and annual plan?
Answer. One of the objectives was to create a Civil Rights unit
within OGC. In achieving OGC's objective in a manner that supports the
Secretary's policy objectives, we made a fundamental change within the
agency's organization to transfer and request substantial legal
resources to a newly created Civil Rights division. We have hired a
cadre of experienced civil rights attorneys and support staff, to
include a senior executive with a track record of achievement in Civil
Rights to support the Department's Civil Rights program. We also have
been successful in our efforts to promote workforce diversity by
conducting an outreach program regarding employment opportunities to
minority law students and the physically challenged. We have also
improved the computer and communications systems in the office by
upgrading OGC computers, providing OGC employees with Internet access
and continuing with the implementation of the paradox work tracking
system.
Question. How does the agency budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. The performance goals articulated in the annual performance
plan will be tied directly to the goal stated in our strategic plan.
The goal centers around making OGC more responsive by ensuring that
demands for legal services are prioritized in a manner consistent with
the priorities of the Secretary.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage.
Answer. Since the budget for OGC is requested via single line item
in the President's budget, we do not anticipate any need to change or
modify the account or activity structure to improve this linkage.
Question. Does the agency fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance
plan include performance measures for which reliable data are not
likely to be available in time for the first performance report in
March 2000? If so, what steps are planned to improve the reliability of
these measures?
Answer. We are in the process of developing an internal agency
database which will be used to track OGC's performance measures.
Question. How will future funding requests take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected target performance?
Answer. The assumption underlying the OGC strategic plan are based
on a recognition that staffing levels within OGC are unlikely to change
significantly over the next five years. Therefore, the focus of the
plan will be to ensure that OGC prioritizes its work in a manner which
properly reflects the priorities of the Secretary of Agriculture, the
Under and Assistant Secretaries and Agency Heads. Should funding be
provided at a level that is less than requested, OGC would be unable to
meet its objective of providing effective legal services in a
responsive manner.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
agency performance goals reflect the full costs of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. The fully allocated costs of providing legal services have
been distributed to OGC's performance goals.
Office of the Inspector General
Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within your agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. We have developed the strategic and annual plans required
by the Act and identified the mission and performance goals,
objectives, and performance indicators to foster performance-based
management within OIG. We have initiated revisions to our management
information system to capture the data needed to measure our progress,
and we continually stress the need to achieve our performance goals to
our managers.
Question. How are your agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
The agency's executives and managers are being held accountable
through an ongoing assessment of the results produced. Senior
executives and other key managers are evaluated based on the measurable
activities results of the personnel. Executives and managers are
directing the efforts of the agency towards areas that can maximize our
efforts and are evaluated accordingly.
Question. How is performance information being used to manage the
agency?
Answer. We are using performance information to enable us to gain
insight into the adequacy of our internal policies and procedures and
to compare quantitative and qualitative results with our initial
benchmarks. As mentioned above, the agency tracks a wide range of data
on the audits and investigations conducted and results achieved by its
staff. This computerized management information system is the backbone
of program management. Performance information is being used to
identify areas in which our methods need to be changed and to assess
the effectiveness of these changes.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding requests for fiscal year 2000? Please provide examples.
Answer. Program performance and all other aspects of the agency's
operations and needs are routinely considered as decisions are made
regarding the agency's funding requests. Our special Presidential law
enforcement initiative identified as Operation Talon exemplifies this
effort. Under Operation Talon, the agency has worked with local law
enforcement and social service agencies to identify fugitive felons who
are receiving Government benefits from the Department's programs. It
has been highly successful nationwide providing outstanding results in
identifying these fugitive felons and removing them from the benefit
roles. It has been so successful it was announced by the Vice President
in December 1997 at a high profile media event which also touted
cooperation between Federal, State, and local Governments. These
results helped support our decision to seek additional funding to
enhance our law enforcement efforts under our goal of promoting program
integrity in the Department's programs by detecting fraud, waste, and
abuse in these programs.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the strategic
and annual plans?
Answer. We have intensified our planning efforts by seeking input
from agency management personnel and gathering information from other
sources, such as consultations with the Congress and through the media
to identify those areas that require a more intensive focus. We
continuously evaluate, and changes are made to the workload, staffing
assignments, etc., to improve performance. We also perform research to
familiarize ourselves with any changes that may have occurred in USDA
agencies and mission areas during each year and prepare profiles
detailing the changes and their impact. The profile information is used
to prepare strategies that define those areas where OIG resources can
best be applied to help ensure that the Department's programs are more
efficient, effective, and better protected against fraud, waste, and
abuse.
Question. How does the agency budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. All of the agency's appropriated funding is allocated to
its performance goals which are linked to the agency's budget
structure.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. None.
Question. Does the agency fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance
plan include performance measures for which reliable data are not
likely to be available in time for the first performance report in
March 2000? If so, what steps are planned to improve the reliability of
these measures?
Answer. Audit and Investigations' performance data are expected to
be available for the performance evaluation and will be available in
time for the first performance report.
Question. How will future funding requests take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance?
Answer. As more information is available--and its accuracy and
reliability assessed--on how the agency's goals actually reflect its
operations, costs, and results, these will be made part of the agency's
decisionmaking process in determining future funding requests, as well
as other activities of the agency's day-to-day operations.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
agency performance goals reflect the full costs of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. The agency's performance goals reflect the full costs of
each goal including a pro rata portion of all associated overhead or
other related costs.
Rural Development
Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within your agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. The development and implementation of performance-based
management is an ongoing process. We expect managers to use the
strategic plan as a guiding management tool. In addition to the
development of annual performance plans at the agency-level, as
required by the Results Act, Rural Development State Directors are
required to develop annual performance plans for their States,
including measurable performance targets. Agency Administrators
annually issue their ``Administrator's Priority Performance Goals''
which detail performance targets by program to be achieved at the
state-level. These performance targets, directly and indirectly,
support the performance measures used in the annual performance plans.
State Directors' annual performance appraisals reflect their success in
attaining these performance targets and implementing their annual
plans.
Question. How are your agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. The annual performance appraisal for senior executives and
State Directors now includes an evaluation of their success in meeting
specific program performance targets.
Question. How is performance information being used to manage the
agency?
Answer. The performance indicators in the Annual Performance Plans,
along with other measures and forms of information, are used by senior
management in the day-to-day management of the agencies. For example,
to maximize its limited resources and increase the amount of funds
available for rural development, leveraging is a key objective in the
mission area's strategic plan. Rural Development agencies have strongly
pushed their employees and customers to find ways to leverage their
funds with private and public partners. Each of the Annual Performance
Plans include performance measures tracking the Agency's leveraging
activity for most of their programs.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding requests for fiscal year 2000? Please provide examples.
Answer. Funding requests for Rural Development programs are based
on many factors, especially need, which is essentially determined by
requests for funding. For loan and grant programs the performance
measures in the Annual Performance Plan are tied directly to the level
of funding provided for each program. For example, the strong need for
clean drinking water in rural areas, as defined through the President's
Water 2000 Initiative, has resulted in an increase in the President's
request for Water and Waste Loan funds from $730 million in fiscal year
1999 to $900 million for fiscal year 2000. This results in an increase
in the performance measurement ``rural people served who did not
previously have public water service'' from 539,000 people served in
fiscal year 1999 to an estimate of 648,000 people served in fiscal year
2000.
Likewise, the unmet demand for Business Programs and the
performance of loans in recent years were considered in fiscal year
2000 funding request decisions. In the Intermediary Loan Program, a
large unmet need (approximately $41.4 million) due to a lack of funds
existed at the end of the fiscal year 1998. This level of unmet need
continued in fiscal year 1999 and is anticipated to continue in fiscal
year 2000. Because of this a significant increase in program level
funding, from $33 million in fiscal year 1999 to $52.5 in fiscal year
2000, is being requested by the President. This increase will result in
an increase in the Performance Measure ``number of jobs created or
saved'' through the IRP from 25,250 in fiscal year 1999 to 40,170 in
fiscal year 2000.
Poverty among rural seniors is staggering. The Economic Research
Service reports 42 percent of rural seniors, over the age of 74, are at
or below 150 percent of the poverty rate. A majority of these seniors
are women and own their own homes. The Section 504 Home Repair loan and
grant programs help low-income senior citizens eliminate health and
safety problems in their homes. The average income of a Section 504
recipient is $12,400 and fifty percent of all participants earn less
than $8,710 each year. All recipients of Section 504 grants are very
low-income elderly people, and 67 percent of them are single women
(usually widows). More than half of the Section 504 loan recipients are
senior citizens. The President's proposal to increase the Section 504
loan and grant programs, from $55 million in fiscal year 1999 to $62
million in fiscal year 2000, will result in an increase in the ``number
of existing houses improved'' for low income rural senior citizens from
8200 homes in fiscal year 1999 to over 11,200 homes in fiscal year
2000.
The Farm Labor Housing loan and grant programs received increases
from $33.5 million in the fiscal year 1999 budget to $40 million in the
President's fiscal year 2000 budget. This increase was in recognition
that the programs reach a population, namely farmworkers, that is
underserved not only by USDA but also by the rest of the Federal
Government. The USDA Farm Labor Housing programs are the only Federal
programs dedicated to farm worker housing and these programs are among
the few programmatic opportunities USDA has to serve farmworkers, since
farmworkers typically do not participate in food assistance programs
such as WIC or food stamps. The Secretary committed to increasing the
funding for these programs as part of his civil rights initiative. The
proposed funding increases will result in an increase in the ``number
of Section 514/516 units built'' for farmworkers from 495 units in
fiscal year 1999 to over 600 units in fiscal year 2000.
The Community Facilities direct and guaranteed loan programs, plus
the grant program, allow communities to provide basic services that
will enhance the quality of life of the residents. Community Facilities
programs can be used to address a panoply of rural community needs,
ranging from child care centers to job training centers to teacher
housing. Ninety percent of the recipients of Community Facilities
direct loans receive loans at ``poverty'' or ``intermediate'' interest
rates, which are significantly below market rates, because the
communities cannot afford to repay the debt at the full interest rate.
The President proposed an increase in the Community Facilities programs
from $387 million in fiscal year 1999 to $473 in fiscal year 2000. This
increase is reflected in a number of performance measures in the Rural
Housing Service's Annual Performance Plan. Several of these measures
are: an increase in the ``number of new or improved health care
facilities'' in rural areas, from 136 in fiscal year 1999 to 165 in
fiscal year 2000; an increase in the ``number of beds available at new
or improved elder care facilities'' from nearly 2200 in fiscal year
1999 to over 2650 in fiscal year 2000; and an increase in the ``number
of children served by new or improved child care centers'' from
approximately 6100 in fiscal year 1999 to approximately 7400 in fiscal
year 2000.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the strategic
and annual plans?
Answer. Rural Development has made several program changes to
improve performance and performance measurement. For example, the Rural
Utilities Service observed that the existing eligibility and
application scoring criteria for its Distance Learning and Telemedicine
program were impeding its ability to meet its goals for targeting of
funds to the neediest applicants. The criteria was changed to eliminate
the problem. The Rural Business-Cooperative Service observed that its
information management system did not track certain information to
monitor goal accomplishments. While the automated system is being
enhanced, a manual reporting system was designed so the State Offices
can report their accomplishments on goals to the National Office on a
quarterly basis.
The Rural Housing Service recognized the need to increase its
leveraging activity in order to implement the mission area strategic
plan and to increase the funding available for rental housing in rural
communities. In fiscal year 1999 the Agency changed its regulations to
begin awarding Farm Labor Housing and Section 515 Rural Rental Housing
funds through nationwide competitions and to give preference to
leveraged applications. The Farm Labor Housing competition has not been
completed but the Section 515 process is done. By giving priority to
leveraged applications, the Rural Housing Service was able to leverage
its $79 million for new construction by more than 75 percent. This
excellent precedent sends a signal to Section 515 applicants that they
must leverage in order to receive funding from the Agency and it will
hopefully elicit an even higher level of matching funds in the future.
Question. How does the agency budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. Rural Development established one strategic plan which
supports the three agencies constituting the mission area. The Rural
Development Strategic Plan contains a mission statement which
encompasses the role of the entire mission area and three Goals, one
for each agency. It also contains four broad Management Initiatives
which support the entire mission area. By having a Goal for each
agency, alignment with the existing budget structure, which is agency
and program based, is achieved. Separate Annual Performance Plans for
each agency facilitate reconciliation with the budget request over the
entire mission area. The Goals in the mission area Annual Performance
Plan, which align with the Objectives in the strategic Plan, are
supported by one or more quantifiable performance measures to be
achieved during the fiscal year.
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. Rural Development does not need any changes to the account
and activity structure to support the Results Act. Individual agency
performance plans focus on the major programs that account for the bulk
of the mission area's funding.
Question. Does the agency fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance
plan include performance measures for which reliable data are not
likely to be available in time for the first performance report in
March 2000? If so, what steps are planned to improve the reliability of
these measures?
Answer. We have established performance measures in the annual
performance plans that support the goals in the strategic plan and have
given priority to the development of measures which could be verified
in future performance reports. These measures are largely based and
drawn from our existing automated data systems, which are mainly
financial systems and are audited annually by the Office of the
Inspector General. The quality of these data are generally good but,
since they are primarily financially-based, may not be as outcome-
oriented as some might like. These measures are indicative of the types
of data used in the day-to-day management of the agency. While we
believe having results-oriented data, which would measure the impact of
the program on the customer, would be useful, it is also difficult to
define and would require the development of new data and systems. No
resources are now available to support new systems development for
Results Act reporting purposes. Until additional resources become
available, we will continue to rely on existing information systems for
monitoring accomplishments.
Question. How will future funding requests take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance?
Answer. Funding requests for loan and grant programs are primarily
needs-driven while the performance measures are primarily a function of
the amount of funds provided for the program. Programs that perform
exceptionally well on measures of greatest priority, such as their
capability to serve those rural Americans most in need, will be
considered for increases. However, given the Administration's desire to
stay within budget targets, it is unlikely that any programs will
receive significant increases.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
agency performance goals reflect the full costs of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. Rural Development's comprehensive program delivery
structure, which provides services across all of rural America, is not
conducive to explicitly identifying and associating all overhead costs
directly with individual performance activities. Rural Development
staff and support resources are generally commingled in the delivery of
mission area programs. Field staff provide housing, business,
cooperative, water and waste, and community facilities program
services. Administrative service activities support all of the program
areas. It would not be useful or meaningful to attempt to allocate
costs at too fine a level. Overhead costs are fully allocated to the
goals, but only at the macro level.
Risk Management Agency
Question. What specific steps have you taken as the head of the
agency to achieve performance-based management within your agency, as
required by the Government Performance and Results Act?
Answer. In January of this year, the Risk Management Agency (RMA)
initiated a series of quarterly executive meetings for the purpose of
discussing and improving Agency performance. At the first meeting, six
macro performance measures were identified: 1) loss ratio, 2) market
information, 3) financial audit, 4) public awareness, 5) program
integrity, and 6) administrative costs. These measures were developed
in consultation with the private insurance sector.
At the second meeting, these macro-level indicators were merged
into our operational strategy. From this strategy, numeric micro-level
performance standards will be developed.
Question. How are your agency's senior executives and other key
managers being held accountable for achieving results?
Answer. Each of our senior executives have performance elements in
their standards that relate to the performance measures established in
compliance with the GPRA. Data will not be available this year to judge
the performance of all of these measures. Thus, executives will be
judged by their having completed initiation of a process to obtain and
evaluate these measures.
For example, farmers' awareness of risk management methods is one
performance measure. RMA has included questions to assess this
awareness in upcoming farmer surveys. The results of this survey,
however, will not be available in this rating period.
Question. How is performance information being used to manage the
agency?
Answer. Many of the performance measures are relatively new and
baselines are still being established. In addition, the performance of
an insurance program is typically measured over a period of years due
to the statistical basis of an insurance program.
The major divisions within RMA have been assigned macro-level
performance measures. For example, Research and Development has been
assigned responsibility for the loss ratio. Loss ratio measures the
amount of indemnities paid per premium received and is set by statute
to be 1.075 with a reasonable reserve. Compliance with this standard is
measured over a period of years. RMA is working with an actuarial
consulting firm to determine if the means used to set premiums, which
directly affects the loss ratio, are adequate. If the loss ratio is
routinely exceeded, premium rates will be adjusted to compensate.
Similarly, Insurance Services has been assigned to monitor market
indicators such as the market share and penetration for various risk
management products. A marketing plan is being developed to establish
the baseline for these measures as well as to determine means to
improve them. The summary of business reports and related analyses will
be used to determine which insurance products are most frequently used.
Maintenance on remaining products will be dropped so that scarce
resources can be used elsewhere.
These are two examples of how performance measures are used to
adjust the course of the agency.
Question. How did program performance factor into decisions about
funding requests for fiscal year 2000? Please provide examples.
Answer. When the fiscal year 2000 President's Budget was announced
earlier this year, USDA presented specific ideas for strengthening the
farm safety net. These ideas emerged as a result of the farm crisis in
1998. Farm income fell precipitously, commodity prices plummeted as
world markets softened, and other farmers struggled with the effect of
natural disasters that hit many parts of the country. Neither the crop
insurance program nor the 1996 farm bill were able to ameliorate the
dramatic losses the farm economy suffered. As a result, weaknesses in
the program were exposed. For example, we learned that our program is
unable to provide adequate levels of protection to producers suffering
multiple years of loss. Too many farmers remain uninsured or under-
insured. Many crops and commodities, like livestock, do not have
federally-backed insurance available to them, and farmers have far too
little instruction on the risk management tools and strategies that can
protect and improve their farm revenue.
In response to these concerns, USDA offered the following
preliminary proposals: bring new, more flexible risk management tools
to farmers; make the basic program more financially worthwhile by
raising the floor on basic crop insurance coverage; increase incentives
for farmers to purchase higher levels of coverage; cover multi-year
disasters; cover livestock; make farmers in designated disaster areas
eligible for NAP assistance once such a designation occurs; and provide
better information and risk management education to farmers.
Question. What specific program changes has the agency made to
improve performance and achieve the goals established in the strategic
and annual plans?
Answer. In response to the farm crisis that exposed weaknesses in
the crop insurance program, USDA has suggested the following proposals
for change. These changes would allow RMA to achieve their goal
established in its strategic and annual plans, ``To strengthen the
safety net for agricultural producers through sound risk management
programs and education.''
--Raise the Coverage Floor.--Raise coverage to 60 percent of approved
yield indemnified at 70 percent of the expected market price, a
50 percent increase. Caution is needed to avoid raising buy-up
insurance too high thereby shifting production and potentially
depressing prices further. Caution is also needed to avoid
raising CAT coverage too high due to the potential buy-down
affect on current buy-up policy holders.
--Make Higher-level Coverage More Affordable.--Increase the premium
subsidy so that coverage at 70 percent of the approved yield
indemnified at 100 percent of the expected market price level
(or 70/100) will cost the producer the same as 65/100 coverage
does today. Additionally, provide an additional premium subsidy
for coverage above the 70/100 level of 50 percent of the
additional premium, and make all insurance plans, including
revenue, equal in terms of assistance for premium. Review of
company expense reimbursements may be warranted in recognition
of the higher premium. The subsidy rate at these higher
coverage levels would be 55 percent.
--Cover Multi-year Disasters.--Develop a new multi-year insurance
``umbrella'' to complement single-year policies. Further, crop
insurance price elections and company expense payments would be
based on multi-year price averages, avoiding sharp inter-year
swings. In this context, RMA would also examine alternatives to
the current method of determining the yields used as the basis
for coverage.
--Speed Flexible, New Risk Management Tools to Market.--Stimulate the
flow of new risk management tools to farmers by: (a)
authorizing RMA to reimburse companies for costs of successful
new products that they develop; (b) expanding contracting with
the private sector to develop products for smaller crops; (c)
reducing the regulatory procedures required to develop and
update policies; and (d) giving RMA greater flexibility to use
pilot projects, including pilot programs on a nationwide scale.
--Cover Livestock.--Authorize RMA to pilot revenue-based livestock
insurance products proposed by the private sector. On an
initial basis, USDA proposed providing up to $50 million per
year from the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) Fund
for these products.
--Improve the Noninsured Assistance Program (NAP).--Many farmers rely
on the NAP program as their primary protection from natural
disaster losses. Coverage should be increased to 60 percent of
yield and 70 percent of price, commensurate with the CAT
increase. In addition, the cost-effectiveness of the current
area trigger versus a Secretarial disaster designation should
be reviewed.
--Provide Better Information and Services to Farmers.--As changes are
made to strengthen the crop insurance programs as part of the
farm safety net, it will also be important that farmer
awareness is increased so that producers can more quickly
access a wide range of both new and existing risk management
tools. Crop insurance reform should include a public awareness
outreach effort to enable producers to assume more
responsibility for greater understanding, and to better manage
their risk management planning portfolios.
Question. How does the agency budget structure link resource
amounts to performance goals?
Answer. The performance measures specifically link resources to
goals, as many of the goals are financially based. The Agency also uses
the approach of establishing annual performance goals and indicators
that gauge progress toward achieving the long-term general goal and
objectives found in its strategic plan. As a result, all resources
directly support the general goal of the Agency, ``To strengthen the
safety net for agricultural producers through sound risk management
programs and education.''
Question. What, if any, changes to the account and activity
structure in the budget justification are needed to improve this
linkage?
Answer. RMA feels no changes are necessary given the fact that we
have established performance goals and indicators that gauge progress
toward achieving the long-term general goal of the Agency.
Question. Does the agency fiscal year 2000 Results Act performance
plan include performance measures for which reliable data are not
likely to be available in time for the first performance report in
March 2000? If so, what steps are planned to improve the reliability of
these measures?
Answer. Yes. We envision difficulty in gauging farmers' use and
knowledge of risk management tools. The following steps are being taken
to try to improve the reliability of the measure: RMA is sponsoring
some educational projects which include surveys on farmers' use and
knowledge of risk management tools for certain regions of the U.S.
However, sufficient funding for a comprehensive and reliable U.S.
survey is not currently available. RMA is closely monitoring risk
management educational opportunities of U.S. producers through regional
activity logs. The extent of risk management education opportunities
can be a proxy measure for knowledge of risk management tools.
Question. How will future funding requests take into consideration
actual performance compared to expected or target performance?
Answer. RMA intends to monitor the crop insurance program and take
into consideration the actual performance of the program when
requesting future funding. For example, RMA will continue to evaluate
and address program concerns such as: shortfalls of basic CAT coverage;
low prices; multiple-year losses; revenue insurance participation; and
lack of federally-backed livestock insurance. In addition, RMA will
continue to analyze the number of acres which were actually insured,
compare them to our fiscal year estimates, and revise as necessary. The
number of policies in force, potential policies, premium cost per acre,
and participation levels will also be evaluated and revised to reflect
the most current data or trend. Furthermore, RMA intends on using the
results of farmer surveys that gauge farmers' awareness of risk
management methods, as well as regional activity logs, in determining
future resource requirements of the Risk Management Education and
Public Awareness/Outreach initiatives.
There are some factors, however, that are more difficult to
consider when comparing actual performance and target performance. For
example, it would be nearly impossible to predict a loss ratio based on
prior year actuals, due to occurrences such as unforeseen weather
disasters. Compliance with this standard is generally measured over a
period of years. As as result, the Agency uses the mandated loss ratio
of 1.075 in projecting loss estimates. If, however, the loss ratio is
routinely exceeded, premium rates will be adjusted to compensate.
Question. To what extent do the dollars associated with specific
agency performance goals reflect the full cost of all associated
activities performed in support of that goal? For example, are overhead
costs fully allocated to goals?
Answer. All resources, including total Administrative and Operating
(A&O) and Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) Fund dollars, are
linked to and directly support the general goal of the Agency, ``To
strengthen the safety net for agricultural producers through sound risk
management programs and education.''
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000
----------
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, and Related
Agencies for inclusion in the record. The submitted materials
relate to the fiscal year 2000 budget request for programs
within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.]
Prepared Statement of the Ad Hoc Coalition
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, this statement is
respectfully submitted for the hearing record on behalf of the ad hoc
coalition \1\ supporting fiscal year 2000 appropriations for title I of
Public Law 480 at not less than the same level as provided in the
current fiscal year. The ad hoc coalition applauds the Administration's
estimate that $91 million of CCC funds will be used to support Food for
Progress in fiscal year 2000. The coalition also supports full funding
for title II at not less than the same level as provided in the current
fiscal year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The ad hoc coalition is composed of the USA Rice Federation,
the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Corn Growers
Association, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the American
Soybean Association, the National Grain Sorghum Producers, the American
Maritime Congress, the Maritime Institute for Research and Industrial
Development, the Transportation Institute, TECO Transport Corporation,
and Liberty Maritime Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its fiscal year 2000 budget, the Administration without
explanation recommends a title I program level of only $150 million, a
substantial decline from that established by the Congress for the
current fiscal year. Our members also note with dismay that funding for
title III, Public Law 480, has been zeroed out in the President's
budget. This small program, which protects the poorest of the poor,
should be restored at least to the $25 million level provided by
Congress in the current fiscal year. At a time when U.S. agricultural
prices are low, the Department should sustain these historic programs,
with strong Congressional support, to alleviate hardships in friendly
countries and promote new markets over the long term for our farmers.
long-term significance of public law 480
Mr. Chairman, the title I program has an illustrious history. From
enactment in 1954 until the mid-1960s, title I shipments accounted for
about 20 percent of the annual value of all agricultural exports. Until
foreign sales dramatically increased in the 1970s, title I shipments
continued to represent more than five percent of all agricultural
exports. As recently as fiscal year 1990, moreover, title I export
values regularly exceeded $700 million. Only in recent years has the
U.S. commitment to this program eroded substantially, to a low of $202
million in title I credit sales in fiscal year 1997.
Under the leadership of your Subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, Congress
in fiscal year 1998 reversed the severe decline in title I program
funding. In that year, credit sales increased from $202 million to $252
million, despite severe limitations imposed by the Congressional budget
process. When the administration proposed again that the title I
program level for fiscal year 1999 be sharply reduced, you responded by
nearly doubling the funding requested for the program. Under severe
budget constraints, the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittees of the
Congress have sustained title I when competing demands for resources
have been most persistent.
This year the wisdom of Congress' decision to preserve title I has
been demonstrated for everyone to see. In the face of declining farm
prices at home and serious economic dislocations abroad, the Clinton
Administration has undertaken a Food Aid Initiative which includes an
allocation of $726 million from the CCC to the title I program
accounts. This will increase the program level for title I in fiscal
year 1999 to $1,070,000,000, including $996 million in commodity
credits and $104 million for ocean freight differential and ocean
transportation costs.
In fiscal year 1999, the title I program of Food for Peace was
available to provide emergency assistance to the Russian Federation,
and to provide additional markets for American agricultural products.
This has happened before. It will happen again. The program must be
preserved and sustained at reasonable levels to ensure its availability
when adverse conditions recur at home or abroad. The great significance
of title I in trying times has once again been shown; its long-term
significance as a principal food aid and market-developing program
cannot be forgotten.
Mr. Chairman, the export subsidy reduction commitments established
in conjunction with the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture severely
restrict U.S. flexibility in agriculture export market development.
Those commitments curtail the use of the Export Enhancement Program and
similar strategies that might be implemented in the future. But Food
for Peace is exempt from the Uruguay Round restrictions: Public Law 480
remains one of the principal programs for penetrating new overseas
markets, for establishing trading relationships that will surely become
essential to the economic survival of our agricultural sector.
outlook for u.s. agricultural trade
In the two decades following World War II, Food for Peace was
instrumental in securing long-term, stable markets for American food
and fiber. In fiscal year 1996, U.S. agricultural exports reached a
record value of $59.8 billion, representing more than 25 percent of
total farm cash receipts for crops and livestock. In that year, the
U.S. share of the global agricultural export market reached 23 percent,
an increase of more than one-third in a single decade. But the record
level achieved in fiscal year 1996 was no more than a snapshot of
conditions at a given moment in time. Regrettably, conditions have only
deteriorated since that banner year.
Mr. Chairman, as the Department has reported, lower world market
prices and export volumes reduced U.S. agricultural exports to $53.6
billion in fiscal year 1998, a full ten percent below fiscal year
1996's record high. In the current fiscal year, the Department expects
the value of farm exports to decline to $49 billion. About 85 percent
of the decline reflects reduced exports to Asia, but Brazil this year
is also expected to reduce significantly its purchases from American
farmers. This is particularly important to rice farmers, as Brazil in
fiscal year 1998 accounted for one-fifth of total U.S. rice exports.
The President's Food Aid Initiative will account for shipments of
5.0 million metric tons of farm produce, an amount equal to all other
U.S. food aid combined for the current fiscal year. This initiative has
the strong support of the American agricultural sector, but it is not
sustainable over the long term. As conditions at home and abroad return
to normal, the United States once again will rely upon title I, Food
for Peace, and other critical programs to maintain and expand export
markets, and to create new markets in emerging economies throughout the
world.
The Foreign Agricultural Service of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, in administering Food for Peace, will be instrumental in
protecting existing markets and developing potential new markets.
Through sustained title I funding, Congress must give the Department
the tools it needs to do the job.
usda should be directed to use title i resources
Mr. Chairman, the ad hoc coalition strongly recommends a fiscal
year 2000 appropriation for title I of Public Law 480 at not less than
the level provided in fiscal year 1999. Using carryover funding from
prior fiscal years, increased levels for the baseline program can be
achieved without diverting resources from other worthwhile programs of
the Department.
Mr. Chairman, the ad hoc coalition respectfully requests report
language accompanying the fiscal year 2000 funding bills which would
direct the Department of Agriculture to increase title I country
allocations and make full use of the resources available for this
worthwhile program. A strong and sustained title I program is the best
insurance for Congress that the Department can promptly respond to
future changes in the global agriculture export market and protect and
develop new markets for our farmers.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, the administration has long acknowledged the
importance of title I of Food for Peace as a program to promote long-
term markets for U.S. commodities, and to alleviate hardship in
friendly countries. But the administration suggests a title I program
level for fiscal year 2000 of only $150 million, a substantial decline
from that established by Congress for the current fiscal year.
With enactment of the 1996 Farm Bill, Government price supports and
producer payments are being phased down. As a result, agricultural
producers have become increasingly dependent on export markets to
sustain a healthy economy. The title I, Public Law 480 program, coupled
with the other export programs, have become of even greater
significance than ever before in meeting this objective, sustaining the
many allied industries dependent upon a healthy agricultural economy,
as well as providing valuable humanitarian assistance to developing
countries.
The members of the ad hoc coalition respectfully request an
appropriation of not less than last year's level for the title I
program and committee report language directing the Department of
Agriculture to establish a program level for the title I program that
makes full use of this appropriation and the carryover funds. The need
is there. We also request that the Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittees of Congress closely monitor the performance of the
Department in fulfilling this objective over the course of the fiscal
year.
Our farmers and the U.S. maritime transport system depend upon
Congress to set the standard, and upon the Department to meet that
standard, as we enter an era of uncertainty and volatility in trading
relationships. The title I program of Food for Peace must be preserved
and effectively employed to promote American interests in an
environment of uncertain markets and increasing global competition.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation
The American Farm Bureau Federation has identified four USDA
program areas for which adequate fiscal year 2000 funding is essential.
They are:
--programs key to the proper implementation of the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA),
--funding for reform of the crop insurance program
--programs to expand foreign markets for agriculture
--funding for research to keep American agriculture competitive.
These priorities are highlighted in the first portion of this
statement. The second portion contains a list of additional programs
supported by Farm Bureau.
food quality protection act
Farm Bureau supports the Administration's request for $204 million
for the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) and related programs. Farm
Bureau supports $36 million for FQPA directly related programs, plus
$127 million for integrated pest management research (IPM), $21 million
for pesticide data collection and $20 million for pesticide
registration, clearance, assessment and training
We support full funding for the Pesticide Data Program (PDP). PDP
provides valuable pesticide residue information to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) so that pesticide tolerance reassessment
decisions can be made on actual residue levels rather than on
theoretical maximums. Implementation of the FQPA must occur in a manner
that does not harm production agriculture. This depends on the
availability of accurate data on pesticide use and residues on crops.
We support full funding for the Office of Pest Management. The
Office of Pest Management should provide advocacy for farmers'
continued access to safe and effective crop products and must be
adequately funded to perform this important task.
Key functions of the Office of Pest Management must include
assisting EPA in establishing accurate data for risk assessments where
current data is inaccurate or incomplete. This includes the development
of crop profiles, which will be used by EPA in making risk assessments
and tolerance decisions. USDA must be a full partner with EPA in all
key implementation policy decisions. To reduce disruption of U.S.
agricultural producers, USDA should conduct an economic impact analysis
of proposed EPA implementation strategies, including EPA's proposals
relating to risk assessments for the organophosphate and carbamate
pesticides.
We support full funding for the IR-4 Program, which provides data
to EPA to clear new uses and tolerances for pesticides used on minor
crops. Minor crops are likely to be impacted first by FQPA
implementation. The IR-4 Program, if properly utilized, can provide
data to support new, effective, economical and safe pesticide uses for
crops impacted by FQPA.
crop insurance/risk management
The federal crop insurance program must provide greater flexibility
and more effective coverage for all agricultural commodities.
Participation must be increased and the program should be expanded to
include a comprehensive revenue insurance program to protect farmers
from economic disasters due to weather or prices. The need for a short-
term emergency financial assistance package last year again pointed up
the urgency for effective crop insurance and risk management programs.
Reforms in risk management programs must assure broad-based
availability and affordability for livestock as well as crops.
Producers must have the opportunity to purchase coverage with small
deductibles. These programs must also address multi-year disasters.
We were disheartened that the Administration did not include
additional money for crop insurance reform in its fiscal year 2000
budget proposal after indicating earlier that it planned to submit a
proposal. Several members of Congress have come forward with major
reform plans that merit serious consideration. Depending on the
assumptions used, most of the plans carry yearly costs beyond current
funding levels of $1.5 billion to $2.5 billion per year. We recommend
that a minimum of $2 billion per year in additional funding be
earmarked for these programs.
export programs
Continued funding of export development programs is fundamental to
improving farm income, both in the short and long run. We recommend
maximum funding of all export development programs consistent with our
commitments under WTO trade rules.
We support increased funding for the GSM credit program. We endorse
the Administration's aggressive use of GSM 102, GSM 103 and supplier
credit guarantee programs in fiscal year 1999, and back its plans to
continue.
We support increased funding for the Market Access Program (MAP)
and the Export Enhancement Program (EEP). MAP funding should be
restored to its original funding level of $200 million. We oppose
efforts by the Administration to reduce the Export Enhancement Program
program level by $85 million to $494 million. While we understand the
administration's need to find budget offsets for other high priority
spending, this reduction sends the wrong signal to other countries that
subsidize exports, hurts our competitiveness overseas, and puts the
United States at a disadvantage in the upcoming negotiations on
agriculture in the World Trade Organization. We support funding for the
Dairy Export Incentive Program to the full extent allowed under the
Uruguay Round Agreement.
We support increased funding for Public Law 480 programs, the
primary means by which the United States provides foreign food
assistance. We appreciate the Administration's aggressive use of $1.07
billion in Public Law 480 Title 1 credit sales to move additional
products into the export markets during fiscal year 1999. We do not
agree with the recommendation to reduce use of the program to $150
million.
We support funding of APHIS Import/Export programs at $7.2 million
to maintain current services and assist in reducing unfair trading
practices. The Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program should be
funded at no less than the current level.
agricultural research
Agricultural research and the distribution of that research to
producers is critical to the future of our industry. One of the
implicit areas of agreement when the 1996 Farm Bill was enacted was
that funding for agricultural research would be increased to allow U.S.
producers to maintain their competitive position in world markets. To
date this has not happened. In order to move the research agenda
forward we support the following:
--$120 million for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food
Systems authorized by the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998.
--$200 million for the National Research Initiative Competitive
Grants program. Originally authorized at $500 million annually,
the program has only been funded at $100 million to $120
million.
We support enhanced funding for the Agricultural Research Service
(ARS), with particular emphasis in the following areas:
--an increase of $8.1 million for emerging diseases and exotic pests
of plants and animals. Care must be taken to assure that
animal, plant and aquaculture concerns are addressed.
--an increase of $9 million for work in the area of plant and animal
genetic resources and the Agricultural Genome Project.
--an increase of $11.7 million for work in food safety, to address
both pre-and post-harvest areas. This should include work on
manure handling, risk assessment and antibiotic resistance.
--an increase of $2 million for Agricultural Information to develop
or enhance information systems delivery for rural America.
We support adequate funding for ARS to transfer the National Swine
Research Center at Ames, Iowa from Iowa State University to ARS and to
fully staff the facility. Estimated needed funding for this would be
$10 million per year.
We support ARS funding of $8.2 million for general maintenance and
modernization of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center.
We support current ARS activities regarding honeybee research and
strongly opposes plans to close the Tucson laboratory.
The National Soil Tilth Lab at Ames, Iowa should be maintained at
its current level of funding to continue work on soil, water, manure
and nutrient management to improve the environment and farmers' ability
to sustain profitable operations for the long term.
We support CSREES funding of $4.8 million for Animal Health and
Disease, Section 1433.
We support CSREES requests for funding of the following special
research grants:
--$2.7 million for Integrated Pest Management and Biological Control
--$600,000 for minor use animal drugs.
--$2 million for the Bi-national Agricultural Research and
Development Fund (BARD).
Other Issues
We oppose all efforts to reduce funding for APHIS-Wildlife
Services. At minimum, Wildlife Services should be funded at last year's
level for ``methods development'' and ``operations.'' Additional
funding of $1.2 million should be made available for wildlife hazards
at airports. Any unfunded Congressional directives should receive
funding. APHIS-Veterinary Services should be funded so there is no loss
of services.
GIPSA should be funded so there is no loss of services and to
provide for additional administrative oversight of the poultry
industry. GIPSA should receive full funding to monitor business
transactions between produces and packers
For FDA, we support additional funding of $200,000 per year for the
next five years for the Center for Veterinary Medicine to hire staff to
reduce the backlog of animal drug applications.
We support the Commission on 21st Century Production Agriculture
and urge sufficient funding to ensure that the Commission will be able
to conduct a thorough revaluation of the effectiveness of the FAIR Act
and potential agricultural policy alternatives.
We support efforts to provide loans to producers to build on farm
grain storage facilities.
We reject plans to cut funding to boll weevil eradication programs.
We support full funding to provide a 30 percent match with producer
funding and increased availability of low interest revolving loan funds
to facilitate expansion of the program.
We support increased funding for USDA guaranteed operating and
ownership loans and streamlined administrative procedures to ensure
that loans are made in a timely manner.
We support funding of the Conservation Reserve Program to increase
enrollment to the 36.4 million acres allowed under current law.
We are concerned about adequate NRCS conservation operation
funding. Conservation program delivery and technical assistance should
be a priority for NRCS funding. No new initiatives should be funded in
the conservation operations budget. Emphasis should be placed on
traditional technical assistance and the development of reliable
resource data for assisting producers deal with nutrient management. We
support earmarked funding for technical assistance under the Grazing
Lands Conservation Initiative.
With regard to conservation programs under the Commodity Credit
Corporation Program (CCC), we believe that emphasis should be placed on
the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP). EQIP is an
important program for assisting producers dealing with increased water
quality regulation. We support the $100 million increase for EQIP
proposed by the Administration to bring funding to $300 million. We
also support the removal of the CCC Section 11 cap on reimbursement of
NRCS for technical assistance provided for CRP and Water Reserve
Program delivery.
We oppose all user fees for conservation programs.
We oppose the Administration's zero funding for the Forestry
Incentive Program and suggest funding of $6 million.
We support APHIS funding of:
--$1.2 million to facilitate development of a National Animal Health
Emergency Management System;
--$68 million to maintain and enhance the Animal Health Monitoring
and Surveillance program, including funding for both Johne's
and trichinae programs
--$10.6 million for veterinary biologics
--$16.9 million for veterinary diagnostics to facilitate more
reliable tests for use with animals that are to enter the U.S.
as well as for emerging diseases such as Johne's and porcine
respiratory and reproductive syndrome.
--$3.8 million for the animal care unit to bring total funding to $13
million. This will allow for effective operation and
enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act.
We support the FSIS proposal of $33.1 million for continued
implementation of the HACCP based food inspection system. We are
opposed to user fees to finance federally mandated meat and poultry
inspection programs. Programs to ensure food safety benefits everyone
should be funded by tax dollars.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Honey Producers Association, Inc.
My name is Richard Adee. I am President of the American Honey
Producers Association, Inc. and I am submitting this statement in its
behalf. The American Honey Producers Association, Inc. is a national
organization of commercial beekeepers with activities in most of the
States in this country.
First, the Association wishes to thank you for the support the
Subcommittee has provided in the past for agricultural research
activities in behalf of the beekeeping industry. It has enabled the
Agricultural Research Service to staff its bee laboratories at the
minimum level necessary to meet with the critical needs of the
industry. At this time, the Association supports the President's budget
proposal for bee research with one notable exception. To continue this
research, the Association is seeking the restoration of $200,000 that
the Administration would cut from the baseline funding for the bee
laboratory at Weslaco, Texas, along with cuts for many other research
projects contained in the fiscal year 1999 appropriation. On the other
hand, we fully support the increase in the level of funding recommended
by the Administration for the ARS honey bee breeding, genetics, and
physiology laboratory at Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
(1) Background.--Honey bees pollinate over 90 cultivated crops
whose estimated value exceeds $9.3 billion and produce an average of
227 million pounds of honey annually. Since 1984, the survival of the
honey bee has been threatened by continuing infestations of mites and
pests for which appropriate controls have not yet been developed and
research must provide the answers. Unfortunately, there is no simple
solution to these problems. The honey bee industry is too small to
support the cost of the needed research, particularly with the current
depressed state of the industry. As you know, there are no longer any
federal subsidies on honey. Further, there are no funds, facilities, or
personnel elsewhere available in the private sector for this purpose.
Accordingly, the beekeeping industry is dependent on research from
public sources for the scientific answers. The key to the survival of
the honey industry lies with the honey bee research program conducted
by the Agricultural Research Service.
(2) Research at the ARS Weslaco, Texas, Laboratory.--Parasitic
mites, primarily the varroa mite, are causing a crisis for the U.S.
beekeeping and pollination industry. Tens of thousands of domestic
honey bee colonies are being lost annually to varroa mites. Wild bee
colonies have been decimated. The only chemical now registered for
varroa mite control, fluvalinate, is being rendered ineffective by the
development of resistant mite populations. The USDA honey bee lab at
Weslaco, Texas, has been working hard trying to find alternative
chemicals to control the varroa mite. This past summer it appears that
they have found a chemical, coumaphos, which is equally effective as
fluvalinate. This is a real break through for the bee industry but as
of today we have only been able to obtain a section 18 emergency
registration. Much work still remains to be done before a section 3
general registration is granted by EPA.
A new pest, the small hive beetle, has been found in Florida this
past year and has caused severe bee colony losses. Apparently, it
originated in South Africa. Estimates put the losses in just one season
at over 30,000 colonies. There is evidence that the beetles are
spreading to other areas in the East coast. As the beetles spread, they
will just devastate the bee industry. In order to contain the beetle,
several states have quarantined bees from Florida, North Carolina,
South Carolina, and Georgia or are actively considering such
quarantines.
The USDA-ARS honey bee research scientists at the Weslaco
laboratory have been working overtime to find chemicals, techniques,
pheromones, or other methods of controlling the beetle. Time is of the
essence, as a control must be found immediately as all the bee colonies
in the Western Hemisphere are at risk.
Additionally, the Weslaco lab is responsible for finding new and
improved methods for control of other parasitic mites as well as
solving beekeeping problems that interfere with honey production and
effective crop pollination, and determining the impact and spread of
Africanized honey bees.
The uncertainty of continued funding is hampering the efforts of
the Weslaco laboratory in finding a solution to our most pressing
problems. They cannot operate effectively with a reduction of $200,000
in its baseline appropriation. These funds need to be restored.
(3) Research at the ARS Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Laboratory.--The
Association supports the request of the Administration for an increase
of $300,000 in the appropriation for the ARS laboratory at Baton Rouge,
Louisiana. The Baton Rouge lab is the only laboratory world wide
focusing on the development of long-term, genetics-based solutions to
the varroa mite. Their research programs have taken them to the far
corners of the world looking for mite resistant bees. In eastern
Russia, they found bees that have co-existed for decades with the mites
and survived. The bees were brought to the United States and are in the
process of being evaluated to assure that the resistance holds up under
a wide range of environmental and beekeeping conditions. Attributes
such as vigor, pollination, and honey production must be tested. There
is an immediate need to propagate the resistant queen bees in large
numbers for wide scale distribution to beekeepers so that this
evaluation can be accomplished. The work is slow and tedious. It is
also costly. The requested appropriation will accelerate the research,
development, and transfer of queen bee stock resistant to varroa mites
to U.S. beekeepers.
(4) Summary.--In conclusion, we wish to thank you again for your
support of honey bee research in the past. We would appreciate your
continued support by approving restoration of the $200,000 that the
Administration would cut from the fiscal year 2000 appropriation for
the Weslaco, Texas, lab and by otherwise supporting the
Administrations's request for bee research. This would include the
increased appropriation recommended for the AES Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
lab, as discussed previously in this statement. Only through research
can we achieve and maintain profitability in U.S. beekeeping industry
and continue to provide stable and affordable supplies of bee
pollinated crops which make up fully one-third of the U.S. diet.
I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
I. Introduction
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) and the 30 Tribal
Colleges that comprise the AIHEC land-grant institutions, we thank you
for this opportunity to share our funding requests for fiscal year
2000. On behalf of the Tribal Colleges, we respectfully request full
funding of our original four land-grant programs, along with funding
under the Agriculture Research Reauthorization. Specifically, we
request: $4.6 million for the Tribal College endowment; $1,552,000 for
the equity grant program; $5 million for the extension program; $1.7
million for institution capacity building grants; and $10 million for
research.
This statement will cover three key points: First, it will provide
a brief background on the Tribal Colleges and our long-awaited
inclusion in this nation's land-grant system; second, it lays out
Tribal Colleges' ambitious efforts through extension services to
fulfill the agricultural potential of American Indian communities and
to ensure that American Indians have the skills needed to maximize the
economic development potential of our resources; and third, it
describes and justifies our other program requests for fiscal year
2000.
II. Background on Tribal Colleges
Today, almost 140 years after enactment of the first land-grant
legislation, Tribal Colleges, more so than any other institutions,
truly exemplify the original intent of the land-grant legislation. The
first Morrill Act was enacted in 1862 specifically to bring education
to the people and to serve their fundamental needs. Mr. Chairman, this
is the definition and mission of the Tribal Colleges. We truly are
institutions by, of, and for our people.
The dismal statistics concerning the American Indian experience in
education brought tribal leaders to the realization that only through
local, culturally-based education could many American Indians succeed
in higher education and help bring desperately needed economic
development to the reservations. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the
first Tribal Colleges were chartered on remote reservations by their
respective tribal governments, to be governed by boards of local tribal
people. In 1972, the first six tribally-controlled institutions came
together to form the American Indian Higher Education Consortium.
Today, AIHEC is a cooperatively sponsored effort on the part of 32
member institutions in the United States and Canada, 30 of which are
the 1994 Land-grant Institutions. AIHEC has become the premier national
voice of the Tribal College movement and Indian higher education.
Tribal Colleges now serve more than 25,000 students each year,
offering primarily two-year degrees, with some colleges offering four-
year and graduate degrees. Since their inception, the Tribal Colleges
have helped address the problems and challenges of our welfare system.
Tribal Colleges provide GED, other college preparatory courses and have
high success rates in student job training and placement. Our mission
requires us to help move American Indians toward self-sufficiency and
help make American Indians productive, tax-paying members of our
society. Fulfilling this obligation will become even more difficult
over the next several years as Tribal Colleges feel the impact of the
welfare reform laws. Already, our colleges are seeing increasing
numbers of welfare recipients turning to the colleges for training and
employment opportunities. Also, Tribal Colleges serve as community
centers, providing libraries, tribal archives, career centers, economic
development and business centers, public meeting places, and child care
centers.
Despite our many obligations, functions, and notable achievements,
Tribal Colleges remain the most poorly funded institutions of higher
education in this country. Historically, states do not have an
obligation to American Indian lands because our reservations are trust
lands under federal jurisdiction. Unlike mainstream land-grant
institutions, we cannot depend on state and local governments to match
or surpass the federal investment. Our core funding under the Tribally-
Controlled College or University Assistance Act of 1978 remains grossly
inadequate; and total funding for the agriculture programs authorized
for all 30 of the 1994 Institutions combined is less than the amount
the Department of Agriculture gives to just one state land-grant
institution each year.
III. Extension Services--Ambitious Efforts to Reach Economic
Development Potential
Although current land-grant programs at the Tribal Colleges are
modest, our 1994 authorizing legislation is vitally important to us
because of the nature of our land base. Of the 54.5 million acres that
comprise American Indian reservations, 75 percent are agricultural
lands and 15 percent are forestry holdings. In fact, Indian
agricultural production has been valued at nine times the production
potential of oil and gas resources.
Tragically, due to lack of expertise and training, millions of
acres lie fallow, under-used, or are developed through methods that
render the resources non-renewable. The Educational Equity in Land-
Grant Status Act of 1994 is our hope for turning this situation around.
It is absolutely critical that American Indians learn more about new
and evolving technologies for managing our lands. We are committed to
becoming, as we were when your forefathers came to this land centuries
ago, productive contributors to this nation's--and the world's--
agricultural base.
Recent years show impressive efforts to address economic
development through land use, as Tribal Colleges entered into
partnerships with 1862 Land-grant Institutions through extension
services. The Extension program represents an ideal combination of
federal resources and Tribal College-state institution expertise, with
the overall impact being far greater than the sum of the parts. Some
examples of the innovative programs that are funded under extension
services include:
--Northwest Indian College, Bellingham WA and Washington State
University are partnering in a special emphasis grant project
entitled: ``Honor the Gift of Food''. The objective of this
undertaking is to support and expand a distance-learning
nutrition education program for Pacific Northwest Tribal
communities. The overall goal will be to develop nutrition
education modules and support materials to train nutrition
assistants in tribal communities.
--Fort Peck Community College in Poplar, MT and Montana State
University-Bozeman, are collaborating on a project focusing on
development of institutional infrastructure and capacity
building from which FPCC will provide extension services in the
areas of ``Community Resource and Economic Development'' and
``Family Development and Resource Management''. Specifically,
program objectives associated with these areas are designed to
strengthen existing employers and attract new enterprises and
local entrepreneurship.
Additional funding to support such efforts is needed because
extension services provided by the states on our reservations are
woefully inadequate, and the Tribal Colleges need to fill that void. It
is important to note that this program is not duplicative of ongoing
extension activities, as it is specifically designed to complement and
build upon the Indian Reservation Extension Agent program. In Fiscal
1999, the 1994 institutions were awarded $2,060,000 for extension
services. In fiscal 2000, we are requesting that Congress build on the
$3.5 million proposed in the President's budget, and raise funding to
$5 million, the fully authorized level for this program. The increase
recommended in the President's request emanates from the strong
relationship we have with USDA and is evidence of our successes in this
program.
IV. Other Funding Requests For Tribal College Program
The thirty 1994 Institutions' appropriations request for fiscal
year 2000 are extremely modest when compared with the annual
appropriations to each existing land-grant institution. Along with our
request of $5 million for our cooperative extension program, we are
seeking the following amounts for the four other authorized programs
for 1994 Institutions: $4.6 million for the Tribal College endowment
(not scored as budget outlay); $1.552 million for the equity grant
program; and $1.7 million for institution capacity building grants; and
$10 million for research.
The Tribal Colleges are grateful for the Subcommittee's past
support of the three programs that have been funded. These small
programs catalyzed the 1994 Institutions' crucial first steps in
initiating and strengthening agriculture and natural resource programs
in our communities. However, it is critical that we build on the
momentum we have gained. Justifications for our requested funding
levels are as follows:
(1) $1.7 million Institutional Capacity Building Grant Program.--
This competitive grant program, which requires a non-federal match,
would provide the 1994 Institutions with the investment necessary to
allow us to strengthen and more fully develop our educational
infrastructure. Facilities maintenance and improvement are urgently
needed at many of the Tribal Colleges, which are currently operating in
donated, abandoned and even condemned buildings. Hazards include
leaking roofs, asbestos insulation, exposed wiring, and crumbling
foundations. In a recent needs assessment, nine of the Tribal Colleges
identified facility maintenance and renovation as a high priority, at
an estimated cost of $8.3 million. Many of these facility improvements
are needed to provide American Indian students with the education
necessary to fully compete in the modern agricultural world.
(2) $4.6 million Endowment Fund for 1994 Land-Grant Institutions.--
This endowment installment remains with the U.S. Treasury, and only the
interest is distributed to the 1994 Institutions. It is important to
note that this program is not scored as budget outlay or authority.
Just as other land-grant institutions historically received large
grants of land or endowments in lieu of land, this sum assists the 1994
Institutions in establishing and strengthening our academic programs in
such areas as curricula development, faculty preparation, and
instruction delivery. The third year interest payment totaled $673,678,
which was distributed among all of the 1994 Land-grant Institutions on
a formula basis.
(3) $1.552 million Tribal College Educational Equity Grant
Program.--Closely linked with the endowment fund, this program last
year provided almost $52,000 per 1994 Institution to assist in academic
programs. The 1994 Institutions are in their third year of funding
under this program. Through the funding made available since fiscal
year 1996, the Tribal Colleges were able to begin to support vital
courses and planning activities specifically targeted to meet the
unique needs of our respective reservations. Examples of these programs
include:
--Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College's Environmental Institute,
located in Cloquet, MN is entering the third phase of its
Environmental Science Delivery Project that is designed to
attract students to environmental studies by combining the
latest and most sophisticated technologies and teaching
methodologies with the historical perspective of American
Indian culture. One additional goal of this phase of the
project is to expand the Environmental Study Area to include an
Environmental Interpretative Center. The college intends to
continue current projects as well as implement new
collaborative environmental projects with various public and
private agencies to promote student education and research
opportunities.
--Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI), in Albuquerque,
NM has used the education equity grants to build the SIPI
Agricultural Science, Engineering and Technology (ASET)
Development Project. The overall goal of the SIPI-ASET project
involves the establishment of a comprehensive Agricultural
Science, Extension and Technology program which serves the
immediate and long-term economic needs of the National Indian
Community, and also provides a bridge to regional university
programs in science, engineering and agricultural technologies.
Other Tribal Colleges have started natural resource management
courses; nutrition and dietetic programs; environmental sciences
curricula; comprehensive horticulture programs; and courses on
sustainable development, forestry, and buffalo production and
management.
Funding for Research.--In addition, we are requesting funding for
our newly authorized research program, which was authorized at ``such
sums as necessary'' as an amendment to the Agriculture Research,
Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998. With 30 institutions
competing in this new research authority, we feel the President's
suggested level of $667,000 is simply not adequate to address the
pressing agricultural and nutritional research needs of our colleges
and their communities. Therefore, we respectfully request an
appropriation level of $10 million.
This authority, and its corresponding appropriation, is vital to
ensuring that Tribal Colleges finally have the opportunity to become
full partners in this nation's land-grant system of colleges and
universities. Many of our institutions are currently conducting applied
agriculture-based research, yet they struggle to finance this research
and meet their community's other research needs. Some of the research
in progress includes soil and water quality research; amphibian
propagation; pesticide and wildlife research; range cattle species
enhancement; and native plant preservation for medicinal and economic
purposes. We urge the committee to fund this program at an appropriate
level to allow our institutions to develop and strengthen their
research potential.
V. Conclusion
The 1994 Institutions are efficient and effective tools for
bringing education to American Indians and bringing opportunity and
hope for self-sufficiency to this nation's poorest regions. The modest
federal investment in the Tribal Colleges has paid great dividends in
terms of employment, education, and economic development, and
continuation of this investment makes sound moral and fiscal sense. No
communities are in greater need of land-grant programs than American
Indian reservations, and no institutions better exemplify the original
intent of land-grant institutions than the Tribal Colleges.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, we appreciate your
long-standing support of the Tribal Colleges and are grateful for your
commitment to bring self-sufficiency to our communities. We look
forward to continuing a partnership with you, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, and the mainstream land-grant system--a partnership that
will bring equal educational, agricultural, and economic opportunities
to Native America. Thank you again for inviting us to present our
statement to you.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Seed Trade Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, we appreciate this
opportunity to provide you with our views on the fiscal year 2000
agricultural appropriations bill. The American Seed Trade Association
(ASTA), founded in 1883, is one of the oldest trade associations in the
United States. With 850 members, the ASTA is the premiere advocate for
the seed industry and related interests. ASTA's diverse membership
consists of the leading companies that are developing, providing,
supporting, and promoting new varieties that hold tremendous promise
and opportunity for farmers and consumers everywhere. ASTA strongly
urges you to provide, at least, a $5 million increase in fiscal year
2000 funding for the National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS).
Our request for a $5 million increase for the NPGS is the number
one appropriations issue and the number one legislative issue for ASTA.
This increase will allow seed companies to meet the diverse challenges
facing our customers. Support for significant increases to the NPGS
goes well beyond industry; we, also, have the support of our customers
and the scientific community since they recognize that this will pay
huge dividends. We recognize the tight budget constraints under which
the Subcommittee must operate; however, we believe a significant
increase in funding for the NPGS is integral to U.S. agriculture
reaping the full benefits of biotechnology and the ongoing genomics
revolution.
Over the past few years, much attention has been focused on the
enormous potential that biotechnology offers to American agriculture
and the Nation's consumers. Many of the challenges confronting the U.S.
can be met through the application of plant-based technologies. With
sufficient genetic resources, we will have an abundant, safe,
nutritious, and affordable supply of food and fiber that is produced in
an environmentally friendly manner and that ensures a reasonable return
for our farmers and livestock producers. In an editorial in Science
magazine last year, Philip H. Abelson stated that ``ultimately, the
world will obtain most of its food, fuel, fiber, chemical feedstocks,
and some of its pharmaceuticals from genetically altered vegetation and
trees.'' (Science, Vol. 279). We agree that biotechnology can
revolutionize American agriculture and can provide continually
renewable resources for all of these products, if diverse genetic
resources are available and accessible to U.S. scientists and plant
breeders. Molecular biotechnology has given us new opportunities to tap
genetic resources more effectively and efficiently, if the resources
have been preserved and are accessible.
To take full advantage of modern biotechnology, we must have access
to diverse genetic resources that will allow us to develop the
varieties necessary to meet new and changing needs. The improvement of
plants is based on the utilization of genetic diversity. Without a wide
diversity of genetic resources, there will be nothing available,
eventually, to improve plants or to prevent plants from becoming
genetically susceptible to plant pathogens. Narrow genetic bases can
result in widespread crop losses. For example, in 1970, Southern corn
leaf blight cost farmers 15 percent of the corn crop; in the 1950s and
early 1960s, about 70 percent of the wheat crop in the Pacific
Northwest was wiped out by stripe rust; and the Irish potato famine of
the 1840s was the result of the reliance on only a single variety of
the potato. Breeders must have open access to extensive, well-
maintained, and well-documented genetic resources.
Preserving the genetic diversity of plants is essential to the
future of agriculture as the genes to add new traits, such as tolerance
to diseases and resistance to insects, are often present in wild
relatives of the major crops. Wild ancestors and relatives of
cultivated plants give us the sustained ability to develop new
varieties. Most of the U.S. crops raised and used for food, fiber,
ornamentals, and industrial feed stocks originated from outside of the
U.S. Consequently, the plant breeding community is highly dependent
upon germplasm from other countries, some of which is endangered. Once
lost, the germplasm cannot be fully reconstructed. These sources of
productive capacity and efficiency and sources for potential resistance
to pests and environmental stresses may be lost forever. Continued use
of and access to a broad diversity of germplasm is necessary, if we are
to develop varieties to meet new and changing circumstances and if we
are to sustain agricultural productivity.
The NPGS germplasm collections underpin crop breeding efforts
throughout the U.S. Preservation of and filling gaps in the base
collections is a unique Federal responsibility. The major activities of
the NPGS include (1) acquiring germplasm; (2) developing and
documenting information on the germplasm in its collections (including
entering the information into the Germplasm Resources Information
Network); (3) preservation and distribution of the germplasm; and (4)
maintenance of quarantine facilities for testing of imported germplasm
for pests and pathogens before introduction in the U.S. The NPGS
maintains over 440,000 germplasm samples for over 85 crops.
To ensure that these genetic resources are accessible and that they
remain available, the NPGS must obtain a significant increase in
funding over the next few years. Last year, recognizing the crucial
importance of diverse genetic resources, the ASTA board of directors
passed a resolution that calls for approximately a doubling, by 2002,
of the annual Agricultural Research Service (ARS) budget for the NPGS.
This would result in a minimum level of $40 million for the NPGS by
2002. While this may seem to be an exceptionally large request, the
same amount has been called for since 1991. In that year, the NPGS
reported that an annual budget of $40 million would be required, over a
ten-year period, to remedy shortfalls in secure storage, back-up,
evaluation, and development of core germplasm collections. According to
a recent GAO report (GAO/RCED-98-20), ARS funding for the NPGS between
1992 and 1996 declined by 14 percent, in constant dollars, while
germplasm collections increased by more than 10 percent. The picture is
even more bleak when one takes into consideration the substantial
reduction in non-salary dollars available for NPGS operations
(including acquisitions), equipment, supplies, and facilities. For
fiscal year 1999, only 15 percent of the budget is available for these
critical aspects of the program.
The steady decline in available funding has had an extremely
negative impact on the NPGS. To fulfill its mission to provide access
to diverse genetic resources, the NPGS must have a balanced program
that includes (1) acquisition of germplasm to fill gaps in the
collections and to preserve endangered germplasm; (2) maintenance and
preservation of germplasm with secure back-ups to prevent loss; (3)
adequate documentation and characterization of the germplasm; (4)
sufficient supplies of viable seeds to allow for distribution; and (5)
quarantine facilities that make germplasm available in a timely manner.
Unfortunately, the lack of resources has placed the NPGS in a dire
state. Insufficient funding, as well as the increasing difficulties
encountered while attempting to acquire germplasm from developing
countries, has limited germplasm acquisitions. Today, additions to the
collections have slowed to one-fourth of the level they were at in
1993. And, according to the above referenced GAO report, even when NPGS
acquires germplasm, its release to breeders and scientists is often
delayed as a result of the management of the quarantine process.
Further, seed and clonal collections are without secure back-ups,
adequate evaluation, documentation, and viability. For genetic
resources to be useful, sufficient information concerning the germplasm
must be available. The lack of germplasm passport information,
documenting the geographic origin and ecological condition of the
origin site, makes it difficult to utilize, fully, the sample and it
precludes the development of long-range planning for the acquisition of
germplasm. Currently, two-thirds of the NPGS germplasm lacks passport
data on its location of origin. In many cases, even when data on traits
such as plant structure and color have been developed, the information
has not been entered into the database.
One of the primary purposes of gene banks is to preserve, and
provide accessibility to, germplasm forever. To ensure that germplasm
maintains viability, germination must be tested and the germplasm must
be regenerated in a timely manner. The seeds of some plants remain
viable for only a few years and without regeneration, they may be lost
forever. Backlogs in regeneration can result in loss of diversity and,
in some cases, the loss of resources that cannot be duplicated.
According to the GAO, preservation activities--including viability
testing, regeneration, and secure, long-term back-up storage of
germplasm--have not kept pace with the preservation needs. When
resources are restricted, administrative staff have no choice but to
focus most of the budget on maintaining and preserving the current
germplasm collections. Although 75 percent, or more, of the NPGS budget
is devoted to maintenance and regeneration, the NPGS simply does not
have enough funding to keep up with regeneration needs. According to
the GAO report referenced above, at two of the plant introduction
stations (Griffin, GA, and Pullman, WA), it may take 75 to 100 years
for the samples to be regenerated, assuming current funding levels.
With these kinds of backlogs, it is very likely that important
germplasm will be lost.
Germplasm must be available for distribution for it to be
beneficial. The NPGS distributes germplasm to plant breeders and
scientists from all over the world. A minimum of 10,000 seeds is
required before a particular germplasm sample can be distributed. In
some cases, germplasm is not available, currently, because the NPGS has
not had sufficient resources to generate or regenerate enough samples
to allow for distribution.
In addition to the requirements for regeneration, it is essential
to have back-ups of the collection. While NPGS policy requires back-up
at the National Seed Storage Laboratory, over one-third of the
accessions are not. In 1992, over 2,000 germplasm samples were lost at
the Miami facility following Hurricane Andrew. Since these samples were
not backed-up at another facility, they were lost.
The above problems are just a few of the many that are plaguing the
NPGS due to the lack of adequate funding. These problems, however, are
jeopardizing the security of the U.S. food and fiber system. As some
plant breeders have stated, genetic diversity is the engine that drives
plant breeding. Without new sources of genetic variation, plant
breeders cannot make improvements. Without improvements, we will be
unable to ensure the continued economic viability and security of our
food and fiber system.
The NPGS is a fundamental, strategic resource that we cannot afford
to jeopardize. Without a significant infusion of funds, the NPGS will
not be able to ensure the preservation of important germplasm. We
strongly, urge you to provide a minimum increase of $5 million for
fiscal year 2000 and to double the funding for the NPGS by fiscal year
2002. We recognize that this will be difficult and that there are many
competing priorities for limited resources; however, we cannot afford
to be complacent. We believe that a $5 million increase for next year
will send a signal that the Congress is committed to preserving this
vital, strategic resource.
We, also, understand that the American Soybean Association has
requested a $500,000 appropriation for an ARS soybean pathogen
collection. ASTA believes that microbial germplasm collections are,
also, important, and we, therefore, support that request.
Thank you for the opportunity to present ASTA's views on the
importance of the National Plant Germplasm System. We look forward to
working with you to ensure that the NPGS is able to provide the
germplasm necessary for U.S. agriculture to meet the demands and
challenges of the 21st Century.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Sheep Industry Association, Inc.
The American Sheep Industry Association (ASI) is a federation of
state member associations representing the nearly 80,000 sheep
producers in the United States. The sheep industry views numerous
agencies and programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture as
important to lamb and wool production. Sheep industry priorities
include rebuilding and strengthening our infrastructure, critical
predator control activities, maintaining and expanding research
capabilities and animal health efforts.
The rapid changes that have occurred in the domestic sheep industry
and continue to take place put further emphasis on the importance of
adequately funding the U.S. Department of Agriculture programs
important to lamb and wool producers.
We appreciate this opportunity to comment on those portions of the
USDA fiscal year 2000 budget.
animal and plant health inspection service (aphis)
The mission of APHIS, ``to protect U.S. animal and plant resources
from diseases and pests,'' is very important to the sheep industry of
the nation.
Wildlife Services
With the loss of 520,000 sheep and lambs to predators each year,
the Wildlife Services (WS) program of USDA-APHIS is vital to the
economic survival of the sheep industry. The value of sheep and lambs
lost to predators and predator control expenses are second only to feed
costs for sheep production. Costs associated with predation currently
exceed our industry's veterinary, labor and transportation costs.
The sheep industry adamantly disagrees with the Administration's
budget proposal to reduce the Wildlife Services operations budget $1.8
million and to decrease methods development funding $776,000. If salary
increases, which are rarely funded by Congress, are included, the total
budget cut recommended by the President total $3.47 million. Add the
$1.2 million in funds that is redirected and existing programs will be
impacted $4.7 million. Such reductions will have devastating impacts on
agriculture and other programs.
Budget recommendations should not punish agriculture for providing
wildlife, belonging to the American public, with habitat. According to
the International Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, agriculture
and private landowners provide over 70 percent of the habitat for the
American public's wildlife. The National Agricultural Statistics
Service estimates that two-thirds of the nation's farms suffer some
form of wildlife damage each year. The Berryman Institute for Wildlife
Damage Management estimates wildlife damage is costing agricultural
producers over $4 billion annually.
Wildlife Services has over 1,400 cooperative agreements with
agriculture, forestry groups, private industry, state game and fish
departments, departments of health, schools, county and local
governments and others to mitigate the damage and danger that the
public's wildlife can inflict on private property and public health and
safety. This budget proposal not only cuts federal cooperative dollars,
but also endangers cooperative funding raised through these agreements.
Such cuts mean fewer Wildlife Services professionals will be available
to not only assist agriculture, but other areas including human health
and safety and endangered species management.
Wildlife Service's cooperative nature has made it the most cost
effective and efficient program within federal government in the areas
of wildlife damage management and public health and safety. WS is one
of the few federal programs that has been consistently at or above the
50:50 federal to cooperative funding ratios. If you discount
Congressional Directives, cooperative entities provided 55 percent of
the total funding in fiscal year 1997, while the federal appropriations
made up 45 percent of the cooperative dollars. The President's
recommendation that a 50:50 ratio of cooperator funding be applied at
the state and local level has no justification in statute, regulation
or policy. Efforts by the administration to micromanage this successful
cooperative program will only serve to take away needed flexibility of
WS managers and will inhibit Wildlife Service's ability to accomplish
its mission as mandated by the Animal Damage Control Act, NEPA and the
Government Performance and Results Act.
Although funding for Wildlife Services has seen slight increases in
past years, most increases were in the form of Congressional Directives
aimed at specific problems. Inflation has slowly eaten away at funds
used to support general operations programs. ASI strongly supports the
funding for fiscal year 2000 to be set at $32,346,000, an increase of
$2,349,000 over the fiscal year 1999 level.
Aerial hunting is one of Wildlife Service's most efficient and
cost-effective core programs. It is used not only to protect livestock,
but is also critical for protection of wildlife such as mule deer in
Utah and in endangered species programs such as those for the wolf and
grizzly. A lack of funding for adequate safety was found to have
contributed to a number of accidents experienced within the program. To
implement core aerial safety provisions, a total of $2.457 million is
needed. This is an increase of $1.257 million over the fiscal year 1999
budget.
In fiscal year 1999, Congress provided $350,000 for wolf management
in Rocky Mountain region and Minnesota. A total of $742,000, a $392,000
increase over last year's budget, is needed to properly manage wolves.
Wolf numbers have doubled in Montana, Wyoming and Idaho, and wolf
predation on livestock consumed the funds provided by USDA and DOI by
June of 1998. ASI asks Congress to fully fund the $175,000 directive
for wolf management in the fiscal year 2000 budget, plus add an
additional $72,000 to cover last year's shortfall in the program.
Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan are experiencing similar rates of
increase in wolf numbers and predation. ASI asks that Congress increase
the funding for wolf management in Minnesota and Wisconsin $145,000
over the funds provided in fiscal year 1999.
The President's budget recommends that $1.5 million for rabies
control be cut. The control of rabies is vital to human health and
safety in a number of states and ASI asks Congress to restore these
funds in the budget.
Last year, Congress redirected $700,000 for brown tree snake
control in Hawaii. This program should be fully funded by Congress.
While ASI is supportive of civilian airport safety, Congress should
fund new airport safety programs it feels necessary rather than
redirect existing program funds.
ASI asks Congress to fund Wildlife Service's Methods and
Development at the fiscal year 1999 level of $10,365,000. Budget cuts
suggested by the President will stop or reduce a number of important
programs including rate damage in Hawaii, blackbird work on rice in
Louisiana, sunflower work in the Dakotas and mammal contraceptive and
predation work in Utah.
Emergency Management
The ability to manage animal health emergencies is crucial to the
survival and well being of U.S. animal agriculture and the security of
the nation's food supply. We are encouraged by the administration's
request of $1 million for a ``national animal health emergency
management system''. We believe that this is an important first step in
developing a more modern, functional system that will improve and build
upon state programs and industry initiatives.
Scrapie
Adequate funding of the Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification
Program and other scrapie control measures through USDA-APHIS is of
critical importance to the sheep industry, as well as all segments of
the livestock industries. ASI appreciates this Subcommittee's efforts
in recognizing the seriousness of this devastating disease and the real
need for control and eradication. ASI and others have urged APHIS to
step up its efforts in scrapie control/eradication through a more
aggressive regulatory approach. We request that the scrapie control/
eradication program be funded more adequately in fiscal year 2000 as
requested by the administration.
No country has, to date, conducted an active surveillance study of
scrapie. ASI has requested that APHIS conduct a national surveillance
study of scrapie since our industry's ability to compete in the market
place is encumbered by both existence of scrapie in our flock and the
lack of quantitative data about the disease. ASI has committed to
investing producer funds to help cover laboratory costs associated with
the study. Additional appropriations up to $600,000 are supported by
the industry to insure completion of this critical surveillance effort.
agricultural marketing service
Lamb Market Information and Price Discovery Systems
The sheep industry strongly supports the fiscal year 2000 budget of
$22,166,000 for Market News of USDA-Agricultural Marketing Service. The
increased appropriations of $820,000 is critical for the agency to
conduct the increased international market reporting and activities
associated with the concentration in the livestock industry. The sheep
industry has requested a review and update to the lamb and lamb meat
market reporting system in the U.S. and inclusion of imported lamb
product prices in the market news.
foreign agricultural service (fas)
The sheep industry participates in FAS programs such as the Market
Access Program (MAP) and the Foreign Market Development Program. ASI
strongly supports continued appropriations at the fiscal year 1998
level for these critical Foreign Agricultural Service programs. ASI is
the cooperator for American wool and sheep genetics and has achieved
remarkable success in increasing exports of domestic wool, breeding
sheep and semen. Wool exports have increased 170 percent over the last
five years with the aid of this funding. American lamb sales also
benefit from the Foreign Market Development Program through increased
international efforts.
natural resources conservation service (nrcs)
ASI urges increased appropriations for the range programs of the
Soil Conservation Service to benefit the private range and pasture
lands of the United States with conservation assistance. We support the
budget item and recommend an increased level for the Grazing Lands
Conservation Initiative that ASI has worked with, along with other
livestock and range management organizations, to address this important
effort for rangelands in the U.S.
research, education and economics
The sheep industry recognizes that it must become globally
competitive. We are also striving to be profitable and sustainable as a
user of and contributor to our natural resource base. Research, both
basic and applied, and modern educational programming is essential if
we are to succeed. We are disappointed in the decline in resources USDA
is targeting toward sheep research and educational programs. With
approximately $15 million in ARS funding increases for animal systems
in fiscal year 1999, there was an actual reduction in the planned
expenditure for sheep with all other livestock categories receiving
significant increases. In the Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget,
ARS has a planned expenditure of less that $200,000, again out of an
approximate $15 million increase for animal systems with other
livestock species targeted for significant increases.
In order for the sheep industry specifically and U.S. agriculture
in general to be globally competitive and environmentally sound in the
future, we must invest in the discovery and adoption of new
technologies for producing, processing and marketing food and fiber. We
urge the subcommittee to send a strong message to USDA supporting sheep
research and education funding increases.
Agricultural Research Service
ASI urges an increase in funding of the scrapie research
initiatives at Pullman, Washington in the following areas: (1) defining
the relationships between prion genetics, resistance to infection and
linkage to production traits and (2) the further development of and the
validation of pre-clinical, live-animal diagnostic tests. A
collaborative relationship has been developed between the ARS
laboratory at Pullman, Washington and the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station
at Dubois, Idaho which will combine the appropriate resources to begin
answering the above mentioned needs. An additional $400,000
appropriation is needed to do this work.
We also urge the subcommittee to recommend an additional
appropriation to study ovine progressive pneumonia (OPP) in the area of
immunogenetics and host resistance in sheep as a collaborative study
between the ARS laboratories at Pullman, Washington and the U.S. Sheep
Experiment Station at Dubois, Idaho. OPP is endemic in U.S. sheep
population, causes economic damage to the industry and is an impediment
to trade with some countries. An additional $300,000 is needed to begin
this study.
Research into Johne's disease has received additional funding
through ARS over the past two years, focusing on cattle. Johne's
disease is also endemic in the U.S. sheep population and is not well
understood as a sheep disease. The same concerns exist regarding food
safety and other countries are aggressively addressing Johne's in sheep
regulatorily. We urge the subcommittee to send a strong message to ARS
that Johne's disease in sheep should receive more attention with an
emphasis on diagnostics.
We also strongly support the administration's request for emerging
diseases and we urge significant appropriations for the animal
component of this line item.
cooperative state research education and extension service (csrees)
We strongly support the National Research Initiative (NRI) and we
appreciate the Administration's request of $200 million. The
competitive grants awarded under its program are for the highest
quality research addressing the goals and objectives of FAIR 1995.
Ongoing research in wool is critically important to the sheep
industry. ASI supports continued funding of $212,000 for fiscal year
2000 through the special grants program of the CSREES.
We urge the subcommittee to appropriate both intramural and
extramural funding for research to measure the well being of livestock.
Animal well being is an emotional issue; in order to consider new
management strategies for the enhancement of animals, we need improved
methods of measurement.
The industry greatly appreciates this opportunity to discuss these
programs and appropriations important to the sheep industry.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Nutritional Sciences
The American Society for Nutritional Sciences (ASNS) is the
principal professional organization of nutrition research scientists in
the United States representing 3,500 members whose purpose is to
develop and extend the knowledge and application of nutrition science.
ASNS members include scientists involved in human as well as animal
nutrition research. Our members hold positions in virtually every land
grant and private institution engaged in nutrition-related research in
the United States as well as industrial enterprises conducting
nutrition and food related research.
ASNS wants to express gratitude for the work that this committee
did last year, on both sides of the aisle, to help increase
competitively awarded agricultural research in the National Research
Initiative Competitive Grants Program. Another significant increase in
fiscal year 2000 for the NRI would help set the course for providing
increased emphasis in the critically emerging areas such as genomics
and genetics. While genomics is being studied under NIH and NSF funded
grants, they have not addressed the areas of the genetic influence on
nutrient requirements of individuals, nutrient gene interactions, and
nutrient metabolism on the genetic basis of diseases in their
intramural grants programs. These areas easily fit into the purview the
of USDA's NRI mission. ASNS supports these and other key elements that
will enhance cross-cutting areas of nutrition research having broad
health outcomes.
The President's Budget for fiscal year 2000 calls for a net
increase of $81 million above fiscal year 1999 funding for the NRI. We
strongly endorse this substantially needed investment.
While we endorse the proposed increase, we do not believe that the
President's budget supports the original intended priorities outlined
in Section 401 of the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education
Reform Act (AREERA) of 1998 for the Initiative for Future Agricultural
and Food Systems. The President's Budget has transposed these
priorities into the NRI. We know there are concerns from this Committee
and the Congress about the new competitive grants programs. At this
time we offer some suggestions as to how USDA's CSREES may incorporate
such an increase so that the funds are effectively managed for the best
possible health research outcomes. ASNS encourages Congress to urge
department officials to consider administering all ongoing and new
initiatives through a centralized office. This allows new grant
administrators to take advantage of the investment and experience of an
established program. ASNS stresses that the NRI use the model of other
federal agencies that have more than one review cycle per year. Two or
three cycles per year would allow for timely resubmission and encourage
institutions to provide bridging funds for quality programs. Currently
only 25 percent of qualified grants receive funding. Inadequate funding
limits the productivity of researchers that the NRICGP is able to fund.
NRI awards are small, averaging $133,210 in fiscal year 1998, and
short, averaging 2.2 years for a total average support of about $60,000
each year. Additionally a 14 percent cap on indirect (facilities and
administrative) costs deters many capable investigators from seeking
NRI grants. These caps are detrimental and we urge you to reexamine the
14 percent cap on indirect costs.
A recent report from the National Association State Universities
and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC) stated that research and development
funding for space exploration, the environment, basic science research,
and health research has increased in constant dollars from 23 to 58
percent over the last ten years. But during this same time period, the
funding for agricultural research and extension programs, the lifeblood
of our food supply system, has shrunk by eight percent in constant
dollars. Base funds have eroded by 16 percent. These funds support the
scientists and extension educators who can respond quickly and
effectively to unexpected problems that arise for producers and
consumers. The benefit is a food system that enables the consumer
dollar and the welfare family's food stamps to purchase inexpensive,
safe, and nutritious food. A food system that creates jobs, competes
worldwide, and conserves its natural resources base.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Investments that Make a Difference, National Association of
State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, Fiscal Year 2000 Budget
Proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
research funding mechanisms and issues
Competitive Grants
A competitive system for allocating government research funds is
the most effective and efficient mechanism for focusing efforts on
cutting edge research aimed at improving the health of the American
people. Competitive grants provides the most effective, efficient and
economic return to the public. ASNS strongly supports the competitive
grants process as reflected in the National Research Initiative and
believes that an open, merit and peer review process, applied as
extensively as possible throughout the research system, is the best way
to distribute research funds among qualified scientists.
Special Grants
ASNS strongly believes that the best research results come from
research that is peer reviewed. That is why researchers funded by
federal agencies, such as the NIH and the NSF, that award grants on
merit have made such great progress. There is a potential danger that
special grants and earmarked research funds from USDA may be awarded on
the basis of politics rather than merit, priority or research need.
Therefore, the perception might be that the integrity of the research
system and agricultural science is undermined. Last year special grants
were appropriated at $78 million even though the Administration's
request for this year was less than half of that figure. We recognize
that there is pressure to maintain these special grants. While special
grants have their place to address emergency needs of national priority
such as food safety, they may also be used to address research that is
not deemed of the highest priority or merit. Thus, the proportion of
special grants in comparison to the total research budget at USDA
should be decreased.
Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems
The Initiative, despite being signed into law, had no funds
appropriated for fiscal year 1999. The legislation, calls for priority
mission areas to be addressed: food genome; food safety; food
technology and human nutrition; new and alternative uses and production
of agricultural commodities and products; agricultural biotechnology;
and natural resource management. The Initiative also includes
provisions that allow merit/peer review and lets those who benefit from
agricultural research provide input about the priority setting process.
ASNS supports this Initiative and urges members of this sub-committee
make it a funding priority.
National Needs Initiative
Another important area where funding has remained stagnant is the
National Needs Initiative (NNI) of the Graduate Fellowship Program at
the Higher Education Office of the USDA. This program fills an
important need to help train the next generation of agricultural
researchers. Despite its importance, funding for the NNI has seen a
dramatic decline in recent years. ASNS supports the FASEB
recommendation of $5 million for the NNI so that it may be restored to
its previous funding levels. We also support the review and subsequent
reorganization of USDA-sponsored graduate training.
the need for nutrition-related research
The need for nutrition science and research is critical within the
USDA. Nutrition and agricultural research are areas that impact the
constituents of every congressional district in the nation. New
technologies are demanded to reduce the likelihood of pathogen
transmission by food, to improve the quality of processed foods, and to
deliver greater nutritional value in foods. Additionally the economic
impact on society in healthcare costs produced by advances in nutrition
research is significant in the number of dollars saved by the American
taxpayer. As health costs continue to rise, it is imperative that our
medical practices take a preventive approach. This requires a thorough
understanding of the role of nutrients in foods in preventing chronic
illnesses such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes.
The USDA has a unique role in the area of nutrition research,
particularly as it applies to human nutrition. For example, although
there is a serious and obvious commitment to the funding of disease-
related research within the National Institutes of Health, issues
important to the basic mechanisms of nutrient function and the safety
of the food supply have traditionally been the purview of USDA funded
research. Most of the recent work on nutrient content and availability
in various foods has come from USDA-NRI supported research. From a
consumer perspective, it is this type of information that is often the
most useful.
food security and behaviors
A 1994 Institute of Medicine Report stated that reducing foodborne
illness will require research in all aspects of the food system, from
production to consumption.\2\ For example, identifying the foods most
involved in foodborne illnesses, characterizing new foodborne
pathogens, and developing new monitoring protocols are some ways to
detect pathogens or toxicants responsible for outbreaks and minimize
their impacts. Studies are also needed to identify food behaviors and
nutritional effects in relation to more vulnerable populations such as
infants and the elderly. Also, knowing more about health protectants
will enable individuals to maximize the nutrition and ``healthfulness''
of their food choices relative to the prevention of disease. The need
also exists to better understand the biology and behavior of food
choices. Here we also need to study consumption related to risk
analysis which demands better data on food consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Opportunities in the Nutrition and Food Sciences, Institute of
Medicine, 1994, p. 111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
biotechnology and nutrition
Increased interest in enhancing the nutritional quality of the food
supply has sparked ways to design foods not just for disease prevention
but also for health promotion. For example, opportunities exist to
influence food habits and food choices, by using technology to enhance
healthful foods.
Ultimately we will want to know what compositional changes in crop
plants have the best nutritional value. There are many basic questions
left unanswered on the role of diet in health and disease when it comes
to phytonutrients in plants.
USDA is encouraged to collaborate with other federal agencies in
the area of nutrition whenever possible. This objective naturally spans
research done in both the USDA and NIH.
genetics and nutrition
Studying genetic interactions will allow us to address several
issues at once. For example, what intakes of nutrients are needed to
achieve optimal health and minimal risk of various diseases associated
with diet? Do requirements differ depending on genetics? How do
genetics influence efficiency of metabolism and does this affect
nutrient requirements? What are metabolic and health consequences of
inadequate nutritional status, as affected by genetics? Many research
opportunities exist in this area.
genomics and nutrition
ASNS supports a recent report from the Federation of American
Societies for Experimental Biology that states, increased funding
should bring an emphasis on all aspects of genomics. Such an initiative
would significantly enhance existing programs within the NRI. One
example might be functional genomics. ASNS has provided detailed
scientific background about this kind of research to USDA program
directors at a recent stakeholders meeting.
Research and resources devoted to unraveling the genomes of a few
selected organisms have been expanding dramatically in recent years.
While the administration of large-scale programs has been placed in
agencies other than USDA, the power and long-term impact of a large-
scale genome initiative directed toward agriculturally important
organisms-including animals, plants, and microbes (plant, animal and
human pathogens)--represents a major opportunity and fulfills an
important need in agriculture.
USDA's NRICGP is well positioned to use genomic data to address
programs in agriculturally important organisms. However, given its
present budget--and even with the most optimistic incremental
increases--the NRICGP currently lacks the resource depth to meet this
challenge. ASNS endorses the allocation of at least $50 million in new
money to be directed toward an agricultural genomics program.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Federal Funding for Biomedical and Related Life Sciences
Research Fiscal Year 2000, Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology, 1999, p. 53-54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
animal welfare act
Research using animals has been crucial to virtually every advance
in medicine in the past century. Agents for control of high blood
pressure and the management of diabetes, vaccines for the control of
poliomyelitis and mumps, development of artificial joints and heart-
lung machines, and many more medical advances have depended on animal
research.
USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is
charged by Congress to enforce the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). Under the
AWA, USDA licenses dealers to buy and sell random-source animals to
research facilities that are unable to obtain them from municipal
pounds and shelters. This provides access to a critical supply of
animals since animals bred specifically for research often lack
characteristics needed by researchers studying health-related problems.
Much of their work relies on older, larger, and genetically diverse
animals.
ASNS recommends that Congress provide APHIS with adequate funding
for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act in fiscal year 2000 so that
it can continue to ensure compliance with the AWA.
Most recently an issue has emerged that will impact researchers and
their institutions using rats, birds, and mice. ASNS strongly opposes a
proposal to include rats, mice, and birds as part of the USDA
regulatory efforts under the AWA. At this time the vast majority of the
rats and mice used in research in the United States are in institutions
that follow the guide for the Care and Use of Research Animals, the
guidelines published by the Institute of Laboratory Animal Research
(ILAR) of the National Academy of Sciences. With its limited resources
in USDA's APHIS, the burden of adding rats, mice, and birds to its
responsibilities would have a negative effect on overall AWA
enforcement. This increased regulatory burden imposed on researchers
and their institutions by introducing redundant regulations will have a
detrimental effect to the efforts of the research being conducted. If
this regulation is expanded to require new responsibilities, APHIS will
need several million more dollars each year to extend its AWA coverage
to rats, birds and mice. ASNS feels such allocations of funds are not
in the public interest. Such resources could be more effectively used
elsewhere within the USDA's competitive research grants program.
conclusion
Agriculture is and will continue to be important to human health in
terms of food that provides proper nutrition for healthier people. As
the future challenges us with more complicated diseases, research must
expand outside the traditional disciplines and approaches, such as the
work that is being done is plant and animal genomics. New approaches
must be implemented to address new societal concerns. For example,
despite our hard efforts to plan healthy diets for school children much
of this food is being wasted. Nutritionists are constantly challenged
to develop nutrient-balanced meals that will encourage our children to
choose more healthful foods. New demands to fit busy lifestyles is
another example. Issues such as product convenience, uniformity of
products, ease of preparation, ``automatic'' nutrient balancing, and
packaging are all areas scientists must address. Research in areas of
how our food is produced, pesticide usage, animal care and food
handling issues also present demands to our scientists. These demands
and opportunities must be answered in a way that sustains or enhances
our quality of life. Although greater challenges lie ahead,
agricultural research funding continues to have slow growth despite
significant increases at other research agencies such as the NIH and
NSF.
It is for these reasons that ASNS reiterates the following
recommendations to the sub-committee:
--Increase funding for USDA's NRICGP from $119 million to $200
million, of which $50 million will be used for a genomics
initiative.
--ASNS recommends $120 million for the Initiative for Future
Agriculture and Food Systems in which human nutrition research
remains a research priority.
--Provide an increase of $5 million to the National Needs Initiative
so that it may be restored to its previous funding levels.
--Reexamine the 14 percent cap on indirect (facilities and
administrative) costs in NRI grants.
______
Prepared Statement of the Association of Research Directors 1890 Land-
Grant Universities
Senator Thad Cochran, Chairman, and other distinguished members of
the Committee, my name is Samuel L. Donald, Regional Research Director
for the seventeen Historically Black 1890 Land-Grant Universities,
including Tuskegee University (hereafter referred to as the 1890s). Mr.
Chairman, I submit, on behalf of the 1890 community, this written
testimony in support of the fiscal year 2000 Budget recommendations for
the 1890s.
general information
Mr. Chairman, today, the rich legacy of the land-grant tradition
remains prominent on the campuses of the 1890s. These institutions are
increasingly serving as economic instruments of the state and the
nation. They have their extraordinary influence on the lives of all
citizens including African Americans and other minority groups. While
enduring inequities in state and federal funding, the 1890s serve as
exemplary role models; provide educational access to those who may
otherwise be denied the opportunity to pursue a college education; and
foster an unyielding commitment to academic excellence, social equality
and the assurance of a decent future for all students including those
from the lowest economic strata of the nation. These universities have
been in the forefront of educating youth-at-risk, producing research
vital to the quality of life and the environment, and addressing the
social and economic needs of urban and rural communities. Teaching,
research and extension remain prominent on the campuses of the 1890s.
accomplishments and impacts
Historically Public Black Colleges and Universities (HPBCUs)
constitute some of the largest and most prestigious institutions of
higher education in the nation. Among them, two of the largest are 1890
HPBCUs. Several of the 1890s offer doctoral degrees and/or professional
degrees in engineering, food science, toxicology, environmental
science, and other areas of national need. Three of the top five HPBCUs
in the nation contributing to the production of African American
doctorates are 1890s. Annually, six HPBCUs produce nearly 20 percent of
all African American bachelor degree recipients in engineering and the
1890s graduate over 80 percent of all Black recipients of bachelor
degrees in agricultural sciences. Tuskegee University alone has trained
more than 80 percent of the nation's Black veterinarians. The 1890s
depend heavily on federal support for sustaining their academic,
research, and extension programs. These institutions contributions to
science and other accomplishments are reasons for maintaining and
expanding the federal partnership. For the purposes of improved food
quality and food safety, improved and sustained agriculture production,
improved quality of life for rural people, etc., some of the more
recent accomplishments of the 1890s are:
--Tested water samples from wells of rural families for nitrates and
pesticides residues.
--Determined soil loss coefficients for fruits and vegetables.
--Developed new invitro systems for enhancing root system development
of pine and hardwood trees.
--Found that increased production of rapeseed will provide an
efficient domestic source of erucic acid oil, reduce expensive
imports of rapeseed oil, help control environmental pollution
resulting from use of inorganic pesticides, and assist in the
development of sustainable crop production.
--Found that N-methyl aspartate enhanced growth and reduced fat in
swine and chickens.
--Demonstrated that gamma irradiation of broilers eliminated 99
percent of microbial contamination.
--Found that self-rating by 9-12 grade students in 19 rural schools
mirrored the reward systems in the schools.
--Developed Simmental cattle with a high rate of twinning.
--Determined that lambs and kids produced on cowpeas are lean and low
in fat and preferred by consumers.
--Developed a simplified field test for water engineers and seafood
producers and processors of two major flavor contaminants.
--Developed a new vegetable-legume cropping system for small-scale
farmers in the Southeast.
--Established seed and tissue culture systems to grow peanut and
sweet potato invitro.
--Developed a screening system to detect aflatoxins in peanut.
--Developed a database that provides information used by the swine
industry, agencies and educational institutions.
--Demonstrated a direct relationship between diet and exercise on
hypertension and diabetic African American women.
--Determine that dietary omega-3 polyunsaturated fats have beneficial
properties to change physical and biochemical processes to
control blood pressure.
--Developed technology to improve goat meat and fiber production.
--Developed intensified ``Farm Planning Program'' for farmers to
improve profitability from crops, livestock, and alternative
farm enterprises.
--Assisted fish farmers to develop viable aquaculture operations.
--Conducted senior citizens conferences on consumer fraud, security,
energy conservation, and modification of dwellings for
handicapped use and access.
The above accomplishments had major impacts on improving (a) the
quality of lives of people served and (b) the entrepreneurial skills
and farming operations of farmers served. The bottom line is, due
primarily to federal appropriated dollars to the 1890s, many under-
served clientele, customers and stakeholders have a ``brighter''
tomorrow.
budget recommendations
The 1890s support the fiscal year 2000 budget recommendations of
the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges
(NASULGC) which emphasizes modest increased funding for the research,
extension, and academic programs. This is especially the case for
formula/base funded programs, that is, a requested 6-8 percent increase
not a decrease as recommended in the President's budget. Mr. Chairman,
the 1890s urge the Committee to strongly support the NASULGC
recommendations which includes the following for the 1890s:
Evans-Allen Research Program ($31.976 Million)
The 1890s request a marginal increase in base funds for research.
These funds will enhance the capacity of these institutions to become
more competitive in the private sector and in domestic and
international research endeavors designed to undergird the vitality of
the nation's agricultural enterprise. This support will enhance the
ability of the 1890s to compete for grants and contracts in a wider
variety of programs in the U.S. Department of Agriculture, other
federal agencies, and the private sector.
Capacity Building Grants Program ($10 Million)
The Capacity Building Grants Program is making a major difference
in the quality and quantity of teaching and research programs in food
and agricultural sciences and technology on the campuses of the 1890s.
Since the creation of this enormously important program, the 1890
leadership has strongly advocated a substantial and sustained increase
in funding at more than $25 million annually. This level of funding
would allow these institutions to significantly improve the range and
level of academic programs offered, enhance the performance and
productivity of faculty in the sciences and increase research
opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students. However,
consistent with the NASULGC's recommendation, the 1890s support the
request of $10 million.
Extension and Research Facilities Grants Program ($12 Million)
The 1890s unequivocally support the $12 million facilities funding
request in the NASULGC as well as the President's budgets for
renovation, maintenance and overall improvement of the infrastructure
on our campuses. The 1890s face nearly insurmountable barriers in
attracting public and private support for enhancement of facilities.
Although this level of funding will not fully address the critical
facility needs of our institutions, it will complement existing efforts
to make major improvements.
Extension Program ($27.943 Million)
The 1890s support a modest increase in base funding requested by
NASULGC for extension activities. This marginal increase will allow our
institutions to sustain program activity at current levels and respond
more efficiently to the growing demand for services in severely
depressed and under-served communities.
closing comments
Mr. Chairman, based on past accomplishments and visionary approach,
the 1890s are positioning themselves to enter the 21st Century with a
renewed commitment and capacity to implement their land-grant mission
of teaching, research and extension. Full appropriations of the fiscal
year 2000 budget recommendations as stated above will facilitate this
and is vital to the 1890 Land-Grant Universities. If there is a need
for additional information, you may contact me as indicated below.
______
Prepared Statement of the ASTA Corn & Sorghum Basic Research Committee
summary
We are requesting $500,000 be appropriated annually for enhancing
corn germplasm.
1. Corn is a key resource providing food, industrial uses,
livestock feed, and export.
2. Corn production in the U.S. is based on less than 5 percent of
corn germplasm available in the world. Broadening the germplasm base
would provide genes to improve yields and protect against new disease,
insect and environmental stresses. Exotic germplasm would also be a
source for changes in grain quality being demanded by export markets,
industrial processors, and other end users.
3. Most exotic germplasm is unadapted to growing conditions in the
U.S. This proposal is a joint USDA/ARS, university, and industry effort
to adapt this material, so that it can be used by commercial breeders
in the development of new hybrids to meet the demands of the American
consumer and our foreign markets.
4. We greatly appreciate the $500,000 previously appropriated for
this research, beginning with the 1995 federal budget. This funding is
supporting the two main USDA/ARS locations involved in this research
(Iowa and North Carolina), as well as USDA/ARS and university locations
in Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, New York, Tennessee, Texas
and Wisconsin. Industry is providing $450,000 in-kind support annually
for this effort.
5. The additional appropriation of $500,000 annually would enable
the Iowa and North Carolina locations to purchase equipment and add
staff necessary for carrying out this research. It would also provide
funding for the increased germplasm evaluation and breeding necessary
to test and enhance the exotic materials available.
background
Corn is the major crop on the cultivated land of the USA where
approximately 75 million acres are planted each year. U.S. corn
production, accounting for about half of the world's annual production,
adds over $16 billion of value to the American economy as a raw
material. About 20 percent ($3.2 billion) of this production is
exported each year, thereby providing a positive contribution to the
nation's trade balance. Approximately 17 percent of the yearly corn
crop is industrially refined. A portion of the refined products is
exported resulting in an additional $1.4 billion in export. Through
feeding livestock, the rest of the crop is processed into meat and
dairy products that affect everyone in our society. Corn is a key
resource within our country.
concerns
All of this production is based on using less than 5 percent of the
corn germplasm available in the world. Less than 1 percent of our
commercial corn is of exotic (foreign) origin, and tropical exotic
germplasm is only a fraction of that. This situation exists because
private sector corn breeders have generally concentrated on genetically
narrow based, or elite by elite, sources for their breeding efforts,
since their use results in getting hybrids to the marketplace faster.
Traditionally, corn has been treated as a commodity. In recent
years corn grain users and processors have become more interested in
the quality characteristics of the grain itself and how this affects
their business. Since much of the exotic germplasm has undergone
selection for many indigenous uses (foods, beverages, etc.) by various
cultures, it seems likely that new grain quality characteristics will
be found in exotic germplasm rather than the narrow-based germplasm now
used. A small increase in value to the grain, such as 10 cents per
bushel, would increase its annual value by $800 million for an eight
billion bushel harvest.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Salhuana, Pollak, Tiffany 1994. Public/Private Collaboration
Proposed to Strengthen Quality and Production of U.S. corn through
Maize Germplasm Enhancement, Diversity Vol. 9, No. 4, 1993/Vol. 10, No.
1, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breeders must still be concerned with breeding for higher yields so
that U.S. corn farmers can remain competitive. Tapping into the broader
germplasm pool could provide new sources of genes for higher yield and
other performance traits, such as disease and insect tolerance or
improved stalk and root strength.
A further concern with a narrow genetic base is the potential for
widespread disease or insect damage due to new diseases or insect
species spreading into U.S. corn growing areas. It is more likely that
resistance to these dangers would be found in genetically diverse
exotic germplasm sources than in our breeding material. One major
benefit would be reduced pesticide use. In addition to protection
against diseases and insects, these exotic materials provide insurance
for unforeseen climatic or environmental problems.
A great deal of excitement has been generated over the new
techniques of biotechnology, especially over the potential value to the
corn industry of gene transformation using genetic engineering.
Research conducted on exotic germplasm could yield many beneficial
genes that genetic engineers could quickly transfer to commercial
hybrids.
lamp project
What would be the source of this exotic germplasm? Over the years,
collections of corn have been made from farmers' fields and other
sources all over the world, and are stored in various germplasm banks.
In 1987, the Latin American Maize Project (LAMP) was initiated to
evaluate these corn collections (accessions). It was a cooperative
effort among 12 countries to identify accessions that might provide
valuable source material for further improvement in hybrid and open-
pollinated cultivars in the U.S.A. and other areas. Pioneer Hi-Bred
International gave USDA/ARS $1.5 million to fund the LAMP research.
Nearly 12,000 maize (corn) germplasm accessions were evaluated. In
successive stages, the project identified the top 268 accessions. The
environmental areas of adaptation for these 268 ``elite'' populations
range from temperate to tropical, and are prime candidates for
enhancing the U.S.A. corn germplasm base.
germplasm enhancement
Most of this germplasm is unadapted to growing conditions in the
U.S. and requires genetic enhancement to make it adapted, or able to
grow and mature in our environmental conditions. Enhancement basically
means that these exotic materials will be bred with U.S. adapted
materials and breeders will select progeny that carry the desired
exotic traits and are also adapted to U.S. growing conditions. This
will require a concerted long-term breeding approach by corn breeders
at numerous locations (environments) throughout the U.S. Only after
this process of enhancement will these exotic materials be ready to
enter commercial corn breeding channels and be effectively utilized by
a broad cross-section of the industry in the development of new hybrids
for farmers and corn users.
The total process of enhancement is too large and long-term for
public institutions and/or seed companies to accomplish individually.
An ambitious task of this nature can only be completed through a
coordinated and cooperative effort between the USDA/ARS, land-grant
universities, and industry.
The Corn and Sorghum Basic Research Committee of the American Seed
Trade Association has been concerned that enhancement of this exotic
germplasm would proceed. The Committee consists of representatives from
about 30 companies actively involved in the corn and sorghum seed
industry, and at the committee's request, Dr. Linda Pollak, Research
Geneticist, USDA/ARS, et al, developed a proposal for enhancing exotic
germplasm starting with materials which will include the elite LAMP
accessions as noted above. This proposal has developed into the U.S.
GEM (Germplasm Enhancement of Maize) Project.
u.s. gem project outline
Since this project serves a national need, the primary effort and
direction has come from the USDA/ARS. Two permanent USDA/ARS locations
are being used as primary sites for enhancement breeding and
coordination. One is in Ames, Iowa, where the USDA/ARS currently
conducts corn evaluation and enhancement efforts. Dr. Linda Pollak,
Research Geneticist, is located there. Dr. Pollak was the Principal
Investigator of the U.S.A. for LAMP, and is the lead scientist for this
project.
The other permanent site is the USDA/ARS location in North
Carolina. This site has responsibility for initial evaluation and
conversion of the tropical materials. Tropical corn populations
normally will not reach maturity in the Corn Belt, but will produce
seed in North Carolina. After initial enhancement of the tropical
materials in the South, they will be sent to Ames for further
enhancement and testing in Corn Belt conditions. Dr. Marty Carson is in
charge of this program.
A number of corn researchers at various land-grant universities and
other ARS locations are also taking part in the enhancement and
evaluation of this exotic germplasm. This cooperative effort is very
important and serves not only as a source of improved germplasm but
also provides excellent training for future plant scientists.
Industry is also involved. A total of 23 companies have pledged
research nursery and yield trial plots to be used in this breeding
effort. This in-kind support is valued at $450,000 per year.
An important component of the project is an annual meeting of all
cooperators to evaluate progress and plan strategies. An information
network has been established to keep everyone up-to-date. A U.S. GEM
Technical Steering Group consisting of members from USDA/ARS,
University, and Industry has been formed for guidance and
administration of this cooperative effort.
This germplasm enhancement project is public and is open to all
public sector institutions as well as private seed companies.
Information will be freely available and publicly developed materials
will remain in the public domain, accessible to all.
accomplishments 1996-1998
Following is a description of accomplishments and research
conducted at various locations using 1996-1998 funding.
Ames, Iowa.--Priorities for the corn enhancement work at this
location are overall project coordination, data analysis and
management, management and release of enhanced germplasm, analysis of
materials for value-added traits, and as one of the many breeding
sites. To date, 200 hybrids from crosses with GEM breeding lines have
beaten the average of commercial check hybrids in trials analyzed in
Ames.
The laboratory is continuing to evaluate oil, starch, and protein
in the exotic accessions and in the breeding populations made up of
exotic materials crossed to proprietary corn belt inbreds. In results
from 1996, a line from one breeding cross measured total protein of 16
percent (corn belt germplasm has 10 percent) and total oil level of 6
percent (corn belt is 4 percent). It is extremely unique to find
increased levels for both of these traits in the same line, and it is
potentially very useful for food and feed applications. In 1997, lines
were identified with unique starch characteristics, which may be
beneficial for human food products. In 1998, three lines were
identified with high percent retrogradation, which may have
applications as a new source of dietary fiber or as a dry lubricant.
Other lines were found to exhibit certain potentially useful traits,
such as low protein (5.1 percent), high protein (15.4 percent) and high
starch content (73.6 percent).
GEM's World Wide Web site opened on July 15, 1996. From this site
cooperators can obtain the latest data from yield tests, disease and
insect screening, and value-added trait research, as well as news and
upcoming events.
Raleigh, North Carolina.--The focus of this location is twofold.
One priority is to develop enhanced material adapted to the Southern
U.S. corn growing conditions. The second is to be a stepping stone for
adapting tropical material to Midwest conditions.
Breeding populations were tested for resistance to various leaf
diseases and stalk rots. Selections were made for improved material
with resistance to these diseases as well as for improved yield,
standability, and adaptation to North Carolina conditions. For example,
in 1997 significant resistance to Fusarium ear rot was found in four
GEM breeding populations. Resistance to Aspergillus ear rot was also
found in two of these same four populations. Hybrids of about 55
advanced breeding lines developed from tropical by elite breeding
populations yielded equal to or outyielded the mean of commercial check
hybrids over two years. These lines are now candidates for release.
Other public cooperators conducted evaluations in 1998 as follows:
Drought resistance in Delaware. Yield data accumulation in Georgia,
North Carolina, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky Missouri, Texas and
Delaware. Grain yield and disease resistance in Illinois. Fusarium ear
rot resistance in Iowa. Zein content, wet milling properties, starch
functionality, and other value added grain traits in Iowa. Resistance
to corn rootworm and corn borer in Missouri. Resistance to anthracnose
stalk rot in New York. Breeding in Tennessee. Evaluation of silage
quality in Wisconsin.
Demonstration nurseries were planted at Iowa and North Carolina for
viewing by cooperators. Fall field days were held at Iowa and North
Carolina.
In 1998, private cooperators continued the breeding and adaptation
of about 15 accessions following the protocol developed by the GEM
Technical Steering Group. Companies increased their nursery and yield
trial in-kind support by approximately 25 percent in 1996.
research in 1999
Research will continue at the various USDA/ARS, university, and
company locations similar to 1998.
effects of increased funding beginning in 2000
Appropriation of the additional $500,000 annually would provide
funds to increase research in the following ways:
Ames, Iowa.--The addition of a database manager (GS-11) would allow
GEM to meet the increasing demand for value added trait and other data
from the GEM project, and link this data with genomic data, benefiting
the Corn Genome Project. Continuation of the postdoctoral position for
value added trait research would provide for the study of food
technology aspects of the unique traits being discovered. A graduate
research assistant would study the inheritance of these value added
traits, developing invaluable information for the breeding effort. By
nearly tripling the amount for public cooperators, it would greatly
enhance the data gathering and adaptation breeding of these materials.
Raleigh, North Carolina.--This location has a number of equipment
needs, such as a seed storage unit, because current facilities are
filled to capacity and a minivan for transportation (see ``Budget''
document). A technician would be added to handle the expanded field
work. Current resources restrict testing and development work to
relatively few breeding populations. With the increased funding, the
number of breeding crosses could be increased, greatly speeding up the
introduction of adapted GEM material into private and public breeding
programs. Additional funding would provide for yield trial testing at
more locations and more extensive disease and insect resistance
screening, greatly increasing the precision in selecting materials that
are high yielding and have high levels of pest resistance.
Other Public Cooperators.--The increase in funding for public
cooperators would allow for full evaluation and development of new
breeding materials improved for productivity as well as disease and
insect resistance and value-added traits. It would also provide for the
use of biotechnology tools in this development work. Most public
cooperators are willing to participate, but cannot unless they have at
least partial funding. There are approximately 30 public cooperators
now, and as the project develops we are likely to have more.
conclusion
Corn hybrids in the U.S. have a very narrow genetic base, utilizing
only a small percentage of all available corn germplasm. This greatly
increases vulnerability to unforeseen pest problems, and may lead to an
eventual yield cap. Exotic corn germplasm could provide genes for
resistance to pest problems and for increased yields. These exotic
materials may also contain quality traits to meet new market demands.
This will help ensure the U.S. maintains its world leadership in
providing the best raw materials to meet the demand for the production
of meat, eggs, milk, and many other food and industrial uses.
The LAMP project identified the top 268 corn accessions from among
12,000 populations evaluated. The present proposal represents a joint
USDA/ARS, land-grant university, and industry effort to enhance these
and other exotic accessions so that they can enter commercial corn
breeding programs. The result of this cooperation will be an increase
in the productivity, quality, and marketability of hybrid corn in the
U.S. and for export, benefiting the farmer, the feed and processing
industries, and the consumer.
Therefore, the ASTA Corn and Sorghum Basic Research Committee
hereby requests the 106th Congress of the United States to add funding
of $500,000 (in addition to the $500,000 appropriated initially in
1997, for a total of $1,000,000) annually for this corn germplasm
enhancement project beginning with the 2000 federal budget.
budget summary
This is a summary of the operational and capital budgets for 1999,
2000, and 2001; 2001 will only be operational. The budget is divided
into the Corn Belt Location and corresponds to Ames, Iowa (USDA-ARS)
and the cooperators in the Corn Belt area. The Southern Location
corresponds with Raleigh, North Carolina (USDA-ARS) and the cooperators
in the states in the South. For a complete copy of the budget, please
contact Dr. David Harper, Holden's Foundation Seeds LLC, Box 839,
Williamsburg, IA 52361 or 319-668-1100.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Items 1999 2000 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn Belt Location
Board Reductions................................................ $19,100 $20,105 $21,185
Personnel....................................................... 164,550 243,990 312,832
Office/Field.................................................... 44,900 85,125 89,381
Capital Equipment............................................... 11,450 81,780 7,602
Specific Agreements for Public Cooperators \1\.................. 60,000 169,000 169,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total for Corn Belt Location.............................. 300,000 600,000 600,000
Southern Location
Personnel....................................................... 68,200 111,600 114,000
Indirect Costs.................................................. 16,213 13,363 13,363
Office/Field.................................................... 30,587 45,037 46,637
Capital Equipment............................................... 5,000 65,000 41,000
Specific Agreements for Public Cooperators \1\.................. 30,000 65,000 85,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total for Southern Location............................... 150,000 300,000 300,000
SUMMARY
Corn Belt Location.............................................. 300,000 600,000 600,000
Southern Location............................................... 150,000 300,000 300,000
USDA/ARS Overhead............................................... 50,000 100,000 100,000
-----------------------------------------------
Grand Total............................................... 500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Specific Agreements for Public Cooperators: Agreements for public cooperation can be made with universities
and ARS scientists in many locations which could include the following states: Delaware, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Missouri, New York, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Nebraska, North Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas and Tennessee. Research at these
locations would include selection for disease and insect resistance, evaluation for value added traits, and
yield trials.
______
Prepared Statement of the California Industry and Government Coalition
on PM-10/PM-2.5
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
California Industry and Government Coalition on PM-10/PM-2.5, we are
pleased to submit this statement for the record in support of our
fiscal year 2000 funding request of $436,500 (one-half of the
historical baseline split of $873,000 between California and
Washington) from CSREES, for the California Regional PM-10/PM-2.5 Air
Quality Study.
The San Joaquin Valley of California and surrounding regions exceed
both state and federal clean air standards for small particulate
matter, designated PM-10/PM-2.5. The 1990 federal Clean Air Act
Amendments require these areas to attain federal PM-10/PM-2.5 standards
by December 31, 2001. Attainment of these standards requires effective
and equitable distribution of pollution controls that cannot be
determined without a major study of this issue.
According to EPA and the California Air Resources Board, existing
research data show that air quality caused by the PM-10/PM-2.5 problem
has the potential to threaten the health of more than 3 million people
living in the region, reduce visibility, and impact negatively on the
quality of life. Unless the causes, effects and problems associated
with PM-10/PM-2.5 are better addressed and understood, many industries
will suffer due to production and transportation problems, diminishing
natural resources, and increasing costs of fighting a problem that begs
for a soundly researched solution.
PM-10/PM-2.5 problems stem from a variety of industry and other
sources, and they are a significant problem in the areas that are
characteristic of much of California. Typical PM-10/PM-2.5 sources are
dust stirred up by vehicles on unpaved roads, and dirt loosened and
carried by wind during cultivation of agricultural land. Soil erosion
through wind and other agents also leads to aggravation of PM-10/PM-2.5
air pollution problems.
The agriculture portion of this study is developing specific types
of information, tools and techniques needed to develop an inventory and
the management practices that will most likely be part of the control
strategies. They are: (1) validate method or methods for accurately
measuring fugitive PM-10/PM-2.5 emission rates from an individual site
or operation; (2) a method to easily and quickly estimate PM-10/PM-2.5
emissions; (3) an accurate inventory of fugitive PM-10/PM-2.5 dust
sources by individual farming operations; (4) validated (field tested)
best management practices; (5) a clear understanding of significant
factors that effect PM-10/PM-2.5 emissions; and (6) a workable,
validated model or models for predicting PM-10/PM-2.5 emission, based
on operational parameters.
The primary focus of the short-term objectives is on those soils,
practices, and conditions presumed to have the highest PM-10/PM-2.5
emissions. Priority for this work will be focused on the following
situations, practices, and crops within the study area.
Almond, Walnut and Fig Harvest: Preparation for harvest; Shaking
trees; Windrowing; Picking up nuts; and Ambient conditions before and
after.
Dairy Industry: Dairy Lagoons; and Livestock Corrals.
Cotton Harvest: 1Harvesting--1st and 2nd picking; Shredding of
stalks; Stalk incorporation; and Ambient conditions before and after.
Feedlots: Feedlot activities.
Fall/Spring Land Preparation: Deep tillage; Discing; Land planning;
Bed formation; and Ambient conditions before and after.
Grain Harvesting: Harvesting; Stubble incorporation; Discing; and
Burning.
Land Leveling: Appropriate practices.
The importance of this study on PM-10/PM-2.5 is underscored by the
need for more information on how the federal Clean Air Act Amendments
standards can be met effectively by the business community, as well as
by agencies of federal, state and local government whose activities
contribute to the problem, and who are subject to the requirements of
Title V of the Clean Air Act. There is a void in our current
understanding of the amount and impact each source of PM-10/PM-2.5
actually contributes to the overall problem. Without a better
understanding and more information--which this study is providing--
industry and government will be unable to develop an effective
attainment plan and control measures.
Agriculture wants to be a part of the effort to solve this major
problem, but to do so, we need federal assistance to support research
and efforts to deal effectively with what is essentially an unfunded
federal mandate.
Agriculture and industry, in concert with the State of California
and local government entities, are attempting to do our part, and we
come to the appropriations process to request assistance in obtaining a
fair federal share of financial support for this important research
effort. In 1990, our Coalition joined forces to undertake a study
essential to the development of an effective attainment plan and
effective control measures for the San Joaquin Valley of California.
This unique cooperative partnership involving federal, state and local
government, as well as private industry, has raised more than $24
million to date to fund research and planning for a comprehensive PM-
10/PM-2.5 air quality study. Our cooperative effort on this issue
continues, and our hope is that private industry and federal, state and
local governments will be able to raise the final $4.6 million needed
to complete the funding for this important study.
To date, this study project has benefited from federal funding
provided through USDA's, DOT's, DOD's, EPA's, and Interior's budgets--a
total of $13.3 million in federal funding, including $436,500 from USDA
(one-half of CSREES amount provided for California and Washington) in
each of the last four fiscal years. State and industry funding has
matched this amount virtually dollar for dollar.
The UC Davis research into the contribution of agriculture to
airborne PM-10 in the San Joaquin Valley has produced a number of
interim results. Some of these results have already been incorporated
into the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District's
planning, and additional research efforts have been planned in
consultation with district personnel.
The agricultural emissions research is critical to the district's
efforts to understand and control PM-10 in the valley. The San Joaquin
Valley is a serious non-attainment area for PM-10 and also experiences
high concentrations of PM-2.5. The district's strategies toward PM-10
emissions from agriculture focus on research to identify activities
that significantly contribute to the PM-10 problem, and then to develop
feasible methods of controlling emissions from those sources. Without
this information, the district could be demanded to control
agricultural sources in ways that may or may not be effective at
reducing PM-10. Effective control plans are those that actually reduce
PM-10 concentrations, so that there is some assurance that the cost of
implementing them is well-placed.
UC Davis research has produced much better emission factors for the
harvesting of cotton than were previously available, and has produced
the only available emission factors to date for harvesting almonds.
These emission factors were obtained under actual harvest conditions,
so should be representative of agricultural operations in the San
Joaquin Valley. UC Davis research has also investigated the emissions
generated from harvesting figs and walnuts, and the burning of raisin
trays. For raisin trays, the results indicate that the emissions are
not significant. For fig and walnut harvesting, the results also show
that the emissions are not highly significant. Moreover, actions taken
to reduce almond harvest emissions will be effective at controlling
emissions from fig and walnut harvesting, as these crops use the same
harvesting equipment.
UC Davis has initiated research into the emission of ammonia from
livestock facilities in the San Joaquin Valley, primarily dairies and
feedlots. Approximately half of all ammonia emissions in the San
Joaquin Valley is thought to come from animals. This research is
significant because ammonia combines with NO in the atmosphere to
produce fine particles in the PM-2.5 size range. Further, the ammonia
emissions are not well characterized for the livestock management
practices prevalent in the San Joaquin Valley, so new information is
needed. Some preliminary results have been obtained, but they need to
be confirmed with additional measurements.
The currently available fugitive dust emission factors approved for
use by the U.S. EPA rely on the dry silt content of the soil, defined
as the fraction that passes through a 75 PM sieve. The emission factors
were developed empirically, and there is scientific disagreement over
their utility as a predictive tool. UC Davis research is exploring
other methods of defining the potential of a soil to emit PM-10 and has
developed laboratory procedures to measure an index of PM-10 emission
potential in a repeatable manner. Additional research is ongoing to
develop this as a useful tool.
The fugitive dust emissions UC Davis has measured from agricultural
operations so far has relied on physically collecting the dust from the
plumes on filters. UC Davis has developed a remote sensing LIDAR (light
detection and ranging) instrument to characterize the extent of a dust
plume from afar. This instrument has been used successfully in the
field to collect information on the size and shape of dust plumes.
Additional research is ongoing to calibrate it and use it to
quantitatively measure the dust concentrations. The device will be
particularly useful under conditions when it is not possible to collect
a valid sample on filters.
During the coming year, UC Davis will focus on the following
research areas:
--Fugitive dust emission from land preparation activities.--Land
preparation is common to nearly all agricultural crops in the
valley, but the emission factors from this activity are very
poorly defined in the current methods. There is tremendous
value in developing better emission factors from this activity.
--Controlled testing of almond harvesting. Almond harvesting is one
of the dustiest activities examined to date.--This summer, UC
Davis plans to test several different harvesters on the same
orchard, including the latest harvester from each of the two
companies that produce them, as well as the most commonly used
harvester of each manufacturer.
--Initiate emissions testing of garlic harvesting.--This crop is
expanding in the San Joaquin Valley, and is potentially very
dusty. A few pilot tests will provide information on how much
further this crop should be examined.
--Emissions from livestock management.--UC Davis has conducted
preliminary testing of dust and ammonia emissions from dairies
and feedlots; additional research is needed to acquire a valid
database for analysis.
The support of the Department of Agriculture has been indispensable
to the completion of the work performed to date. Continued support for
this research is essential to assure that decisions made on behalf of
improved air quality are based on scientifically valid information, and
that the interests of agriculture are considered in the process.
For fiscal year 2000, our Coalition is seeking federal funding once
again through the U.S. Department of Agriculture to support
continuation of this vital study in California. In the budget for the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES),
we request $436,500, representing one-half of the $873,000 historical
baseline split between California and Washington in the past four
budget cycles.
The California Regional PM-10/PM-2.5 study will not only provide
vital information for a region identified as having particularly acute
PM-10/PM-2.5 problems, it will also serve as a model for other regions
of the country that are experiencing similar problems. The results of
this study will provide improved methods and tools for air quality
monitoring, emission estimations, and effective control strategies
nationwide. Consequently, the beneficial results of this research will
contribute to national policy as well.
The Coalition appreciates the Subcommittee's consideration of this
request for a fiscal year 2000 appropriation of $436,500 for U.S.D.A.
to support the California Regional Region PM-10/PM-2.5 Air Quality
Study. U.S.D.A's past contributions have helped ensure the success of
the study. The coalition thanks you for your support of this important
program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coalition for Affordable Pharmaceuticals
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the Coalition for
Affordable Pharmaceuticals (CAP) is pleased to have the opportunity to
present these comments on the fiscal year 2000 budget request for the
Food and Drug Administration, on behalf of its members. CAP is a
coalition of three national trade associations representing
manufacturers and distributors of finished multi-source generic
pharmaceuticals, manufacturers and distributors of bulk active
pharmaceutical chemicals, and suppliers of other goods and services to
the generic drug industry. CAP's combined membership encompasses
virtually the entire U.S. generic pharmaceutical industry.
I. Generic Drugs Create Significant Health Care Cost Savings
As in recent years, the generic drug industry addresses this
Subcommittee in order to request that appropriations be allocated to
FDA's Office of Generic Drugs (OGD). OGD is the agency's office with
responsibility for reviewing and approving generic pharmaceutical
applications, called abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs). Unlike
past years, however, our testimony does not stand alone but, rather,
supports the Administration's $1.9 million appropriations request for
OGD. CAP is pleased that the Administration is advocating increased
funding for OGD, which will lead to faster generic drug approvals.
Generic drugs continue to represent one of the most effective means
of curbing spiralling healthcare costs in the U.S.\1\ For example, the
cost of prescription drugs increased by 22 percent in 1998 according to
the Office of Personnel Management,\2\ for a total of $94 billion spent
on prescription drugs.\3\ In the federal health program, one out of
every five health care dollars is spent on prescription medicine.\4\ In
the face of these costs, competition from generics in the prescription
drug market has saved American consumers, taxpayers, and Federal and
state governments billions of dollars since 1984 when the Hatch-Waxman
Act was passed. According to a July 1998 Congressional Budget Office
study, purchasers of pharmaceuticals at retail pharmacies saved $8--$10
billion in 1994 alone.\5\ These savings occur because generic drugs
typically enter the market at 25 percent--30 percent below the brand
price and, within two years, decline to 60 percent--70 percent of the
brand price.\6\ This price discount creates a substantial savings for
taxpayers and consumers, which is especially important to those seniors
and the uninsured who have difficulty meeting their health care needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ According to surveys conducted by Hewitt Associates, Towers
Perrin, and Buck Consultants, companies can expect increases in their
health care costs ranging from 7 to 10 percent in 1999. That increase
is double the 4 percent average increase in health care costs in 1998.
Great-West Executive Says Self-Funded Insurance Offers Businesses an
Alternative to Traditional Health Care Plans, PR Newswire, Mar. 3,
1999, at 2061. Moreover, after record financial losses in 1998, managed
care companies and health maintenance organizations reportedly intend
to ``ratchet up premiums to restore profit margins.'' Joseph
McCafferty, Critical Condition, CFO, The Magazine for Senior Financial
Executives, Jan. 1999, at 63.
\2\ Joseph McCafferty, Critical Condition, CFO, The Magazine for
Senior Financial Executives, Jan. 1999, at 63. Without citing the basis
for its figures, another industry analyst reports that 1998 drug sales
rose 17 percent. Industry Watch, Sales & Marketing Management, Jan.
1999, at 18.
\3\ Substitutions Ahead Slightly as Share of New Rx's, Generic
Line, Feb. 24, 1999, at 1-2.
\4\ Joseph McCafferty, Critical Condition, CFO, The Magazine for
Senior Financial Executives, Jan. 1999, at 63.
\5\ CBO Report, ``How Increased Competition from Generic Drugs has
Affected Prices and Returns in the Pharmaceutical Industry'' (July
1998), at Summary.
\6\ CBO Report, ``How Increased Competition from Generic Drugs has
Affected Prices and Returns in the Pharmaceutical Industry'' (July
1998), at Summary; ``Economic Impact of GATT Patent Extension on
Currently Marketed Drugs,'' PRIME Institute, College of Pharmacy,
University of Minnesota (Mar. 1995), at Executive Summary; SBC Warburg
Dillon Read Inc., ``Industry Report--Specialty Pharmaceuticals: Generic
Drugs, May 20, 1998, at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While cost-effective generic pharmaceuticals have reduced health
care costs in this country, the savings could be even greater if FDA
took final action on generic applications within the statutorily
required six months.\7\ This Subcommittee previously has emphasized the
importance of accelerating generic drug approvals.\8\ Due in large part
to the appropriations designated in 1998 and 1999, OGD has successfully
focused on this mandate. Nevertheless, the Subcommittee must continue
its support for OGD, ensuring that the agency has adequate funding to
approve safe and effective generic drugs promptly and efficiently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Under the law, FDA must take final action on generic drug
applications within 180 days. 21 U.S.C. 355(j)(5). In 1998, the median
time to approval for ANDAs was 18 months--three times the length
mandated by statute. Comments of Douglas L. Sporn, Director, OGD,
``Update on the Office of Generic Drugs,'' at the NAPM 1999 Annual
Meeting & Education Conference (Feb. 3, 1999).
\8\ S. Rep. No. 105-212 (1998) at 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. CAP Recommends Increased Funding To Expedite Generic Drug Approvals
We encourage the Subcommittee to continue this initiative by
providing additional funds that will allow OGD to progress further
toward meeting the six month statutory period for final agency action
on ANDAs. Specifically, we recommend that the Subcommittee take the
following actions: Grant the Administration's request for a direct
appropriation of $1.9 million for the Office of Generic Drugs, in
addition to its fiscal year 1999 funding level; and Continue to insist
that FDA provide detailed and accurate information about agency
expenditures specifically for, and by OGD.
Not only would the appropriations assist in reducing approval
times, but also the funds would aid OGD in addressing artificial
barriers to competition that are continuously erected by the brand drug
industry, as is explained further below.
III. With Increased Appropriations, OGD Can Hire Additional Staff To
Meet Its Workload
Among the most pressing needs at OGD is one for additional staff
members to review generic applications. While the Administration
reports that a majority of the $1 million appropriated to OGD in 1999
will be used to fund FTE's, the current appropriations request would
add another 11 FTE's to the office.\9\ These staff members are
essential to handling OGD's ever increasing workload. In 1998, OGD
received an unprecedented 564 ANDAs, up from 464 in 1997.\10\ This
increase in application submissions will likely continue. In fact, over
the next five years, approximately $22 billion in annual prescription
drug sales will be open to generic competition due to patent
expirations.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ HHS fiscal year 2000 Justification of Estimates for
Appropriations Committees and Performance Plan, at 40 and 82.
\10\ Comments of Douglas L. Sporn, Director, OGD, ``Update on the
Office of Generic Drugs,'' at the NAPM 1999 Annual Meeting & Education
Conference (Feb. 3, 1999).
\11\ SBC Warburg Dillon Read Inc., ``Industry Report--Specialty
Pharmaceuticals: Generic Drugs, May 20, 1998, at 32
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further compounding these numbers, the Administration asserts that
the fiscal year 2000 funding will enable them to meet only the modest
goal of a 3.2 percent increase in the average monthly number of OGD
actions (which include approvals, tentative approvals, not approvals
and facsimile requests).\12\ The modest nature of this goal highlights
the need for additional funding to continue OGD's efforts toward
accelerating generic drug approval times. Thus, Congress has the
opportunity now to positively impact OGD's workload and speed generic
drugs to consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ HHS fiscal year 2000 Justification of Estimates for
Appropriations Committees and Performance Plan, at 83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. With Additional Funding And Staff, OGD Can Address Troublesome
Citizen Petitions
OGD's priorities should be expanded to address the misuse of
citizen petitions for challenging FDA's scientific decisions related to
generic drug applications. At least 50 citizen petitions have been
filed since 1990 seeking actions that would result in a delay in
approval of generic drugs.\13\ In response, scarce OGD resources are
used to review these petitions, many of which are frivolous, anti-
competitive actions. While FDA has worked tirelessly to close out these
petitions, the agency falls further behind as more petitions are filed.
For instance, although FDA completed its review of eight petitions
related to generic drugs in 1998, 10 more were filed by the brand
industry that year.\14\ OGD senior scientists who otherwise would be
reviewing ANDAs must turn their attention to these petitions, delaying
ANDA review times even further.\15\ With additional funds, OGD could
hire senior scientists that would devote much of their time to clearing
the backlog of petitions that delay generic approvals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ A detailed chart describing 51 citizen petitions is available
on request. It is titled, ``Citizen Petitions That Request FDA Actions
Against Generic Drug Applications (ANDAs), 1990--Present.''
\14\Id.
\15\Douglas Sporn, Director of FDA's Office of Generic Drugs, has
stated that the ``speed of [ANDA] approvals depends on how much
reviewers are distracted by citizen petitions . . . .'' Sporn Updates
Generic Drug Industry on Forthcoming Guidances, FDA Week (Apr. 2,
1999), at 11 (comments at GPIA Annual Meeting, March 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Additional Funds Could Be Used To Educate The Public About Generic
Equivalence
An increase in appropriations also could be used by FDA to counter
inaccurate claims made by some brand companies that the substitution of
generic drugs for brand drugs poses a health risk for patients.\16\
While this scare tactic is belied by sound science, it serves to
undermine the public's confidence in the value of FDA's decisions about
the safety and effectiveness of generic drug products. With additional
funding, OGD could provide accurate information to educate consumers,
policy makers, and state government officials about the scientific
integrity of the ANDA process and FDA's therapeutic equivalence
decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ A detailed chart describing the state lobbying initiatives
undertaken by the brand industry is available on request. It is titled,
``Anti-Generic Challenges Before State Formularies (Other Than
Coumadin(/NTI Challenges).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Conclusion
In summary, we request that Congress continue to guide FDA's
priorities by appropriating and allocating resources directly to OGD.
As medical treatment becomes even more expensive, it is important that
generic drug applications move through the approval process as quickly
as scientifically sound reviews for bioequivalence permit. Although
generic drug median approval times have improved tremendously, the
agency's review period is still three times longer than the six month
statutory requirement.\17\ Every day that a generic drug is delayed
from entering the market, Americans pay millions of dollars more for
their prescription drug products. Without additional appropriated
funds, and with million-dollar drugs coming off patent, the delay in
approval is likely to increase--an unacceptable scenario. Only
Congressional mandates can ensure that FDA will continue to invest the
resources necessary to ensure timely generic approvals which, in turn,
will continue to provide a check on prescription drug prices. Mr.
Chairman, the Coalition for Affordable Pharmaceuticals would like to
thank you and the Subcommittee for its time and attention concerning
this critical aspect to FDA's fiscal year 2000 budget request. We look
forward to continuing our work with you and members of the Subcommittee
to bring safe, effective and more affordable pharmaceuticals to the
American public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Comments of Douglas L. Sporn, Director, OGD, ``Update on the
Office of Generic Drugs,'' at the NAPM 1999 Annual Meeting & Education
Conference (Feb. 3, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the Coalition of Agricultural Mediation Programs
We request that you include $4 million in the fiscal year 2000
Agriculture Appropriations bill for the certified state mediation grant
program. This is the minimum funding level needed for state mediation
programs to operate and provide meaningful services. The mediation
program has been successfully used by thousands of producers, creditors
and USDA to resolve disputes without costly litigation. Most
importantly, mediation has allowed all the parties to resolve the
disputes themselves according to their own best interests.
The President's budget for fiscal year 2000 requests $4 million for
the grant program, which is consistent with his Proclamation dated May
1, 1998 encouraging greater use of mediation and other Alternative
Dispute Resolution techniques throughout the executive branch. USDA has
the benefit of well-developed and experienced certified mediation
programs in over 20 states. What it now needs is adequate funding to
ensure the continuation of these programs, and the development of
programs in more states.
The Coalition of Agricultural Mediation Programs (CAMP) is
comprised of the states that have had their mediation programs
certified by USDA. In fiscal year 1999 the twenty-two state programs
requested grants totaling around $3.3 million. With only $2 million
appropriated, all state program grants were pro-rated to only 60
percent of their needs. At the same time, the on-going economic crisis
in agriculture is increasing the demand in established state mediation
programs, while interest in establishing new programs in additional
states is growing. In fact, it is entirely possible that the requested
$4 million appropriation may fall short if the agricultural economic
crisis persists.
Certified state mediation programs were originally authorized under
the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 as a way to assist agricultural
producers and their creditors resolve disputes through mediation,
reducing the cost of administrative appeals, litigation and bankruptcy
to all parties. Agricultural mediation played a very important role in
resolving financial disputes between farmers/ranchers and lenders
during the farm economic crisis in the 1980s. As you are well aware,
many agricultural producers in our country are once again facing
economic crises. Financial problems for producers translates into
problems for local banks, co-ops, feed suppliers, etc. This will create
a greater need for state mediation services in fiscal year 2000.
Adequate funding for this program has been recognized and
recommended as one of the measures to help address the challenges being
experienced by the nation's farmers, their lenders, and others.
--Governors and agriculture officials from 15 states gathered for the
Plains States Rural Crisis Summit in Oklahoma City on August 6-
7, 1998. Adequate funding for the USDA Certified Mediation
Grants Program was one of nine emergency recommendations that
were forwarded to Congress.
--On September 28, 1998, the National Association of State
Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) included adequate resources
for mediation, financial analysis, and related services as part
of its recommended disaster assistance package.
--By letter dated March 1, 1999, NASDA urged Congress to appropriate
supplemental funding for Farm Service Agency loan programs and
mediation grants.
The financial restrictions, increasing demand for mediation
services and current economic conditions make it critical that the $4
million appropriation be granted. Please give me a call at (618) 453-
5181 if you have any questions. Thank you for your attention to this
important issue.
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Robert A. Altenkirch, Vice President for
Research, Mississippi State University
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of the Coalition of
EPSCoR States \1\ regarding the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (USDA EPSCoR).
USDA EPSCoR is extremely important to agricultural research in the
state of Mississippi and in our nation. I appreciate the opportunity to
submit this testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine,
Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Puerto
Rico, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would also like to extend my appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman,
for your strong support of USDA EPSCoR. This important program is
having a significant impact in Mississippi and in the other USDA EPSCoR
states. Your support and the support of this Subcommittee have been
absolutely crucial in establishing and maintaining this important
program. Mr. Chairman, those of us committed to improving Mississippi's
research and development capability deeply appreciate your support and
your effort. Thank you for your fine work representing Mississippi in
the United States Senate.
Seven federal agencies have EPSCoR or EPSCoR-like programs,
including USDA. EPSCoR works to improve our country's science and
technology capability by funding activities of talented researchers in
states that have historically not received significant federal R&D
funding. USDA EPSCoR was established in fiscal year 1992 with a goal of
increasing the amount of agricultural research at academic institutions
within states that have had limited success obtaining competitive funds
from USDA.
The Mississippi EPSCoR program began in 1988 with the naming of the
state EPSCoR Committee by the Governor. Mississippi EPSCoR obtained its
first funding in 1989 from USDA EPSCoR's sister program in the National
Science Foundation. Since that time, EPSCoR has had an enormously
positive impact within the state and at the four research institutions
and their affiliates.
Because of the multi-institutional framework of EPSCoR and of the
commitment of the state EPSCoR Committee to creating a critical mass of
scientists and engineers around specific issues as well as a more fully
developed statewide infrastructure, Mississippi EPSCoR has produced a
stronger, more competitive research community and closer working
relationships among the institutions that participate in the federal
EPSCoR programs: Jackson State University, Mississippi State
University, the University of Mississippi, the University of Southern
Mississippi, and the University of Mississippi Medical Center.
Mr. Chairman, USDA EPSCoR is helping to improve the quality and
competitiveness of agriculture research in Mississippi. Since the
program was established in 1992, 64 Mississippi researchers have
received USDA EPSCoR Strengthening Awards. These investigators have
been located at Mississippi State University, the University of
Mississippi Medical Center, and the University of Southern Mississippi.
The amount of USDA research funds received by Mississippi increased by
more than 500 percent between 1990 and 1996, a clear indication that
Mississippi researchers are becoming more effective.
Important examples of Mississippi's research include studies in
such areas as: kenaf processing, which is a potential economic
opportunity for rural states; rapid detection of E coli, an important
factor in food safety; and disease mechanisms in channel catfish, which
impacts a significant cash crop across the southern part of the
country. These projects and many, many others address issues important
to rural states and to the rest of the nation. USDA EPSCoR allows
researchers across our country to contribute to our economy and our
agricultural research knowledge base.
USDA EPSCoR states are those whose funding ranks no higher than the
38th percentile of all states, based on a three year rolling average.
For fiscal year 1999, the following states are eligible: Alaska,
Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Mississippi,
Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming,
and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Let me stress that EPSCoR relies
on rigorous merit review in order to ensure that it funds only high-
quality research.
USDA makes four types of competitive awards through USDA EPSCoR:
Research Career Enhancement Awards, Equipment Grants, Seed Grants, and
Strengthening Standard Research Project Awards. Proposals must be
related to the program priorities of the National Research Initiative
Competitive Grants Program, which address critical issues facing
agriculture today.
--Research Career Enhancement Awards help faculty enhance their
research capabilities by funding sabbatical leaves. Applicants
may not have received a NRICGP competitive research grant
within the past five years.
--Equipment Grants strengthen the research capacity of institutions
in USDA EPSCoR states. The grant cannot exceed 50 percent of
the cost of the equipment. The principal investigator for this
grant is responsible for securing non-Federal matching funds.
--Seed Grants enable researchers to collect preliminary data in
preparation for applying for a standard research grant. Seed
Grant awards are limited to a total cost of $50,000, including
indirect costs, and are non-renewable. Applicants must indicate
how the research will enhance future competitiveness in
applying for standard research grants.
--Strengthening Standard Research Project Awards fund standard
research projects of investigators who have not received a
NRICGP grant within the past five years.
Through USDA EPSCoR, Mississippi and the other USDA EPSCoR States
contribute more effectively to our nation's science and technology
capability, and help provide our country with needed, high-quality,
peer-reviewed research. This program allows all regions of our country
to contribute to our nation's science and technology capability while
allowing flexibility to meet regional research needs. USDA EPSCoR is a
sound investment of taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee has for several years directed USDA
to set aside 10 percent of USDA NRICGP funds for USDA EPSCoR. Those
funds have provided significant opportunity and significant success in
Mississippi and the other EPSCoR states. I request that the
Subcommittee once again include report language directing USDA to set
aside 10 percent of its NRI competitive grant funds in fiscal year 2000
for an EPSCoR program. These funds will allow the EPSCoR states to
continue providing for the agricultural research needs of rural America
and of our nation.
I thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit this
testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural
Exports
As members of the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports,
we commend the Chairman and members of the Subcommittee for their
interest and support of U.S. agriculture and express our appreciation
for this opportunity to share our views.
The Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports is an ad hoc
coalition of over 80 organizations, representing farmers and ranchers,
cooperatives, small businesses, regional trade organizations, and the
State Departments of Agriculture. We believe the U.S. must continue to
have in place policies and programs that help maintain the ability of
American agriculture to compete effectively in a global marketplace
still characterized by subsidized foreign competition.
This is especially true as the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996 (FAIR Act), that resulted in the most sweeping
reforms in farm policy in over 60 years, continues to be implemented.
Under this legislation, farm income and the economic well being of
American agriculture are now dependent more than ever on continued
access to foreign markets and maintaining and strengthening U.S.
agricultural exports.
American agriculture and American workers, however, continue to be
threatened by subsidized foreign competition. Recent trade agreements,
including NAFTA and the Uruguay Round Agreement on GATT, did not
eliminate the use of export subsidies or other forms of export
assistance. According to a recent analysis by USDA, the European Union
(EU) and other foreign competitors are outspending the U.S. by a factor
of 20 to 1 with regard to the use of export subsidies and other
expenditures for export promotion.
The same study showed that such countries are spending over $100
million just to promote sales of their products in the United States.
In other words, they are spending more to promote their agricultural
exports to the United States, than the U.S. is currently spending ($90
million) to promote American agricultural exports worldwide!
According to the same study by USDA, the U.S. faces a growing
challenge in the area of market promotion. In 1997, in addition to
spending over $7.2 billion in export subsidies, our leading foreign
competitors spent a combined $924 million on various activities to
promote their exports of agricultural, forestry, and fishery products,
including some $365 million by the EU.
USDA's study goes on to say that ``because market promotion is a
permitted `green box' activity under World Trade Organization (WTO)
rules, with no limit on public or producer funding, it is increasingly
seen as a centerpiece of a winning strategy in the future trade
battleground. Many competitor countries have announced ambitious trade
goals and are shaping export programs to target promising growth
markets and bring new companies into the export arena * * * '' European
countries are expanding their promotional activities in Asia, Latin
America, and Eastern Europe. Canada, Australia and New Zealand have
also sharply bolstered their export promotion expenditures in recent
years. Clearly, our foreign competitors are aggressively seeking to
maintain and increase their share of the world market at the expense of
U.S. producers.
For this reason, we believe the Administration and Congress should
give serious consideration to strengthening funding for MAP and other
export programs, and ensuring that such programs are fully and
aggressively utilized. Since MAP was originally authorized, funding has
been gradually reduced from a high of $200 million to its current level
of $90 million--a reduction of more than 50 percent. Again, given what
our foreign trade competitors are doing, we believe it's time to
restore funding for this vitally important program to its original
level.
We also urge that funding for USDA's Foreign Market Development
(FMD) Cooperator Program be maintained at no less than the current year
level. In addition, we want to express our strong support for ensuring
adequate funding for USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) to help
meet critical export goals and objectives. Such action is essential to
America's overall trade strategy and economic interests.
Both MAP and FMD, which are administered on a cost-share basis,
remain one of the few tools specifically allowed under the Uruguay
Round Agreement to help American agriculture and American workers
remain competitive in a global marketplace still characterized by
subsidized foreign competition. By any measure, they have been
tremendously successful and extremely cost-effective in helping
maintain and expand U.S. agricultural exports, countering subsidized
foreign competition, protecting American jobs and strengthening farm
income. American agriculture is the most competitive industry in the
world, but it can not and should not be expected to compete alone
against the treasuries of foreign governments.
For all these reasons, we want to emphasize again the need to help
strengthen the ability of U.S. agriculture to compete effectively in a
global marketplace still characterized by subsidized foreign
competition. As a nation, we can work to export our products, or we can
export our jobs. USDA's export programs, such as MAP and FMD, are a key
part of an overall trade strategy that is pro-growth, pro-trade and
pro-job.
Again, as members of the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural
Exports, we appreciate very much this opportunity to share our views
and we ask this statement be included in the official hearing record.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
The Congress concluded that the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Program should be implemented in the most cost-effective way
and realizing that agricultural on-farm strategies were some of the
most cost-effective strategies authorized a program for the Department
of Agriculture. With the enactment of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIRA), the Congress concluded that
the Salinity Control Program could be most effectively implemented as
one of the components of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
Since the enactment of FAIRA, the Salinity Control Program has not been
funded at a level adequate to ensure that water quality standards in
the Colorado River, with respect to total dissolved solids (salinity),
will be honored, nor is the funding sufficient to prevent salt loading
from irrigated farms from impacting the quality of water delivered to
Mexico under a minute of the International Boundary and Water
Commission, United States and Mexico.
The problem rests with the Department of Agriculture concluding
that it should not designate any area of the country as a national
priority area at this time. The Salinity Control Program has been
subsumed into the EQIP program without the Secretary of Agriculture
giving adequate recognition to the requirement in Section 202(c) in the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act to carry out salinity control
measures. Further, the Administration has concluded that the
expenditure of EQIP funds shall be determined by initiatives developed
at the grassroots level. Under USDA directives, this means that Upper
Basin agricultural communities advance salinity control proposals for
the salinity control program. The proposal must be implemented in the
Upper Basin, as that is where the salt loading is occurring. Water
users hundreds of miles downstream are the beneficiaries of this water
quality improvement program. Agriculturalists in the Upper Basin,
however, see local benefits as well as downstream benefits and have
submitted cost-effective proposals to the State Conservationists in
Utah, Wyoming and Colorado. A majority of the EQIP funds are designated
to be used in priority areas which are normally small geographic
watersheds. Priority Area proposals for EQIP funding are ranked in each
state under the direction of the NRCS State Conservationist. The
existing ranking criteria, however, does not consider downstream
benefits (particularly out of state benefits) when proposals are being
evaluated.
If the Department of Agriculture believes that it is directed by
the Congress to implement the Salinity Control Program, then it is
incomprehensible that the program that is designed to provide
downstream benefits cannot receive credit in ranking criteria for the
accomplishment of the downstream benefits. The solution to the problem
is simple. Grassroots in the Colorado River Basin with respect to
salinity control means at the states level and review of proposals
should take place at the seven Colorado River Basin states level
through the Forum. The states, through the efforts of the Salinity
Control Forum, have adopted a program approved by EPA. The Forum should
be recognized as the grassroots level for the Salinity Control Program
and the Forum should serve as the Technical Advisory Committee (local
work group) to Administration officials as to the need for and the
expenditure of funds for the Salinity Control Program. The Colorado
River Basin is covered by two NRCS regions and the program must be
coordinated at a high administration level. A national priority
designation is needed. Numerous requests have gone to the Department of
Agriculture to make this designation, and the response has been that
there are not adequate funds in the EQIP program to go beyond the
initially adopted ``grassroots'' effort. Therefore, the Forum is
pleased with the Administration's statement that it intends to expend
$300,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 on the EQIP program.
The Basin states were led to believe by Congressional staff that
when the EQIP program was created, the $200,000,000 annual Commodity
Credit Corporation (CCC) borrowing authority given to the Secretary
would ensure that through the year 2002 at least this amount of funding
would be expended for the EQIP program. The Forum was very dismayed
when last year this committee acted to reduce the fiscal year 1999
funding to $174,000,000. This level of funding is not adequate for this
most important nationwide program and the Administration does not
believe that it provides sufficient funds to implement National
Priority Areas as allowed by Congress under FAIRA. The Forum urges that
the funding for EQIP for fiscal year 2000 total $300,000,000.
This last year, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
set aside Congressionally earmarked funds to use in areas of special
interest in the Colorado River drainage and in Mississippi. The Forum
commends this designation and believes this is a first step towards
designation of National Priority Areas. However, under NRCS earmarked
designation, not enough funds were made available to adequately
implement the needed program in the Colorado River Basin. The Forum
fears that adequate funding may not be made available by the Secretary
until the Congress increases, in a significant way, the funds to be
spent in the EQIP.
The Basin states have cost sharing dollars available to participate
in on-farm salinity control efforts in the cost-sharing fashion
provided by the Congress. The agricultural producers in the Upper Basin
are waiting for their applications to be considered so that they might
also cost share in the program. When all of the cost sharing is
tabulated, the federal cost of the program is less than 50 percent.
However, because of the structure of the EQIP and the associated
authorized cost sharing under the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Act, these funds cannot be expended in this cooperative effort until
federal funds are made available.
The Forum urges that this committee support the funding of
$300,000,000 from the CCC in fiscal year 2000 for EQIP. The Forum also
requests that this Committee advise the Administration that $12,000,000
of these funds be designated for the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Program.
overview
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program was authorized by
Congress in 1974. The Title I portion of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act responded to commitments that the United States
made, through a minute of the International Boundary and Water
Commission, to Mexico with respect to the quality of water being
delivered to Mexico below Imperial Dam. Title II of the Act established
a program to respond to salinity control needs of Colorado River water
users in the United States and to comply with the mandates of the then
newly legislated Clean Water Act. Initially, the Secretary of the
Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation were given the lead federal role
by the Congress. This testimony is in support of funding for the Title
II program.
After a decade of investigative and implementation efforts, the
Basin states concluded that the Salinity Control Act needed to be
amended. Congress revised the Act in 1984. That revision, while keeping
the Secretary of the Interior as lead coordinator for Colorado River
Basin salinity control efforts, also gave new salinity control
responsibilities to the Department of Agriculture, and to a sister
agency of the Bureau of Reclamation--the Bureau of Land Management.
Congress has charged the Administration with implementing the most
cost-effective program practicable (measured in dollars per ton of salt
removed). The Basin states are strongly supportive of that concept as
the Basin states consider cost sharing 30 percent of federal
expenditures up-front for the salinity control program, in addition to
proceeding to implement their own salinity control efforts in the
Colorado River Basin.
Since the Congressional mandates of nearly two decades ago, much
has been learned about the impact of salts in the Colorado River
system. The Bureau of Reclamation has recently completed studies on the
economic impact of these salts. Reclamation recognizes that the damages
to United States' water users alone may soon be approaching $1 billion
per year.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is composed
of Gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada,
New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum has become the seven-state
coordinating body for interfacing with federal agencies and Congress to
support the implementation of a program necessary to control the
salinity of the river system. In close cooperation with the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and under requirements of the
Clean Water Act, every three years the Forum prepares a formal report
analyzing the salinity of the Colorado River, anticipated future
salinity, and the program necessary to keep the salinities at or below
the levels measured in the river system in 1972.
In setting water quality standards for the Colorado River system,
the salinity concentrations measured at Imperial, and below Parker, and
Hoover Dams in 1972 have been identified as the numeric criteria. The
plan necessary for controlling salinity has been captioned the ``plan
of implementation.'' The 1996 Review of water quality standards
includes an updated plan of implementation. The level of appropriation
requested in this testimony is in keeping with the agreed to plan. If
adequate funds are not appropriated, state and federal agencies
involved are in agreement that the numeric criteria will be exceeded
and damage from the high salt levels in the water will be widespread in
the United States and Mexico and will be very significant.
additional funding needs
The authorized cost sharing by the Basin states was at first
difficult to implement as attorneys for USDA concluded that the Basin
states were authorized by FAIRA to cost share in the effort, but the
Congress had not given USDA authority to receive the Basin states'
funds. After almost a year of exploring every possible solution as to
how the cost sharing was to occur, the states, in agreement with the
Bureau of Reclamation, with state officials in Utah, Colorado and
Wyoming and with NRCS State Conservationists in Utah, Colorado and
Wyoming, agreed upon a parallel program wherein the states' cost
sharing funds will be used. We are now in the third year of that
program and, at this moment in time, this solution to how cost sharing
can be implemented appears to be a good one.
With respect to the states' cost sharing funds, the Basin states
felt that it was most essential that a portion of the program be
associated with technical assistance and education activities in the
field. Without this necessary support, there is no advanced planning,
proposals are not well thought out, assertions in the proposals cannot
be verified, implementation of contracts cannot be observed, and the
most valuable partnering and education efforts cannot occur.
Recognizing these values, the parallel state cost sharing program
spends 40 percent of the funds available on these support activities.
Initially, it was acknowledged that the federal portion of the salinity
control program funded through EQIP was starved with respect to needed
technical assistance and education support. The Forum is encouraged
with the Administration's recent determination that 19 percent of the
EQIP funds will be used for technical assistance. The Forum urges this
Committee to appropriate adequate funds for these support activities
rather than to direct NRCS to borrow these needed funds from the CCC.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California
Your support and leadership are needed in securing adequate funding
for the U.S. Department of Agriculture with respect to it's on-farm
Colorado River Basin salinity control program for fiscal year 2000.
This program has been carried out through the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act, which was initially enacted by Congress in 1974.
With the enactment of the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform
Act (FAIRA) in 1996, specific funding for salinity control projects in
the Colorado River Basin were eliminated from the federal budget, and
aggregated into the newly created Department of Agriculture
Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) as one of its program
components. With the enactment of the FAIRA, Congress concluded that
the salinity control program could be more effectively implemented as
one of the components of the EQIP. In the past, the Department of
Agriculture had specific line item funding for salinity control
projects as high as $14.7 million but in recent years it has advanced
only $3.4 to $4.6 million which is inadequate to ensure that water
quality standards in the Colorado River, with regards to salinity can
be met. It has been estimated through previous federal studies that the
Lower Basin States' (Arizona, California, and Nevada) Colorado River
water users were suffering economic damages estimated to be in excess
of $750 million per year in 1995 due to the salts in the River system.
Most of that damage is occurring in California. The potential impact of
failing to move forward with the plan of implementation for salinity
control would be to permit these damages in the Lower Basin to reach an
estimated $1.25 billion annually by the year 2015.
The Colorado River Board of California (Colorado River Board) is
the state agency charged with protecting California's interests and
rights in the water and power resources of the Colorado River System.
In this capacity, California along with the other Basin States through
the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), the interstate
organization responsible for coordinating the Basin States' salinity
control efforts, established, in June 1975, numeric criteria for
salinity concentrations in the River. These criteria were established
to lessen the future damages in the Lower Basin States as well as
assist the United States in delivering water of adequate quality to
Mexico in accordance with Minute 242 of the International Boundary and
Water Commission. The goal of the Colorado River Basin salinity control
program is to offset the effects of water resource development in the
Colorado River basin after 1972 rather than to reduce the salinity of
the River below levels that were caused by natural variations in river
flows or human activities prior to 1972. To maintain these levels, the
salinity control program must remove 1.48 million tons of salt loading
from the River by year 2015. To date, only 717,000 tons of salt load
reduction have been achieved. In the Forum's last report entitled 1996
Review, Water Quality Standards for Salinity, Colorado River System
released in June 1996, the Forum found that additional salinity control
measures were necessary to meet the implementation plan that had been
adopted by the seven Colorado River Basin States and approved by the
Environmental Protection Agency. Since implementation of the EQIP,
federal allocations by the Department of Agriculture have not equaled
the Forum's identified funding needs for the Department of
Agriculture's portion of the program. The Forum identified a
``backlog'' of salinity control measures which stands at 312,000 tons.
This is in addition to future controls designed to lower the River's
salt loading by 437,000 tons by 2015 in order to meet the established
salinity standards. Very simply, there is a need for at least 47,000
tons of new salinity control measures to be implemented each year until
2015. The Forum has presented testimony to Congress recommending that
the salinity control efforts through EQIP be accelerated to continue to
meet the salinity standards through 2015.
The President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2000 contains
funding of $300 million for implementation of EQIP, up $100 million
from the $200 million Commodity Credit Corporation borrowing authority
provided the Secretary of Agriculture by FAIRA. The Colorado River
Board is pleased with the Administration's statement that it intends to
expend $300 million in fiscal year 2000 through EQIP. Of the amount to
be appropriated for EQIP, the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Forum, at its meeting in Santa Fe, New Mexico, during October 1998,
recommended a funding level of $12.0 million for on-farm salinity
control in the Colorado River Basin for fiscal year 2000 to maintain
water quality consistent with the established standards. These federal
dollars if earmarked would be augmented by state cost sharing of 30
percent with an additional 30 percent provided by the agricultural
producer with whom the Department of Agriculture contracts for salinity
control. The Colorado River Board supports the recommendation of the
Forum. The salinity control program has proven to be a very cost
effective approach to help mitigate the impacts of higher salinity.
Continued federal funding of the program is essential.
In addition, the Colorado River Board recognizes that the federal
government has made significant commitments to the Republic of Mexico
and to the seven Colorado River Basin States with regard to the
delivery of adequate quality water to Mexico. In order for those
commitments to be honored, it is essential that in fiscal year 2000 and
in future fiscal years, the Congress provide funds to the Department of
Agriculture to allow it to continue providing technical support in the
Basin for salinity control.
The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
water resource to the 17 million residents of southern California as
well as throughout the Lower Colorado River Basin. As stated earlier,
preservation of its quality through an effective salinity control
program will avoid the additional economic damages to users of Colorado
River water in California, Arizona, and Nevada.
The Colorado River Board greatly appreciates your support of the
federal/state Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program and again
asks for your assistance and leadership in securing adequate funding
for this program.
______
Prepared Statement of the USDA UVB Radiation Monitoring Program,
Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University
Discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985, accompanied by a
large increase in surface UVB radiation has raised serious questions
about the continued protection by the stratospheric ozone layer of the
earth's living systems from the harmful effects of UVB radiation. In
the northern hemisphere estimates based primarily on satellite and
limited ground based measurements indicate that stratospheric ozone is
decreasing at the rate of 3-5 percent per decade. While these decreases
will result in increased solar ultraviolet radiation penetrating the
stratosphere, it is not fully understood how this will affect the
amount of UVB radiation reaching the earth's surface. If stratospheric
ozone depletion does result in increased surface radiation, it is not
clear what the consequences will be for the earth's plant and animal as
well as human populations. To help in answering this question, the USDA
is supporting a program to develop a national UVB radiation
climatology, to determine future trends in UVB, and to conduct research
to better understand factors effecting UVB radiation at the earth's
surface. Measurements are required in agricultural and rural areas of
the U.S. in order to provide a record of climatology and trends
relevant to potential impacts on agricultural productivity. Also,
agriculture cannot rely on the commitment of other agencies to make
measurements which meet their needs nor to sustain a long-term
monitoring program (for example, the closing of weather stations
critical to agriculture). The network is thus an integral part of the
overall effort of the USDA to meet its obligation to assure the future
productivity of American agriculture. The unique requirements of
agriculture have been recognized by the ultraviolet radiation
measurements community and the USDA monitoring program is an integral
component of United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) as
outlined in the 1995 report (USGCRP-95-01) titled ``The U.S.
Interagency UV-Monitoring Network Plan''.
The USDA UVB Radiation Monitoring program at Colorado State
University (CSU) was initiated in 1992 with funding from the USDA
CSREES Special Research Grants program. The network now consists of 27
sites across the U.S. including Hawaii. The network was scheduled to
expand to a planned 30-40 sites. This is now delayed as a result of
budget reductions. Each of these sites has a seven wavelength UV
spectral instrument (interference filters with 2 nm bandpass at 300,
305, 311, 317, 325, 332, and 368 nm) equipped with a shadowband which
permits the simultaneous measurement of the total horizontal, diffuse,
and direct normal irradiance at each wavelength. Each site is also
equipped with a similar instrument with wavelengths in the visible
(415, 500, 610, 665, 862, and 940 nm) to provide ancillary information
to aid in interpreting factors effecting UVB irradiance. In order to
provide data for comparison with many who are using less expensive
broadband instruments, each site is equipped with a broadband
radiometer. Data from all of the instrumentation are stored on a data
logger and downloaded over a phone line nightly and stored on a
database file server.
The USDA requested that a UVB radiation monitoring program be
designed to include the agricultural areas of the U.S., to provide
information to support UVB effects research and to serve as an ``early
warning'' system for agriculture. Subsequently, realizing that such a
network could serve a broader role for the benefit of the American
public, the objectives were expanded to include UVB radiation
information to support human health studies and atmospheric science
research related to causes of ozone depletion. Specifically the program
objectives are to:
--Provide information to the agricultural community and others about
the climatology, geographical distribution and long-term trends
in UVB irradiance in order to relate changes in stratospheric
ozone to UVB flux at the earths surface, to support research on
UVB effects on agricultural crops as well as natural
ecosystems, human health and materials.
--Provide data which will support research to increase our
understanding of the factors controlling surface UVB
irradiance--serve as ground truth for calculations of UVB
irradiance based on radiative transfer model calculations and
measurements from satellites--techniques which will aid in our
ability to forecast future UVB radiation levels.
To meet these objectives, the USDA UVB Radiation Monitoring program
at CSU has established a network to measure UVB radiation along with
other ancillary measurements required to interpret variations in UVB
levels. A research effort is necessary to understand the role of ozone
and other absorbing gasses, as well as scattering by clouds and
aerosols (turbidity) in controlling UVB radiation before it is possible
to forecast the effect of stratospheric ozone changes on UVB levels at
the earth's surface. This network is providing, for the first time,
comparable measurements of surface UVB radiation (as well as visible)
over the continental United States and Hawaii and will eventually
include Alaska and Puerto Rico if budgets permit. Latitudinal
differences as well as seasonality of UVB levels are now being
documented in a standardized manner (See Attachment I). These data are
now available within one day of collection to the scientific community,
policy makers and others through a World-Wide-Web server or by
contacting the monitoring program office. Those interested in only
viewing the data will find daily plots of UVB radiation measured every
three minutes. The USDA network is the only network in the U.S.
providing this information. The USDA UVB Web site address is: http://
uvb.nrel.colostate.edu/.
Realizing that historical measurements of UVB as well as many
contemporary measurements both in the U.S. and internationally have
suffered from inadequate instrumentation and lack of attention to data
quality (primarily instrument calibration and documentation of
procedures), the USDA program has made a major commitment to assuring
high quality. In order to meet this goal, the program at CSU has a
staff of nine including quality assurance specialists, fields
technicians, computer programmers, and scientists to assure that the
production of data is of the highest possible quality. This effort has
resulted in 95 percent data capture from all sites which is not
duplicated in any other long-term radiation monitoring program. In
addition, the program has committed over 30 percent of its budget to
instrument characterization and calibration and partial support for the
development of a high resolution spectroradiometer. The USDA program
initiated the development and has provided primary support for a
national calibration facility operated by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Boulder, CO, with oversight by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). It has provided
for the development of a high-resolution spectroradiometer to serve as
a reference instrument, six of which will be placed at research sites
to validate the performance of the climatological network instruments,
to provide the most reliable information to access trends, and to
provide high resolution spectral data to serve additional research
needs. The first of the high resolution spectroradiometers has been
installed at a NOAA/NIST research site north of Boulder Colorado. The
specifications and quality of this spectroradiometer far exceeds that
of any other instrument in the world. This phase of the program is
under the direction of Dr. Lee Harrison at the Atmospheric Sciences
Research Center, SUNY, Albany, NY.
In 1997, the USDA UVB Radiation Monitoring Program Web site was
accessed by 5,130 users who remained on the site for one hour or more
or who downloaded data. For example, U.S. government accounted for 276,
higher education, 814, U.S. commercial, 974, and international, 1,105.
It should also be noted that the ancillary measurements taken at each
site to aid in interpretation of the UVB radiation levels are also of
primary interest to other scientists--primarily NASA, DOE, and NOAA--
interested in measuring turbidity (aerosols). Joint research programs
have been developed with these agencies. The U.S. Weather Service
(NOAA) is using the data to validate the forecasted UV Index and NASA
to validate satellite measurements (see Attachment II). To assure data
comparability with Canada, two sites have been collocated with the
Canadian UVB monitoring network. This will permit the development of a
North American data base. A research site at Mauna Loa Observatory,
Hawaii permits additional comparisons and joint studies not only with
Canadian but also with New Zealand programs. In addition, the USDA
program maintains close cooperation with NOAA and the Environmental
Protection Agency through instrument collocation.
Attachment I
current data uses
UV Radiation Measurements
1. Validate UV Index (US Weather Service)
2. Study of large smoke events (with NASA)
3. Validate TOMS satellite UV irradiances (NASA)
4. Urban pollution studies (California Air Resources Board)
5. Studies of plant canopy penetration (U. of Nebraska)
6. Establish background levels for effects Research (Utah State
Univ., USDA/ARS at Beltsville, MD)
Visible Radiation Measurements
1. Aerosol optical depths (NASA and DOE)
2. Corrections for remote sensing of vegetation reflectance (USDA
project by Boeing)
3. Studies of cloud transmission (NASA)
4. Study of large smoke events (with NASA)
Attachment II
advantages of ground-based measurements of uv versus satellite
retrievals
1. Ground-based (GB) UV radiometers actually measure UV irradiance
at the earth's surface. Satellites like TOMS measure back-scattered UV
and use a model to infer UV irradiances. The models need input on
aerosol and cloud properties which are limited.
2. GB UV radiometers make measurements continuously whereas
satellites make at most a few overpasses near local noon. Therefore, GB
measurements of daily totals are much more accurate than satellite
retrievals.
3. Satellite footprints are typically 50 x 50 km. A satellite is
therefore unable to distinguish sub-pixel inhomogeneity due to spatial
variations in cloud, aerosol, albedo. This often results in inaccurate
satellite retrievals of GB UV.
______
Prepared Statement of Columbia University
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit a statement for inclusion in the hearing volume
for outside witnesses. My statement concerns USDA fiscal year 2000
funding related to climate change. USDA's Budget Request includes
$15,300,000 for research in support of Global Change Research. An
existing institution, the International Research Institute For Climate
Prediction (IRI), through a Cooperative Agreement with NOAA of the
Department of Commerce, has conducted a great deal of the research in
the USDA proposal. Moreover, the IRI has begun three interrelated
projects in water, agriculture and health from which USDA could benefit
in their proposed fiscal year 2000 program. This statement provides a
brief outline of IRI activities, and makes the case for IRI involvement
in USDA's global change research program. Our joint effort will promote
cooperation and collaboration and encourage the avoidance of
duplication of effort.
Columbia University and the IRI support full funding of the fiscal
year 2000 USDA initiative for Global Change Research. The proposal is
based on sound scientific and public policy principles. With the
results of the proposed plan of research, USDA will contribute to the
body of knowledge on climate change and provide better tools for
decision making.
the international research institute for climate prediction (iri)
Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO), in
conjunction with The Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) of the
University of California at San Diego, has entered into a Cooperative
Agreement with NOAA to establish and manage the International Research
Institute for Climate Prediction (IRI).
The IRI's mission is to provide experimental climate forecast
guidance on seasonal-to-inter annual time scales for use by affected
communities around the world. Working with an extensive network of
domestic and international research and applications centers worldwide,
the IRI will provide the necessary scientific institutional focus for a
multi-national ``end-to-end'' prediction program. This ``end-to-end''
prediction program supports the development and production of forecasts
of changing physical conditions (temperature and precipitation) on
year-to-year time scales, assessments of the regional consequences of
those variations, and the application of this information to support
practical decision making in critical sectors such as agriculture,
water resources, fisheries, emergency preparedness, and public heath
and safety.
fiscal year 1999 activities
The fiscal year 1999 program level for the IRI (through Department
of Commerce funding) is $6 million. Since the IRI was initially funded
by NOAA, Columbia and Scripps have invested heavily in capital and
research efforts. The ratio of private to public investment has been on
the order of 3 to 1. The fiscal year 1999 Appropriations Act was the
first year in which the Congress fully funded NOAA's request for the
Office of Global Programs, through which the IRI receives Federal
funding. The realization of the severity of impact that climate events
can cause was demonstrated by the 100-year El Nino of 1997-1998. The
back-to-back occurrence of this year's 50-year La Nina will further
demonstrate our vulnerability to climate variability.
The IRI has conducted several studies over the past five years
through contract with prominent agricultural economists for impact
assessments and analyses of climate change on US agriculture. The
economists who conducted the studies previously occupied senior level
positions in USDA as policy and program officials. They possess
credentials as highly respected academics as well as public policy
practitioners.
The IRI has expertise and experience in the areas of proposed
research that USDA has outlined in the fiscal year 2000 Budget Request.
The IRI offers to collaborate with the USDA effort, and assist USDA
officials in launching the projects where IRI expertise would be
helpful.
The IRI has incorporated the findings and results of these studies
into a program of work that will move the use of science to a new
stage. The focus of the IRI applications will be in the interrelated
areas of water, agriculture, and health. A discussion of this
integrated effort follows.
project participation
In 1999, the IRI will progress to a new phase of research. The
research from this growth will focus on the integrated modeling of
water, agriculture, and public health. Because the IRI modeling deals
primarily with temperature and moisture, the link of water modeling
with agriculture and health modeling can be accomplished by building on
the same database and utilizing similar approaches.
The most complex modeling relates to water modeling. It is the
basis and foundation, however, of the agriculture modeling, and must be
developed prior to agriculture modeling. Once the water modeling has
been developed, and trial forecasts have validated the model, the
agriculture modeling component can be built as a component to the water
model.
This ambitious multifaceted modeling project will provide a unique
contribution to climate change studies world-wide. Because the IRI
specializes in end-to-end inter annual to seasonal forecasts, the water
and agriculture models that will be developed will be resource for
regional and country forecast efforts. As USDA begins to develop the
agriculture assessment and impact analysis, the IRI could become a
valuable tool toward more conclusive research.
world supply and demand estimates
For operational purposes, and USDA's statutory responsibilities for
providing world supply and demand estimates, USDA could make good use
of the IRI's improved modeling on moisture and temperature. The longer
lead time on climate variability, with a higher degree of accuracy,
could provide governments and private decision makers improved
knowledge on probable growing conditions. With this improved source of
information, more accurate forecasting could result in reduced famine,
timely shipments for international trade, and more stable world
commodity markets. The improved IRI modeling will permit rationale
agricultural decisions based on information and more certain
probabilities, rather than speculation based on guesses.
funding request
The IRI effort cannot proceed without some infusion of Federal
funds. For this reason, and for the programmatic relevance to USDA's
efforts outlined above, The IRI respectfully requests $300,000 in
support from USDA for fiscal year 2000.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, the IRI could provide a great deal of expertise and
assistance to USDA if involved in the USDA Climate Program initiatives
in fiscal year 2000. The IRI has the unique responsibilities in climate
change forecasting necessary to conduct USDA's million. The new
initiatives in water and agriculture modeling will be of great use to
USDA in fully completing the agriculture assessment in fiscal year 2000
and beyond. If the IRI were to be a part of the USDA effort, it is
estimated that the costs associated with participation would total
$300,000 in fiscal year 2000.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this statement for the
Committee's consideration in funding decisions you will make for the
fiscal year 2000 Agriculture Appropriations Act.
______
Prepared Statement of the Council on Food, Agricultural and Resource
Economics (CFARE) and the Consortium of Social Science Associations
(COSSA)
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is a pleasure to
submit this testimony to you on behalf of the Council on Food,
Agricultural and Resources Economics (C-FARE) and the Consortium of
Social Science Associations (COSSA). C-FARE is a non-profit association
actively working to represent the agricultural economics profession in
matters of science policy, priority setting, and budget determination
at the federal level, and to collaborate with other agricultural
science groups and government agencies in these activities. COSSA is an
advocacy organization supported by over 100 professional associations,
scientific societies, universities and research institutes, that
promotes attention to and federal funding for the social and behavioral
sciences.
Our recommendations are summarized below:
1. Promote and support accountability for USDA programs by
providing funding for an innovative study on performance measurement
guidelines for agricultural research, extension and education programs.
Such a study was authorized in Title VI, Subtitle C--Studies, Section
631 of the Agriculture Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of
1998, and would cost less than $500,000.
2. Increase social science funding within the National Research
Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRI). Double funding for the
Markets, Trade and Rural Development Division to $9.2 million. And,
increase the Natural Resources and the Environment Division to $32
million to generate new knowledge about the economic and social
consequences of environmental regulation. We support increasing funding
for the NRI to a total of $200 million.
3. Further expand competitive research grants programs at USDA by
either: (1) allowing $120 million in funding for The Initiative for
Future Agriculture and Food Systems, or (2) expanding the NRI to $320
million by targeting $120 million towards integrated critical and
emerging issues on topics related to biotechnology, genomics, food
safety, natural resources and the environment, farm efficiency and
profitability, and precision agriculture.
4. Increase support for USDA agencies that promote the development
and use of economic and social science tools to guide decision making.
--Increase the Economic Research Service budget for research and
analysis to $60 million, plus $14 million to evaluate the food
and nutrition programs.
--Increase the National Agricultural Statistical Service budget to
$86 million for agriculture estimates and research, and $17
million for periodic Census of Agriculture.
--Increase the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Budget
to $1,415 million to maintain existing programs, and enhance
economic and social science analysis.
5. Increase funding for the Cooperative State Research, Education
and Extension Service base research and extension programs by $40
million (includes Hatch Act, McIntire-Stennis, Evans-Allen, Animal
Health, Smith-Lever Formula 3 (b) and (c), 1890 Colleges and Tuskegee).
Recommendation One: Promote and support accountability for USDA
programs by providing funding for an innovative study on performance
measurement guidelines of the agricultural research, extension and
education programs. Such a study was authorized in Title VI, Subtitle
C--Studies, Section 631 of the Agriculture Research, Extension and
Education Reform Act of 1998.
Research accountability, assessment, evaluation, and impact
analysis are receiving considerable attention in light of pressures on
public budgets, a need to link benefits with costs, and the search for
better strategic planning of research and education. Despite the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and ongoing USDA
responses, no clear consensus exists about the most effective
approaches to evaluate agricultural research, extension and education
programs supported by USDA or within the land grant system.
A special study is needed to produce a consensus-based set of
guidelines to evaluate the performance of agricultural research,
extension and education programs. These guidelines should cover the
spectrum from broad programs to specific projects and activities, basic
to applied work, and across the social, biological and physical
sciences. The guidelines should also address research evaluation on
both ex-ante and ex-post bases, as well as progress toward goal
attainment during the research process. The study team should draw from
recognized university experts and USDA representatives implementing
GPRA.
Recommendation Two: Increase social science funding within the
National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRI). Double
funding for the Markets, Trade and Rural Development Division to $9.2
million. And, increase the Natural Resources and the Environment
Division to $32 million to generate new knowledge about the economic
and social consequences of environmental regulation. We support
increasing funding for the NRI to a total of $200 million.
We urge you to double the amount of spending in the Markets, Trade
and Rural Development Division of the National Research Initiative from
$4.6 million to $9.2 million. The economic and social research funded
in this division develops new knowledge and enhances our understanding
of the economic and social forces on our agriculture and food system.
The research is of high quality and value.
highlights of nri-funded research
International Trade Liberalization and Global Competitiveness
Research on international trade liberalization and global
competitiveness has greatly improved our understanding of the demand
for US products and how to access it. There is an improved
understanding of the costs and benefits of increased trade, and of
different kinds of trade restrictions imposed by the U.S. and other
countries. Innovative policies have been studied to estimate how to
stimulate demand for U.S. agricultural exports and, consequently,
improve farm income. We also have an improved understanding of currency
volatilities and other pitfalls of globalization and expanded trade.
Risk Management Policies and Programs
NRI-funded economics research has made substantial and important
progress in analyzing existing and new insurance programs that may help
producers protect themselves against crop and revenue losses.
Innovative credit programs have been developed, and incentives for
supply management programs have been analyzed.
Understanding the Implications of an Industrializing Agricultural
Sector
Through NRI-funded economics and social science research we have a
better understanding of the economic drivers of increasing
consolidation of production units, and greater coordination and
concentration among stages of the food system. Social science research
is helping producers and others understand how to survive and take
advantage of change, whether through contracts, alliances, cooperative
arrangements or other innovative business forms. Agriculture's
relationships with the environment, communities and independent farmers
have changed with the structure of agriculture. To understand these
changes, we need more economics and social science research.
We support an increase in funding for the Natural Resources and the
Environment (NRE) Division of the NRI to $32 million with the following
caveat: the increased funds will be used to generate new knowledge
about the economic and social consequences of environmental regulation.
This recommendation is consistent with the number one research priority
generated by a national priority-setting activity conducted by
scientists involved in and stakeholders of our food and agriculture
system.
In its current form, the NRE Division of the NRI supports virtually
no social science research. In 1996 (the most recent year complete data
are available), only one project of 96 had any social science
involvement. In addition, only 7 percent of the projects funded
involved interdisciplinary teams usually defined as teams of applied
biologists, microbiologists and molecular biologists. This narrow
definition limits our ability to solve important economically- and
socially driven problems in the agriculture and food system.
Recommendation Three: Expand competitive research grants programs
at USDA by either: (1) allowing $120 million in funding for The
Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems, or (2) expanding
the NRI to $320 million by targeting $120 million towards critical and
emerging issues on topics related to biotechnology, genomics, food
safety, natural resources and the environment, farm efficiency and
profitability, and precision agriculture.
Increased spending on agricultural research is the cornerstone of a
productive and profitable agricultural sector. Current estimates of the
rate of return on public spending on agricultural research, education
and extension are extremely high (40-60 percent per year or higher). A
recent report by the Economic Research Service finds that 75 percent of
the productivity gains in agriculture can be traced to public spending
on agricultural research.
Economic and social science research is needed in the following
priority areas.
Develop New Knowledge About Economic and Social Consequences of
Environmental Regulation.--Economics and social science research
programs are needed to: (1) enhance existing and develop new methods to
assess the benefits and costs of government regulation, (2) develop,
design and evaluate integrated policies and institutions to mitigate
negative environmental impacts of production agriculture, and (3)
expand scientific knowledge about quantitative and qualitative
assessment tools that can be applied to non-market goods.
Enhance Knowledge and Improve Understanding of the Economic and
Social Impacts of Biotechnology and Genomics.--Economists and social
scientists can develop integrated models to analyze how biotechnology
affects farm size, production efficiency, competitiveness, trade
potential, and other elements of economic performance in agriculture.
Economics can be used to understand how the consolidation among
agricultural chemical, seed and biotechnology companies will affect
producers, consumers and environmental quality. Economic and social
science research methods can promote understanding of how changes in
the industry will affect the types of technologies produced and who
benefits from these products.
There are at least three important contributions economists and
social scientists can make to a national genomics research program.
First, economic methods can be developed to help select target species
for gene sequencing. Second, economic models can be developed to answer
questions about the trade-offs consumers are willing to make between
food characteristics such as taste, nutritional value, and shelf life.
Third, the social sciences can examine and develop new knowledge about
the potential social, economic and ethical consequences of various
types of genomics research.
Expand the Science and Application of Economics to Improve Food
Safety.--Economics can improve our understanding of the benefits and
costs of options to reduce food borne illness from pathogens, and
pesticide residues in fresh and processed foods. Agricultural
economists can generate new knowledge about how changes in consumer
demand affect food safety, health and nutrition. Economic models could
then be developed to evaluate the effectiveness of public and private
efforts to promote safer food production, transportation, handling and
preparation.
Improve Farm Income and Risk Management Tools: Farm Efficiency and
Profitability.--Agricultural economics research can improve the
efficiency of farm income and risk management tools. Economics can
enhance our understanding of how to measure and manage risk in a new,
globalized, vertically coordinated food system for an expanded
clientele base. Economics can be used to develop new knowledge about
risk management strategies, instruments, and portfolios and adapt them
to meet current challenges with in the agriculture sector. Finally,
economics can improve producers' ability to manage complex financial
accounting and reporting systems.
Examine the Impacts of the Changing Farm and Agribusiness
Structure.--The impacts of the changing farm and agribusiness structure
are profound. Economic and social science research can improve our
understanding of the forces driving structural change and
concentration, and the impacts of this change on the economic
performance of vertically coordinated farming and agribusiness.
Economic and social science models of vertically coordinated systems
can answer important questions about market access, bargaining power,
concentration, location of production, financial arrangements, rural
communities and the environment.
Recommendation Four: Increase support for USDA agencies that
promote the development and use of economic and social science tools to
guide decision making.
Increase the Economic Research Service (ERS) budget for economic
analysis and research to $60 million, plus $14 million to evaluate the
food and nutrition programs. ERS is the principal intramural social
science research agency for USDA. ERS provides timely short and long
run economic and social science information and analyses to public and
private sector decision makers including farmers. The trend towards a
more market-driven agricultural sector heightens the needs for
increased spending on economic and social science analysis and
research. Sixty million dollars for economic analysis and research is
needed to maintain innovate, on-going programs and to support a number
of critical initiatives such as carbon sequestration research, global
climate change, enhanced commodity market analysis, and addressing the
information needs of small and limited resource farmers.
We ask that you continue giving ERS the responsibility and funding
for Food Assistance Program Evaluation. We believe that program
evaluation and analysis will be most effective when it is conducted and
managed by an agency separate from the one implementing the program
itself. An increase to $14 million in funding for fiscal year 2000 will
greatly improve basic knowledge and understanding of the forces
affecting poverty, the impacts of welfare reform, the long-term effects
of assistance programs, and waste, fraud and abuse in the food stamp
program.
Increase the National Agricultural and Statistical Service (NASS)
Budget to $86 million for agriculture estimates and research, and $17
million for the periodic census of agriculture. NASS provides the
official USDA production, economic, and environmental forecasts and
estimates on agriculture and rural America. NASS' objective and
accurate statistical information is highly valued by stakeholders of
the agricultural research and education. A funding increase is needed
to maintain and enhance existing programs, and to support new
initiatives such as the Agricultural Economics and Land Ownership
Survey, the establishment of a field office in Puerto Rico, and an
expansion of the pesticide use survey to include commercial nursery and
greenhouse operations.
Increase the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Budget
to $1.415 billion to maintain existing programs, and enhance economic
and social science analysis. NRCS provides national leadership in
partnerships to help people conserve, improve, and sustain the Nation's
natural resources and environment. NRCS technical experts help land
managers and communities take a comprehensive approach in planning the
use and protection of soil, water, and related resources on private and
non-Federal lands, in rural, suburban, urban, and developing areas. A
funding increase is needed to enhance Conservation Technical Assistance
programs to meet increased demand for conservation services. This would
include economic analysis of resource problems associated with
conservation assistance for animal feeding operations, non-point source
pollution, misapplication of fertilizers and pesticides, and land use
changes. Increased funding is also needed for economic and social
science analysis of thousands of important watershed dams that will
reach the end of their design life this decade.
Recommendation Five: Increase funding for Cooperative State
Research, Education and Extension Service base research and extension
programs by $40 million (includes Hatch Act, McIntire-Stennis, Evans-
Allen, Animal Health, Smith-Lever Formula 3 (b) and (c), 1890 Colleges
and Tuskegee).
An increase in base research and extension programs is needed to
maintain and enhance mission-linked multi-disciplinary, multi-function
projects and programs in a number of critical and emerging areas. For
example, integrated research, extension and education programs are
needed to address problems and challenges related to the changing
structure of American agriculture, agricultural genome and germplasm
preservation, expanded food nutrition and education programs,
agricultural waste management, water quality, carbon sequestration, and
children, youth and families at risk.
Base programs are an important and productive component of the
federal research, education and extension system. Combined with other
federal funding mechanisms such as competitive and special grants, base
programs have provided state experiment stations and extension systems
with an effective balance of resource stability, flexibility in
planning, regional collaboration, and a linkage between national and
local priority setting.
Thank you for the opportunity to present these views. Please
contact us with any questions. Tracy Irwin Hewitt, Executive Director,
C-FARE, 703-524-2145; Peter Barry, Chair, C-FARE, 217-333-1827; Howard
Silver, Executive Director, COSSA, 202-842-3525.
______
Prepared Statement of the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association
The Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CTFA) \1\
respectfully urges you to grant the Food and Drug Administration's
fiscal year 2000 budget request for $5.2 million for the Office of
Cosmetics and Colors in the Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition (CFSAN). This level of funding is comparable to that provided
by the Congress for fiscal year 1999 and includes a restoration
approved by Congress last year of $2.5 million that the administration
had proposed in cuts for the Office. We believe that it will enable the
agency to maintain in CFSAN the kind of credible cosmetic regulatory
program needed to ensure confidence in the safety of cosmetic products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CTFA is the national trade association representing the
cosmetic and personal care product industry. Founded in 1894, CTFA has
an active membership of more than 285 companies, which manufacture or
distribute the vast majority of the finished cosmetic and personal care
products marketed in the United States. The Association also has
approximately 300 associate members, which provide services, equipment,
or supplies, such as raw materials and packaging components, to our
active members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CTFA members provide consumers with a wide variety of safe cosmetic
products, such as makeup preparations, shampoos, deodorants,
toothpastes, mouthwashes, perfumes, shaving creams, and skin lotions.
These products promote personal hygiene. They help people look and feel
their best, thereby increasing self assurance and self esteem.
Virtually every man, woman, and child in this country uses cosmetics
routinely. Because of FDA's effectiveness and the voluntary safety
programs undertaken by the cosmetic industry--often with the agency's
cooperation and participation--they do so safely and with confidence.
Failure to fund the agency's Office of Cosmetics and Colors adequately
would undercut a vital component of a safety system that serves
consumers well.
Moreover, the economic well-being of the $25 billion cosmetic and
personal care product industry depends on a strong FDA regulatory
program. Our industry relies on the FDA compliance function. Without
compliance, unscrupulous competitors can not only defraud the public,
but undermine legitimate industry as well. The cosmetic industry needs
a level playing field. We need to know what regulatory requirements
apply. We want to be certain that the FDA law and regulations will be
enforced consistently against all marketed products, whether imported
or produced domestically.
A strong FDA Office of Cosmetics and Colors exerts national
leadership, maintains appropriate standards to assure the safety and
proper labeling of cosmetics throughout the nation, and ensures that
Americans can enjoy a nationwide marketing system with adequate public
protection and uniform enforcement in every part of the country. If the
FDA's cosmetic program were diminished, the states might be encouraged
to ignore the agency and establish their own, potentially conflicting,
regulatory requirements for cosmetics. Such a patchwork of state
mandates could only confuse consumers and wreak havoc on our industry's
ability to operate in interstate commerce.
The FDA is currently recognized as the preeminent international
body in the field of cosmetic regulation. A visible and vigorous Office
of Cosmetics and Colors is necessary to maintain this international
leadership and to move even more quickly toward the goal of
international harmonization, which the Congress established as an FDA
priority for cosmetics and other regulated products under Section 410
of the FDA Modernization Act of 1997.
We are not asking for increased funding or new programs. We are
merely seeking the continuation of a level of stable funding for the
Office of Cosmetics and Colors that will help ensure the maintenance of
an effective FDA regulatory program for cosmetics. We strongly support
the FDA's fiscal year 2000 budget request for $5.2 million for the
Office of Cosmetics and Colors. Thank you for considering our views.
______
Prepared Statement of the Council for Agricultural Research, Extension,
and Teaching
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to again
provide testimony this year in support of the Land-Grant system.
My name is Sam Minor, Chairman of the Council for Agricultural
Research, Extension, and Teaching, commonly called CARET. CARET is a
national focal group of lay support persons working on behalf of the
land-grant university system. The CARET group was formed a number of
years ago for the expressed purpose of enhancing national support and
understanding of the important role played by the land-grant colleges
in the food and agriculture systems, as well as the role of this system
in enhancing the quality of life for all citizens of the nation.
As I have emphasized in each of the last two years in which I have
given testimony to the Congress, I take part in this activity with a
great amount of pride and commitment. Our family and I know first hand
of the important role played by our land-grant institutions.
I do not want to again take your time this year in discussing all
of the contributions that the land-grant system has made to us as a
family or to our farming and farm retail business. I would, however,
want to emphasize that this contribution has been very significant. The
same can be said about the contribution of our land-grant universities
to hundreds of thousands of farm families across this country.
The land-grant system is a very unique system of research,
education, and extension. It is a system that has brought together a
partnership of federal, state, local (or county), and now private
resources to contribute so significantly to building an agricultural
industry that is truly the envy of the world. This system, this
agricultural industry, at the national level continues to have a
tremendous impact on our economy, our balance of trade, our workforce,
and the health and quality of life of our society. Yet, in many ways,
it is an industry that is taken for granted.
Too little do we hear or talk about the significance of the
research and education that has provided the scientific basis to allow
1.8 million U.S. farms, such as ours in southwestern Pennsylvania, to
produce a record in excess of $200 billion of food and fiber. Too
little do we recognize the records that have been set in export
agricultural sales that have contributed so significantly to a positive
balance of agricultural trade. To infrequently do we acknowledge that
this food and agriculture industry provides almost 20 percent, one out
of every five, of the jobs in this country and accounts for 16 percent
of our gross national product. Yet, the consuming public spends less of
their disposal income, just over 10 percent, for their food needs than
any other country in the entire world. I do recognize that these are
familiar numbers. They do, however, continue to be significant today.
Now, as we have entered a new era in agriculture and the role that
government plays in this industry, we believe that the need for an
agriculture that is based on research and science is greater than ever
before.
We are, for many reasons, in a very rapidly changing agriculture.
Some call it an industrialization of agriculture. We are seeing a
consolidation of our agriculture enterprises. This is occurring at the
farm level and in our processing and distribution systems. This change,
this consolidation, this industrialization, is today having a
tremendous impact on farm families, farm businesses, and rural
communities across this country. The significance of this impact will
be even greater in the weeks and months ahead.
The impact of these changes has been even further accentuated as we
are experiencing the affects of lessened government participation in
the pricing mechanism. And this is all occurring at a time when we are
experiencing considerable destabilization of the financial markets in
many parts of the world. Some are now beginning to talk about the
reoccurrence of a ``farm crisis.'' It is apparent that consideration at
the federal level is being given to ways to assist during this
transition period.
As we go through this transition period we are seeing a rapid
implementation of new emerging technologies. Information of all kinds
that enhances the ability to make more rapid and more correct decisions
is increasingly available. New plant and animal species, varieties, and
characteristics are emerging from the rapid advancement of the
biotechnological sciences. These changes and advancements have come
about, to a very great extent, because of the past investment in
agriculture research and education, much of it from public sources.
As we consider this transition in the framework of new work that is
now being done and the new scientific advancements that are just on the
threshold of disclosure, one has to think that our opportunities are
greater today than at any time in the past. It will, however, take
dollars to bring these opportunities to fruition. It will be a
continuation and expansion of the federal, state, local, and private
partnership that can best provide these dollars critically needed for
this work. Your decisions in the coming months to increase the federal
outlay for agricultural research can provide some much needed
leadership for this effort. The federal funds are the heart of this
partnership.
Specifically, the federally-supported programs in cooperation with
our state land-grant colleges and universities are crucial for us to
retain and expand the U.S. competitive edge in the world-wide
marketplace. Additionally, these research and extension programs that
result from this federal, state, local, and private partnership are
very crucial at this time to assure strength and stability at the
family farm level and to assure continuity in our rural communities.
This testimony is principally to request support for the fiscal
year 2000 budget recommendations of the National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges' (NASULGC) Board on Agriculture of
$1.098 million, an increase of $174.2 million. This increased amount is
consistent with the amount of increase proposed in the President's
proposed budget for the fiscal year 2000 for the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture (CSREES, USDA). We strongly endorse this critically needed
added investment.
While we do endorse the President's proposed increase, we are
recommending a different mix of funding mechanisms that we feel will
best address the critical issues that need to be addressed in fiscal
year 2000. We do recognize that at this stage there is not complete
agreement between the Administration, the Congress, and all interested
stakeholders on how this increased funding should be best structured.
Most important, however, is that there is an immediate, urgent need for
this additional ``critical issue''-oriented research, extension, and
education funding.
In saying this, we do realize that the Congress is facing a tight
fiscal year and that the House and Senate Agricultural Appropriations
Subcommittees will address a number of complex and challenging issues
facing farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. However, there is no
doubt, from our experience, that these targeted investments proposed
for the land-grant system is one of the very best ways to address these
challenging problems in the long run.
After a great amount of interaction with the land-grant system and
a broad number of stakeholders from the agriculture community the
NASULGC Board on Agriculture Budget Committee has some 22 critical
issues that have been identified for special emphasis in this fiscal
year 2000 budget request. These issues have been organized within the
five goals developed by the Department of Agriculture as part of their
process for responding to the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA). These proposed activities are organized within the five
categories to facilitate future reporting on accomplishments. This is a
key component to assure the Congress that these funds are being
utilized effectively to solve today's most critical problems and to
best prepare for tomorrow's greatest opportunities.
To re-emphasize, NASULGC and CARET support the President's bottom
line of 2.6 percent increased funds for research, education, and
extension funding. NASULGC does, however, recommend that from this
increase an additional $40 million go to an increase in base or formula
funds. Base program funding is unmatched as a vehicle to foster multi-
year programs essential to the science of agriculture. These base funds
allow the colleges and universities to invest in long-term research
activities where continuity is critical for success. These funds also
support the infrastructure and faculty that are necessary for
successful completion of the research and extension activities.
Additionally, these base funds are essential for leveraging external
resources.
An additional increase of $120 million is also proposed for
competitive grants. This is very consistent with the President's
proposed increase in the National Research Initiative. It is also
consistent with the establishment of the Fund of Rural America two
years ago and is especially consistent with the new initiative that was
authorized as a part of the Research and Science (Title VIII) of the
Farm Bill last year. We do know there may be different thoughts on how
to work through the grant or funding mechanisms for this expanded new
competitive funding approach. The Land-Grant University community
stands ready to work with the Congress to find ways to resolve current
questions and to effectively utilize the available mix of competitive
grants programs. Most importantly, there is an immediate and urgent
need for new, integrated problem-solving competitive grants to address
real-world problems.
An additional increase of $14.2 million is also proposed as a mix
of targeted mechanisms that would provide an opportunity to address
immediate areas of critical concern.
The Council on Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching is
very pleased to support this request for an additional funding of
$174.2 million on behalf of the land-grant university system. This
land-grant partnership working in close cooperation with the USDA
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service is a very
important and very strong relationship. This is a partnership that
undergirds the research and science of a successful agriculture in the
United States, a partnership and an industry that is the envy of the
entire world.
This is a partnership that our CARET organization believes should
be financially supported to the fullest possible extent at both the
federal and at the state levels. We ask that you give this request your
fullest possible consideration this year.
As an individual farmer and a member of the agriculture community,
I am proud of what the federal, state, and local partnership has
provided to us. At the same time, agricultural research and education
must be an important part of our long-term agricultural policy. We must
continue to strengthen our financial commitment to assure that these
basic programs of the land-grant system will be prepared to meet the
emerging needs of the food and fiber sector.
We in agriculture and the country as a whole want to enhance our
production, processing, and marketing capabilities. We also want to be
prepared to take full advantage of the further opening of global
markets. We in agriculture also want to understand and to effectively
apply risk management programs to gain the greatest returns from our
commodities. And we want to be prepared to fully adopt and utilize new
scientific breakthroughs in the production, processing, and marketing
of these products. It is also our goal that all of this be done in a
way that effectively preserves the environment while continuing to
provide the most nutritious and safe food supply in this country and
those markets served worldwide. These all provide unprecedented
opportunity to continue to put science and education to work for
mankind.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide this testimony in support
of the appropriations for our land-grant system.
______
Prepared Statement of the Council for Responsible Nutrition
Mr. Chairman, the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN)
appreciates the opportunity to testify as the Committee reviews the
fiscal year 2000 Appropriations for the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA). CRN represents 100 companies that manufacture dietary
supplements, including vitamins, minerals, herbs, and botanical
products. These products account for a large share of the $15 billion
in sales anticipated for this industry in 1999--products which are used
by more than half of our nation's population.
CRN and its members are committed to improving the public's health
through improved nutrition, including the appropriate use of dietary
supplements. Like FDA, we are committed to science-based products and
decisions. We also recognize that even the most responsible industry
needs fair and appropriate regulations in order to ensure consumer
protection as well as to encourage good business practices and
facilitate fair trade. The Food and Drug Administration critically
needs adequate resources to perform these functions.
The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) was
passed because FDA had, for several decades, pursued a regulatory
agenda that was not appropriate for dietary supplements. DSHEA
established a new regulatory framework which is working well, but which
could work even more effectively if FDA had the resources needed to
fully implement the intent of Congress. CRN urges Congress to
appropriate adequate resources to support FDA action in the following
areas relating to dietary supplements. Urgent needs include:
--Establishing a Dietary Supplement Advisory Committee.
--Timely review of 75-day notices for new dietary supplement
ingredients.
--Promulgating Good Manufacturing Practice Regulations appropriate to
dietary supplements.
--Improving the adverse reporting system.
--Strengthening FDA's capabilities in international regulatory
activities.
--Withdrawing the proposed structure/function rule.
Allow me to elaborate on these urgent requirements.
establish a dietary supplement advisory committee
FDA must deal with a wide variety of critical issues affecting
dietary supplements. In the past several years, three out of six
meetings of the existing Food Advisory Committee have been devoted to
consideration of dietary supplement issues. Unfortunately, the Food
Advisory Committee does not have the appropriate expertise to deal with
dietary supplements, and FDA has found it necessary to convene other
experts to participate in evaluating dietary supplement issues,
including the safety of ephedra, necessary provisions of Good
Manufacturing Practices, improving postmarket surveillance, and
evaluating consumer understanding of dietary supplement labels.
CRN believes FDA urgently needs a Dietary Supplement Advisory
Committee, comprised of individuals with a wide range of backgrounds,
possessing expertise in dietary supplement products and knowledgeable
about the scientific evidence relating to dietary supplement
ingredients. Funding to establish, staff, and support this critical
advisory committee is essential, and should be included in the fiscal
year 2000 appropriations for FDA.
review of notices for new dietary ingredients
DSHEA places a great deal of responsibility on the industry to
ensure that only safe ingredients are marketed in dietary supplements.
Ingredients that were marketed in dietary supplements before October
15, 1994, are ``grandfathered'' and may continue to be marketed.
However, even grandfathered ingredients may be considered adulterated
if they are injurious to health or if they are not reasonably expected
to be safe under the intended conditions of use.
DSHEA requires any marketer of a new dietary ingredient (one first
marketed on or after October 15, 1994) to submit a notification to FDA
at least 75 days prior to marketing. The notification is to include a
statement of the manufacturer's basis for concluding that the
ingredient is reasonably expected to be safe. FDA reviews the
notifications, and the file is placed on public display approximately
90 days following its receipt.
For example, a new dietary ingredient notification was recently
filed for gamma butyrolactone (GBL), a precursor to gamma
hydroxybutyrate (GHB), a substance with activity similar to the so-
called ``date rape'' drug. Based on the information submitted and based
on other information available in the scientific literature, CRN
believes FDA was right to object to the marketing of GBL, and CRN
supported the agency's recent action in requesting a recall. The
companies contacted by FDA have apparently complied with the request
for a recall, but we note that there are still numerous Internet sites
promoting and selling both GBL and GHB.
Further actions need to be taken against such marketing, and it is
essential that FDA have adequate resources to review new ingredient
notifications and to respond promptly and effectively to curtail the
marketing of adulterated (unsafe) dietary supplement ingredients.
good manufacturing practices
DSHEA authorized FDA to establish Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP)
regulations for dietary supplements, modeled after GMP regulations for
foods. CRN took the lead immediately following DSHEA in drafting
appropriate GMPs for dietary supplements, based on CRN's existing GMPs.
CRN invited other associations to join in this effort, and several
industry groups jointly submitted a GMP draft to FDA in November 1995.
These GMPs incorporate virtually all provisions of the existing food
GMPs and would also require every manufacturer to have a strong quality
control unit with authority to accept or reject bulk ingredients and
finished products that fail to meet appropriate standards.
Fifteen months later, in February 1997, FDA published the industry
draft as an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and numerous comments
were received. One year after that date, in February 1998, FDA asked
its Food Advisory Committee for recommendations regarding certain
provisions that would be covered by GMPs, including appropriate tests
for product identity. At that Committee meeting, CRN urged FDA to
establish a working group including industry members with the necessary
expertise to consider these issues, and the agency did so. That working
group has recently submitted its report.
Mr. Chairman, FDA must have sufficient resources to move this
process along at a faster pace, so that new dietary supplement GMPs can
be in place as soon as possible. These GMPs will provide vital consumer
protection by requiring manufacturers to have adequate procedures in
place to ensure product quality, as envisioned by DSHEA. While many
responsible manufacturers already have such procedures in place, it is
essential to ensure a standard for the industry as a whole.
adverse event reporting
The Office of Special Nutritionals at FDA established an Adverse
Event Reporting System (AERS) five years ago to compile adverse event
reports related to medical foods, infant formula, and dietary
supplements. At this time, there are 2,621 adverse reports in the
system. Many are minor complaints, but some are serious, and there are
some reported deaths.
During 1998, the reports were put on the FDA website.
Unfortunately, a company can find itself in the position of having its
company name and brand associated with a serious adverse event posted
on the Web without having any prior warning that such an event has
occurred. Further, the background information on the case is unlikely
to be available under FOIA, because FDA does not have adequate staff to
purge personal case information not releasable under FOIA. In addition,
FDA does not have adequate staff or other resources to properly
evaluate the adverse event reports, and the reports are released with
no comment regarding the likelihood of any actual causal relationship
between the product named and the event which occurred. This puts every
company at risk of being held ``guilty until proven innocent,'' without
investigation. The industry is at risk of being charged with causing a
large number of adverse events, many of which may be minor complaints
and many of which may not in fact be due to dietary supplement use.
It is essential that some scientific evaluation be applied to the
adverse event reports dealing with dietary supplements, in order to
identify those areas where a genuine safety issue exists, so that FDA
and industry can take appropriate action. Criteria have already been
established for determining the likelihood of a causal relationship
between a product and an adverse event, and FDA applies such
evaluations in some other product areas.
For example, FDA received about 3,000 adverse event reports in 1997
regarding veterinary drugs. Scientific evaluation revealed that only 1
percent of the veterinary adverse events were definitely associated
with product use; 31 percent were probably associated, 45 percent were
possibly associated, and 12 percent were definitely not related to the
product. In 11 percent of the cases, there was inadequate information
to evaluate likely causality. A similar analysis of the adverse event
reports on special nutritionals would be valuable in better
understanding the likelihood of a causal relationship between the
dietary supplements used and the adverse events reported. Criteria used
in evaluating likely causality include whether the effects are
consistent with the known pharmacology of the product, whether there
are other explanations for the event, whether the timing of the event
suggests a relationship to use of the product, and whether the effects
went away when use of the product was stopped or reappeared if the
product was given again.
It is essential for FDA to have sufficient resources to update the
special nutritionals adverse event reporting system on a regular basis
and to be able to screen and release background information on the case
reports before they are made publicly available. Finally, FDA must have
the capacity to evaluate the likely association between the events that
occurred and the products that were used.
fulfilling international obligations
FDA currently participates in many international policy-setting
activities, and sometimes leads the U.S. delegation on specific issues.
These international efforts, including those relating to the Codex
Alimentarius, can have a significant impact on world trade, including
trade involving dietary supplements. CRN is an officially designated
Non-Government Organization (NGO) at these international meetings and
has worked with FDA, USDA, USTR, the Department of Commerce, and the
State Department in developing consensus regarding the U.S. position on
various issues. To augment current efforts, we strongly urge that FDA
be provided with the necessary resources to train U.S. delegates in the
communication and negotiation skills critical for a forum such as
Codex. Further, we believe that the FDA budget should include funding
to provide the additional resources required to employ and contract for
the necessary legal, academic, technical, or scientific expertise to
supplement delegate skills and substantiate U.S. positions. We also
urge FDA to fully cooperate with other U.S. agencies and to support
industry/government dialogue in the international arena such as
collateral international efforts to regulate dietary supplements by
playing an active role in the TransAtlantic Business Dialogue (TABD)
and the Transatlantic Economic Partnership (TEP).
Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on the importance of new
cooperative efforts. The FDA Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) directed
FDA to work more cooperatively with all of its stakeholders. Now is the
time for the agency and the dietary supplement industry to begin a new
era of working together. For its part, CRN is committed to doing
everything in its power to help FDA obtain adequate funding to fulfill
its duties under DSHEA, including finalizing GMPs for dietary
supplements, enforcing the requirements applicable to new dietary
ingredients, and improving the adverse reaction reporting system.
FDA would send a powerful signal of goodwill to dietary supplement
manufacturers and consumers if the agency withdrew or drastically
modified the March 1998 proposal regarding structure/function
statements. This proposed rule seeks to define what are permissible
statements under DSHEA that deal with the structure and function of the
human body. However, the proposed rule includes an overly broad
definition of ``disease'' which encompasses many structure/function
effects. FDA should not interpret ``disease'' so broadly that
meaningful information about the health benefits of dietary supplements
cannot be provided, as intended by DSHEA.
The proposed structure/function rule has drawn a large number of
comments, including almost 200,000 consumer letters. The overwhelming
majority of the comments are critical of the proposal. We believe that
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's response to public comment on the
misguided ``organic'' proposal would serve as a good model for FDA on
this issue. As USDA did with the ``organic'' proposal, FDA should
simply withdraw the structure/function proposal. Instead of creating a
new regulation, FDA could simply continue to rely on the provisions of
DSHEA, which clearly states that statements of nutritional support
cannot mention a disease. Beyond that, all statements that are
literally about affecting the structure or function of the body should
be permitted.
CRN and its member companies appreciate this opportunity to testify
regarding the urgent need for adequate resources to permit FDA to fully
implement the intent of DSHEA. We believe responsible regulation
through DSHEA is needed for the health of the industry as well as the
health of American consumers, and we support fair and appropriate
regulation. We would welcome the opportunity to celebrate the new
millennium by entering into a new era of cooperation with FDA, based on
mutual respect and grounded in science.
______
Prepared Statement of Easter Seals
easter seal recommendations for usda agrability program
Easter Seals appreciates the opportunity to report on the notable
accomplishments of the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service (CSREES) AgrAbility Program and to recommend that
funding for the AgrAbility Program be increased to $4.6 million in
fiscal year 2000.
The AgrAbility Program is an essential, unduplicated, hands-on
resource for farmers, ranchers, and farmworkers with disabilities. It
is the only USDA program dedicated exclusively to helping agricultural
producers with disabilities. It demonstrates the value of public-
private partnership by securing donations of funds, talent, and
materials to magnify the impact of a modest federal investment. The
fiscal year 1999 appropriation is $2,055,000, which funds 18 state
programs.
Disability and Agriculture
Agricultural production is one of the nation's most hazardous
occupations. Each year, approximately 200,000 people working in
agriculture experience injuries that limit their ability to perform
essential farm tasks. Tens of thousands more become disabled as a
result of non-farm injuries, illnesses, other health conditions, and
the aging process. Nationwide, approximately 500,000 agricultural
workers have physical disabilities that prevent them from performing
one or more essential farm tasks.
For many of these individuals, the presence of a disability
jeopardizes their rural and agricultural futures. Rural isolation, a
tradition of self-reliance, and gaps in rural service delivery systems
frequently prevent agricultural workers with disabilities from taking
advantage of growing expertise in modifying farm operations, adapting
equipment, promoting farmstead accessibility, and using assistive
technologies to safely accommodate disability in agricultural and rural
settings. Yet, with some assistance, the majority of disabled
agricultural workers can continue to earn their livelihoods in
agriculture and participate fully in rural community life.
AgrAbility's Role and Record of Success
Since 1991, thirty-one states have been served by AgrAbility
projects. AgrAbility has:
--Provided direct on-farm assistance to more than 4,700 farmers,
ranchers, and farmworkers with disabilities and their families.
--Provided information and advice to 10,000 persons with disabilities
employed in agriculture and related occupations.
--Educated more than 160,000 agricultural, rehabilitation, and rural
health professionals on safely accommodating disability in
agriculture.
--Recruited and trained more than 3,500 volunteers to assist
agricultural producers with disabilities and their families.
--Reached approximately 8.4 million people through 3,800 exhibits,
displays, and demonstrations to increase awareness of the
challenges affecting and resources available to people with
disabilities who work in agriculture.
The AgrAbility Program was established under the 1990 Farm Bill in
response to the needs of farmers with disabilities. The Farm Bill
authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants to Extension
Services for conducting collaborative education and assistance programs
for farmers with disabilities through state demonstration projects and
related national training, technical assistance, and information
dissemination. Easter Seals is proud to be a partner with Purdue
University's Breaking New Ground Program in providing the national
training and technical assistance portion of AgrAbility. Thousands of
people in states with and without state AgrAbility projects are aided
through this initiative.
AgrAbility combines the know-how of Extension Service and national
disability organizations to provide people with disabilities working in
agriculture the specialized services that they need to safely
accommodate their disabilities in everyday farm operations. AgrAbility
received strong bipartisan support during the 1998 reauthorization of
the USDA research and education programs, and was extended through
fiscal year 2004. The $6 million authorization level for AgrAbility was
continued.
Under the statute, state and multi-state AgrAbility projects engage
Extension Service agents, disability experts, rural professionals, and
volunteers in offering an array of services, including: identifying and
referring farmers with disabilities; providing on-the-farm technical
assistance for agricultural workers on adapting and using farm
equipment, buildings, and tools; restructuring farm operations:
providing agriculture-based education to prevent further injury and
disability; and, upgrading the skills of Extension Service agents and
other rural professionals to better promote success in agricultural
production for people disabilities.
In 1998, USDA received an allocation of $2,055,000 to support
eighteen state projects in Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and
Wisconsin. For the 1998 grant cycle, USDA received applications from
twenty states for the fourteen available AgrAbility project slots.
AgrAbility provides customized assistance to farmers, ranchers, and
farmworkers with disabilities and their families. The nature and degree
of assistance depends on the individual's disability needs and
agricultural operation. For example: The Mississippi AgrAbility Project
has been working with a 23-year old farmer from Bentonia, Mississippi
who uses a wheelchair because of the effects of Spina Bifda. He works
on his family's beef cattle and hay operation, and needed help
continuing to safely and effectively complete all the farm chores. The
Mississippi AgrAbility Project helped locate hand controls for the
family's Kawasaki Mule utility vehicle that allow him to remain a vital
part of the daily farm activities. The state partnership was
particularly fruitful in this case, because Easter Seals Mississippi,
the nonprofit disability partner, was able to provide assistance in
purchasing the hand controls through their Special Assistance Fund.
This Mississippi AgrAbility project has also partnered with the T.K.
Martin Center for Technology and Disability to provide assistance to
this young man regarding accessible and proper seating for farm
equipment.
Rodney Lane of Harrison Valley, Pennsylvania has operated a farm in
the Harrison Valley since 1979. He has a dairy herd and over 500 acres
of crops. He lost his left arm below the elbow and part of three
fingers on his right hand in a corn picker accident. He uses a
prosthesis on his left arm when tending his cows. AgrAbility for
Pennsylvanians worked with the Pennsylvania Office of Vocational
Rehabilitation to acquire a mixed ration wagon that eliminates the need
for multiple trips to and from the grain bin and reduces the need for
heavy lifting. Rodney has this to say about his modification,
``Assistive technology has made things easier so that I can farm more
self-sufficiently.''
A third generation farmer, Don Wolford of Franklin County, Iowa,
farms about 1,100 acres, cares for 40 head of beef cattle, finishes 560
head of hogs, and maintains a 24-stall farrowing building. In 1992, he
had surgery to remove a tumor along his spine, which left him paralyzed
from the waist down. AgrAbility staff first met with him in the
hospital and showed him videos of farmers with disabilities using
modifications, and recommended modifications he could make to his
operation. After he returned home, AgrAbility staff wrote a proposal
that helped get funding for Don to purchase an all terrain vehicle that
was adapted for him using a kit from the manufacturer in order to
provide him with a means of moving equipment and supplies on his farm.
A friend designed hand brakes for both his tractors and pick-ups.
AgrAbility provided him with plans for installing a lift on his
tractor, which local welders were able to install. Since his injury,
Don has been elected president of the Franklin County Farm Bureau and
named 1997 Franklin County Master Pork Producer. He has also been
volunteering his time as an AgrAbility peer counselor to help other
farmers with disabilities in similar situations.
Ron Brown from Edgar, Wisconsin, sought help from AgrAbility
because a 1981 injury that limited the use of his arm and arthritis in
his knees was making it increasingly difficult to accomplish the chores
on his 40 to 50 head dairy farm. AgrAbility staff worked with Ron and
enlisted the help of the state Division of Vocational Rehabilitation to
create solutions to allow Ron to stay active in farming. AgrAbility
staff recommended new types of equipment to minimize the stress on
Ron's knees and arm. A John Deere ``Gator'' utility vehicle allows Ron
to get around the farm easily, helping him herd cows, fix fences and do
other chores. Ron did some of the modification work himself. The added
extra steps and handrails he added to his tractors allow him to get on
and off more easily and safely. Ron says that the partnership has
helped make farming ``a little better, and easier to do.'' Ron now
travels the state talking to other farmers with disabilities about
AgrAbility.
Impact of Current Funding Levels
AgrAbility projects are underfunded relative to need and objective.
At $85,000 per state, only a few staff can be hired to provide
statewide education and assistance to farmers with disabilities,
educate rural professionals, recruit volunteers, and work with rural
businesses on disability-related issues. Despite AgrAbility's proven
record of success, rising demand for services and the great distances
that must be traveled to reach farmers and ranchers have severely
strained even the most dedicated of AgrAbility's outstanding staff.
Easter Seals fears that failure to invest adequately in this worthwhile
program will ultimately cause it to falter.
In the 1990 Farm Bill, a funding floor of $150,000 per state was
set to assure that the state programs were successfully implemented.
However, because funding has not approached the $6 million authorized
level, state projects have been funded at only $85,000 per state. In
the 1998 reauthorization of the USDA research and education programs,
the Committee reaffirmed a commitment to that $150,000 per state floor.
Easter Seals strongly supports full funding of state programs to assure
that they continue to be effective for farmers with disabilities.
Without a related increase in appropriations, fully funding state
projects at $150,000 per state would result in a loss of almost half of
the existing AgrAbility projects. The fiscal year 2000 request of $4.6
million would bring all current states up to the $150,000 level and
would allow eight currently unserved states to implement AgrAbility
programs.
One of the consequences of limited funding is that in every grant
cycle, some states that have existing AgrAbility programs, and can
demonstrate a legitimate need for services, are not renewed and forced
to discontinue services to farmers with disabilities in that state and
often have difficulty getting the access to the limited state and
private funding sources that the federal seed money granted them. More
than a dozen states have sought AgrAbility funding without success.
Other states, including Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, South
Carolina, and Vermont, had USDA-funded AgrAbility projects in the past
and seek to re-establish their programs. Each of these states can
demonstrate significant unmet needs among farm and ranch families
affected by disability that AgrAbility could potentially address. In
the 1998-1999 grant cycle projects in Ohio, New York, Idaho/Montana,
and New Jersey ceased to receive federal support. The need for the
program in these once-funded states is exemplified by the fact that
last year the technical assistance telephone line operated by
AgrAbility staff at Breaking New Ground Resource Center at Purdue
University logged over 268 calls for assistance from these nine states
alone. Any loss of programs will greatly affect farmers with
disabilities in states for whom AgrAbility is the primary resource
through which they seek information and assistance on farming with a
disability.
The need for AgrAbility services has never been greater, and its
accomplishments to date are remarkable by any standard. Easter Seals is
proud to contribute to the ongoing success of the USDA-CSREES
AgrAbility Program. Please support the allocation of at least $4.6
million for AgrAbility in fiscal year 1999 to ensure that this valuable
public-private partnership continues to serve rural Americans with
disabilities and their families. Thank you for considering Easter
Seals' views and recommendations.
______
Prepared Statement of Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a written statement to the
Subcommittee on the issue of appropriations for agricultural research.
education and economics. Our statement will address the importance of
providing base support to education and other CSREES programs of proven
merit, the function of GPRA standards in assessing the merits of these
programs, and the application of GPRA standards to Farm*A*Syst/
Home*A*Syst, an education program that receives funding through CSREES.
At the outset, we would like to acknowledge the support of the National
Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges and our
program coordinators in fifty states including Alaska, California,
Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota,
Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin.
There are those who believe that the country can best address a
host of agricultural concerns including pollution by expanding
competitively-funded projects at the expense of base funding for
programs. Certainly projects funded through competitive grants are an
essential component of research, education and extension, particularly
when such projects seek to integrate these three activities, but the
benefits of competitively-funded projects will be greatly diminished
without adequate support to maintain the infrastructure designed to
transfer research findings to the agricultural community and provide
education to improve agricultural practices. This infrastructure was
built with base support for programs of proven value.
Without base support for effective programs, there is an inadequate
framework in place to respond to issues of the moment. For example, the
newly-crafted AFO strategy has elevated nutrient management to new
levels of importance. Had Congress failed to make its annual commitment
to support the national network of Extension specialists and agents, we
as a nation would not have the ready-made capacity to effectively
implement this strategy. By providing base support for effective
programs, moreover, Congress can increase the benefits of
competitively-funded projects. The latest research findings regarding
nutrient management would never leave the laboratory without a
mechanism such as Cooperative Extension to translate research findings
into information useful to farmers. By shifting funds away from base
program support, Congress not only dismantles the support system that
delivers research findings to the public, it reduces the capacity to
continue projects that have used competitive funds to effectively
address issues of significance. In regard to the latter situation,
Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst is in this position, needing base support to
maintain a national network of voluntary pollution prevention programs
built with competitive funds.
While competitively-funded projects offer certain levels of
accountability, they cannot provide policy makers with complete and
detailed information to make spending decisions. Whether the decision
involves competitively-funded projects or base funding for programs,
there must be a more fundamental analysis that tests programs and
projects by the same benchmarks of efficiency, effectiveness and
accountability.
In fact, Congress recognized the fundamental importance of this
analysis when it enacted the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) of 1993, Public Law 103-62. GPRA provides a structure for
measuring efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability in federal
spending by directing CSREES and other agencies to develop and use
performance-based planning, reporting, and budgeting. This structure
improves program delivery by fundamentally shifting the focus of
federal management from inputs, such as staffing and activity levels,
to the outputs and outcomes of federal programs.
Most importantly for this discussion, GPRA provides Congress with a
basis for making spending decisions whether they involve programs or
projects. A September 1998 Report to Congress ``Unlocking Our Future
Toward a New National Science Policy submitted by the House Committee
on Science (www.house.gov/science/science--policy--report.htm)
indicates that GPRA can be applied to insure accountability of
federally-funded research, including investigator-driven grant
projects. By applying the same tests to funding questions involving
projects and programs, Congress can establish a basis of comparison to
evaluate its spending options.
When the GPRA yardstick is used to measure a program such a
Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst, the results show that the program is an
outstanding example of how Land Grant Universities and CSREES are
providing high quality and effective programming to address issues of
national importance. The following section documents Farm*A*Syst/
Home*A*Syst's performance in regard to the CSREES 1997-2002 Strategic
Plan (www.reeusda.gov/part/gpra/stratpl.htm) developed in accordance
with GPRA requirements.
farm*a*syst/home*a*syst performs under gpra standards
Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst fulfills these key elements of the CSREES
Strategic Plan, including 4 of the 5 goals which form the core of
agency procedural and program strategies:
1. Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst provides strong leadership in voluntary
pollution prevention to address national water quality priorities;
fosters collaboration through a network of state delivery teams that
emphasize interagency and private sector partnerships; and increases
access to, transfer of, and dissemination of education and research-
based information targeted to customer needs.
2. Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst increases harmony between agriculture
and the environment by:
a. nationwide program implementation involving locally-modified
materials and innovative delivery approaches that increase awareness.
knowledge and use of voluntary actions among:
--livestock producers to reduce pollution risks from animal waste.
--agricultural producers to improve cropland practices including
nutrient management.
--agricultural producers to protect ground and surface water used for
drinking and other functions.
--forest managers to ensure water quality, ecosystems integrity and
biodiversity.
b. improving the quality of information about agricultural
pollution risks, thereby enhancing the decision-making on public
policies related to agriculture and the environment.
3. Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst improves food safety by increasing
agricultural producer awareness, knowledge and use of voluntary actions
to control or eliminate food-borne risks (e.g. microbial and pesticide)
through integrated pest management, the control of pesticide
application, water quality protection measures, and animal waste
management.
4. Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst promotes health by increasing individual
awareness, knowledge and use of voluntary actions to reduce health
risks related to drinking water from private wells, indoor air quality,
exposure to lead, and hazardous products management.
5. Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst increases the capacity of communities,
families, and individuals to improve their own quality of life by
helping:
--communities protect public drinking water supplies through tools to
manage farm and residential pollution.
--limited resource and other under-served audiences reduce pollution
risks with simplified materials for use in homes and on farms.
--government programs such food and nutrition efforts provide
additional benefits through education that helps participants
protect their health and the environment.
This high level of performance results from contributions of a
network of 50 state Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst programs and a national
office that coordinates this network. Organized according to the five
categories listed above, the following represent highlights of these
contributions.
1. strong model of effective programming and partnerships
In this recent statement, Colien Hefferan, Acting Administrator,
CSREES, captures the program contributions in this area:
``The Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst program is an cutting-edge example of
effective programming--translating technical research information into
easily understood, hands-on education that empowers private citizens to
take actions that prevent pollution.
``Its proven ability to foster partnerships among local, state and
federal agencies and the private sector presents a strong model for
future Extension programs.''
2a. tool that supports voluntary action to improve animal waste and
nutrient management
Wisconsin and California have developed model materials for land
application of manure and other aspects of nutrient management that
have been shared with many state Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst programs.
A pilot study of the Nebraska livestock systems worksheet had these
results: 45 of 95 livestock producers (averaging 1346 swine, 1218 beef
cattle and 238 dairy cattle) made or anticipate making improvements in
manure removal from pens and lagoons, manure use (e.g. incorporation,
soil sampling, manure testing), odor control. equipment and facilities.
These producers will voluntarily invest between $2,100-8,400 to make
these improvements.
In California, an EQIP-funded project the Environmental Stewardship
Short Course has incorporated Farm*A*Syst to improve education of dairy
producers. Delivered to 900 dairy producers in 19 locations, the course
uses Farm*A*Syst worksheets on livestock lots, manure storage and
nutrient management to identify compliance issues. Over 90 percent of
the participants would recommend the course to other producers and plan
to make management changes.
In Pennsylvania, an eco-labeling program, The Environmental Quality
Initiative, uses Farm*A*Syst in a market-based approach to reducing
pollution from dairy operations. Farm*A*Syst is the tool to measure
environmental performance of the voluntary participants. Those who pass
the test are rewarded with a premium from milk sales through Fresh
Fields.
A Wisconsin project with the Milk & Dairy Beef Quality Assurance
Center will modify Farm*A*Syst for deliver by veterinarians. Using
these materials, this project will educate dairy producers about the
links between pollution and health risks.
In states such as Missouri, Farm*A*Syst is recognized as an
alternative to satisfy the industry-sponsored National Pork Producers
Council's Environmental Quality Assurance Program.
Arkansas is actively supporting EQIP with a web site ``Arkansas
Farm*A*Syst An Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Tool For
Agriculture'' (www.uaex.edu/natural/eqip4/eqiphome.htm).
New York's specialized worksheet on pathogens improves herd
management to minimize pathogens among calves and reduces risks of
pathogen contamination of water bodies.
2b. tool that supports voluntary action to protect water quality
Iowa Farm Bureau Federation is providing leadership to implement
Farm*A*Syst to help producers understand environmental requirements,
identify pollution risks that threaten water quality, and stimulate
market-based incentives such as loan discounts and reduced insurance
premiums for Farm*A*Syst users. (Rick Robinson. Why Iowa Farm*A*Syst,
Iowa Farm*A*Syst Newsletter, Fall 1998).
A Mississippi project known as Delta FARM (Farmers Advocating
Resource Management) has made use of Farm*A*Syst materials to increase
adoption of BMPs specifically tailored to the unique farming conditions
in a region that runs from Memphis to Vicksburg.
Illinois FarmASyst has developed a program that works with rural
landowners living in recharge zones for community wells. By helping
these individuals protect their private wells from pollution, the
program minimizes the risk of contamination threats to public supplies.
In Wisconsin's Buffalo and Grant Counties, EQIP-funded projects
using Farm*A*Syst's computerized assessments can aggregate data from
individual farm sites to develop watershed pollution profiles, and
provide a reliable basis to target future spending and evaluate program
impacts.
The program's effectiveness in protecting water quality was
documented in the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 53(1), 4-10
(1998) by ERS economist, Marc Ribaudo in his assessment of USDA
agricultural nonpoint source programs:
``If a link between farming activities and personal health can be
clearly demonstrated, evidence suggests that farmers are more likely to
take action. A successful program for educating farmers about the
relationship between their activities and personal health is
Farm*A*Syst . . . It has been effective in getting individuals to take
cost-effective, voluntary actions to remediate and prevent problems
such as leaking fuel storage tanks, pesticide spills, and poor well
maintenance.''
3. tool that supports voluntary action to improve food safety
In California, Georgia and Wisconsin, private sector organizations
are supporting commodity-specific worksheets to promote responsible
pesticide use among growers of wine grapes, cotton and potatoes.
Several states such as Texas have model materials to improve
pesticide use and support integrated pest management available on the
web (e.g. waterhome.tamu.edu/texasyst/index.html).
4. tool that supports voluntary action to promote family health
States such as Kentucky and Illinois have modified Home*A*Syst to
address health risks related to drinking water from private wells,
indoor air quality, exposure to lead, and hazardous products
management.
Mississippi and New York are using Home*A*Syst to expand the health
benefits of EFNEP, a food and nutrition program.
Montana Home*A*Syst is working with the Low-Income Weatherization
program to remove mercury from the home by replacing and recycling
mercury thermostats.
In Washington state Home*A*Syst is teaming with the Women, Infants
and Children (WIC) program to educate at-risk individuals on how
drinking water contamination impacts family health.
5. tool that helps people improve their quality of life
Arkansas and Montana Farm*A*Syst and Home*A*Syst are linked into
state agency efforts to promote source water protection among
communities.
Missouri Farm*A*Syst is ready to support source water protection
activities with a web site ``Missouri Farm*A*Syst: A Tool for Source
Water Protection'' (www.wisc.edu/farmasyst/contact/mos/wp.html).
North Dakota has extensively used Farm*A*Syst in education and
outreach programs involving school children and vocational students.
In Alaska, Home*A*Syst will be a key part of educational efforts to
improve sanitation and protect water quality in traditional Alaskan
villages.
conclusion
It is vital to CSREES to provide base support to education and
other CSREES programs of proven merit. These form the critical elements
of an infrastructure that makes our Extension Service the envy of the
world. Congress can apply GPRA standards to assess the efficiency,
effectiveness and accountability of these programs, and make spending
decisions that intelligently balance support for programs and projects.
By way of example, applying GPRA standards to Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst,
it is clear that the program is enabling CSREES to achieve priorities
and goals in its Strategic Plan.
Furthermore, Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst is enhancing the programmatic
activities of NRCS and US EPA--the agencies that partner with CSREES to
support Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst. In terms of NRCS, the contributions to
EQIP are evident in several of the examples provided above. Pearlie
Reed, Chief, NRCS, also notes that ``Farm*A*Syst is an excellent tool
for resource planning,'' adding that the program ``offers us
opportunities for partnerships and encourages voluntary, locally-led
conservation.'' EPA has recognized that Farm*A*Syst is a tool in
promoting voluntary pollution prevention among AFO openers and
operators. More generally. Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst is making
contributions to reduce nonpoint source pollution from agricultural
activities outside livestock production and from residential sources
such as septic systems. Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst has demonstrated that
it can be more than a tool to help protect private wells. As the
program highlights suggest, it has shown promise as a tool to help
protect public drinking water supplies. In the future, Farm*A*Syst/
Home*A*Syst can play an important role in addressing TMDLs, as
highlighted by the Conservation Technology Information Center
(www.ctic.purdue.edu/KYW/TMDLFact.html).
In light of these significant contributions, it makes sense that
funds not only be set aside in the CSREES budgets to support
Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst, but that funds also be identified in the
budgets of EPA and NRCS to support the program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology (FASEB)
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kohl, Members of the Subcommittee: I am Dr.
William Brinkley, Vice President for Graduate Sciences and Dean of the
Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at Baylor College of Medicine in
Houston, Texas. I am a cell biologist who conducts research on cell
division and genomic instability in tumor cells. This year I also serve
as the President of the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology, FASEB. Founded in 1912, FASEB is the largest
organization of life scientists in the United States with a combined
membership of more than 56,000 researchers. Our members include
scientists involved in a wide array of agricultural research including
human and animal nutrition, plant science, animal physiology and
reproduction. These scientists hold positions in virtually every land
grant and private institution engaged in nutrition-related research in
the United States, as well as in industrial and biotechnology
enterprises conducting nutrition and food related research.
FASEB maintains, as we believe this committee does, that research
sponsored by the Department of Agriculture and conducted at
universities throughout the United States generates vitally important
new knowledge. These advances ensure an affordable, abundant and
wholesome supply of food and fiber, as well as promoting the
competitive position of U.S. agriculture in the global marketplace. As
the world's population grows, societies everywhere are becoming more
dependent on the productivity of U.S. farmers. Consequently, life
sciences research is one of the keys to the improvements in agriculture
which are required to feed and clothe the world, to reduce
environmental pollution, to increase food safety and to improve
nutrition.
The USDA supports basic and applied research through its Research,
Education, and Extension (REE) budget and through its intramural
research arm, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). Half of the
total REE budget supports the Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service (CSREES). CSREES targets its funding to national
and regional priorities by using a variety of mechanisms to allocate
resources, including ``base funding'' of mission-oriented research,
education, and extension programs. Base-program funding maintains the
cooperative partnership between the USDA and universities, sustaining
the university-based agricultural research and education system as well
as supporting the infrastructure necessary to address important
national, state, and county issues.
national research initiative competitive grants program (nricgp)
The National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program
(NRICGP), a CSREES base program, funds competitive extramural research
projects at public and private universities and colleges. Research
proposals are reviewed for merit by panels of experts, and those
attaining the best scores are funded. The NRICGP, the largest national
competitive research grant program in the USDA, was authorized at $500
million at its inception in 1990, but annual funding has never exceeded
$119 million. FASEB's recommendations for the USDA focus principally on
the NRICGP. Some examples of the program's recent accomplishments are:
--Basic studies in the genetics, growth, and development of plants
have enabled scientists to develop transgenic plants containing
agronomically important genes. These procedures facilitate the
improvement of disease resistance, productivity, and
nutritional quality.
--Human nutritionists have developed improved techniques for
evaluating the absorption and metabolism of nutrients, and for
assessing the nutritional status of human beings. Researchers
using such techniques yielded evidence that the requirements of
calcium and folic acid were substantially higher than
previously believed, which has led to the development of new
dietary recommendations for these essential nutrients.
--Research funded by the NRI Food Safety program has led to a greater
understanding of the food processing and storage procedures
needed to reduce the risk of food-borne illness from bacteria
such as Salmonella and E. coli. Such research also has led to
the development of rapid genetic and immunological methods for
detecting such microorganisms.
The competitive and highly productive merit-reviewed research
program of the NRICGP is vital to the future of U.S. agriculture, yet
its share of the USDA budget is hardly commensurate with the importance
of its mission. Indeed, only 5.4 percent of the USDA's $1.8 billion
research budget is devoted to nationally competitive grants. Congress
recognized the value of the research being conducted by the NRICGP, and
increased its funding in fiscal year 1998 and again in fiscal year
1999. FASEB applauds Congress for these actions, given that they
represent an important change from the fiscal year 1994 through fiscal
year 1997 period when funding for the NRICGP was decreased.
Yet, even with these additional resources, critical agricultural
research is still underfunded. Currently, only 25 percent of qualified
grants receive funding. Inadequate support limits the productivity of
researchers that the NRICGP is able to fund. NRICGP awards are small,
averaging $133,210 in fiscal year 1998, and short, averaging 2.2 years
(i.e., a total support of about $60,000 per year). Researchers are
forced to limit the scope of their work or spend valuable time writing
additional grant proposals.
FASEB believes that research support for areas such as animal,
plant and microbial genomics; human nutrition; food safety; plant
biochemistry; environmental impact of animal pollutants; integrated
agricultural systems; and infrastructure should be augmented. The funds
now available for these areas of critical research are insufficient to
enable them to reach their full potential. FASEB makes the following
recommendations.
--In 1990, Congress established the NRICGP with the goal that it be
incrementally increased to $500 million within 5 years. The
increase in fiscal year 1999 brought NRICGP funding to only
$119.3 million, well below the originally intended level for
this critical program. FASEB recommends that the base funding
for the NRICGP be increased to the level recommended in the
president's fiscal year 2000 budget, $200 million.
--To provide the foundation for the technology-intensive agriculture
of the 21st century, FASEB reaffirms its support for NRICGP
funding reaching the originally authorized $500 million goal as
soon as budgetary resources can be found for this investment.
--NRI grants provide a vital funding opportunity for first-time
investigators. FASEB supports the ongoing NRI process for
enhancing the funding of new investigators, and encourages the
NRI to expand the number of these awards.
--FASEB recommends that efforts be made within NRI to fund grants at
levels and for periods sufficient to achieve their peer-
reviewed, recommended aims.
--FASEB endorses the policy of using funds from the NRI program to
nominate and fund young investigators for the President's Early
Career Award for Scientists and Engineers.
--FASEB commends and supports the USDA and NRI for their successful
collaboration with other federal agencies on issues such as the
Plant Genome Project and the Food Safety Institute. These
relationships reduce duplication, allow for rapid response to
emerging opportunities and crises, and assure the public that
tax dollars are being spent wisely.
--FASEB urges Congress to reexamine the 14 percent cap on indirect
(facilities and administrative) costs for NRI grants.
education--the national needs initiative
The National Needs Initiative (NNI), the Graduate Fellowship
Program of the Higher Education Office, and several other USDA programs
contribute to the training mission of the USDA. Despite its importance,
funding for the NNI has seen a dramatic decline in recent years. In
fiscal year 1996, the NNI budget was $5 million; this amount was
decreased $1 million in each of the following two years. The program
received $3 million in fiscal year 1999, the same as the previous year.
--FASEB specifically recommends that NNI funding be restored to its
previous level of $5 million in fiscal year 2000 because of the
critical need to train the next generation of agricultural
researchers.
--To insure the optimal development of the future supply of
agricultural researchers, FASEB continues to call for a review
and subsequent reorganization of USDA-sponsored graduate
training.
initiative for future agriculture and food systems
Last year, Congress authorized the Initiative for Future
Agriculture and Food Systems, a new mandatory spending program that
would fund competitively awarded research grants at the USDA to support
large, multidisciplinary, multicenter programs beyond the scope of the
NRI. Financial resources for this initiative were to be drawn from a
provision that reduced federal spending for Food Stamp Program
administration by $600 million over five years. Unfortunately, due to
financial constraints on the Congress last fall no funds were
appropriated in fiscal year 1999.
Had funds been made available, priority mission areas to be
addressed in the first year would have been (1) the food genome; (2)
food safety, food technology and human nutrition; (3) new and
alternative uses and production of agricultural commodities and
products; (4) agricultural biotechnology; and (5) natural resource
management. The initiative also includes provisions for merit/peer-
review and for input into the priority-setting process from those who
benefit from agricultural research.
--FASEB strongly endorses the Initiative for Future Agriculture and
Food Systems and recommends that full funding authorized under
current law be provided in fiscal year 2000.
use of animals in research
Research using animals has been crucial to most of the major
medical advances of the past century. Reasonable guidelines concerning
how animals are used in research provide safeguards and ensure public
confidence. One area of particular concern has been the supply of dogs
and cats that were not specifically bred for research. The USDA's
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is charged by
Congress with enforcing provisions of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA)
standard to ensure that these ``random source'' dogs and cats needed
for research can be acquired by licensed dealers through legitimate
channels. FASEB commends the USDA for its diligent enforcement efforts,
including ``trace backs'' of the ownership records that dealers are
required to keep. In recent years USDA has issued steep fines against
dealers whose records were incomplete or false, and putting out of
business several who were guilty of serious violations.
FASEB recommends that Congress provide the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service with adequate funding for enforcement of the Animal
Welfare Act in fiscal year 2000, so as to ensure compliance with this
law.
facilities for agricultural research
A hallmark of American success in agricultural research has been
the central role of land-grant universities. Federal funds for
construction of agricultural research facilities at land-grant
universities, however, have been severely curtailed. The growth of
facilities at these institutions has not matched the explosion of the
biotechnology research that has occurred in the late 1990's. The 1996
Farm Bill wisely required the development of a long-range plan for all
federally supported facilities and this planning requirement should be
extended to university-based agricultural research facilities.
--FASEB supports a long-range plan for renewing agricultural research
facilities at land-grant universities, which will parallel
research needs and funding opportunities. This plan should
include a merit-review process.
Mr. Chairman, these are FASEB's recommendations as you and the
Committee begin the task of deciding how best to increase the base
funding for the 26 research programs of the NRICGP. We have also made
other policy recommendations in our FASEB Report on Federal Funding for
Biomedical and Related Life Sciences Research for fiscal year 2000,
distributed earlier to members of this subcommittee, and we hope you
will review this report carefully.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we believe this is an opportunity to
expand our country's historic effort to improve America's health and
productivity through agricultural research.
______
Prepared Statement of Florida State University
Mr. Chairman, thank you and the Members of the Subcommittee for
this opportunity to present testimony. I would like to take a moment to
acquaint you with Florida State University. Located in the state
capitol of Tallahassee, we have been a university since 1950; prior to
that, we had a long and proud history as a seminary, a college, and a
women's college. While widely known for our athletics teams, we have a
rapidly emerging reputation as one of the Nation's top public
universities. Having been designated as a Carnegie Research I
University several years ago, Florida State University currently
exceeds $100 million per year in research expenditures. With no
agricultural or medical school, few institutions can boast of that kind
of success. We are strong in both the sciences and the arts. We have
high quality students; we rank in the top 25 among U.S. colleges and
universities in attracting National Merit Scholars. Our scientists and
engineers do excellent research, and they work closely with industry to
commercialize those results. Florida State ranks fourth this year among
all U.S. universities in royalties collected from its patents and
licenses, and first among individual public universities. In short,
Florida State University is an exciting and rapidly changing
institution.
Mr. Chairman, let me describe three projects that FSU is pursuing
this year. The first is a major collaborative effort which draws upon
the expertise of three outstanding Florida universities. Focusing on
climate variability in the State of Florida and the Southeast (SE), the
objectives include exploring the value of climate data based on the El
Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and developing practical applications
for climate forecasts, particularly for agriculture.
This consortium draws upon the expertise of scientists at FSU, who
have the technical capability to deliver detailed climate variability
knowledge; the University of Florida, who possess technical expertise
in agricultural engineering, modeling, agricultural decision support
and information delivery; and the University of Miami, who have
expertise in implementing the knowledge into the agricultural
community.
Abundant evidence illustrates the economic importance to farmers of
early climate forecasts of extreme weather events. The unanticipated
January 1997 freeze that cost the winter vegetable industry in South
Florida more than $200 million is just one reminder. Storms, drought
and flooding associated with the unusually strong El Nino event of
1982-83 that cost thousands of lives and an estimated $13 million in
crops globally is another reminder.
ENSO-based forecasts can now provide useful weather information in
many regions at the required lead times. Short- and long-term forecasts
could provide the agricultural industry with a range of opportunities
for mitigating adverse impacts of bad weather, as well as taking
advantage of favorable weather.
During the initial phase of this effort, the FSU team described
qualitatively the impact of El Nino (and the other extreme, La Nina) on
temperature and precipitation patterns across the SE. Additionally, the
team found a geographic shift in tornadic activity associated with El
Nino events. A new climate forecast system to provide predictions of
seasonal temperatures and precipitation with longer lead times and
improved skill now is in the testing phase. Improvements are due in
part to the coupled nature (i.e., the linking of the ocean and
atmosphere so they respond to each other dynamically) of the forecast
system.
Our colleagues at the University of Florida identified several
crops in Florida that are vulnerable to shifts in weather patterns
associated with El Nino and La Nina, and further noted that the impact
is not uniform in nature across the state.
Continuing this collaboration, the consortium hopes to estimate the
economic advantages of incorporating information from climate forecasts
into farming management systems, and to eventually work with sector
representatives in developing guidance products for the agricultural
community.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration provided the
initial funding for this project. We are seeking $2.5 million to
continue this worthwhile effort in fiscal year 2000.
Our next two projects involve marine aquaculture efforts. The
opportunity for the U.S. aquaculture industry to meet the increasing
demand for seafood has never been greater than it is today. The
majority of the world's marine aquaculture production takes place in
coastal ponds or sea cages. U.S. aquaculture industry development has
been inhibited by the high cost and limited availability of coastal
lands, high production costs, restricted growing season and
governmental regulations. In order for U.S. marine aquaculture
production to expand and develop, innovative approaches to address the
constraints being faced by the emerging aquaculture industry must be
found.
Florida State University (FSU) and Harbor Branch Oceanographic
Institution (HBOI) have formed a collaboration to design and develop
engineered, intensive recirculating culture systems for marine species
in new environments. Expanding marine aquaculture opportunities to
inland sites through species that can be adapted to fresh water,
designing low-cost, recirculating production systems, and the
development of energy efficient (i.e., solar) production systems
provide solutions to several of the production and regulatory
constraints faced by U.S. producers. If progress is made in these
areas, aquaculture offers a new business opportunity for economically
disadvantaged communities.
There is an increasing global awareness of the need for sustainable
aquaculture development. By the year 2025 global population is
projected to be nearly 8.5 billion people, with a projected demand for
seafood of 120 million metric tons (MMT). Seafood fisheries reached
carrying capacity ten years ago with a capture of 60 MMT but demand for
seafood has shown no signs of abating. The Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) reported that by 1995, aquaculture only accounted
for 26 percent of the total world harvest of food fish. In 1997, U.S.
seafood imports increased both in volume and value with shrimp topping
the list at 278,600 metric tons valued at $2.7 billion dollars. Shrimp
imports continue to be the second largest contributor to the U.S. trade
deficit and it is expected that finfish imports will follow the same
scenario. There remains a great need for U.S. aquaculture production to
fill this void and relieve some of the harvest pressure on natural
stocks.
Competition for access to the now limited U.S. coastal land
resources requires innovative approaches to develop and expand marine
aquaculture into new environments. HBOI has work underway that suggests
many saltwater species thrive in freshwater systems with the
appropriate chemical makeup. Another issue is environmental protection
of coastal waters and biosecurity to protect both wild and farmed
aquatic resources from disease and exotic introductions, which
necessitates the development of cost-effective recirculating production
systems. In many locations around the U.S., regulatory constraints
already require the use recirculating aquaculture systems. HBOI has
designed an intensive recirculating, production system to culture
marine finfish species in fresh or brackish water. FSU's Department of
Oceanography and the FSU/FAMU College of Engineering are teaming with
HBOI to conduct parallel experiments to determine the optimal
production parameters using hard freshwater in Florida. FSU's research
on solar technologies will be utilized to design more energy efficient
systems for this effort as well. All of this work will expand U.S.
aquaculture production of saltwater species into new locals, result in
better utilization of land resources and reduce the demand for imported
aquaculture products.
The two collaborating institutions are seeking $1.2 million in
fiscal year 2000 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to initiate
this project.
Our second aquaculture effort involves sustaining aquaculture
opportunities through distance learning. To meet the needs of the
growing aquaculture industry in Florida and across the Nation, Florida
State University (FSU) is partnering with Harbor Branch Oceanographic
Institution (HBOI) to develop materials that would be employed in an
outreach training program in the field of aquaculture though the use of
distance learning technologies.
Aquaculture may provide the opportunity for the U.S. aquaculture
industry to expand and meet the increasing demand for seafood.
Worldwide commercial harvest of fish and shellfish has remained
essentially unchanged from 100 million metric tons since 1989. Nearly
70 percent of conventional commercial species are now fully exploited
or over exploited. Yet U.S. marine aquaculture development has lagged
behind overseas competition.
In 1997, HBOI initiated a short and long-term training program
related to aquaculture. Working with faculty at FSU, new technological
capacities will allow these two groups--separated by several hundred
miles--to rely on distant learning technology to facilitate
communication between research staff and faculty, and provide increased
aquaculture instructional opportunities for students.
With this technology in place and materials related to aquaculture,
its opportunities, and its challenges being developed, the two
institutions will build upon a successful program established nearly a
decade ago through HBOI's successful implementation of community-based
training programs in clam and oyster aquaculture. The programs spanned
from 1989 to 1998 and focused on training fishermen and women in
shellfish farming, thereby allowing them to maintain their way of life
on the water. The number of clam farmers has grown from a handful in
the mid-1980s to nearly 600 today. A number of other aquaculture
business opportunities exist for rural communities throughout Florida,
but their implementation requires that the training and technical
support be provided in the home community. Through a combination of
distance learning technology and satellite education and support hubs,
we propose to provide aquaculture training, technical support, and
appropriate economic information to rural communities throughout
Florida. As materials are being developed in the first phase of this
project, the collaborators will work with such groups as the Panhandle
Library Access Network, a collection of 47 libraries in 13 rural
Florida Panhandle counties, agricultural extension agents, and local
economic development officials to develop a comprehensive dissemination
network for this information.
FSU and HBOI are requesting $470,000 for this initial phase of this
work in fiscal year 2000 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Mr. Chairman, these are just a few of the exciting activities going
on at Florida State University that will make important contributions
to solving some key problems and concerns our Nation faces today. Your
support would be appreciated, and, again, thank you for an opportunity
to present these views for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Friends of Agricultural Research--Beltsville
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present this statement in support of funding for
agricultural research. We are requesting your support for programs of
the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and its world renowned
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Maryland.
The Friends of Agricultural Research--Beltsville (FAR-B) is a
private non-profit organization dedicated to supporting and promoting
excellence in agricultural research, especially the ARS research
programs at Beltsville. FAR-B provides supplementary private funds for
both research and education. The Friends co-sponsor symposia,
conferences, and workshops on topics of current scientific interest.
Financial assistance is provided for Beltsville scientists to spend
time at other research centers here and abroad to update their
technical skills. Funds are provided to co-host international
scientists who visit Beltsville each year to discuss cooperative
programs and exchange scientific information. This public/private
partnership promotes excellence, helps to ensure that useful new BARC
technology is put into practice, and is supportive of the mission and
goals of the Agency.
The productivity of American agriculture is the envy of the world.
The outstanding performance of U.S. agriculture and the unprecedented
gains in productivity during this century can be attributed in large
measure to the dynamic research and development system in this nation.
Scientists and engineers contribute a continuing stream of new
knowledge, technological innovations, and new products to sustain the
U.S. agricultural enterprise. Public investments in agricultural
research have been critical to the success of U.S. agriculture. In
return, the public has reaped substantial benefits. Studies show that
every tax dollar invested has paid back at least $1.35. These returns
have been broadly shared through lower prices for American consumers,
increased international competitiveness for farmers, jobs for working
families, and increased profitability in agricultural industries. Funds
for research are sound investments.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is a major player in
basic and applied research to solve problems and to keep America's food
and fiber system competitive in the global marketplace. The
Agricultural Research Service is the principal in-house research Agency
of USDA. It has a lead role in solving high-priority problems of broad
national significance. The Beltsville Agricultural Research Center is
the flagship research facility of ARS.
beltsville
The Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) is a
comprehensive research complex consisting of 47 laboratories and a
staff of 1,500 scientists, engineers, technicians, and other support
personnel. Research programs range from conservation of soil and water
resources to human nutrition. Beltsville scientists do basic and
applied research in plant and animal genetics, physiology, and
chemistry, as well as a wide range of projects in other areas,
including new instrumentation, germplasm databases, and computer
modeling of complete production systems.
In recent years, the research program at BARC has expanded to
encompass biotechnology, genome mapping, and fundamental research on
biological control of plant and animal diseases,insects, nematodes, and
weeds. Major emphasis is focused on environmental issues, food safety
and health, and sustainable agriculture.
Beltsville's record of accomplishments and ongoing programs have
made it a world leader in agricultural research. Its international
reputation attracts thousands of visitors each year from the United
States and abroad. The world renowned National Agricultural Library--
the largest agricultural library in the world and the Nation's chief
resource of agricultural information--is also located on the BARC
campus.
priority research issues
A number of important issues confront American agriculture and are
of deep concern to the public. Central among them are the quality of
the environment and the nutritional quality and safety of our food. The
fiscal year 2000 Budget for ARS proposes new funds and increased
initiatives to address these vital challenges. Beltsville scientists
are currently engaged in research in these critical areas and will
expand their efforts if the proposed budget thrusts are funded.
Biologically-Based Integrated Pest Management.--The reliance on
chemical-based pesticides, the increasing occurrence of pesticide
resistance, particularly in insect pests, and the threat of
agricultural chemicals for polluting the environment have presented an
important challenge to the agricultural community. ARS has risen to
this challenge by increasing its research to develop a broad array of
strategies for use in integrated pest management (IPM), i.e., a system
that relies on a variety of control techniques as alternatives to total
dependency on chemical pesticides in order to reduce health risks,
sustain natural resources, protect the fragile ecosystem, and at the
same time maintain a viable agricultural enterprise. The goal of USDA
is to have IPM in practice on 75 percent of U.S. agricultural acres by
the year 2000.
The search for new and more effective ways to implement IPM
programs has led to greater emphasis on biological control. There is
great potential for research and development in this area. Knowledge of
the basic biology of insects, viruses, bacteria, fungi, nematodes, and
weeds is essential for identifying, developing, and using biological
control agents successfully.
Beltsville scientists have pioneered in fundamental and applied
research on both the chemical and biological processes associated with
the behavior and development of insects. They have been in the
forefront of basic studies of pheromones, attractants, repellents,
deterrents, and growth regulators derived from insect, plant or
synthetic origin. Such research has led to practical new techniques for
the control of a variety of insect pests such as the Mediterranean
fruit fly, gypsy moth, Japanese beetle, corn earworm, and many other
pests of economic importance.
The fiscal year 2000 budget proposes increased funding for
Beltsville to develop attractants for invasive pest species, such as
the Asian long horned beetle, a potential new and devastating threat to
forests and urban trees nationwide. New research is needed to develop
attractants and traps necessary to detect and monitor populations so
that appropriate remedial action can be taken. This Beltsville research
program is currently significantly underfunded to carry out this work
and is at risk of losing its critical mass of scientific expertise in
this important mission area. This is a top priority funding need.
National Nutrient Database.--Many studies have implicated dietary
factors in the cause and prevention of important diseases, including
cancer, coronary heart disease, diabetes mellitus, birth defects, and
cataracts. For diseases linked strongly to diet, the cost of medical
treatment and care is estimated to exceed $200 billion a year. Clearly,
this is an important issue for those in human nutrition research; the
ARS human nutrition research program seeks to address this public
concern.
An important and essential component of the ARS human nutrition
program is the National Nutrient Database maintained by the Beltsville
Human Nutrition Research Center. This database of foods consumed in
this country is the foundation for food consumption tables throughout
the world. In spite of its position as the preeminent nutrient
database, many food items are not included due to rapid changes that
have taken place in food production, processing, and preparation in
recent years. Some data are as much as 30 years out of date. There is a
critical need to update data to ensure that nutrition research is based
on a solid understanding of the nutrient content of foods and that
information provided to producers, the food industry, and consumers is
accurate and reliable. The ARS budget proposes $2.2 million for
Beltsville to update this mission-critical resource.
Food Composition Methods.--The value of the National Nutrient
Database depends upon the accuracy and reliability of methods used to
develop the data. The Food Composition Laboratory at Beltsville has a
staff which develops and refines methods that will allow chemists to
measure the nutrients and contaminants among thousands of compounds in
foods. Scientists have found that many analytical methods for specific
components are lacking or inaccurate. Either existing technology or new
techniques must be developed for the unique requirements of the complex
biological samples that need to be evaluated. For example, a food
compound can have many forms. Some are more biologically active than
others. Chemists take food apart--molecule by molecule. To develop a
definitive method, it is important to know how the body uses different
forms of the compound. Researchers are especially interested in the
active plant compounds--or phytonutrients--that are associated with
lower incidence of cancer and cardiovascular disease in populations
that eat plenty of fruits, vegetables, and other food plants.
Scientists at the Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center have been
collaborating with colleagues at the National Cancer Institute and the
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute since the 1970's to develop
better analytical methods and to more completely understand the
relationships between the composition of foods and the biological
effects from a nutrition perspective. Sound dietary decisions depend
upon good analytical methods.
The fiscal year 2000 budget for ARS proposes an increase of $1.2
million to develop sophisticated and reliable analytical methods that
will be needed to determine the concentration of nutrients in foods,
with particular emphasis on nutrients that are being newly discovered
in fruits, vegetables, and other food plants. This is an important
priority.
Risk Assessment/Agricultural Waste.--The public is very concerned
about the risks associated with agricultural wastes that enter into the
water supply. Livestock manure and fertilizers are excellent sources of
essential plant nutrients. However, excessive application or poor
management practices can contribute to the contamination of streams,
ponds, and ground water. ARS is increasing its research to better
understand the relationships between agricultural practices and water
quality. A major portion of the research on animal waste and nutrient
management is at Beltsville, where the emphasis is on an integrated
approach to crop and animal production systems.
The budget proposes an increase in funding at BARC to develop
predictive models for assessing the risk of transmission of zoonotic
parasites through farm management systems, animal wastes, and water
runoff. This will strengthen research on pathogen transmission as a
part of the ongoing animal waste/management program. The emphasis is on
the Cryptosporidium parvum, a single celled parasite excreted in animal
wastes that can contaminate water supplies. Healthy individuals
infected with this parasite may suffer symptoms of diarrhea,
dehydration, abdominal pain, nausea, and fatigue. A person whose immune
system is compromised can also suffer damage to the liver, pancreas, or
lungs. BARC is a major center of excellence on cryptosporidium
research. Studies will focus on the life cycle of this parasite, its
impact on humans, and methods for combating and reducing the risk of
transmission. We hope that the Committee will see fit to support
increased funding for this program.
modernization of facilities
A recent General Accounting Office report found widespread problems
with aging Federal facilities around the country and recommended a
massive overhaul of these facilities, especially of those built over 50
years ago. With the support of this Committee, modernization of the
facilities at Beltsville began in 1988. Significant progress has been
made in upgrading and modernizing the facilities, equipment and
infrastructure at BARC. We are grateful for this support. This has been
critical to keeping research at Beltsville in the forefront of science
and competitive with other international research centers.
The current highest priority in the modernization plan is to
upgrade the facilities for the Beltsville Human Nutrition Research
Center (BHNRC). The Department proposes in the fiscal year 2000 Budget
funding for the construction of a new facility for human nutrition
research at Beltsville. Current facilities are among the oldest in USDA
and are, thus, in the greatest need of overhaul or replacement. This
Committee provided in fiscal year 1997 $1.7 million for planning and
design of new BHNRC facilities. The design is now underway. Funding is
now needed to complete the construction in a timely and efficient
manner. Costs to fully fund the new facility are estimated at $22
million. BHNRC scientists have made many significant contributions to
Federal nutrition programs, including uninterrupted input over the past
30 years to the establishment of the Federal government's Recommended
Daily Allowance (RDA) for dietary intake by the U.S. population.
Modernization of these research facilities will promote continued
scientific excellence well into the next century.
Mr. Chairman, FAR-B thanks you and the Committee for your interest,
leadership, and generous support of ARS and the Beltsville Agricultural
Research Center. We recognize that finding funds for Federal
agricultural research programs and facilities is a difficult challenge
no matter how important the work is to the health, safety, prosperity,
and well being of the Nation. This Committee has met the challenge over
the years, and we encourage your continued efforts. We look forward to
working with you in any way you may desire to serve the interests of
American agriculture.
______
Prepared Statement of Friends of the National Arboretum
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am grateful for
this opportunity to present testimony on behalf of Friends of the U.S.
National Arboretum (FONA), in support of FONA's fiscal year 2000
request for $500,000 for engineering and design to implement the new
Master Plan and $500,000 for information technology support to expand
the National Arboretum's internet service.
Thanks to your Committee, and after some years of preparation, your
U.S. National Arboretum is poised to move into the 21st Century and
enhance its mission of horticultural education mandated by Congress.
With the private support and encouragement of FONA, the Agricultural
Research Service (ARS) has contracted for a new Master Plan to
modernize the National Arboretum and make it a more viable and
significant educational resource and attraction. Because the new Master
Plan commissioned by the ARS is scheduled to be completed before fiscal
year 2000, FONA is requesting design funds in the amount of $500,000 so
work on modernizing the U.S. National Arboretum will not be delayed yet
another year. The new Master Plan was not sufficiently developed in
time to enable these funds to be included in the President's budget.
The new Master Plan is being prepared under the leadership of
Geoffrey L. Rausch, of Environmental Planning & Design (EDP), an
internationally acclaimed designer of arboreta and botanic gardens. The
Plan envisions four major conceptual developments at the U.S. National
Arboretum to enhance the Arboretum's singular role as a source of
horticultural education and as a national showcase of advances in
horticulture. All four concepts have the strong support of FONA.
First, the new Master Plan envisions a new entrance to the National
Arboretum off Bladensburg Road. The most used current entrance is
through a residential neighborhood on R Street. For a number of years
the National Arboretum has sought to improve the New York Avenue
entrance but this has been rejected by District of Columbia authorities
because of the traffic volume on New York Avenue. The recommended
entrance off Bladensburg Road is a superior solution.
Second, the new Master Plan envisions a walkable central core to
the National Arboretum which would contain enhanced garden displays and
offer the educational opportunity of interactive video explaining the
meaning and significance of the displays. This core concept is critical
to making the National Arboretum more attractive to visitors in order
to stimulate interest and education in horticulture. Gardening is the
nation's favorite hobby and horticulture the fastest growing segment of
the agricultural industry.
Third, the new Master Plan envisions a new visitors center adjacent
to the walkable core which would provide orientation, exhibit space and
offer the potential of electronic classrooms for horticultural
education similar to the classrooms at the National Museum of Natural
History. This is also critical to enhancing the education mission of
the U.S. National Arboretum.
Fourth, the new Master Plan envisions tram service to provide
further orientation and service to collections beyond the central core.
This would improve educational opportunities and alleviate traffic
congestion at peak visitation periods.
In further development of the new Master Plan, engineering and
design for the Grounds/Site Work requires long lead time. As detailed
on Exhibit 1, this engineering and design is estimated to cost
$500,000. The figures on Exhibit 1 were prepared by the National
Arboretum in conjunction with EDP at the request of FONA.
It is significant that the new Master Plan contains a number of
projects such as the new entrance, the visitors center and new
collections in the core which are candidates for private financing.
FONA intends to include these projects in a capital campaign if
approved.
With the private support of FONA, the National Arboretum has also
developed a website and a home page displaying horticultural
information on the internet. This internet site has shown a dramatic
increase in national and international use in the first year and one
half of operation. Of the $500,000 requested for information
technology, $250,000 would be devoted to the National Arboretum's
horticultural library including a full-time professional librarian to
help support the data being added to and made available on the National
Arboretum's home page. The remaining $250,000 would be devoted to
support a full-time Web Master for the Arboretum's home page and to
maintain its Local Area Network computer system.
Your U.S. National Arboretum is repository of a huge backlog of
useful horticultural information to place on its home page. It has a
talented staff the fruits of whose labors should be available on the
Internet. Ultimately, the home page and server, with interactive
systems, can be your National Arboretum's major method for dispensing
horticultural information and providing horticultural education to
constituents across the United States and indeed world-wide.
While the missions of the U.S. National Arboretum mandated by
Congress are research and education, the improvements described in this
testimony are sorely needed to enhance its capability to fulfill its
mission of education and to promote our research capabilities.
FONA is most appreciative of the efforts of your Subcommittee on
behalf of your National Arboretum and on behalf of horticultural
research and education.
______
Prepared Statement of the Grocery Manufacturers of America
GMA appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony to the Senate
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee on the President's fiscal year
2000 budget. GMA is the world's largest association of food, beverage
and consumer product companies. With U.S. sales of more than $450
billion, GMA members employ more than 2.5 million workers in all 50
states. The organization applies legal, scientific and political
expertise from its member companies to vital food, nutrition and public
policy issues affecting the industry. Led by a board of 44 Chief
Executive Officers, GMA speaks for food and consumer product
manufacturers at the state, federal and international levels on
legislative and regulatory issues.
user fees
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
We are disappointed that the proposed budget would again include
``user fees'' to fund FSIS, even though the Administration, for the
first time, has at least developed an alternative approach to assuming
user fees in the budget. It also recognizes the fact that any user fee
must be agreed to by all stakeholders and then authorized before it can
be considered. Because of the nature of the anticipated authorizing
language, we continue to have concerns about the Administration's lack
of understanding of what exactly constitutes a true user fee. User
fees, by definition, are intended to reimburse agencies for specific
private benefits they provide to identifiable companies. Public funds
and not user fees should pay for regulatory activities such as
inspection. As Congress itself has repeatedly pointed out in previous
years, these regulatory activities are designed to protect the public
health and should not be funded by new taxes on the regulated
industries.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
For the first time in many years, the President's proposed budget
does not impose general purpose user fees to fund the FDA. However, it
does include a proposal to implement a user fee above the baseline for
premarket approval of direct and indirect additives. We have not taken
a position on the proposal at this time because we have not seen
legislative language.
We were also pleased to see that, in the Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition's 1999 list of priorities, the premarket review of
food ingredients was included on the ``A'' list. As GMA has said,
beginning with the June, 1995 hearing before the House Human Resources
Subcommittee, this is an area of FDA which has been dramatically
overlooked, and must be reformed. In fact, the industry has made this a
high priority and is in discussions with the Food and Drug
Administration about how to best proceed on reforming the food additive
approval process. GMA is legitimately concerned about the length of
time it takes for an additive to be approved. The process needs
continued attention of FDA senior management and more resources.
the president's food safety initiative
The President's proposed fiscal year 2000 budget includes an
increase of $74.8 million to fund the President's Food Safety
Initiative. We applaud the efforts of the Administration to place such
a high priority on enhancing the U.S. food safety system. GMA has long
believed that consumers and the food industry are best served by strong
food safety agencies. which develop policy based on sound science.
Since the announcement of the President's food safety initiative in
May, 1997 GMA has actively engaged in discussions within its industry,
with Congress and with the Administration on the U.S. food safety
system. In response to the Congressional directive, to the National
Academy of Sciences to study ways in which the U.S. food safety system
might be improved, GMA formed a food safety task force in December,
1997, composed of 15 major food industry associations representing
hundreds of manufacturers, marketers, wholesalers, retailers and
restaurants. Over the next several months, the task force developed a
series of white papers the industry felt were critical to a
constructive evaluation of the current food safety system. The Task
Force's papers were provided to the NAS committee for its
consideration.
GMA found that, while the current food safety system is not
perfect, it is effective. The current system can and should be enhanced
but not replaced. The goals of the President's Food Safety Initiative
are admirable and are focused in the right direction. The U.S. food
safety system must have more resources to identify and fight the true
causes of foodborne illness with the right scientific weapons.
Resources must be targeted toward laboratory research and practical
testing food safety research which should receive high priority and
funding.
Second, we also support increased funding for educational programs.
Everyone who handles food from the farm to the table must be educated
about their roles in helping to reduce the risk of foodborne illness.
We support the President's Food Safety Initiative's focus on the
development of education programs for food service workers and
educational programs that target high-risk under-served populations.
Using the Fight BAC Program and other methods will achieve the goal of
teaching all Americans how to handle and prepare food safely.
Finally, GMA supports the efforts of the President's newly formed
Food Safety Council, which has begun work on a unified food safety
budget as well as a long term strategic plan, scheduled for release in
January, 2000. Better communication, coordination and elimination of
duplicate government food safety programs is needed.
summary
To summarize, GMA supports increased funding for the President's
Food Safety Initiative, and opposes any general purpose food user fees.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony for the record.
______
Prepared Statement of the Health Industry Manufacturers Association
summary
This testimony is submitted on behalf of the Health Industry
Manufacturers Association (HIMA) and the more than 800 manufacturers we
represent. HIMA is the largest medical technology trade association in
the world. Our members manufacture nearly 90 percent of the $58 billion
of health care technology products purchased annually in the United
States and more than 50 percent of the $137 billion purchased annually
around the world. We welcome the opportunity to comment on issues
surrounding FDA's funding for the next fiscal year.
This year marks a departure from the position HIMA has taken on
funding for FDA for the past few years. This year, we believe there
should be an increase in funding for the Center for Devices and
Radiological Health (CDRH) that is specifically targeted to the
following activities:
--Premarket review process
--Activities associated with mutual recognition agreements and
international harmonization, and
--The Sentinel Reporting System
With regard to additional recommendations for increased funding
contained in the President's fiscal year 2000 budget and FDA's budget
accountability, our position is as follows:
--Congress should (1) ensure the optimal design of the Adverse Event
Reporting System and (2) direct the agency to invite
participation by interested parties in its design.
--Congress should direct the agency to invite participation by
interested parties in the design of the Sentinel Reporting
System.
--Congress should continue to press for greater budget accountability
from FDA.
--We remain opposed to user fees and believe Congress should provide
sufficient funds to enable the agency to review device
applications within the time frames mandated by law.
basis for increased funding for devices
In the past, we have supported level funding for CDRH. However,
this year, there are several factors that convince us that, unless CDRH
receives additional funds for the premarket review process, review
times could increase thus depriving patients access to beneficial
medical technology. Moreover, we believe FDA needs to invest resources
now in initiatives that will ultimately result in a harmonized
worldwide regulatory system. We do not wish to see a return to the
circumstances of several years ago when products were regularly
available to people outside the United States years before American
citizens could benefit from them.
Among the reasons for our support of a targeted increase in funding
is that FDA itself has announced loudly and clearly that it cannot
carry out its statutory obligations without additional resources.
Moreover, the agency has taken on new responsibilities-notably in the
tobacco and food safety areas-without full funding. The Food and Drug
Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) has been implemented
without any additional funding.
At the Food and Drug Law Institute's annual educational conference
in December of 1998, FDA's Associate Commissioner for Strategic
Management, Linda Suydam, estimated that the agency is $165 million
short of what it actually needs to do its job. She stated that ``The
agency has been effected by . . . new programs, which were not fully
funded and flat-lined budgets which did not allow for the cost of
inflation on personnel and procurement dollars. These numbers clearly
illustrate that there's less money to do our core responsibilities.''
Those core responsibilities include device reviews, she stated.
In the ``FDA Compliance Plan'' required by FDAMA and its budget
justification documents, the agency projects that its review times for
fiscal year 1999 will increase from fiscal years 1997 and 1998. In the
plan, the agency cites insufficient funds as well as the increased
complexity of medical technology for the longer review times. This is
an alarming statement and one that is completely counter to the
underlying goal of FDAMA to create efficiencies that help speed
beneficial technology to patients.
We strongly believe that FDA should have the resources to meet its
statutory time frames. This means the completion of final actions for
PreMarket Approval Applications (PMAs) within 180 days and 510(k)s
within 90 days. The agency has been expressing its review goals in
terms of completion of first actions within the statutory time frames.
The ``Compliance Plan'' mandated by FDAMA required the agency to tell
Congress how it was going to meet all of its obligations under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act--including the obligation to
complete reviews within established limits. We believe the agency
should let Congress know exactly what resources are needed in order to
meet the statutory time frames set forth in the law. We support a
funding plan that will ultimately result in full compliance with the
law's time limits.
streamlining the regulatory process
Although we support increased funding targeted to device reviews,
we believe that the need for increased funds should diminish in future
years. Through full implementation of FDAMA, continued reengineering,
effective execution of mutual recognition agreements, and aggressive
international harmonization activities, FDA should be moving steadily
toward a regulatory system that will be more efficient, faster, and
less costly. This system should reduce unnecessary governmental
procedures, eliminate regulatory redundancy, provide a uniform
framework for protecting and promoting public health worldwide, and
recognize and adapt to the realities of the global economy.
FDAMA mechanisms that, when fully implemented, will reduce
regulatory burden include adoption and use of national and
international standards, reliance on the declaration of conformity to
standards, exemptions from 510(k), and adoption of a sentinel reporting
system. In addition, FDAMA's requirement that FDA consider the ``least
burdensome'' appropriate means of demonstrating effectiveness has yet
to be fully defined and incorporated into standard operating procedure.
This should, over time, together with the new collaboration
requirements of FDAMA, result in a net savings of resources although
more time may be spent at the beginning of the premarket approval
process while the parties come to a meeting of the minds on the
blueprint for device approval. Similarly, the agency has a variety of
reengineering initiatives in the early stages of implementation that
have the potential to ripen into substantial resource savings tools.
Examples include the special and abbreviated 510(k)s, guidance on when
to file a PMA modification, and the product development protocol.
Congress should direct the agency to aggressively and fully implement
the tools of FDAMA and the agency's own reengineering mechanisms.
global harmonization
While the above initiatives concern the current processes for
device review, FDA should not discount the potential savings to be
realized from ongoing and future mutual recognition agreements and
international harmonization activities. The need for federal funds will
be reduced as devices approved offshore in accordance with harmonized
requirements will not need to be re-reviewed by FDA.
This past year, the United States and the European Union entered
into a Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA). This agreement authorizes
its signatories to review and approve devices based on the requirements
of the other parties to the agreement, thus providing a forum for one-
stop shopping for manufacturers. The agency is in the midst of
determining the level of resources to be devoted to a confidence-
building period required by the MRA. Through this activity, U.S. and
European officials will learn about each other's requirements for
regulating medical devices. This type of learning among nations is an
important building block to a new global system that will reduce
unnecessary, time-consuming, and costly regulatory redundancy.
Investing the time and resources now to build a foundation of trust and
respect will contribute enormously to the long-term goal of harmonizing
regulatory requirements with Europe and provide valuable lessons for
other global harmonization initiatives.
Ultimately, the forces of the global marketplace will drive nations
of the world to recognize the economic value and efficiencies of a
unitary worldwide regulatory system. Such a system will reduce if not
eliminate duplicative reviews and inspections, with the added benefit
of standardizing public health protection for patients throughout the
world. The United States does not have a monopoly on what is the best
approach to protecting and promoting the public health. In fact, there
is some evidence to suggest that the European device approval process
is faster and more efficient than our system with no demonstrable loss
of product safety or quality. Aggressive and full participation by FDA
in discussions with nations on a common sense approach to regulatory
requirements worldwide will hasten the day when international
harmonization becomes a reality. And, while we recognize that this type
of activity costs money in the short term, in the long term, it should
reduce the financial burden to U.S. taxpayers as other nations share
responsibilities formerly performed exclusively by FDA.
the president's fiscal year 2000 budget
We note that the President's fiscal year 2000 budget requests an
increase of $26 million for the device program--$7 million in user fees
for premarket reviews and $19 million for improved inspections, MRA
implementation, compliance activities, the Sentinel Surveillance
System, and adverse event reporting.
HIMA opposes user fees for the medical device industry and believes
Congress should provide sufficient funds to the agency to enable it to
review applications within the time frames mandated by law. This core
statutory obligation is essential to ensuring patient access to the
benefits of medical technology.
With regard to inspections, we applaud the agency's recent efforts
to streamline the inspection process.\1\ The industry has worked with
the agency in a ``grass-roots'' initiative to bring common sense
changes to key aspects of the inspection process.1 We believe that
there are additional efficiencies that can be realized through
continued agency-industry discussions. At the FDAMA-mandated
stakeholders meeting of August 18, 1998, we suggested that the agency
take into account inspections conducted by internationally recognized
organizations in executing a risk-based inspection strategy. We
continue to believe that ISO (International Standards Organization)
certification should provide some level of assurance to FDA that good
manufacturing practices are being followed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ One pending change that we strongly support is an agency
proposal to ``credit'' time spent by field personnel in educational and
outreach activities that promote voluntary compliance by the industry
rather than focusing solely on actual inspection time as a performance
measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, we note that the agency itself has questioned the
biennial inspection requirement in the statute for certain
manufacturers.\2\ We support giving FDA the flexibility to exercise its
own discretion in determining the frequency of reviews necessary to
assure safety, based on the risk presented. Other types of flexibility
may also be desirable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In the FDAMA-mandated ``FDA Plan for Statutory Compliance''
published in the Federal Register on November 21, 1998, the agency
said, in a section on inspections, ``Because all public and private
sector organizations in the future will be subject to the same
resource-constrained environment, FDA may have to consider that even a
highly collaborative inspectional network may not be adequate to
completely meet existing statutory inspection requirements. A strategic
reassessment may be in order to determine the kinds of statutory
flexibility that would be desirable to preserve the comprehensive
consumer protection intent of the FD&C Act, and at the same time, allow
FDA to address the most critical health and safety priorities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Sentinel Surveillance System--designed to replace reporting of
adverse events by device user facilities (hospitals, nursing homes,
etc.)--is one that holds great promise for improving the ability to
collect meaningful information about device-user interaction. We
believe it also has the potential to eliminate medical device reports
from manufacturers. We support increased funds devoted to this system.
However, we believe that it is important for the system to be well
designed and provide optimal benefits for the provider, the agency, and
the manufacturer. We recommend that the agency participate in a
tripartite working group to engage in discussions as to how such a
system can best meet the needs of the various interested parties.
The agency's proposal for increased funds for the Adverse Event
Reporting System (AERS)--totaling $15.3 million agency-wide--raises
questions about whether such an expensive system will produce the
intended results. We know little about the system and simply urge
Congress to ensure that (1) there is a real need for this system and
(2) its benefits will justify its costs. We believe that the system
could benefit from an open airing of the agency's plans early in the
design stages. Such an airing would enable industry and other
interested parties to provide valuable observations and comments to
help ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely.
On a process-related matter, we strongly support this
Subcommittee's efforts to seek greater accountability from the agency
on the allocation and use of taxpayer dollars appropriated by Congress.
The submission of detailed operating plans from the agency to this
subcommittee is key to ensuring appropriate execution of the laws of
the land. We are grateful for your initiative in this area and urge the
continuation of this important process.
conclusion
In conclusion, we support a funding increase for FDA for fiscal
year 2000 that is specifically targeted to device review functions, MRA
confidence building, international harmonization activities, and the
Sentinel Surveillance System. We ask Congress to ensure that such funds
are not diverted to other agency activities. We believe this increase
will help the agency meet its statutory obligations, advance the long
range harmonization goal, and provide the means whereby the agency can
achieve its FDAMA-mandated mission to ``promote the public health by
promptly and efficiently reviewing clinical research and taking
appropriate action on the marketing of regulated products in a timely
manner.'' We further believe the Congress should encourage the agency
to continue to seek improvements in the inspection process--including
consideration of legislation to enable the agency to exercise
discretion in the frequency of inspections. We urge Congress to help
open the agency to input and ideas from interested parties on key
initiatives such as the Sentinel Surveillance System and the Adverse
Event Reporting System. We oppose user fees for the medical device
industry. Finally, we support this subcommittee's continued efforts to
seek greater budget accountability from FDA.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our views.
______
Prepared Statement of the Humane Society of the United States
We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to the
Agriculture and Rural Development Subcommittee on two funding items of
great importance to the Humane Society of the United States and its 6.7
million members and constituents. As the largest animal protection
organization in the country, we urge the Committee to address these
priority issues in the fiscal year 2000 budget.
the animal welfare act
The Animal Welfare Act, the federal law designed to protect animals
in research, exhibition, and commercial breeding facilities, as well as
animals transported in interstate commerce, is in danger of becoming an
empty promise. Due to a serious shortfall in the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)/Animal
Care budget, regulated facilities and the public cannot depend upon
having the high quality inspection program and consistent enforcement
of federal animal welfare regulations that are vital to demonstrating
compliance with the law. Funding of $13 million for APHIS/Animal Care
is urgently needed in fiscal year 2000 to protect animals as Congress
mandated and the public expects.
Funding for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act has been stagnant
since 1991. The Animal Care (AC) unit received $9.175 million in fiscal
year 1999 to cover, among other things, inspections of more than 10,500
separate locations at regulated entities--research facilities;
exhibitors such as zoos and circuses; animal dealers and breeders; and
animal carriers such as airlines and ground freight handlers.
The AC funding situation has reached a crisis point, not only
jeopardizing the well-being--indeed the very lives of millions of
animals--but also threatening consumer protection and public health.
USDA Inspector General audits over the last decade have confirmed our
organization's concerns that APHIS cannot ensure humane care and
treatment of animals at all facilities covered by the Animal Welfare
Act as Congress intended with the resources currently provided.
In a commendable effort to streamline the unit, AC headquarters
administrative and support staff have already been reduced by 35
percent and five sector offices are being consolidated into two. At
this point, the erosion in AC's funding is compromising the quality and
quantity of its inspectors and other direct enforcement efforts.
Despite the need for at least 100 well-trained inspectors around the
country, Animal Care had only 88 at its maximum in fiscal year 1991 and
the number has continued to decline due to budget limitations. This
year, the field staff will be cut to 70 inspectors.
Because of staff and other resource reductions, the number of
inspections has declined by nearly 50 percent between fiscal year 1993
(AC's most productive year to date) and fiscal year 1998. Diminishing
AC funds have also caused inspections to be increasingly complaint
driven, meaning that AC is responding to situations where animal well-
being may already be severely compromised. True animal welfare depends
on a proactive approach that prevents animal abuse by assuring
compliance with the law, rather than on a reactive enforcement process
that starts only after animal abuse has occurred.
The Humane Society of the United States is pleased to join forces
on this request with an unprecedented coalition of approximately 400
national and grassroots organizations representing regulated facilities
and animal interests. We urge the Committee to appropriate $13 million
for the APHIS Animal Care unit in fiscal year 2000 to begin addressing
these urgent needs.
the horse protection act
Enacted by Congress in 1970, the Horse Protection Act was passed to
end the obvious cruelty of physically soring the feet and legs of
horses. In an effort to exaggerate the high-stepping gate of Tennessee
Walking Horses, unscrupulous trainers use a variety of methods to
inflict pain on sensitive areas of the feet and legs for the effect of
the leg-jerk reaction that is popular among many in the show-horse
industry.
Just as in 1970 the practice of soring was rampant, in 1999 the
practice continues unabated by the well intentioned but woefully
underfunded, understaffed APHIS inspection program. The authorization
limit for enforcement of the Act has been frozen at $500,000 since the
enactment of the law, and the annual appropriation of $350,000 has been
consistently inadequate for proper enforcement of the law.
In April of 1998, the Tennessean ran a front page story reporting
that USDA veterinarians had found 673 cases of soring since 1987,
despite the fact that they were able to attend only 10 percent of the
shows. They also found that nine of the last 16 winners of the Trainer
of the Year award had either been suspended from showing or have cases
pending for soring. The practice of soring is more entrenched today
than when Congress originally acted in 1970. In response to a
questionnaire from the Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders and Exhibitors
Association, the head of the largest industry competition held annually
in Shelbyville, TN stated that every trainer of Tennessee Walking
Horses sores them with chemical irritants, heavy chains, or painful
shoeing practices. The will of Congress has clearly been thwarted.
In a less than magnanimous gesture to the cash-strapped APHIS
enforcement authority, in 1976, Horse Industry Organizations pushed for
and won greater self-regulating authority. Unfortunately, the
individuals trained to be Designated Qualified Persons (DQP) have not
been willing or able to responsibly enforce the act. Industry
inspectors consistently report fewer than half the number of violations
cited when APHIS personnel are present. As a result, thousands of
horses continue to suffer an outdated torture under the guise of
training.
Since the day that the Horse Protection Act was passed, Horse
Industry Organizations have sought to undermine the spirit of the law
by managing soring with loopholes and road blocks instead of ending the
cruel practice. Given past enforcement funding levels, Congress also
has failed to ensure meaningful enforcement of the Horse Protection
Act. To end the practice of soring, APHIS must receive adequate funding
to carry out the provisions of the Act. The Humane Society of the
United States urges the Committee to approve a modest increase of
$150,000 in fiscal year 2000, to achieve the full $500,000 annual
appropriation of funds authorized under the Horse Protection Act.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to share our views and
priorities for the Agriculture and Related Development Appropriation
Act of fiscal year 2000. We hope the Committee will be able to
accommodate these modest funding requests to address some very pressing
problems affecting millions of animals in the United States. Thank you
for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Illinois Institute of Technology
Chairman Cochran, Senator Kohl, Senator Durbin and members of the
subcommittee, I am Darsh Wasan, Ph.D, Vice President and Motorala Chair
at the Illinois Institute of Technology (``IIT''), Chicago, Illinois. I
want to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit this
testimony for the record on behalf of IIT's National Center for Food
Safety and Technology (the ``Center'') located at our Moffett Campus in
Summit-Argo, Illinois. The Center is a unique collaboration of
government, academia and industry scientists, all focused on the safety
of the food on our tables.
I am submitting this statement primarily to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, Senator Kohl, our home state senator, Senator Richard Durbin,
and the rest of the subcommittee for your past support of the Center. I
also want to update you on the work the Center is performing with its
principal partner, the United States Food and Drug Administration
(``FDA''), through the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition (``CFSAN''). The Center supports the FDA in its mission to
ensure the safety of all food products other than meat and poultry. The
Center works with FDA to develop methods to detect and prevent life
threatening pathogens from contaminating our nation's food supply. The
recent deadly outbreak of Listeria that killed 20 people emphasizes the
importance of food safety. Although not directly involved with this
Listeria outbreak, as it involved processed meats, the Center routinely
conducts research and education programs to decrease the incidence of
Listeria, E.coli and Salmonella in other types of food.
The Center's collaboration between government, academia and the
food industry--to develop methods to detect and prevent contamination
of foods--is what makes the Center so unique. The Center was founded on
the belief that open communication among government regulators, the
scientific community and the food industry is the best way to establish
a current knowledge base for food safety and for ensuring compliance
with FDA regulations. This makes the Center not only a laboratory for
scientific research. It is also makes the Center a laboratory in public
policy. It is a laboratory where technologies for safer foods are
transferred to the private sector, where food safety standards are
defined and improved and where the ``regulated'' work with the
``regulators'' in a non-adversarial setting. Indeed, a recent National
Academy of Sciences report, Ensuring Safe Food, lists this type of
collaboration as essential for an effective federal food safety system.
IIT manages the Center. Our on-site Director is Charles Sizer,
Ph.D., a highly regarded food scientist with years of experience in
private industry and academia. I oversee the Center from IIT's Main
Campus. I take great pride in the fact that I helped create the Center
eleven years ago, in 1988. We started with a grant of $3.7 million from
the FDA and a gift of a pilot plant and five buildings from Corn
Products International in Summit-Argo. Since then, we have had
``Cooperative Agreements'' with the FDA through which we have operated
the Center. The effectiveness of this concept has made for a satisfying
long-term relationship for both IIT and me. This public-private
partnership will be even more successful with the new FDA Commissioner,
Dr. Jane Henney. Dr. Henney recently visited the Center. We were
impressed by her commitment and interest in food safety.
Most of the Center's research on food safety has been incorporated
as part of the Clinton Administration's Food Safety Initiative. The
Center presently has 18 of its own food science researchers working
along side scientists from the FDA's Division of Food Processing and
Packaging, which reports to Joseph A. Levitt, Director of CFSAN in
Washington, D.C. NCFST and FDA scientists use the Center's facilities
and laboratories to conduct their research side by side with private
industry scientists.
The Center receives $2 million annually from the FDA. The Center
uses this funding for the salaries and expenses of its own food
scientists, the operation of laboratories and scientific equipment and
the maintenance of its buildings and facilities. Those facilities
include a ``pilot plant'' in which the Center has a ``pathogen
containment'' laboratory for validating commercial-scale food
processing equipment. The Center's budget includes another $1.5 million
from corporate members, outside grants, and program income.
Presently, 47 food industry companies are members of the Center,
including Kraft Foods, Inc., Corn Products, Inc., Bestfoods, Inc.,
General Mills, Inc., FMC Corporation, and Quaker Oats. Representatives
of member companies serve with representatives of the FDA and academia
on committees that direct the Center's activities, including selection
and oversight of research projects. The research projects provide
information for the FDA to use as it makes its regulatory decisions.
This collaboration has resulted in cutting edge research and
development in food safety. The NCFST's accomplishments include the
following:
(1) Developed a test for rapidly detecting E. coli O157:H7 in
foods. This procedure is currently being used in food plants to improve
product safety;
(2) Established a pilot-scale pathogen containment laboratory for
testing commercial-size food processing systems. This laboratory has
the actual process operations to demonstrate the inactivation of
pathogens like Salmonella and Listeria;
(3) Organized a Sprout Safety Task Force with the International
Sprout Growers Association to develop techniques for improving the
safety of alfalfa sprouts. (The American Medical Association recently
declared alfalfa sprouts ``high risk'' for Salmonella poisoning.);
(4) Conducted industry-wide research to develop protocols for the
safe use of recycled packaging material;
(5) Conducted a workshop resulting in the establishment of
guidelines for a new process to eliminate pathogens in liquid foods
containing particles such as soups and stews;
(6) Formed a Task Force of 20 leading industrial partners to obtain
approval of specific polymer packages to be used with irradiated foods.
These packages will be used to protect red meats and poultry from
contamination after they have been irradiated;
(7) Assisted industry in establishing the criteria for the safe
processing of aseptically processed entrees in convenient packages.
Aseptically processed foods provide the highest level of safety for
convenience foods and home meal replacements;
(8) Contributed to the development of a high pressure process to
make raw oysters safe to eat by eliminating Vibrio vulnificus bacteria;
and
(9) Developed high pressure and ultra-violet light processes to
kill pathogens in fresh fruit juices.
We believe these accomplishments are only a preview of the Center's
future potential. We are proud to be part of the Administration's
``Food Safety Initiative'' that will help us maximize our potential. As
part of that initiative, the Administration is proposing an additional
$75 million in its fiscal year 2000 budget. The FDA would receive $30
million of that, $3.7 million of which would go to accelerating food
safety research.
In the future, the Center will work with its government and
industry partners to obtain more commercial size food equipment so that
its research continues to produce practical and realistic benefits. The
Center will also expand its outreach and collaboration with the food
industry. For example, the Center will interact more with small-to-
medium sized food companies. Many small food processors and packagers
do not have the resources to address the complex technical and
regulatory issues associated with food safety. The smaller enterprises
desperately need to leverage the Center's knowledge and facilities to
test the integrity of their processes. The Center will also continue
implementation of a unique new membership category called ``Task Force
Member.'' This new membership will allow the Center to rapidly mobilize
industry resources to respond to public health hazards. A ``Task
Force'' participant becomes a temporary member of the Center for the
duration of the project. Resources for the project are raised by the
Task Force and funds are allocated by ``Task Force'' members. This
alliance exemplifies the Center's effort to bring government, academia
and private industry together to respond rapidly to the causes of food
borne outbreaks.
Mr. Chairman, the National Center for Food Safety and Technology
hopes that it can continue to contribute to the integrity of the
nation's food supply. Commissioner Henney, CFSAN Director Levitt and
their FDA colleagues give us reason for that hope. Our industry members
also give us reason for optimism. With your leadership and support, and
that of Senator Kohl's and Senator Durbin's, the National Center for
Food Safety and Technology will become an example to other federal
agencies of how limited federal monies can be spent with maximum
benefit to the taxpayers. It will become an example of how cooperation,
rather than contest, can produce the maximum benefit to the public
health.
Thank you again for the opportunity to submit this testimony for
the record.
______
Prepared Statement of the Illinois Soybean Association
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Agriculture, Rural
Development, FDA, and Related Agencies Subcommittee: We represent the
Illinois Soybean Association, an organization of approximately 3,200
leading soybean farmers. Among other goals, we foster well-coordinated
public and private research leading to safe, nutritious, healthy,
affordable, and convenient soy products for consumers and sustainable
competitive advantage for the U.S. and Illinois soy industries.
We request that $3.5 million in federal funds be authorized to plan
and construct a Soybean Disease Biotechnology Research Center within
the National Soybean Research Laboratory (NSRL) located at the
University of Illinois. If federal funds are secured, the Illinois
Soybean Checkoff Board will contribute $500,000 in program support
initially and entertain proposals for additional support. We will ask
the University of Illinois to provide approximately 8000 square feet of
shell space within the building housing the National Soybean Research
Laboratory and will seek $500,000 in state funds to equip the Center.
We will also ask the University to provide access to utilities and
connections for a big-containment greenhouse proposed as part of the
Center and, henceforth, to staff, operate, and maintain the Center in
support of soybean disease biotechnology research.
role of the center
The Soybean Disease Biotechnology Research Center will be the first
line of defense against major soybean diseases that threaten the U.S.
soybean industry, and to programmatically attack current disease
problems, such as the soybean cyst nematode (SCN). It will provide
outstanding research talent and state-of-the-art facilities, equipment,
and support services for cutting-edge biotechnology research on major
soybean diseases. The Center will bring the power of the new sciences
of structural, comparative, and functional genomics and genetic
transformation to bear on SCN and other current and potential disease
threats, including major diseases not yet in the U.S., such as soybean
rust.
Center researchers will identify and create new and improved
mechanisms of disease escape, tolerance, and resistance. The aim is to
protect the soybean crop and increase its profitability throughout the
industry. Genetic disease control mechanisms in the germplasm and
genetic stocks of the National Soybean Germplasm Collection, located at
the University of Illinois, will be a unique, readily accessible
resource for the Center. In addition, genetic mechanisms of escape,
resistance, and tolerance in other species will be identified and
transferred to the soybean. Accordingly, highly effective disease
control genes can be used for ``stacking'' in soybean varieties. This
will assure the realization of gains from other genetic improvements,
such as unique quality traits.
setting for soybean disease biotechnology research
Researchers in the Soybean Disease Biotechnology Research Center
will use the support services of the University of Illinois' new Keck
Center for Comparative and Functional Genomics, with its high
throughput genetic sequencing and unequaled bioinformatics
capabilities. This will greatly facilitate evaluation of materials in
the National Soybean Germplasm Collection. Researchers will also have
ready access to the University of Illinois Biotechnology Center, which
provides recombinant DNA and protein science services, immunological
resources, flow cytometry, high capacity transgenic plant production,
and cell and tissue culture, among other valuable support services.
There will be direct access to superb conventional greenhouse and
controlled environment facilities in adjacent, connected structures. As
part of this project, a big-containment greenhouse will be constructed
specifically to provide the levels of isolation and protection required
for sophisticated disease biotechnology research. An elaborate system
of research farms will be available for testing new developments in a
wide range of soil, climatic, and socio-economic conditions.
The Center will complement and connect with the new St. Louis-
headquartered Danforth Plant Science Center and participate in the
Illinois Missouri Biotechnology Alliance. By virtue of the Center's
location within the federal-state-industry-sponsored NSRL, work at the
Center will be strategically integrated with other public and private
efforts to conceive, plan, and implement soybean production and
marketing systems of the future. This will foster interdisciplinary and
cross-functional efforts that speed development and adoption of new
technology and gain competitive advantage for the U.S. soybean
industry.
NSRL is a major interface between the soybean industry, as
represented by state and national soybean organizations and checkoff
boards, and university research and education programs. NSRL was
created by a USDA special grant of $5 million, which was used to
renovate 30,000 square feet of space in a University of Illinois
building and provide facilities for NSRL research and education
programs. NSRL is directed by a Chair Professor of Agricultural
Strategy, the only so-named professorship in the nation. The Chair
position was endowed by the soybean industry, which contributes $40 to
$80 million annually to soybean research.
NSRL fosters strategic public/private alliances within the soybean
industry and with other commodity-based industries. It achieves
extraordinary levels of communication, coordination, and integration of
publicly and privately financed research and educational programs
across the nation. As developer of STRATSOY, the most sophisticated and
useful commodity website, NSRL provided the soybean industry with a
powerful tool for uniting its far-flung checkoff funded programs,
disseminating information, eliminating redundancy, sharpening strategic
focus, and increasing the return on both public and private investment
in soy research.
Its location within NSRL will assure that research in the Soybean
Disease Biotechnology Research Center will fully complement and benefit
from other soy research programs across the nation and world. It will
assure that the results of fundamental soybean disease biotechnology
research are quickly translated into practical technology, useful
information, and sustainable competitive advantage for the industry.
The NSRL mission of increasing the volume of profitable, sustainable
business in the soy industry will become the mission of the Soybean
Disease Biotechnology Research Center.
This is an excellent time to establish the proposed Center because
the University is initiating its Postgenomic Biotechnology Program in
fiscal year 2000. A multi-million investment of state funds will
provide 25 new biotechnology positions in functional genomics,
bioinformatics, developmental biology, microanalytic systems, and
cellular and molecular bioengineering. Within this framework, new
positions in plant disease biotechnology will be filled with
outstanding scientist/educators who already have established impressive
track records. Under this program, leading biotechnology scientists
will be recruited for the Soybean Disease Biotechnology Research
Center.
goals of the center
The Soybean Disease Biotechnology Research Center will:
1. Provide a superb setting for cutting-edge soybean disease
biotechnology research.
2. Foster and support the very best soybean disease biotechnology
research team in the world.
3. Assure that effective soybean disease escape, resistance, and
tolerance genes are available for ``stacking'' in top U.S. soybean
varieties.
4. Eliminate the soybean cyst nematode as a major threat to the
U.S. soybean industry and prevent harm from introduction of foreign
disease organisms.
5. Enable molecular soybean pathology research through which the
Illinois and U.S. soybean industries will achieve and maintain
preeminence in global and domestic markets for soybeans and soybean
products.
6. Enable the U.S. soy industry to capture proprietary benefits
from soybean biotechnology research and other research conducted all
over the world.
7. Enhance the global and strategic significance of the National
Soybean Research Laboratory and empower its scientists, thus maximizing
its benefits for the nation.
creating the soybean disease biotechnology center
The Soybean Disease Biotechnology Research Center will be created
by extensively remodeling approximately 8000 square feet of currently
undeveloped space within the NSRL. This will provide elaborate
laboratories, a bio-containment greenhouse in the adjacent greenhouse
complex, instrument rooms, coldrooms, other workrooms, support
facilities, and offices dedicated to soybean disease biotechnology
research. To the extent feasible, physical connections will be
established between the NSRL and the greenhouse complex linking the
Soybean Disease Biotechnology Center to interconnected buildings
housing the Keck Center, Biotechnology Center, and the University of
Illinois' existing food and agriculture biotechnology research on
animals, microbes, and other plants.
summary
We request that $3.5 million be authorized to plan and construct a
Soybean Disease Biotechnology Center within the National Soybean
Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois.
______
Prepared Statement of the State of Illinois
As you begin to finalize your appropriations priorities for fiscal
year 2000, I am submitting for your review, the enclosed book of
appropriations goals and requests for the State of Illinois. I am
hopeful that these requests can be included and accommodated in the
upcoming appropriations process.
These items reflect the input of the various state agencies,
cities, and counties of Illinois. As you will see in the enclosed
briefing book, the appropriations requests are organized by the
appropriate subcommittee. In addition, these requests include both
ongoing federal funding needs and new funding requests.
For additional information about these requests, please call any
member of my DC staff at 624-7760. Thank you very much for giving these
requests your fullest consideration and your enthusiastic support.
Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies
agriculture
Special supplemental nutrition program for WIC
Request: Support the Administration's proposed increase in the
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program of $281 million.
This will amount to an additional $15 million for Illinois.
Farmer's market nutrition program (FMNP) for WIC
Request: Support funding for FMNP at the requested level of $20
million.
This is an increase of $5 million over the fiscal year 1999
appropriation. This will expand the reach of FMNP to many Illinois
communities. The current regulations require a 30 percent state match
of the total award. The Illinois Department of Human Services supports
changing the match to 30 percent of the administrative costs.
Infant formula rebate funds
Request: Support language that would grant states the flexibility
to use a portion of the infant formula rebate funds for infrastructure
needs such as clinic expansion.
Illinois currently receives $55 million annually in infant formula
rebate funds.
Food stamp quality control system
Request: Support language that would change Food Stamp regulations
to allow standards to be adopted that would judge and compare state
performance more effectively than the current single measure for
payment accuracy.
Under the current regulations, samples are taken in a single month
to determine the correct food stamp allotment. Sanctions are levied if
the state's payment error rate exceeds the average of all other states.
This could result in millions of dollars in sanctions.
National corn to ethanol research pilot plant (NCERPP)
Request: Support funding of $14 million for the National Corn to
Ethanol Research Pilot Plant (NCERPP) in the fiscal year 2000
Agriculture Appropriations bill.
The State of Illinois has appropriated $6 million for construction
of the NCERPP at Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville. The total
cost of constructing the project is estimated at $20 million. The cost
of operating the facility will be borne by industry and university
research conducted at the plant.
Congress appropriated $2 million for the Agriculture Research
Service (ARS) for design work in the fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year
1997 budgets.
Pseudorabies swine slaughter
Request: Support full funding for Animal Plant and Health
Inspection Service (APHIS). Illinois supports an appropriation of
$75,000 from APHIS to institute a pseudorabies swine slaughter
surveillance collection point at Johnsonville Packing, Momence,
Illinois. The Administration is planning to cut funding for APHIS by
$3.1 million for fiscal year 2000.
Extrapolating from a recent survey of an average four-week kill,
approximately 14,000 animals are processed at this plant every month.
Of this kill, 32 percent of the swine were traced back to Illinois, 18
percent to Iowa, and 17\1/2\ percent to Indiana. The cost of collecting
the backtagged animals at this plant has been estimated to be $20,000,
calculating 70 cent/sample. The laboratory testing would cost $55,000,
making the total expenditure $75,000 to collect at the Momence Plant.
This figure does not include shipping cost.
Currently, Illinois is struggling to acquire an adequate number of
slaughter surveillance samples to maintain the compliance established
by the National Program Standards. Last year, first point testing was
conducted at the end of the year to achieve the required numbers. It
has been established that slaughter surveillance of cull sows and boars
is the superior method of determining the PRV status in herds at the
grassroots level.
Failure to collect the needed number of surveillance samples will
result in the need to initiate more costly methods of swine
surveillance (i.e. first point testing or down the road testing). Swine
producers from Illinois and neighboring states would benefit from the
collection.
Voluntary Johne's disease herd certification program
Request: Support full funding for Animal Plant and Health
Inspection Service (APHIS).
Illinois supports a one-time appropriation from APHIS for $200,000
for the purpose of defraying the cost to producers wishing to enroll in
the Voluntary Johne's Disease Herd Certification Program. This program
allows a producer to do testing for the presence of Mycobacterium
paratuberculosis.
Johne's is an incurable wasting disease of cattle, sheep, goats and
cervidae, contracted through direct contact with infected animals.
Animals are generally infected at a young age, but may not exhibit
signs of the disease until they are four or five years of age. It has
been estimated that economic losses can amount to $227 per cow. A
recent National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) sampling of
Illinois dairy cows indicated a prevalence of at least 10 percent in
the cull cows from the dairy herds tested.
A positive serology test normally indicates the animal has Johne's
Disease, at a lab cost of $5.00. To do a whole-herd test for a 100-cow
operation, it would cost a producer $500 in laboratory costs alone. (A
more accurate, time-consuming confirmatory test may also be run
following a positive serum test, with a lab cost of about $7.00.) Both
tests are run by the Illinois Department of Agriculture's two animal
diagnostic laboratories at Centralia and Galesburg, and the diagnostic
laboratory at the University of Illinois College of Veterinary
Medicine.
There are approximately 1,750 dairy farm families, 26,000 beef
producers, and 3,100 sheep and lamb producers in Illinois. We have
about 475,000 beef cows, 145,000 milk cows, 79,000 sheep and lambs, and
an undetermined number of goat and cervid herds, which would qualify in
this voluntary program.
Under this proposed program, the producer would still be
responsible for veterinary costs associated with acquiring the samples.
This funding would offset the costs of the testing to the producer and
encourage enrollment in this program. Animals certified under this
program should be worth more money. Producers purchasing these animals
would have a high degree of certainty the animals are free of Johne's
Disease.
Swine producer laboratory testing
Request: Support full funding for Animal Plant and Health
Inspection Service (APHIS). Illinois supports a one-time appropriation
from APHIS for $100,000 to defray the cost for swine producers
conducting laboratory testing necessary to diagnose or maintain the
health of their swine herds.
With the current low prices for hogs, many producers are either
foregoing diagnostic or preventative health measures in an effort to
obtain some profit from their animals. Maintaining a healthy swine herd
helps the producer produce his product in a more efficient manner.
Providing this assistance would insure that animals that are
unhealthful and diseased would have access to proper diagnosis and
eliminate potential disease situations arising in the herd and possible
spread within the swine industry. In 1997, Illinois produced 1.82
billion pounds of pork, placing it fourth in US hog production. The
number of hog producers in Illinois continues to drop: 8,800 hog farms
in 1996; 7,500 hog farms in 1997; and 7,000 hog farms in 1998.
APHIS--Gypsy Moth ``Slow the Spread'' program
Request: Support fiscal year 1999 funding levels to provide
Illinois with $200,000 for the APHIS program.
The Illinois Department of Agriculture, under authorities provided
in the Insect Pest and Plant Disease Act, annually cooperates with
APHIS and various units of local and county government to identify and
control the Gypsy Moth in Illinois. The annual program includes both
the identification of gypsy moth infestations as well as a treatment
control program. In the past, no funding has been transferred between
agencies. In the trapping (identification) program, the APHIS has
concentrated on the Chicago Metropolitan area and the Illinois
Department of Agriculture has worked in the balance of the state. Once
an area is identified as being in need of a treatment control, the
APHIS has provided the biological pesticide, the local unit of
government has provided funding for the applicator and the Illinois
Department of Agriculture has provided overall project oversight and
coordination. In fiscal year 1999, the APHIS provided funding to states
for an expansion of the trapping (identification) program to attempt to
further reduce the spread of the insect.
Invasive species program
Request: Support the Administration's proposed $16 million increase
to U.S. Department of Agriculture programs intended to combat invasive
species (plants and animals non-indigenous to the U.S.) which are
negatively impacting many areas of the nation.
The recent detection and eradication efforts associated with the
Asian long-horned beetle in Chicago and New York are examples of the
types of programs to be supported through this new initiative. No
further information is available relative to the possible transfer of
funds to states at this time. However, this initiative could have a
significant impact of the Illinois Department of Agriculture's
administration of the Insect Pest and Plant Disease Act as well as the
Illinois Nursery Industry.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) budget shortfall due to
section 11 cap
Request: Support for Amendment Number 115 to S. 544 Supplemental
Appropriations. This amendment provides $28 million in additional
funding under the Section 11 cap to deal with the States (Illinois is
one) where NRCS has severe budget shortfalls for fiscal year 1999 which
will seriously impact the delivery of Farm Bill Programs.
In Illinois, the NRCS has a budget deficit of $1.8 million in
fiscal year 1999. If Amendment 115 to S.544 does not pass, the state
NRCS will furlough all Illinois NRCS employees at least 35 days. This
will have a devastating impact on all Illinois conservation and
watershed programs. It will directly impact 1,825 program applications,
480 Illinois conservation projects, 1,257 conservation and resource
plans and over 401,100 rural and urban Illinois constituents. There is
no State funded Agency or entity who can fill the void in the technical
assistance that will be lost. No other federal agency can deliver the
local technical assistance that NRCS has provided for in each county of
the State. NRCS has worked very closely with the Soil and Water
Conservation Districts (SWCDs) to help maintain and improve natural
resources in every county. The State has committed $48 million dollars
to the Illinois River Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)
which will be severely hampered if NRCS furloughs employees. All other
conservation and watershed programs statewide will also be hampered.
Illinois groundwater consortium
Request: Illinois supports $3,000,000 for the Department of
Agriculture to restore and expand funding for the Illinois Groundwater
Consortium (IGC).
Funding for the Consortium was not included in the fiscal year 1999
USDA budget. Restoration and an increase to the requested level in
fiscal year 2000 will enable the Consortium to continue and expand
research and outreach programs that provide a scientific base for
management and regulatory decisions on the use and protection of water
and land resources.
In 1990, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale joined forces
with Illinois State Geological Survey, Illinois State Water Survey,
Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, University of Illinois
Cooperative Extension Service, and the University of Illinois
Agricultural Experiment Station to form the Illinois Groundwater
Consortium. From direct appropriations in the USDA budget for 8 years,
the IGC awarded competitively selected grants to support collaborative
and interdisciplinary research and outreach projects focused on
scientific and policy issues relating to groundwater protection, fate
and transport of agricultural chemicals, and the impacts of natural
disasters (e.g., flooding) on surface- and ground-water, soils, and
biodiversity. The members of the consortium have provided significant
resources to the IGC from their own appropriations so that the state's
contribution has approximately equaled the annual federal
appropriations. It is expected that the match will continue.
Throughout its history, the IGC has primarily funded research
seeking answers to questions raised by public policy makers working on
land use and water protection issues. Results of the work of the
Consortium have impacts statewide. The members of the Illinois
Groundwater Consortium are uniquely positioned to conduct
investigations on issues of economic, ecological and political
importance to all the people of Illinois.
Analyses of environmental restoration programs for the Illinois River
Request: Illinois supports a fiscal year 2000 appropriation of
$1,500,000 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for analyses of
environmental restoration programs for the Illinois River. The outyear
appropriation request is $1,500,000 per year for 7 years.
The Illinois River Conservation Reserve Program (CREP) is a $500
million, 15-year joint federal and state initiative to restore the
Illinois River watershed. The proposed appropriation will fund
monitoring and scientific assessment of the land management benefits of
CREP, leading to the development of sound land management strategies
that will improve the efficiency of CREP and other future programs.
These actions will jointly benefit agricultural production and water
quality in Illinois, and promote the overall health of the Illinois
River's ecosystem and the 11 million residents of its watershed. The
benefits would be to demonstrate the effectiveness of a $500 million
program. State matching funds: $158,700 (fiscal year 2000)
Agriculture research service USDA recordkeeping cooperative agreement
Request: Support the fiscal year 1999 level of funding to promote
$13 million to Illinois. The Illinois Department of Agriculture
annually enters into a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) to monitor
certified private pesticide applicator's restricted-use pesticide
recordkeeping. The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade (FACT)
Act of 1990, otherwise known as the 1990 Farm Bill, required the
Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) to require certified private
applicators to maintain records regarding the use of federally
restricted use pesticides. Under the cooperative agreement, the
Illinois Department of Agriculture annually conducts approximately 188
randomly-selected applicator records checks to ensure compliance with
these requirements.
Agriculture Research Service--Greenhouse Facility at University of
Illinois
Request: Earmark $4.4 million for a Greenhouse Facility at Illinois
University
Funds will be used for the construction of a Greenhouse Facility at
the Urbana-Champaign campus. The facility will operate in support of
the Maize Genetics Stocks and National Soybean Germplasm collections
maintained at the University. Federal investment in biotechnology
research are important to the future of the food and agricultural
sectors and consumers in Illinois.
other issues and programs
Tobacco Recoupment
Request: Tobacco Agreement funds be distributed to the states
without HCFA claiming a share and with no limitations on the use of the
money.
Illinois will receive approximately $9.1 billion over 25 years from
the recent settlement with tobacco companies. Governor Ryan believes
that all of the funds should be utilized pursuant to discussions among
state and local elected public officials. To that end he supports
measures to prohibit the Secretary of HHS from recouping a portion of
the settlement and opposes any limitation placed on the use of the
money by the federal government.
The states accepted all of the risks and expense of this litigation
and the federal government choose not to participate, despite a direct
invitation to Attorney General Reno.
Advocates for a federal share of these funds justify their claim on
federal Medicaid payments. However, the settlement agreement does not
mention Medicaid and many states did not employ the Medicaid expense
argument as part of their cause of action. Generally, state causes of
action were predicated on consumer protection, fraud, racketeering,
antitrust violations and health related costs--only some of which are
Medicaid.
In addition, the legislative intent of the Medicaid law provides
for recovery of overpayments to healthcare providers or to compensate
for fraud and abuse, and not to provide a basis for any such federal
claim.
Requiring states to spend some of these funds on programs such as
smoking cessation has been suggested. The settlement already requires
the tobacco industry to fund a charitable trust in the amount of $2.5
billion to conduct research about reducing smoking and creates a $1.45
billion national public education fund for tobacco cessation efforts.
In Additional the settlement has many provisions, which should reduce,
smoking such as bans on advertising designed to appeal to you adults.
The U.S. Senate-passed Supplemental includes the provisions desired
by Illinois.
Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
Request: Raise the allotted amount of LIHTC to $1.75 per capita
from its current level of $1.25 per capita and index it for inflation.
Illinois will gain $6 million in increased tax credits. The LIHTC
program was established as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Tax
credits are awarded to developers of qualifying affordable housing
projects who then sell the tax credit to private investors to raise
equity for the development. The credit is used by the buyer as a
reduction in their tax liability for a ten year period after the
successful completion of the project. Over 90 percent of all affordable
housing in the United States is funded by the LIHTC program, including
30,000 units in Illinois alone. However, current demand for affordable
housing for senior citizens and working families exceeds our tax credit
resources by a 3 to 1 ratio. Since being codified, the per capita
allotment has not been increased, and as a result of inflation, has
lost approximately 45 percent of its original value.
______
Prepared Statement of the Illinois-Missouri Alliance for Agricultural
Biotechnology
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Senate Agriculture,
Rural Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee: Our testimony is
on behalf of the federally-funded project entitled the Illinois-
Missouri Alliance for Agricultural Biotechnology (IMBA). A special
grant of $1.3 million was provided to launch this effort in fiscal year
1995. Additional grants of $1.3 million in fiscal year 1996 and fiscal
year 1997, $1.2 million for fiscal year 1998, and $1.1 million for
fiscal year 1999 were provided. An innovative management plan was
developed, refined, approved by the Cooperative States Research,
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), and implemented. Updated
plans have been submitted to CSREES each year and approved. Several
important research and development projects are underway.
Request: In order to sustain, expand, and enhance this productive
and strategically essential program, we request that $3.0 million be
appropriated for IMBA for fiscal year 2000. The increased appropriation
will allow us to fund a larger proportion of the superb proposals being
submitted to IMBA. It will allow us to implement fully the unique, IMBA
performance-based management strategy, which addresses the major
concerns of stakeholders concerning management of federal competitive
grants programs. It will allow the program to go into continuous mode,
as explained below, rather than annual cycles, and fully implement the
``virtual'' research institute concept. An increased appropriation will
provide significant economies of scale and scope, thus
disproportionately increasing the funds directly available for
research. In addition, it will increase the annual leveraged
contributions from about $4 million to at least $9 million.
Needs and opportunities: It is now evident that the Illinois
Missouri Biotechnology Alliance is focused on the world's most
important agricultural problem/opportunity. Rapidly growing population,
urbanization, and affluence, especially in southeast Asia, are causing
a dramatic increase in the consumption of animal protein. These factors
are fostering unprecedented growth in large scale animal production
facilities and in global markets for animal products.
Corn and soybeans are superior economically, nutritionally, and for
logistical reasons to other grain crops for feeding almost all classes
of livestock, but especially swine, beef, dairy, poultry, and confined
fish. These classes of livestock are undergoing the most rapid increase
and inevitably will be produced in large scale, confinement facilities
around the world. With superior technology, Illinois, Missouri, and
surrounding corn belt states can be the principal suppliers not only of
corn and soybeans but also of livestock products and other value-added
products produced from corn and soybeans. To reap the potential
benefits, however, the U. S. will have to compete vigorously against
sophisticated producers, primarily in Latin America, for these emerging
markets.
Likewise, to keep the food situation from ravaging both
agricultural and natural environments around the world, it is
imperative that corn and soybean yield and quality, production
efficiency, and efficiency of conversion into animal products and other
high quality food and non-food products be increased at rates never
achieved before. These are principal objectives of IMBA.
Mission, objectives, and strategy: The mission of the IMBA is to
increase the volume of profitable business in the U. S. food and
agriculture sector by improving the diversity, quality, safety,
affordability, and convenience of products and services marketed by the
sector. The IMBA is accomplishing this mission by supporting cutting-
edge biotechnology research conducted as part of strategically sound,
competitively funded, research and development projects organized
around clearly defined, practical objectives.
A steering committee made up of Roger Mitchell, Dean of the
University of Missouri College of Agriculture, Food, and Natural
Resources; Frank Stokes, Director of Policy and Planning, Monsanto
Company; James McGuire, Dean of the Southern Illinois University
College of Agriculture; and Don Holt, then Director of Research,
University of Illinois College of Agriculture, prepared the original
management plan for IMBA. The plan was implemented to create and
coordinate a market-driven, mission-linked, practical-goal-focused
research and development program characterized by public/private
cooperation. The plan is aligned with the performance-based management
philosophy of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
When the management plan is approved each year, program funds are
transferred to the Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station, which
serves as repository until the funds are dispersed within the program.
To avoid spreading the IMBA research investment too thinly, we limited
the practical scope of the program to the corn and soybean industries;
geographical scope to Illinois, Missouri, and other Midwestern states;
and disciplinary scope to biotechnology.
Day-to-day operations of IMBA are managed by a Program Manager, Dr.
Bruce Bullock, Professor of Agricultural Economics, University of
Missouri, and former Director of the Missouri Agricultural Experiment
Station. The University of Illinois contracts with the University of
Missouri-Columbia for Dr. Bullock's services. An Executive Committee is
made up of Program Manager Bullock, new Missouri Dean Thomas Payne,
Dean McGuire, new Illinois Associate Dean for Research Steven Pueppke,
and Senior Associate Dean Holt, who serves as principal investigator on
the project. The Executive Committee oversees the program and approves
all major expenditures of IMBA funds.
IMBA-funded biotechnology research grants are awarded
competitively, based on relevance to IMBA objectives, soundness of the
proposed research and development strategy, and scientific merit.
Proposals are evaluated by both scientific peers and industry experts
to assure that the best science and the best business strategies are
brought to bear on agricultural problems and opportunities that are
important to the region. The Program Manager works with the Executive
Committee to design and develop a biotechnology research investment
portfolio that addresses the following objectives.
1. Develop new and improved uses for corn and soybeans and products
that can be manufactured profitably from them.
2. Increase the value of corn and soybeans as raw materials for
manufacturing food, feed, fiber, fuel, and chemical feedstocks.
3. Lower the unit cost of producing, processing, distributing,
retailing, and utilizing corn, soybeans, and products manufactured from
them.
4. Maximize positive effects and minimize negative effects of the
corn and soybean industries on the environment.
5. Conserve non-renewable resources consumed in the corn and
soybean industries.
In designing the IMBA research portfolio, the Executive Committee
defines and seeks an appropriate balance among the above objectives,
among projects with varying degrees of uncertainty and risk, and among
objectives that can be achieved in relatively short and long periods of
time. On the high risk side, provision is made for some funding of
promising but unproven scientists with good ideas.
Innovative management: The IMBA Management Plan includes several
innovations that differentiate IMBA from other major public
agricultural research grant programs. IMBA proposals are solicited and
projects organized around desired practical outcomes. Success is
measured in terms of achieving practical objectives. Only biotechnology
research projects that are fully integrated into strategically sound
research and development projects are funded. Participating
institutions, agencies, and private firms are expected to share project
costs through direct and in-kind contributions. It appears that public
and private direct and in-kind matching contributions will continue to
exceed the IMBA investment by a factor of two or more.
We intend to operate the program in continuous, parallel mode
rather than in linear, stepwise sequences, repeated yearly. This
approach should speed the R&D process while reducing cost. Information
technology is being employed to bring an exceptional level of
communication and coordination to each project. Each IMBA project
involves public/private cooperation to achieve a useful practical
outcome. The IMBA program manager is expected to take a more hands-on
approach to research coordination than the usual grants manager.
Achievements of IMBA research: IMBA-supported researchers
accomplished the following during the past year: (1) refined
genetically engineered baculovirus insecticides (produced in earlier
IMBA work) by adding additional insect-specific toxins that increased
virulence against corn borer and several other species of harmful
insects. These viruses offer backup and alternatives to the bt
approach; (2) developed and are patenting a unique genetic
transformation process that increases lysine in corn proteins, thus
markedly increasing corn protein quality. Two companies are seeking
access to this technology; (3) produced gene constructs that should
enable scientists and plant breeders to modify soybean oil quantity and
quality at will so as to emulate desirable characteristics of competing
oils, and, at the same time, studied market channels to see where it
would be most profitable to market these modified soybeans and
resulting products; (4) successfully transformed soybean plants, using
the unique approach that will be used to introduce and target heat-
stable phytase genes discovered in earlier IMBA work. Successful
introduction of phytase genes to crop plants and use of heat-stable
phytase in processing will reduce the cost of phosphate supplementation
of animal rations and greatly reduce the passage of plant phosphate
through animals into water sources, where it is a major pollutant.
In projects launched more recently, scientists accomplished the
following; (1) through genetic transformation, produced corn hybrids
with increased nitrogen use efficiency, 10 percent greater grain yield,
and 10 percent greater biomass yield, measured in field experiments. As
a side benefit, the GDH (glutamate dehydrogenase) gene incorporated
into inbreds used to produce these superior plants was found to enhance
considerably the so-called Liberty-Link herbicide resistance. The GDH
gene promises to reduce the environmental impact of corn production by
enabling the corn plant to thrive on the ammonium rather than the
nitrate form of nitrogen. Garst and Monsanto tests of GDH-transformed
corn were promising; (2) in a project to introduce a new mechanism of
resistance to the most serious pest of soybeans, the cyst nematode,
scientists isolated a gene that is being patented. The details are
confidential at this point, but this gene plays an important role in
plant development and may be manipulated to benefit U.S. agriculture.
In addition, IMBA supported scientists: (3) developed the first
databases of genes regulated by calorie level in foods; specific
nutrients, such as lipids; and non-nutritive dietary chemicals, such as
pytochemicals. With knowledge of these genes, it should be possible to
identify each individual's unique food-related genetic profile,
anticipate certain responses to food, and adjust eating habits
accordingly. These tests will also facilitate treatment of various
chronic and acute food-related disorders, including obesity, some forms
of cancer, and heart disease. The food-related gene database will
permit more accurate interpretation of toxological, drug, and disease
gene expression experiments. Results of this work are being
commercialized by a new firm, Electropharmacolocy, Inc., which has
partnerships with major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.
During the past year, an IMBA-funded group produced an online
journal, AgBioForum, two issues of which are already on the web. The
journal addresses important biotechnology issues such as mergers and
acquisitions within the biotechnology industry and European resistance
to genetically modified organisms. Response to this journal has far
exceeded expectations. Over 20,000 people from all over the world
accessed the journal and 600 became members of the journal association
in the first four months it was on the web.
The group that developed AgBioForum is also redesigning the IMBA
web page to increase its utility an important mechanism of
communication and coordination among biotechnologists. Besides
providing IMBA background, project lists, and requests for proposals,
the IMBA home page now contains over 100 ``hot links'' to the home
pages of other biotechnology-related institutions, agencies,
organizations, and firms. The IMBA home page will become the hub of a
``virtual'' research institute focused on IMBA objectives.
New projects underway include efforts to: (1) genetically engineer
corn to produce genistein, one of a class of phytochemicals thought to
prevent cancer and provide other health benefits; (2) develop an
automated system for screening large numbers of seed samples and
detecting and selecting superior resistance to soybean sudden death
syndrome, thus saving years of field testing, (3) Isolate apomixis
genes and transfer them to major crops, thus enabling ``permanent''
hybridization, in which the progeny of hybrids have the same genetic
makeup as parents. This would make it practical to save corn produced
on hybrid plants for seed; and (4) develop high oil, high oleic acid,
value-added corn hybrids.
Cooperators: Current cooperators in IMBA projects include the
Universities of Illinois and Missouri, Southern Illinois University,
Iowa State University, and the USDA-Agricultural Research Service group
at Woodward, Oklahoma. Private, non-profit cooperators include
Sapient's Institute and Northwestern University. Private sector
commercial firms cooperating or involved in negotiations include
Monsanto Company, Garst Seeds, Pioneer Hybrids, ADM-Growmark, Clarkson
Grain, Cargill, Dupont, Biosys, Zeneca Agrochemicals, Novartis,
DowElanco, GeneTech, Healthtech, and Electropharmacology, and others.
Each phase 1 project is generating potential new and improved projects.
Private firms are evaluating the commercial potential of each product
of IMBA research, and, in some cases, gearing up to produce these
products.
Summary: We believe IMBA projects constitute an outstanding
portfolio of promising research investments focused on the major
problems and opportunities associated with the U.S. corn and soybean
industries and the world food situation. Because of the economically
important subject matter being addressed by the Illinois-Missouri
Biotechnology Alliance, the unique capabilities of participating
institutions, and the innovative research management approach being
employed, we believe the project will continue to be unusually
productive and will generate an unusually high return on the federal
investment. This will be more than justify the $6.2 million
appropriated to date and the $3.0 million requested to continue the
project in fiscal year 2000.
______
Prepared Statement of the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies
natural resource conservation service (nrcs)
The Natural Resource Conservation Service has immense
responsibilities for implementing the conservation provisions of the
1985 Food Security Act (FSA), the 1990 Food, Agriculture, Conservation
and Trade (FACT) Act, and the Federal Agricultural Improvement and
Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996.
Technical Assistance.--The USDA publication ``Geography of Hope''
identifies that the need for general conservation technical assistance
for America's private landowner will continue to increase to 2002 and
beyond. Additionally, a fiscal year 1999 workload analysis indicated
the need for an additional $300 million for technical assistance. The
Association supports the $31 million requested increase in conservation
operations but is extremely concerned about the substitution of new
initiatives without adequate present funding levels to meet existing
needs. The Association is further strongly concerned about the decrease
of 1,055 field level staff when all indicators point to the need for
more field level staff to provide technical assistance required for
existing programs as well as the Administration's proposed new
initiatives.
In addition to increasing general (non-programmatic) technical
assistance, increased technical assistance funds are needed to
implement increasingly popular provisions of the 1996 FAIR Act. The
budget for the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program (WHIP), and the Farmland Protection Program (FPP)
all include the customary 19 percent to 20 percent for technical
assistance. The Association strongly supports this level of funding
provided to ensure that optimum agriculture and natural resource
benefits will accrue from these programs. Notably absent from the list
of programs provided adequate levels of technical assistance is the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). The proposed fiscal
year 2000 budget raises EQIP from $200 million to $300 million, which
the Association applauds. It is not clear, however, that additional
funds are available to provide the required technical assistance to a
field level program with a 50 percent increase. Some Programs (CRP,
WRP, CFO and FPP) have a technical assistance cap set by Section 11 of
the CCC Charter Act at the 1995 spending level. No such constraint
exists on EQIP. The Association therefore strongly urges the
restoration of the customary 19 percent for technical assistance on
EQIP.
State Technical Committees (STC).--The 1990 FACT Act required that
State Technical Committees (STC) be established to facilitate
interagency cooperation and coordination of technical guidelines for
the conservation programs. Further, the USDA 1995 Reorganization Act
specifically exempted the STC from the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA). The 1996 FAIR Act further added additional members to the STC.
Federal-State coordination is an ongoing normal function that is
required with or without a formal State Technical Committee. We commend
the strong efforts of NRCS that has ensured the establishment of the
State Technical Committees in each State with representation from the
respective State fish and wildlife agency.
Wetland Determination.--We believe the need for wetland
determination, certification, and mapping is great and urge NRCS to
proceed as soon as possible, under the guidance of the FAIR Act of
1996. The Association urges expeditious completion of the wetland
determinations required to implement the Swampbuster provisions of the
1985 FSA, 1990 FACT Act, and the 1996 FAIR Act as well as the FAIR Act
directed interagency cooperation, whereby NRCS assumed responsibility
for wetland designation for Section 404 (Clean Water Act) purposes on
farmland, including tree farms, rangelands, native pasture, and other
private lands used to produce or support the production of livestock.
The Association and individual states wish to continue to work with
NRCS to help achieve these goals.
Public Law 566.--The Association generally supports the small
watershed (Public Law 566) Projects. That support is based upon
continued emphasis on updated watershed planning and management. Such
efforts could utilize and expand upon existing Public Law 566 plans
examined in light of present day issues of wetland protection, water
quality enhancement and fish and wildlife habitat. The greatest
potential for these programs is for land treatment measures that retain
the water on the land, improve infiltration, improve water quantity and
quality, and provide fish and wildlife habitat. Structural and non-
structural land treatment activities require state and local matching
funds and are therefore leveraged to provide greater conservation
benefits for each federal dollar spent while promoting valuable
partnerships among states, local agencies, and other organizations.
National Buffer Initiative.--NRCS has implemented the initiative in
cooperation with industry and other partners. The Association is
pleased to be a sponsor of this innovative approach. The National
Academy of Sciences has found that buffer strips can reduce off-field
pollution by 70 percent, thus also contributing to meeting non-point
source remediation goals under the Clean Water Act. Unfortunately, the
level of sign-up by producers remains very low. NRCS has committed
special emphasis and a major effort to use the strip practices covered
by the continuous CRP sign-up in a more targeted fashion. Unlike the
large or whole field CRP retirements, buffer strips will require
extensive outreach plus the much more attractive rental rate now
available. The Association supports the allocation of increased funds
specifically for outreach to increase participation in the various
buffer strip practices. In addition, a review and evaluation of why
sign-up is low is strongly recommended. Increased activity on the
Buffer Initiative (continuous CRP sign-up) will require an increase in
field staff for technical assistance rather than a decrease as
proposed.
Forest Incentive Program (FIP).--The Forest Incentive Programs
(FIP) has multiple resource values for fish, forests, wildlife, clean
water and erosion control. The Association opposes the NRCS proposed
intention to drop FIP funding and strongly recommends that the fiscal
year 1999 level of $16.325 million be continued in the fiscal year 2000
budget.
Capped Programs.--The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), Wildlife
Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), and the Farmland Protection Program
(FPP) have all reached or are near authorized acreage or appropriation
caps. The Association continues to recognize and support the benefits
to our natural resources from these programs. We believe that due to
the overwhelming success, customer acceptance and public benefits of
these programs, they should be re-authorized. We applaud the NRCS
proposal to continue the WHIP at $10 million annually through 2002 with
legislation removing the appropriations can. The Association likewise
applauds the proposal to budget $27.5 million for continuation of the
Farmland Protection Program. The Association strongly suggests that
similar efforts be made to remove the 975,000 acre can on WRP before
that cap is reached in fiscal year 2000.
Program Delivery.--Continued erosion of field staff with the
additional staff reduction proposal in fiscal year 2000 is inconsistent
with the needs demonstrated by the recent workload analysis. That
analysis determined the need for $300 million for additional field
staff for implementation of existing programs. The addition of new
initiatives (worthy as they are) simply exacerbates the shortage of
sufficient field staff providing technical assistance.
The Association is very strongly concerned about this continued
erosion of technical staff and equally strongly recommends the addition
of $300 million in fiscal year 2000 to help meet this critical need for
technical assistance for effective program delivery of these vital
conservation programs.
farm service agency (fsa)
An adequately funded budget for the FSA is essential to implement
those conservation related programs and provisions under FSA
administration and/or in cooperation with NRCS as a result of passage
of the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996.
The Association strongly advocates that the budget include sufficient
personnel funding to service a very active program and strongly
believes that the continued erosion of personnel with the additional
proposed reduction of 752 employees is inconsistent with program needs.
FSA programs have tremendous quantifiable impacts on natural
resources, and yield substantial public as well as private benefits.
Building on the Provisions of the 1985 FSA the 1990 FACT Act, and the
1996 FAIR Act, the Association wants to ensure that each program
accomplishes the broadest Possible range of natural resource
objectives, and encourages close cooperation between FSA. NRCS and the
State Technical Committees in implementing the 1996 FAIR Act.
Flood Risk Reduction Program.--We believe this program has great
potential to mesh with the Army Corp of Engineers Rivers Ecosystem
Restoration and Flood Hazard Mitigation Project which is a part of the
President's Clean Water Initiative. We urge FSA to prepare regulations
and budget for implementation and make every effort to ensure that
language used in its easements and agreements provide a streamlined
basis for appropriate administration and are user-friendly. The
Association is disappointed that no budget is requested and urges that
a start-up budget be initiated to assist in the President's Clean Water
initiative.
Conservation Reserve Program.--The continued administration of CRP
under the guidelines of the 1996 FAIR Act is a very significant and
valuable commitment of USDA and the FSA. The Association applauds FSA
efforts to fund and extend CRP contracts for the multiple benefits that
accrue to the public as well as the landowner. The Association is
especially pleased to note the commitment to reach as soon as practical
and maintain the authorized 36 million acres in CRP. The Association
provides special thanks to FSA for the continuous CRP sign-up of high
value environmental practices and urges a special effort to advertise
and increase landowner participation.
The commitment of FSA to provide high wildlife benefits in CRP
contracts was most obvious in the 15th and 16th sign-up. The
Association applauds FSA in those efforts with their special emphasis
on native grass species and enlightened pine planting and management
strategies for maximum wildlife benefits.
wildlife services/animal and plant health inspection service (aphis)
The President's fiscal year 2000 proposed budget for the APHIS
Wildlife Services Operations is $28.15 million and reflects a $1.845
million decrease from the fiscal year 1999 level. For Methods
Development, the proposed budget is $9.59 million, a $776,000 reduction
from the fiscal year 1999 level. Additionally, if $655,000 in pay costs
is not appropriated for Operations and $194,000 for Methods
Development, this will amount to a further reduction for the program
from the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The Association continues to
be strongly concerned about the steady erosion of funding in the
President's budget request for Wildlife Services.
Wildlife Services (WS), a unit of APHIS, is the Federal agency
responsible for controlling wildlife damage to agriculture,
aquaculture, forest, range and other natural resources; for protecting
public health and safety through the control of wildlife-bone diseases;
and wildlife control at airports. Its control activities are based on
the principles of wildlife management and integrated damage management
and are carried out cooperatively with State fish and wildlife
agencies. Most APHIS-WS operational work is cost shared between the
Federal WS program, State and county governments, agricultural
producers, and other cooperators.
The cooperation and support of the public and the agricultural
community are essential to maintaining wildlife populations because
much of the Nation's wildlife exists on private agricultural lands. A
progressive wildlife damage management program which reduces the
adverse impact of wildlife populations is necessary to maintain the
support of the agrarian community and to counter increasing pressures
for indemnity due to wildlife damage.
Since Congress transferred the WS program to USDA in 1986, the
Association has worked closely with this program on numerous issues
critical to the State fish and wildlife agencies. The Association
commends the WS program for its continuing effort to be attuned to the
changing public values related to the Nation's wildlife, while
remaining responsive to emerging wildlife problems.
The Association is concerned with the Administration's proposed
reduction in both the WS Operations and Methods Development programs
for fiscal year 2000. Many wildlife populations such as mammalian
predators (e.g., coyotes) and mid-sized carnivores (e.g., raccoons),
some species of waterfowl (e.g., resident Canada geese, snow geese),
fish-eating birds (e.g., double-crested cormorants), white-tailed deer,
and beavers are at all-time highs. Human/wildlife conflicts and
requests for assistance are also at record numbers. The Association
strongly requests the WS appropriation be restored to at least the
fiscal year 1999 level to adequately address these increasing wildlife
overabundance problems.
The fiscal year 2000 budget also contains $875,000 in unfunded
Congressional directives regarding wolf control in the northern Rocky
Mountains and brown tree snake control efforts and the establishment of
a State office in Hawaii. The Association agrees that these are
priority issues and recommends that $875,000 for these directives be
Provided to WS to conduct these activities.
The wolf population in the upper Midwest is growing at a rapid
rate. Wolves have increased their range into new areas in Minnesota, as
well as Wisconsin and Michigan. The Association recognizes the impacts
of wolf recovery on the WS program both from the standpoint of the
workload increase from escalating complaints regarding predation, and
the reduction in WS' ability to provide damage protection to the
livestock industry from other predators in the wolf recovery area
because of restrictions on management tools. The Association supports
increase of $100,000 to adequately address wolf depredations in
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. The Association further supports an
increase of $150,000 to address livestock/wolf conflicts attributable
to wolf reintroduction in the intermountain west, and establishment of
a wolf/grizzly conflict resolution position in Wyoming.
We commend Congress for recognizing the need for wildlife damage
research when they appropriated funds to begin construction several
years ago on what has become the National Wildlife Research Center
located in Ft. Collins, Colorado. This state-of-the-art facility is the
only one of its kind in the entire world devoted exclusively to the
identification and development of effective wildlife damage control
methods. The WS research facility places a significant emphasis on non-
lethal methods development. The Association supports the effort to
develop more socially acceptable wildlife damage management methods and
recommends an increase of $800,000 to the WS program to effectively
address this area.
The Association strongly supports the request for $450,000 in
fiscal year 2000 to continue the trap testing begun in fiscal year 1999
to support the U.S. agreement with the European Union. These funds are
critical to fulfilling the agreement to identify and develop the most
humane possible traps practicable for taking furbearing animals. As
many of these species are overabundant relative to historic conditions
(e.g., coyotes, raccoons), this effort is supportive of important
wildlife management as well as economic and trade issues.
The Association recognizes the importance of aircraft to WS for
both predator control and the distribution of oral vaccine baits for
rabies control projects and we commend Congress for providing $1.2
million in fiscal year 1999 to WS to begin implementing improved safety
procedures for their aerial operations. However, no funding was
proposed in the fiscal year 2000 budget to continue this effort, and
the Association recommends that a similar (to fiscal year 1999) amount
of funding be provided to address this critical area of the program.
The Association supports the increased emphasis on aircraft/
wildlife hazards, but opposes the redirection of funds from other
critical needs toward this problem. Therefore, the Association instead
recommends the addition of $1.2 million to WS' budget to address this
important problem.
The Association is concerned with recent attempts by various
organizations and individuals in the past several years to
significantly reduce WS' funding for predator control activities in the
western United States. The Association opposes attempts to reduce the
WS budget through broad scale or across-the-board funding cuts. Instead
the Association encourages WS to continue cooperation through
coordinated predator management agreements with western state partners
in order to ensure funding and management activities are directed
towards the most effective and beneficial predator management
strategies.
The Association is pleased with the accomplishments of the Berryman
Institute at the Utah State University in Logan, Utah. However, we
would like to see the Institute enhance its capabilities to conduct
social science research, expand continuing education programs, and
start a new high quality scientific journal for wildlife damage
management that would be patterned after other established journals. To
reach these new Goals. the Association supports an increase of the
funding to the Berryman Institute by an additional $300,000.
cooperative state research, education, and extension service (csrees),
u.s. department of agriculture
The Association recognizes that the research and educational
programs of the CSREES and its Land Grant Partners effect relevant,
positive changes in attitudes and implementation of new technologies by
private landowners, managers, community decision-makers, and the
public. This results in significant benefits to individuals and to the
Nation through building and sustaining a more viable and productive
natural resource base and a competitive and profitable agriculture.
Since over two-thirds of our lands, approximately 1.35 billion acres,
are controlled by over 10 million private landowners and managers, it
is most appropriate that the CSREES-Land Grant System, with its grass
roots credibility and delivery system, be adequately funded to
translate and deliver research-based educational programs and new
technologies to help the Nation's private landowners and managers move
towards a more sustainable society. However, in the President's fiscal
year 2000 budget, we see virtually no emphasis on natural resources
research and education directed toward helping these clientele. In
fact, the total number of farmers based on recent statistics is just
slightly over one million, yet the great majority of CSREES' budget is
devoted to production agriculture with only $3.192 million budgeted for
the Renewable Resources Extension Act to assist the over ten million
private landowners and managers who own and manage most of the nation's
natural resource base. This amount is infinitesimal in the total CSREES
proposed fiscal year 2000 budget of $948.01 million.
The Association recommends that the fiscal year 2000 appropriation
for CSREES should redirect funding to accomplish the following goals:
IAFWA recommends that the Renewable Resources Extension Act be
funded at a minimum level of $12.0 million in fiscal year 2000. The
RREA funds, which are apportioned to State Extension Services,
effectively leverage cooperating partnerships at an average of about
four to one, with a focus on the development and dissemination of
useful and practical educational programs to private landowners (rural
and urban) and continuing education of professionals. The increase to
$12.0 million would enable the Extension System to accomplish the goals
and objectives outlined in the 1991-1995 Report to Congress. The need
for RREA educational programs is greater today than ever because of the
fragmentation of ownerships, the diversity of landowners needing
assistance, and the increasing environmental concerns of society about
land use. It is important to note that RREA has been reauthorized
through 2002. It was originally authorized at $15 million annually;
however, even though it has been proven to be effective in leveraging
cooperative state and local funding, it has never been funded at a
level beyond $3.4 million. An increase to $12.0 million would enable
the Extension Service to expand its capability to assist over 500,000
private landowners annually to improve decision-making and management
on an additional 35 million acres while increasing productivity and
revenue by $200 million.
IAFWA recommends that Smith-Lever 3(b)&(c) base program funding be
increased by 9.0 percent to a level of $280.95 million with an
appropriate portion of this increase targeted to Extension's Natural
Resource and Environmental Management Programs (NREM). The President's
fiscal year 2000 budget requests a reduction of $18,795,000 funding for
Smith-Lever 3(b)&(c) funds from the fiscal year 1999 level. IAFWA
appreciates that Smith-Lever 3(b)&(c) base programs provide ``Block
Grant'' type funds for land grant universities to provide essential
educational outreach based on local needs assessment. This will enable
NREM programs to develop the critical mass of expertise at the state
and local levels to redirect and leverage limited funding to address
critical existing and emerging natural resource and environmental
issues that are directly affecting small landowners and farmers in both
rural and urban communities nationwide. Expanding Extension programs in
natural resource public issues education on such issues as forest
health, wetlands, endangered species, and human/wildlife interactions,
as well as to strengthen its programs in urban and community forestry
and environmental education, as called for in the 1990 FACT Act, is
essential to address natural resource issues that are relevant to the
sustainability of these critical resources. Such an increase targeted
appropriately would help producers better understand and implement the
changes in the 1996 Farm Bill Conservation Provisions. Moreover, we are
concerned that appropriate positions in the Natural Resources and
Environment Unit have not been retained to provide needed national
leadership for critical interdisciplinary resources such as range
management.
IAFWA encourages continuation of close cooperation between State
CES's and their State Fish and Wildlife agencies, as well as other
appropriate state and federal agencies and conservation organizations.
Extension 4-H Youth natural resource programs and projects continue to
increase with over 1,350,000 youngsters presently enrolled from both
urban and rural communities across the Nation. Increased Smith-Lever
funds targeted appropriately will enable CSREES to carry out its
environmental education and NREM National Strategic Plan obligations
nationwide.
IAFWA recommends restoration of the Rangeland Research Grants
$500,000 budget for fiscal year 2000. The Association is disappointed
that the practical and applied problems addressed by the Rangeland
Research Grants (RRG) program were zeroed out in the President's 1998
budget, and totally ignored in the fiscal year 1999 budget and in the
fiscal year 2000 budget. Over one half of the land area of the United
States is rangeland; and elimination of the only federal competitive
grants program for rangelands has serious implications for wildlife,
watersheds, and other natural resources. Modest appropriations for RRG
in the past have supported some of the most important rangeland
research conducted over the past decade, and wildlife issues on
rangelands will present some of the more critical rangeland research
problems over the next decade. This would help increase the
interdisciplinary capacity of research and educational programs to help
landowners improve the adoption of forests and rangelands habitat
conservation and management recommendations.
IAFWA recommends that an appropriate portion of the total increased
appropriation for Pest Management should be dedicated to educational
programs for prevention and control of vertebrate pests in urban and
rural communities and to address invasive exotic species and noxious
weed problems on rangelands for restoring, managing, and sustaining the
biological integrity of the Nation's natural resource base upon which
the agricultural and natural resource economies depend. IAFWA notes
that a combined total increase of almost $15.5 million has been
recommended in the President's budget for Pest Management and related
research and extension programs over and above increases received in
fiscal year 1999 and that a significant increase in plant and animal
research in the National Research Initiative of $48 million is
included, with no opportunity for addressing vertebrate pests. Yet,
vertebrate pests and invasive species have been identified in many
states as posing the most significant problems, now and in the future,
that agricultural and related crop producers and private landowners
face. The targeting of Pest Management funds for research and
educational programs to reduce significant losses to vertebrate pests
and invasive species would effectively advance the knowledge and
capability of landowners and managers to significantly reduce their
losses caused by vertebrate pests and invasive species. It would also
enable CSREES and its land grant partners to better address the
recently announced Executive Order on Invasive Species (1999-02-03).
IAFWA recommends that the Hatch and McIntire-Stennis funds be
restored to fiscal year 1999 levels and, if necessary, redirected from
the substantial $80.7 million proposed increase in NRI funding. IAFWA
is pleased that the Administration proposes a $11.5 million increase in
basic research identified under the National Research Initiative (NRI)
as Natural Resources and the Environment; however, what is proposed in
the current version of the President's Budget does not address natural
resource issues and clearly does not address critical natural resource
research needs that the Natural Resource Community, the public, and the
over 10 million private landowners are vitally concerned about. The
Association is alarmed at the significant reduction in both the Hatch
Act and McIntire-Stennis research programs of $28.92 million. Both of
these research programs, conducted by land grant university partners
and other educational institutions, are crucial to addressing natural
resource and environmental issues critical to agriculture and natural
resource sustainability now and in the future. The Association is
extremely disappointed in the Goal 4 Greater Harmony between
Agriculture and the Environments which is the only one of the six
CSREES Strategic Goals that even purports to address natural resources.
There is no mention of research or extension programs to address the
erosion of the nation's natural resource base except that alluded to by
the Integrated Research and Extension Water Quality Program. The others
are totally focused on agriculture. The nation's agricultural base
cannot be sustained if its natural resource base is not sustained.
______
Letter From the Iowa Senate Agriculture Committee
The Senate,
State of Iowa,
Des Moines, Iowa, April 21, 1999.
The Honorable Thad Cochran,
Chair, U.S. Senate Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittee, SD-136,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
Dear Senator Cochran: I am submitting this letter as an indication
that the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI)
Consortium provides significant analysis and data to state policy
makers. As Chairman of the Iowa Senate Agriculture Committee, I have
relied on the information and data provided by FAPRI in our
deliberations dealing with policy questions on agriculture and trade
policy. With events such as the Asian economic difficulties, continuing
developments within the European Union, the currency problems in the
Southern Hemisphere, and other events throughout the world it becomes
essential to have a reliable source of unbiased information and data.
The baseline and other large-scale econometric models developed and
maintained by FAPRI have provided analyses enabling us to more
accurately project our budgets and determine appropriate policy courses
for this state's agriculture, as well as to determine our role in
national policies. Additionally, FAPRI forecasts enable agricultural
producers and policy makers to form and assess their outlook of
national and world markets.
Certainly at this time of concern and difficulty in the farm
economy, this type of data and intelligence is extremely valuable to
all policy makers at the local, state, and national level. I would hope
that this type of support would continue in the future.
Sincerely yours,
E. Thurman Gaskill,
Chairman of Iowa Senate Agriculture Committee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Joslin Diabetes Center
introduction
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to submit a statement
for the public witness hearing record. The subject of this short
statement is the continued funding in fiscal year 2000 for the Diabetes
Project in the Extension Service of CREES. We have developed a plan for
fiscal year 2000 that will require $975,000. This includes costs of
Federal Administration, participation expenses of the states of
Washington and Hawaii and the personnel, equipment and associated costs
of Joslin Diabetes Center within the total cost of the program.
fiscal year 1999 background
I would like to express Joslin Diabetes Center's sincere
appreciation to you and Representative Nethercutt for your leadership
in the fiscal year 1999 process in providing $550,000 for the initial
year of the Diabetes Project. We know you faced difficult decisions
concerning funding priorities. We feel that your allocation of these
funds indicates that you share the vision of the growing community role
and organizational flexibility of the Extension Service as we enter the
21st Century.
Joslin and Extension personnel have met and agreed to a plan of
action in implementing the fiscal year 1999 program. Extension Service
officials characterized the concept as a ``win-win'' program during the
first meeting. When initial meetings were held, Extension Service
officials immediately embraced the concept of utilizing components of
Extension's national partnership infrastructure for a pilot program
with Joslin. In fact, Extension was already involved at the state level
with the National Diabetes Education Program (NDEP), a joint program of
the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institutes of
Health (NIH), both part of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Extension officials recognized that Joslin's non-invasive screening
proposal, based on components of the Joslin Vision Network (JVN)
brought an important new facet to the NDEP and services to the rural
health population. The addition of the Joslin pilot program is of
particular importance in providing this new technology to minority
rural residents, who suffer a much higher incidence rate than is the
national average.
To date, we have been in contact with the State officials of
Washington and Hawaii, and have had several visits and conference call
sessions with Federal Extension officials. We are at the point of
signing a Memorandum of Understanding with the Federal Extension
component to launch the full-scale program. We have submitted a plan of
action and are incorporating some alterations suggested by both State
and Washington personnel. Once the revised plan is completed and
approved by Extension, we will deploy the equipment and materials that
both Joslin and Extension have been preparing during this period of
partnership formalization.
Joslin is eager to commence the program. By the time this hearing
volume is published, the program will be underway and operating within
both Washington and Hawaii.
fiscal year 2000 plan
For fiscal year 2000, the mission and objectives for the two state
pilot program remain the same as for fiscal year 1999. For any project
to prove its benefit, at least two years of operational experience must
be conducted in order to gather sufficient data to prove the project's
value. The Diabetes Project will be fully operational October 1, 1999,
the first day of fiscal year 2000. In fiscal year 1999, much of the
first six months was devoted to establishing organizational
responsibilities, developing proposals in the standard CREES/Extension
forms, and coordinating the implementation mechanism necessary to
deliver services to the target populations of Washington and Hawaii.
As with first year funding, the following will be accomplished in
the second year (fiscal year 2000):
--training of Washington and Hawaii Extension personnel in equipment
use will have taken place;
--deployment of the diabetes non invasive screening portion of the
project will be completed;
--educational materials will have been devised for the specific
target populations of Washington and Hawaii;
--coordination with the NDEP, local and State health officials to
handle referrals will have been established;
--preliminary baseline comparisons will have been completed for the
first year's operational phase; and
--plans to monitor third year independent operation will have been
established.
The evaluation of the two year performance, compared with baseline
data, will yield the results of the introduction of the advanced
technology and the advanced medical care and prevention techniques that
are the subject of this project. When similar testimony is provided to
the Committee next year, we hope to have preliminary findings to report
to you on this investment in American rural health and the cooperative
partnership between the Extension Service and the Joslin Diabetes
Center.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my brief statement. we are submitting
a detailed budget for the fiscal year 2000 funds of $975,000 we are
seeking to the Extension Service for their review. If you or the
Committee staff have any questions we may answer concerning this
project, we would be pleased to meet and discuss the details in more
detail.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your efforts in fiscal year 1999.
The Extension Service and Joslin Diabetes Center appreciate your
confidence in our capabilities and your focus on the improvement of
quality life in rural America. We respectfully request continued
funding of $975,000 in fiscal year 2000 to fully demonstrate the
benefits and potential national returns that can be derived from this
pilot effort.
______
Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California
Chairman Cochran and members of the subcommittee: The Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California (MWD) appreciates the opportunity
to submit testimony regarding the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) fiscal year 2000 budget, for the Hearing on Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies
Appropriations. MWD is a public agency created in 1928 to meet
supplemental water demands of those people living in what is now
portions of a six-county region of southern California. Today, the
region served by MWD includes nearly 16 million people living on the
coastal plain between Ventura and the international boundary with
Mexican border. It is an area larger than the State of Connecticut and,
if it were a separate nation, would rank in the top ten economies of
the world.
Included in our region are more than 225 cities and unincorporated
areas in the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San
Bernardino, and Ventura. We provide more than half the water consumed
in our 5,200-square-mile service area. MWD's water supplies come from
the Colorado River via the district's Colorado River Aqueduct and from
northern California via the State Water Project's California Aqueduct.
Introduction
MWD continues to favor USDA implementation of conservation
programs, and is especially encouraged by the new actions identified in
the recently released Clean Water Action Plan. The Clean Water Action
Plan fosters integration of efforts by USDA, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and other federal agencies to improve water quality.
MWD firmly believes that inter-agency coordination along with
cooperative conservation programs, that are incentive-based and
facilitate the development of partnerships are critical to addressing
natural resources concerns, such as water quality degradation, wetlands
loss and wildlife habitat destruction. It is vital that Congress
provide USDA with the funding necessary to successfully carry out its
commitment to natural resources conservation.
Our testimony focuses on USDA's conservation programs that are of
major importance to MWD. In particular, MWD urges your full support for
funding for USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).
Full funding for this program is essential for achieving Colorado River
Basin salinity control objectives through the implementation of
salinity control measures as part of EQIP. In addition, MWD requests
your full support for the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program,
Conservation Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, Integrated Pest
Management and related programs, and the Water and Waste Disposal Loans
and Grants program. Sufficient federal funding for these USDA programs
is necessary to achieve wildlife habitat restoration and source water
quality protection objectives in the Colorado River Basin and in
California's Sacramento/San Joaquin Bay-Delta (Bay-Delta) estuary.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program provides cost-sharing
and incentive payments, technical assistance and educational assistance
to farmers and ranchers for the implementation of structural practices
(e.g., animal waste management facilities, filterstrips) and land
management practices (e.g., nutrient management, grazing management)
that address the most serious threats to soil, water and related
natural resources. EQIP is to be carried out in a manner that maximizes
environmental benefits per dollar expended. This assistance is focused
in conservation priority areas identified by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service's State Conservationists, in conjunction with
state technical committees and Farm Service Agency personnel. MWD does
have some concern with respect to this aspect of EQIP. Beginning with
the first full year of EQIP funding in 1997, USDA's participation in
the Colorado River Salinity Control Program has significantly
diminished. The mechanism by which funding has been allocated by USDA
to date inherently overlooks projects for which benefits are interstate
and international in nature. Clearly, Colorado River salinity control
has benefits that are not merely local in nature, but continue
downstream and EQIP as it is currently administered by USDA does not
adequately fund national priorities. MWD supports the recommendation of
the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum as a way to remedy this
situation. In Public Law 104-127, Congress amended the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Act to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to
carry out salinity control measures in the Colorado River Basin as part
of EQIP. Sufficient federal funding for implementation of EQIP is
critical in order to achieve Colorado River Basin salinity control
objectives as well as source water quality protection and ecosystem
restoration objectives in the Bay-Delta estuary and watersheds
tributary to the Bay-Delta.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), the
interstate organization responsible for coordinating the Basin states'
salinity control efforts, issued its 1996 Review, Water Quality
Standards for Salinity, Colorado River System (1996 Review) in June of
1996. The 1996 Review found that additional salinity control was
necessary with normal water supply conditions beginning in 1994 to meet
the numeric criteria in the water quality standards adopted by the
seven Colorado River Basin states and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. For the last six years (1994-99), funding for USDA's salinity
control program has not equaled the Forum-identified funding need for
the portion of the program the Federal Government has the
responsibility to implement. It is essential that implementation of
Colorado River Basin salinity control efforts through EQIP be
accelerated to permit the numeric criteria to be met again under
average annual long-term water supply conditions, making up the
shortfall. The Basin states and farmers stand ready to pay their share
of the implementation costs of EQIP.
The President's proposed fiscal year 2000 budget contains program
funding of $300 million for implementation of EQIP through financing
provided by the Commodity Credit Corporation. MWD supports this level
of EQIP funding which is also consistent with the USDA actions called
for under the Clean Water Action Plan. MWD also support the proposed
level of funding for Conservation Technical Assistance included within
the Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS) Conservation
Operations Program. Conservation technical assistance provides the
foundation for implementation of EQIP and other conservation programs.
The Forum has determined that allocation of $12 million in EQIP funds
in fiscal year 2000 is needed for on-farm measures to control Colorado
River salinity. This level of funding is necessary to meet the salinity
control activities schedule to maintain the state adopted and federally
approved water quality standards.
MWD also supports the proposed level of funding for Conservation
Technical Assistance (CTA) included within the Natural Resources
Conservation Service's (NRCS) Conservation Operations Program.
Conservation technical assistance provides the foundation for
implementation of EQIP and other conservation programs. The proposed
funding will be used, in part, to assist animal feedlot operation (AFO)
owners to develop and implement waste management plans. AFOs are
potential sources of pathogens which can impair drinking water sources.
MWD urges you and your Subcommittee to support full funding for
EQIP and NRCS CTA as requested in the President's fiscal year 2000
budget for USDA, with the specific earmark allocation of EQIP funds to
the Salinity Control Program. MWD also recommends that the Colorado
River Basin be designated as a national priority area for salinity
control.
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) is a voluntary
program, providing technical assistance and cost-sharing, to help
landowners develop habitat on their properties that will support
wetland wildlife, upland wildlife, threatened and endangered species,
fisheries, and other types of wildlife. WHIP offers an opportunity to
encourage development of improved wildlife habitat on eligible lands by
providing assistance to landowners who wish to integrate wildlife
considerations into the overall management of their operations.
WHIP cost-sharing assistance could be utilized to support ongoing
interim conservation efforts both in the Bay-Delta estuary and for the
Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program. The CALFED
Bay-Delta Program is a cooperative effort among state and federal
agencies and the public to develop a long-term, comprehensive solution
to ecosystem and water supply problems in the Bay-Delta. One of the
main objectives of the CALFED Bay-Delta Program is to improve and
increase aquatic, wetland and riparian habitats so that they can
support sustainable populations of wildlife species, by implementing a
system-wide ecosystem restoration approach. WHIP could benefit this
program by providing cost-share assistance for the development of
wildlife habitat on private lands in the Bay-Delta watershed.
The Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (LCR
MSCP) is a broad-based partnership of state, federal and private
entities in Arizona, California, and Nevada. Participants include
water, hydroelectric power and wildlife resource management agencies,
Tribal governments, and environmental organizations with interests in
the Lower Colorado River. The LCR MSCP is focusing on the conservation
of over 70 threatened, endangered and sensitive species and their
habitats. WHIP would allow the combination of federal cost-sharing
dollars and voluntary agricultural land-use practices to enhance
habitat for listed and sensitive species of interest in the Lower
Colorado River. This could be a valuable vehicle for gaining further
agricultural support for conservation efforts and the goals of the LCR
MSCP.
The President's budget requests $210 million for WHIP for fiscal
year 2000. MWD recommends that you and your Subcommittee support
continued funding of WHIP at the level requested in the President's
fiscal year 2000 budget for USDA.
Conservation Reserve Program
Continued support for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is
necessary in order to build on the past successes of this USDA
conservation program. Under the CRP, incentive payments are provided to
producers to remove highly erodible and other environmentally sensitive
land from production. This program helps protect the quality of
drinking water supplies and facilitates ecosystem restoration efforts
by reducing soil erosion, improving water quality, protecting wildlife
habitats, and achieving other natural resource conservation measures.
The National Buffer Initiative program will further maximize
environmental benefits per dollar expended, and we are supportive of
this effort.
Enrollment of eligible agricultural lands that are located in the
Bay-Delta estuary and tributary watersheds in the CRP, could provide
water quality improvement benefits for this important source of
drinking water. We note, however, that the method which determines the
rental rate for CRP enrollments effectively precludes the enrollment of
much irrigated agriculture land and land with high value crops. As a
result, states in the arid west do not benefit from the CRP in
proportion to their contribution to agricultural production. While MWD
urges you and your Subcommittee to support the President's budget
request for the CRP of $1.596 billion for fiscal year 2000, we also
strongly request that you review the method for rental rate
determination. We understand that one of the key actions under the
Clean Water Action Plan is to review and increase, where appropriate,
the incentives available for conservation buffers. Such review should
also be undertaken for the CRP overall.
Wetlands Reserve Program
The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), first authorized in 1990, is a
voluntary program providing incentives to landowners for the
restoration and protection of wetlands with long-term or permanent
easements. Wetlands restoration provides important water quality
improvement and wildlife habitat restoration benefits that are
important to the Bay-Delta estuary. MWD urges you and your Subcommittee
to support appropriation of $209 million for the WRP in fiscal year
2000, as requested in the President's budget. Full support for the WRP
is necessary to achieve the Administration's goal of enrolling an
additional 199,820 acres into the program currently, for a cumulative
enrollment of approximately 825,000 acres by the end of 1999 and
975,000 acres by the end of calendar year 2000.
Conclusion
Thank you for your consideration of our testimony. We believe our
comments emphasize the importance of continued funding for USDA's
agricultural conservation programs. The USDA's conservation programs
are critical for achieving Colorado River Basin salinity control
objectives, as well as broader wildlife habitat restoration and source
water quality protection objectives in the Colorado River Basin and the
Bay-Delta estuary.
______
Letter From Charles E. Kruse
Missouri Farm Bureau Federation,
Jefferson City, MO, April 21, 1999.
Hon. Thad Cochran,
Chair, U.S. Senate Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Cochran: On behalf of Missouri Farm Bureau, I am
submitting this letter as public record of our support of the
agricultural policy research conducted by the Food and Agricultural
Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) consortia. As Missouri's largest
general farm organization, Farm Bureau maintains a strong working
relationship with the FAPRI institutions.
As you know, U.S. farmers and ranchers are currently facing many
challenges. Low commodity prices are threatening the viability of
agriculture as we know it and it is critical that policy-makers have
access to the best analysis possible. Furthermore, producers must
utilize this information as they attempt to restore profitability.
FAPRI has a well-deserved reputation for conducting objective research;
both large-scale econometric and farm-level economic and environmental
modeling. Their researchers go to great lengths to validate models
using both economic theory and producer input.
Over the years, with the assistance of federal funding, FAPRI has
developed a comprehensive modeling system that remains the envy of the
world. Their system, capable of quantifying proposed policies from the
international to the farm level, is more important than ever. We
appreciate their efforts and believe they continue to be a tremendous
asset to American agriculture.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Kruse,
President.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Conservation
Districts
The National Association of Conservation Districts is a nonprofit,
nongovernment organization that represents the nation's 3,000
conservation districts and more than 16,000 men and women who serve on
their governing boards. Established under state law, conservation
districts are local units of state government charged with carrying out
programs for the protection and management of natural resources at the
local level. Conservation districts work with nearly two-and-a-half
million cooperating landowners and operators each year and provide
assistance in managing and protecting nearly 70 percent of the private
land in the contiguous United States.
NRCS's Conservation Technical Assistance Program, delivered through
local conservation districts to cooperators and other land users, is
the nation's foremost private lands pollution prevention program. It
provides landowners and operators with much needed help in planning and
applying conservation treatments to control erosion and improve the
quantity and quality of soil resources; improve and conserve water;
enhance fish and wildlife habitat; conserve energy; improve woodland,
pasture and range conditions; and protect and enhance wetlands. Many
federal and state agencies also rely upon the technical expertise
unique to NRCS to carry out other conservation programs that complement
the NRCS effort not only in the agricultural areas, but in rural,
suburban and urban communities as well.
Conservation districts believe that the federal government must
provide a basic level of technical assistance funding to maintain its
commitment to support locally led conservation initiatives that
complement federal efforts to ensure a safe and productive environment.
The federal technical presence that NRCS provides is vital to ensuring
that sound technical standards are maintained in our nation's
conservation programs. It is also critical in the actual implementation
of needed conservation practices.
This NRCS technical presence, along with federal cost-share
programs, leverages a tremendous investment in conservation by state
and local governments. State and local governments contribute nearly $1
billion in personnel and cost-share funding each year to support
conservation programs carried out by the partnership. This is roughly
equal to NRCS's annual budget and does not include the volunteer time
of district officials.. Many states are also working to increase this
support, but depend on the federal government to provide its fair
share.
In developing funding recommendations for specific agencies and
programs, we recognize our own responsibilities to contribute a fair
share of resources. NACD's recommendations on federal funding for NRCS
conservation programs are based on input from conservation districts,
state and local program managers and data from various surveys and
reports examining the workload generated by federal, state and local
program authorities. Although this statement focuses primarily on the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, additional recommendations on
other important USDA programs are contained in the attached chart.
conservation technical assistance
In September 1998, the Conservation Partnership of NRCS, NACD, the
National Association of State Conservation Agencies, National
Association of Resource Conservation and Development Councils and the
National Conservation Districts Employees Association completed data
collection for its first-ever National Field Workload Analysis. The
purpose of the study was to examine the staff years of technical
support needed at the field level to carry out 29 core work elements in
fiscal year 1999 and beyond.
Early analysis of the data show that, nationally, the resources
needed exceeded those available to address each of the core work
elements, thus revealing a ``gap'' in the Conservation Partnership's
capability to maintain the nation's basic conservation infrastructure.
Although the analysis has yet to be finalized, it appears that the gap
for NRCS technical assistance is more than 7,000 staff years. Initial
reports also indicate that an additional $300 million in funding for
conservation technical assistance to support 3,000 new field staff
years is needed to provide adequate conservation assistance at the
local level.
Even without the National Field Workload Analysis data it is
obvious that the responsibilities of NRCS and its partners have
increased significantly over the past few years. The 1985, 1990 and
1996 Farm Bills created substantial new demands from farmers and
ranchers for conservation assistance. The Clean Water Act and the Safe
Drinking Water Act, with their nonpoint source pollution and source
water protection initiatives, increased the for assistance to install
land treatment measures to protect water quality. The President's Clean
Water Action Plan, which includes the Unified Animal Feeding Operations
Strategy, will add significantly to the workload as thousands of
producers request assistance in developing comprehensive nutrient
management plans. Increasing requests for farmland protection and urban
conservation assistance are further burdening an already overstressed
conservation delivery system.
All of this is occurring at a time when Congress is ratcheting the
budget down and agency budgets are shrinking in real terms. If America
is serious about protecting its resource base, however, we must not let
our conservation efforts diminish and fall by the wayside. We must
demonstrate a renewed commitment to our natural resources, the
foundation of the nation's economic prosperity.
Although our National Field Workload Analysis final reports will no
doubt show a much greater need to effectively address conservation
issues on private lands, our federal partners have reported that an
additional $90 million is the bottom line needed just to sustain
current efforts and prevent a reduction in staff at the field level. We
urge you to support this increase, at a minimum, to maintain the basic
infrastructure of private lands conservation efforts.
conservation technical assistance and the farm bill
When Congress passed the Federal Agricultural Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996--the 1996 Farm Bill--it signaled a renewed
commitment to a locally led, incentive-based approach to private lands
conservation. In addition to fine-tuning existing programs, it provided
new opportunities to promote voluntary conservation efforts on private
lands through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP),
Farmland Protection Program, Conservation Farm Option and Wildlife
Habitat Incentives Program.
Although it fashioned new opportunities, the Farm Bill added
significant new responsibilities for USDA and its state and local
partners. These new responsibilities, which the Conservation
Partnership welcomes, also have unintentionally created problems
because there simply are not enough staff and funding resources
available to carry out the new programs and still maintain a basic
conservation program at the field level.
These federally mandated activities are pulling NRCS staff away
from addressing significant local natural resource problems. Often,
these federal programs do not adequately address local conservation
issues by the federal programs. These new programs have not been
accompanied by any increase in staff ceilings or any significant
increase in technical assistance funding.
The shortfall in technical assistance is further compounded by the
fact that the Farm Bill conservation programs are funded through the
USDA Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Although Congress intended for
the CCC to reimburse NRCS for technical assistance activities in
carrying out the Farm Bill programs, it unintentionally created a
serious problem by capping the amount of CCC funds that USDA could
spend on personnel and administrative services to carry out CCC
programs at $36 million--the level spent in 1995, before CCC was
responsible for the Farm Bill conservation programs. The unintended
result was that NRCS would be responsible for carrying out the CCC-Farm
Bill programs, but the Corporation would be severely limited in its
ability to fund the technical assistance needed for the effort. Since
the passage of the 1996 Farm Bill, much of the funding for conservation
technical assistance has come from unspent funds remaining from
previous spending authority. These sources for technical assistance to
support CCC-funded conservation programs are essentially depleted
leaving NRCS with a serious shortfall in technical assistance funding.
watershed protection and flood prevention
Through its Small Watersheds Program (Public Law 83-566 and Public
Law 78-534), NRCS partners with states, local units of government,
tribes and other sponsoring organizations to address water quality and
quantity issues and assistance communities in flood prevention
activities. More than 2,000 plans, covering 160 million acres in
watersheds in every state, Puerto Rico and the Pacific Basin, have been
completed or are underway. Land treatment measures have been applied to
more than 30 million acres and more than 15,000 individual measures
have been installed, resulting in substantial contributions to
environmental improvement, economic development, flood prevention and
social well being.
However, many of the more than 10,000 structures built over the
past 50 years are nearing the end of their lifespan, no longer meet
current dam safety standards and need to be upgraded, repaired or
decommissioned. Approximately 5,000 of the installed floodwater
retarding structures are 30 years old. More than 70 percent of all
structures were built before the National Environmental Policy Act of
1970 was fully implemented and thus, may not have considered all
environmental impacts.
Over time, the areas surrounding the structures have changed.
Populations have grown. Flood plains have been developed. Upstream land
use has changed. Sediment pools have filled. Flood-pool capacities have
decreased. Structural components and vegetated measures have
deteriorated. As a result, public safety, quality of life and community
economic stability are being affected.
Under many of the original agreements, local sponsors accepted
responsibility for assuring that the structures would function as
designed over their lifetime. Sponsors, many of which are conservation
districts, and NRCS are now finding that they may have liability almost
in perpetuity for the integrity of these structures. In most cases,
sponsors have diligently maintained the structures, but because dam-
safety requirements have changed dramatically since the 1970s, many
find they do not have the resources needed for costly renovations
needed to keep them safe, functional and in compliance.
By the year 2000, approximately 2,000 structures built with
assistance from the NRCS Small Watershed Program will require
significant rehabilitation work to meet current environmental, economic
and safety needs. Unless these issues are addressed, the magnitude of
the problems will only increase as the infrastructure continues to age.
Project sponsors in the 500 active watersheds need technical and
financial assistance to implement rehabilitation plans to meet current
environmental, economic and safety needs. NRCS estimates that roughly
$540 million in federal, state and local resources is needed to protect
and upgrade already installed works. To meet its share of that need,
conservation districts recommend funding for the NRCS Watershed
Protection and Flood Prevention account to $120 million in fiscal year
2000.
In his budget request, the President proposes transferring all
technical assistance for Watershed Surveys and Planning and Watershed
Protection and Flood Prevention Operations to the Conservation
Operations Program after enactment of appropriate legislation.
Conservation districts oppose shifting technical assistance out of the
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations account. We believe that
action would be the first step toward dismantling this important
program and that Public Law 566 funds would likely disappear in future
budget proposals.
forestry incentives program
The President's proposal requests no funding for the Forestry
Incentives Program (FIP) because it promotes timber production on
private lands. Congress transferred FIP from the Farm Service Agency to
NRCS as part of a major program restructuring in the Federal
Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 in recognition of NRCS
as the Department's private lands natural resource management agency.
Its technical assistance is used primarily to assist America's farmers
in production agriculture, as do its conservation cost-share programs.
USDA recognizes private lands forestry as a farming activity, and the
Internal Revenue Service treats forestry cost-share payments as such.
Conservation districts urge Congress to fund the Forestry Incentives
Program at $25 million for fiscal year 2000.
resource conservation and development program
Through its Resource Conservation and Development Program (RC&D),
NRCS provides conservation assistance to rural communities. Resource
management and rural development initiatives undertaken by local RC&D
councils help revitalize economically disadvantaged rural areas.
Conservation districts support increasing RC&D funding to $69 million
in fiscal year 2000 to support funding for 450 RC&D Councils as
authorized under the program's enabling legislation.
farm bill programs
The 1996 Farm Bill established the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP), the Conservation Farm Option (CFO), the Wildlife
Habitat Incentives Program and the Farmland Protection Program (FPP)
and strengthened and re-focused the Conservation Reserve and Wetlands
Reserve Programs. Conservation districts continue to be strong
supporters of these initiatives that protect soil resources, water
quality, wetlands and wildlife habitat.
EQIP, in particular, is a highly targeted program intended in part
to help producers comply with the requirements of the Farm Bill and
other federal and state conservation programs. Requests from producers
for assistance through EQIP have been overwhelming--far exceeding the
amount of funds available and further stressing the already
overburdened NRCS-conservation district delivery system. With
additional funding EQIP has the potential to garner tremendous
environmental benefits. It also provides an opportunity to reach out to
socially disadvantaged producers who traditionally have not
participated in USDA's conservation programs Conservation districts
support the President's budget request to raise EQIP funding to $300
million annually to further enhance the program's outreach, water
quality, soil conservation and wildlife habitat benefits. The attached
chart includes recommendations for other NRCS conservation financial
assistance programs.
The 1996 Farm Bill also authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to
establish a grazing lands conservation initiative to provide technical
and educational assistance to landowners on the nation's 642 million
acres of private grazing lands. Conservation districts support this
initiative and urge Congress to provide at least $15 million for its
operation in fiscal year 2000.
The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) provides assistance to farmers
to restore cropped wetlands through easements and cost-share payments.
In addition to its environmental and wildlife habitat benefits, this
voluntary wetland protection program has been extremely popular among
farmers and ranchers. Conservation districts support funding WRP at
$207.065 million in fiscal year 2000 to enroll the remaining authorized
acreage in the program.
The Conservation Reserve Program similarly provides cost-share
assistance and rental payments to farmers to retire highly erodible and
environmentally sensitive cropland for 10 to 15 contract periods. In
addition to dramatically reducing soil erosion on cropland by as much
as 694,062,336 tons per year, it provides myriad other benefits
including stemming agricultural runoff and providing critically needed
wildlife habitat. Conservation districts strongly support the CRP and
recommend funding to enroll the maximum number of acres authorized.
funding for cooperative state research, education & extension service
Several extension programs represent critical components are
significant in USDA's natural resource management delivery system. For
example, the Renewable Resources Extension Act provides educational
assistance to help private landowners manage their lands to meet
commodity demands and needs. At the same time, it provides many public
values associated with the forests and rangelands of our nation
Research also remains one of the keys to the continued vitality of
agriculture and effective management of the nation's resource base.
U.S. competitiveness in world markets is contingent an aggressive
research and development program for agricultural conservation and
production techniques. We also recognize that conservation,
environmental quality and production research needs vary across the
United States. Conservation districts support maintaining strong
research programs in NRCS, the Agricultural Research Service, the
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service and other
agencies as needed.
America's conservation districts fiscal year 2000 funding
recommendations begin rebuilding the nation's commitment to helping
land managers conserve natural resources on private lands. They
represent a commitment to embrace and protect the nation's natural
resources for our present and future generations.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide our recommendations to the
Subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Home Builders
The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), which represents
more than 197,000 member firms, offers the following comments on the
administration's fiscal year 2000 budget for U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Rural Housing Service (RHS) programs.
NAHB believes there is a critical need for affordable housing in
rural areas overall. Unfortunately, there are serious obstacles to
providing such housing. High among these obstacles are problems with
the availability of credit in rural areas compared to urban areas. The
flow of capital into rural areas is crucial to the economic health of
these rural areas. This position is supported by reports analyzing
rural credit markets that were presented to the Senate Agriculture
Committee during the 105th Congress by the Economic Research Service,
the U.S. General Accounting Office, the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas
City and the Rural Policy Research Institute.
In light of the acknowledged shortage of housing opportunities for
rural families with low- and moderate-incomes, NAHB strongly believes
that the federal programs designed to provide affordable housing in
rural areas, i.e. the programs administered by USDA's Rural Housing
Service, are crucial. These programs include both rental housing
programs and programs that provide homeownership opportunities through
direct loans at below-market interest rates and loan guarantees.
rural housing service multifamily programs
In the multifamily arena, Congress provided $114 million in direct
loans for Section 515 multifamily rental housing production for fiscal
year 1999. The Administration has requested a further reduction for
fiscal year 2000 to $100 million. The recent budget allocation and
requests for the Section 515 program suggest intent to replace it with
the Section 538 multifamily loan guarantee program. This would be a
serious mistake since the bulk of Section 515 recipients are at incomes
too low to qualify for the rents charged to meet the mortgage and other
debt service payments necessary for the Section 538 multifamily rental
housing loan guarantee program. The two programs simply are not
structured to serve families of similar incomes. Therefore, NAHB
supports an increase, not a decrease, in current funding for Section
515. A program level of $300 million annually is supportable to meet
the needs of rent burdened low-income families in non-urban areas. In
view of the desire of many in Congress to maintain the budget caps
imposed for fiscal year 2000 by the 1997 Budget Reconciliation Act, and
discussions with RHS staff, a level of $300 million for the Section 515
program would be defensible and desirable. NAHB would support this
level. Appropriating $300 for the Section 515 program would to a long
way toward meeting the serious housing needs of lower income families
and the elderly in rural America.
Likewise, the Section 538 program increase requested by the
administration, from the $100 appropriated in fiscal year 1999 to $200
million requested for fiscal year 2000, is too minimal. Current low
interest rates and continued economic growth support a program level
nearer to $300 million per year for this program that costs the
government very little to support. As no budget authority is needed to
support this program, NAHB believes that it would be a serious mistake
to underfund the anticipated demand for the worthwhile Section 538 loan
guarantee program.
We also recommend that the $640 million requested for Section 521
Rental Assistance not be split between fiscal year 2000 and 2001 as
proposed in the administration's budget. Such an approach could
threaten the renewal of expiring rental assistance contracts and might
harm efforts to preserve the affordable housing stock in rural areas.
The $640 million request should be applied entirely in fiscal year 2000
so as not to create funding allocation problems in future years.
Additionally, RHS staff informs us that this level allows for very
little new construction activity. Consequently, NAHB would strongly
support any increase that Congress might provide.
rural housing service single family programs
The fiscal year 1999 budgetary authority for the Rural Housing
Service Section 502 Guaranteed Rural Housing (GRH) loan program is $3
billion. Through March 2, 13,818 loans have been made under the Section
502 GRH program for a total of $1.304 billion. Funds for future loans
are allocated to program users through a reservation system. The exact
amount of funds reserved is not publicly known, but NAHB believes that
the sum of loans closed and loans reserved is closing in on the $3
billion level authorized for fiscal year 1999. In fact, NAHB
understands that RHS will be forced to institute a moratorium on
additional reservations for the Section 502 GRH program in May or early
June, effectively removing the Section 502 GRH program as a financing
option for rural home buyers until the beginning of fiscal year 2000.
Demand for the Section 502 GRH program has proven increasingly
popular over the past few years, growing from just 662 loans for $38.4
million in fiscal year 1991 to 39,403 loans totaling $2.82 billion in
fiscal year 1998. The withdrawal of the Section 502 GRH program, even
temporarily, will have a detrimental effect on families who need the
program to qualify to purchase homes, and will cause lenders to have
second thoughts regarding future participation in the program. A major
source of the rural mortgage credit shortage has been a lack of lender
interest and participation in these markets. The Administration has
proposed an authorization of $3.2 billion for this program for fiscal
year 2000. At a minimum, NAHB believes that a program level of $4
billion should be authorized for the Section 502 Guaranteed Rural
Housing loan program to ensure uninterrupted operation and continued
lender participation.
The Section 502 Direct loan program has been obligated for 4,783
loans totaling $281.5 million this fiscal year. With a fiscal year 1999
budget of $965 million, it appears on the surface that this program
might be adequately funded. Unfortunately, RHS is currently holding
additional applications for 24,756 loans totaling $1.666 billion, a
good portion of which could be made this year if the budgetary
authority were available. Discussions with RHS staff yield a
recommended program level of at least $1.5 billion as the minimum level
needed to responsibly serve those applications on hand.
Like the Section 502 Direct program, the Section 504 loan and grant
programs have backlogs far exceeding the budgeted levels. The Section
504 loan program has seen 1,373 loans closed totaling $6.8 million out
of a fiscal year 1999 budget of $25 million. Currently, however, there
is a backlog of 4,740 applications totaling $31 million. Almost 2,100
Section 504 grants have been made totaling $9.5 million out of a budget
of $20 million. There is a backlog of 11,159 grant requests totaling
$22.3 million. NAHB believes that the Section 504 loan and grant
programs should each be authorized at $50 million for fiscal year 2000.
In closing, NAHB strongly supports viable Rural Housing Service
programs, funded at responsible levels, as we believe both are
necessary to help meet the needs for affordable housing for low- and
moderate-income families and the elderly living in rural areas. For
Congress to allocate federal resources for fiscal year 2000 at the
levels requested by the administration for the Rural Housing Service
programs will fail to meet current demand on these important programs.
Consequently, NAHB respectfully urges funding the rural housing
programs at the more responsible levels noted above.
We appreciate your consideration of our views as you formulate the
fiscal year 2000 Agriculture Appropriations Bill. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of Professional Forestry
Schools and Colleges
The National Association of Professional Forestry Schools and
Colleges (NAPFSC) is comprised of the 67 universities that conduct the
Nation's research, teaching, and extension programs in forestry and
related areas of environmental and natural resource management. NAPFSC
strongly supports increased funding for federal forestry research
programs, including those operated by the USDA's Cooperative State
Research Education and Extension Service (CSREES) and the Forest
Service. We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the three
programs administered by CSREES which greatly enhance the abilities of
our member institutions to effectively address forest and natural
resource issues facing our nation: the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative
Forestry Research Program (McIntire-Stennis), the Renewable Resources
Extension Act (RREA), and the National Research Initiative (NRI). All
three of these programs have stimulated the development of vital
partnerships involving universities, federal agencies, non-governmental
organizations and private industry.
USDA-CSREES FORESTRY RELATED PROGRAMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR--
---------------------------------------------------------- AUTHORIZED
2000 CLINTON 2000 NAPFSC LEVEL
1998 ENACTED 1999 ENACTED BUDGET RECOMMENDATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCINTIRE-STENNIS........................ $20,497,000 $21,932,000 $19,882,000 $23,332,000 ( \1\ )
RREA.................................... 3,192,000 3,192,000 3,192,000 4,000,000 $15,000,000
NRI..................................... 97,200,000 119,300,000 200,000,000 200,000,000 ............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ One-half of Forest Service Research Budget (approx. $95 million).
The National Association of Forestry Schools and Colleges believes
that university-based education is central to providing the research
and landowner education that is needed to address NIPF issues. On
February 22-23, NAPFSC co-hosted, along with USDA, a major ``Forestry
Summit'' in Washington, D.C. with over 90 key forestry leaders from
across the nation, including tree farmers, representatives from forest
landowner associations, forest industry, forestry consultants, and
representatives from state and federal agencies and universities.
The outcome of the Summit confirmed the need for increases in
forestry research funding with a particular focus on non-industrial
private forestlands and forest productivity and an increase in
collaborative efforts between university-based research and that of the
Forest Service.
The Case for Enhanced Forestry Research Funding.--NAPFSC submits
that a ``quiet crisis'' is rapidly approaching in the nation in terms
of the need for more university-based forestry research and extension.
The forests and other renewal natural resources of this country are
primary contributors to the economic health of the nation; are
reservoirs of biodiversity important to the well-being of our citizens;
are significant to the maintenance of environmental quality of our
atmosphere, water, and soil resources and provide diverse recreational
and spiritual renewal opportunities for a growing population.
Tremendous strains are being placed upon the nation's private
forest lands by the combination of increasing demands for forest
products coupled with dramatic changes in timber policies concerning
our National Forests. Because of the changes in federal forest policy,
private forest lands in the United States are now being harvested at
rates not seen since the beginning of the 20th century.
Until recently, wood and wood fiber demands have been met in
significant part from federal lands. The changes in federal forest
timber harvesting policy means the bulk of supply requirements has
shifted to privately owned forest lands. To meet this challenge,
research priorities must be adjusted to better address the needs of
private landowners, and to specifically enhance the productivity of
such lands through economically efficient and environmentally sound
means. Increased fiber imports are not a viable option as the Nation
cannot afford the trade imbalance, loss of jobs, loss of rural
economies, or the importing of potentially serious plant, animal, and
human diseases and pests. These challenges, however, can be
substantially addressed by the university community through the
building of integrated research and extension programs assisted by
McIntire-Stennis, RREA, and NRI.
Non-industrial private forest (NIPF) landowners provide a large
array of goods and services throughout the country. For example, in the
East, NIPFs are projected to increase their timber harvests almost 30
percent from the 1986 levels until 2010. Hardwood timber harvests on
NIPF lands in the South are actually projected to increase more than 60
percent from 1986 to 2010. These spectacular increases will require
larger investments and enhanced public educational programs--and
hopefully much more regeneration and intensive timber management--at a
scale never before realized on NIPF lands in the U.S.
There are currently approximately 10 million private forestland
owners in the U.S. These landowners control nearly 60 percent of all
forestland in the country. And it has been to the universities, with
strong support from CSREES, that landowners traditionally look for new
information about managing their lands. The combination of research
conducted by the forestry schools, combined with the dissemination of
that research through the cooperative extension network, has never been
more essential.
The overwhelming majority of the 10 million private landowners are
not currently equipped to practice the sustained forest management that
is critical to the health of our environment and economy. Not only are
these lands important to the nation's supply of wood and fiber, these
same lands provide other substantial benefits to their owners and the
nation, including wildlife habitat, clean water and recreation.
Enhanced forestry research and extension activities is essential to
reach these landowners. Although the McIntire-Stennis, RREA, and NRI
programs can help address these concerns, these programs are
inadequately funded.
Mr. Chairman, NAPFSC is pleased that Congress provided a small
increase in fiscal year 1999 for the McIntire-Stennis program; the
first increase in several years. We are very concerned about the more
than nine percent reduction proposed in President Clinton's fiscal year
2000 budget for the McIntire-Stennis forestry program. That is the
wrong direction when there is such a great need for increased forest
research and extension. While much of the President's budget calls for
increases in federal research and development funding, agriculture and
forestry research were targeted for decreases. We believe that reducing
the McIntire-Stennis program is short-sighted. The National Association
of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) has recommended
a McIntire-Stennis funding level of $23,332,000. We strongly support
funding at least at this level.
For more than 25 years, McIntire-Stennis funds have been a critical
part of University-based forestry research. McIntire-Stennis funds
leverage significant additional state and private support and assure
long-term forest resource research, graduate training, and outreach
across the country. Each dollar in federal appropriations has been
leveraged by a factor of up to five in non-federal dollars in support
of research programs having state, regional, and national significance.
Importance of Forestry Research and Extension.--Research has
improved the understanding of (1) the biology of forest organisms; (2)
the structure and function of forest ecosystems; (3) human-forest
interactions; (4) wood as a renewable raw material; (5) economics,
environmental policy, and business management related to the forest
industry; and (6) international trade, competition, and cooperation.
McIntire-Stennis programs have advanced our knowledge of the forest
ecosystem including the basic chemical, physical, and biological forces
that influence forest health and productivity. These programs have also
expanded the marketing horizons for environmentally friendly and
renewable wood and fiber-based products. Very recent work has examined
the economic and ecological benefits of combining agricultural and
forestry practices into integrated land-use systems termed
``agroforestry''. Furthermore, these programs have significantly aided
the development of new forest management systems for multiple-uses
including timber, water, wildlife, grazing, recreation, and aesthetic
purposes.
The Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA) provides funds for
technology transfer and educational outreach to ensure that the
benefits of forestry research are made available to private forestland
owners and forest industries through CSREES. More than ever before this
program is needed to help private landowners address the increasing
challenges facing non-federal forest lands. President Clinton
recommended a funding level of $3,192,000 in his fiscal year 1999
budget. NAPFSC recommends funding RREA at a level of $4 million for
fiscal year 1999. We urge the Committee to support the NASULGC request.
This increase would take RREA to slightly over 25 percent of its
authorization level.
RREA funds have created programs and provided expertise that
benefit private forestland owners and the forest product industry
throughout the country. For example:
--In Arkansas, over $5 million have been estimated to have been
earned or saved by forestland owners and the forest products
industry because of RREA educational programs.
--In Washington, RREA funding allows the universities to engage in
logger training activities. To date, 289 loggers have fulfilled
accreditation standards, and regulatory agencies are reporting
improved compliance with forest practice rules.
--In Missouri, RREA funding supported a Wildlife Habitat Enhancement
Program for Conservation Reserve lands. Participants have
already installed practices benefitting 125,000 acres.
Similar stories can be found in all 50 states. It is vital that
Congress continue proper funding for this important program for
distributing the knowledge gained through our research institutions to
the private landowners.
Lastly, we urge your support of the Competitive Grants Program
administered under the National Research Initiative of the USDA. Peer
competition for grants is at the heart of the university system and
this program has become very important to natural resource scientists
working within NAPFSC institutions. Research funds from NRI enable
NAPFSC institutions to build upon the base provided by McIntire-
Stennis. We are pleased that President Clinton's budget calls for a
funding level of $200 million for fiscal year 2000, a level also
recommended by NASULGC, and we urge your Subcommittee to fund the
program at this requested level.
The past, present, and future success of forestry research and
extension activities arising from the NAPFSC member institutions
results from a unique partnership involving federal, state, and private
cooperators. Federal agencies have concentrated on large-scale national
issues while state funding has emphasized applied problems and state-
specific opportunities. University research in contrast, with the
assistance of federal, state and private support, has been able to
address a broad array of applied problems related to technology
development and fundamental biophysical and socioeconomic issues and
problems that cross ownership, state, region, and national boundaries.
Schools and colleges with programs in forestry, forest products, and
natural resources have the expertise in-house to address a broad range
of problems and opportunities related to the forest resource and its
use.
We encourage expanded federal participation in this partnership
with NAPFSC institutions through McIntire-Stennis, RREA, and NRI. We
respectfully urge you to provide much needed increases for fund the
McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Program, the Renewable
Resources Extension Act, and the National Research Initiative in your
fiscal year 2000 Agricultural Appropriations bill.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Universities
and Land-Grant Colleges
Mr. Chairman, I am Bob Moser, Vice President for Agricultural
Administration at The Ohio State University, and Chair of the National
Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges' (NASULGC)
fiscal year 2000 Budget Committee. I represent the 105 institutions
that work in close partnership with USDA's Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). These universities comprise
the State Agricultural Experiment Stations, Cooperative Extension,
Forestry, Human Sciences, Veterinary and Academic Programs of the Land-
Grant Universities, representing the 1862, 1890, 1994 Colleges, and
Hispanic-serving institutions. This testimony also encompasses the
views of Thomas Payne, representing the Experiment Stations Committee
on Organization and Policy, and Dick Wootton, representing the
Extension Committee on Organization and Policy.
The Land-Grant Universities and USDA's CSREES comprise a federal-
state partnership that links new science and technological development
directly to the needs and interests of the people. It builds a strong,
globally competitive U.S. agricultural system. This dynamic system
evaluates environmental impacts of new concepts in production. It
protects the health of the nation by producing a highly nutritious and
safe food supply. It builds the capacity of the nation to access new
information and to educate the coming generation of agricultural
scientists, producers, and community leaders.
We employ more than 24,000 professional staff who work directly
with more than 40 million Americans each year through our Extension
Service. We educate more than 150,000 college students. We conduct
research projects central to the nation's interests in food,
agriculture, natural resources, the environment, and human development.
The member institutions of NASULGC and I appreciate the on-going
support from this Subcommittee and pledge that investment in research,
extension, and education programs will continue to benefit both farmers
and consumers. Agriculture contributes to the economic well-being of
the nation while providing Americans with the cheapest and safest food
supply on the planet. Eleven percent of our wages, salaries, rents, and
profits stem from food and agricultural-related businesses. Americans
spend only 11 percent of their disposable income on food, compared with
15 percent in France, 18 percent in Germany, 33 percent in Mexico, and
51 percent in India. The profitability and quality of tomorrow's
agriculture depends on today's research and education system.
Research and development funding for space exploration, the
environment, basic science research, and health research has increased
in constant dollars from 23 percent to 58 percent over the last 10
years. During that same time, funding for agricultural research and
extension programs, the lifeblood of our food supply system, has shrunk
by 8 percent in constant dollars. Base funds have eroded by 16 percent.
These funds support the scientists and extension educators who can
respond quickly and effectively to unexpected problems that arise for
producers and consumers.
The President's Budget for fiscal year 2000 proposes a net increase
for research, extension and education of $174.2 million above fiscal
year 1999 funding for USDA/CSREES. We strongly endorse this critically
needed investment. However, we do not believe that the President's
budget has identified the best mix of funding mechanisms. It eliminates
some $64.5 million from funding lines that Congress typically supports
and redirects these funds to other priorities supported by the
Administration.
We propose that the $174.2 million increase be distributed with a
$40 million increase for base programs, a $120 million increase for
competitive grants, and a $14.2 million increase for a mix of targeted
mechanisms. Competitive grants and base funding are complementary and
both are necessary funding tools. Base funding provides the foundation
and stability to assure that needed long-term research and extension
programs are supported. Base funds also provide for quick
responsiveness to local and regional problems and unexpected crises,
such as food safety issues or pest infestations, that could not have
been anticipated in the budget preparation process. Competitive grants
target high-priority ``discovery'' research and extension programs, and
can operate efficiently with the infrastructure established through
base funds.
We will direct this funding toward critical needs and focus areas,
determined after numerous meetings with interest groups and
stakeholders. The issues mesh with the five goals developed by USDA as
part of their process for responding to the Government Performance and
Results Act:
goal 1. an agricultural production system that is highly competitive in
the global economy
The changing structure of American agriculture: $40.324 million
U.S. farm and ranch families are experiencing financial stress to a
degree not matched since the mid-1980s, and they are facing this stress
as protection provided by the government diminishes. There are many
immediate challenges as a result of weather-related production problems
and dramatic changes in international markets, putting many producers
in jeopardy. Targeted programs are needed in the states to provide
farmers and ranchers with risk management tools and capital management
training necessary to make decisions in the short and long term to
survive difficult times. Other factors impacting U.S. agriculture
include new communication technologies, genetic modifications of plants
and animals, vertical integration of parts of the industry, worldwide
population growth and redistribution, a changing global economy, and
changing farm policy.
Global competitiveness: $8.0 million
The ability of the United States to compete in global markets will
be increased by: (1) developing and disseminating information about
market, trade, business, and global finance opportunities; (2)
providing information about global agribusiness and investment
opportunities; (3) developing and disseminating information about non-
tariff trade barriers; (4) identifying niche markets for agricultural
products and their derivatives in other nations; and by developing
options for improved decision making in global markets, trade, and
policy; and linking farmers and agribusiness to international trade
providers.
Agricultural genome, germplasm preservation: $45.0 million
The mapping of the human genome has tremendous implications for
future health and medical discoveries. In the same manner, mapping the
genomes of economically important crops, animals, and microbes has
tremendous implications for agricultural production and processing. The
result of mapping critical agricultural genomes will also have great
impact on food safety and quality, as well as environmental protection.
In addition, it is essential that germplasm that has already been
developed through the years is adequately preserved and protected.
Targeted competitive grants are needed that complement the work of
other agencies such as USDA/ARS, DOE, NASA, and NSF.
Ag in the Classroom: $0.268 million
The Ag in the Classroom program plays a critical role in helping
students gain some understanding of the realities of production
agriculture. At a time when children might believe that milk comes
directly from the grocery store, the Ag in the Classroom program
assists in providing for a better-informed public-a public that knows
that there are real cows, real farms, and real ranch families that help
get that milk to the store.
goal 2. a safe and secure food and fiber system
Food safety: $9.0 million
(a) Prevention of food-borne illness ($3 million).--Research on the
actual causes and prevention of food-borne illnesses as well as
education on how to handle food safely not only saves money, but also
saves lives. Prevention of food-borne illnesses is the responsibility
of informed producers, processors, handlers, and consumers of food.
Critical points of contamination must be identified and eliminated
through targeted research and education programs. While we are in the
process of more fully understanding the current list of microbial
pathogens and food contaminants with each passing day, there are
emerging and unidentified risks facing our food supply.
(b) Risk assessment and management ($3 million).--Risk assessment
is the relative degree of risk associated with natural and manufactured
substances to which humans may become exposed. Safe food depends on
broad-based understanding of the causes of food-borne illness, paths to
prevention, and commitment to preventive practices employed by
producers, processors, handlers, and consumers. Better methods are
critically needed for analyzing available data and addressing any
uncertainty. Understanding tolerance for risk--real and perceived--is
an essential basis for education programs.
(c) Safety of food imports ($3 million).--Food imports are
increasing dramatically, bringing with them the threat of new and
emerging diseases. Contamination could occur at any point in
agricultural production, from the farm to the overseas processing
plant. There is also the threat of introducing exotic diseases into the
U.S. food supply and production systems. Furthermore, the integrity of
future agricultural markets will depend on both avoiding domestic
crises in food safety and preventing unfair trade barriers. Special
attention must be given to cross border flows of safe and healthy food.
Pesticide management and FQPA implementation: $23.776 million
In 1996, Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA),
which resulted in many essential changes in food safety and pesticide
laws. Included in this legislation was the repeal of the Delaney
Clause, which imposed a zero-tolerance of pesticide residues. In its
stead, EPA is in the process of reviewing more than 10,000 chemicals
used on crops. It appears that some pesticides that have played a key
role in current agricultural production practices will not be available
to farmers and ranchers in the near future. Immediate steps need to be
taken to identify alternative technologies and practices to replace
agricultural chemicals that may soon become unavailable. EPA, USDA and
the Land-Grant university community must work quickly to target
research and education efforts to provide farmers with ecologically and
economically sound alternatives to pesticides that may no longer be
available.
goal 3. a healthier, more well-nourished population
Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP): $2.348 million
The Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program plays a pivotal
role in assuring that the recipients of food assistance programs have
the training and education that they need to improve the use of their
food resources and the nutritional quality of their diets. EFNEP has a
well-documented history of developing the ability of food assistance
recipients to improve their diets with scarce resources and to fully
benefit from the assistance they receive.
Nutrition and health: $6.0 million
The capacity to learn and to contribute to society is traced
directly to the quality of health and nutrition from prenatal status
through adulthood. Healthy diets minimize illness and disease and
reduce medical costs. Assuring a healthy, well-nourished population
requires continuing effort toward development of quality research
information on nutrient function for maintenance of optimal health,
understanding the availability of food for all population groups,
especially those at greater risk for nutrition-related diseases,
including infants, the elderly, and new immigrant groups. Nutrition
education can incorporate research information in a form that is
appropriate to each of these segments of the population. Education
should include knowledge of how to secure foods to provide adequate
nutrition with a commitment to the dietary guidelines. Uses of foods to
prevent diseases (e.g., functional foods) and the production of
pharmaceuticals from plants are new areas of nutrition research that
need to be targeted for support.
goal 4. greater harmony between agriculture and the environment
Agricultural waste management: $14.0 million
In the past several years, outbreaks of microorganisms linked to
fish kills and human sickness have focused public attention on better
management of nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogen. Some
scientists believe nutrient runoff from agricultural plant and animal
production nourishes algal blooms. In response to public concerns, EPA
and USDA have recently developed a draft ``Unified National Strategy
for Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs).'' This unified strategy
identifies an array of research, extension, and education activities
that need to be addressed. A mix of base support to address research
needs in each state is combined with competitive grants to develop
integrated research, extension, and education projects.
Water quality and nutrient management: $3.0 million
Water quality and nutrient management encompasses the issues cited
in the preceding paragraph. In addition to addressing the issues of
agricultural waste, there is an array of pressing issues that need to
be addressed, including increased collaboration with other agencies.
Farm*a*Syst is a voluntary, science-based extension program that helps
farmers and ranchers calculate and manage nutrient loading and run-off
on their properties.
Carbon sequestration: $3.4 million
Carbon sequestration could be part of the solution to global
climate change. Agricultural crop production uses carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere, sequestering the carbon back into plants and the soil.
Optimizing the efficiency of agricultural plant production therefore
reduces possible threats from global warming. Forest production also
plays a pivotal role in carbon sequestration. Base funding for forest
research and integrated competitive grants is recommended so that
efficient agricultural production can help protect the global
environment.
The changing American landscape: $2.0 million
The American urban-suburban-rural interface is rapidly shifting. As
a consequence of new demographic patterns, attention needs to be
focused on supporting management decisions by local authorities. New
knowledge is needed on policy and program options, and the consequences
of those choices.
goal 5. enhanced economic opportunities and quality of life for
americans
The changing structure of rural America: $7.0 million
Rural America includes the vast and dynamic regions of the national
landscape that produce our food, fiber, and raw materials that support
our industries, recreation, and a valued quality of life. In the
twenty-first century, forces that will shape rural America include
information technology, genomics, and global information systems and
trade policy. Such major forces can cause great stress as well as
opportunities. To support rural Americans in adapting to change, three
elements of human capacity development are proposed for fiscal year
2000.
(1) Professional work force preparation.--Aggressive approaches are
needed to attract more people into the science and practices of
American agricultural enterprises if they are to advance. Collaborative
efforts between universities and private sector laboratories to provide
internships can enhance interest and commitment to agricultural
sciences. Study abroad experiences can attract graduates into
international agriculture.
(2) Work force transition.--The national work force preparation
initiative coordinates federal, state, and local resources for
extension, education, and research to address the training and
retraining needs of youth and adults. Economic viability of rural
communities with special emphasis on farm and ranch families is of high
importance to maintaining the quality of life sought by rural citizens
and communities. The initiative focuses on funding support for
transitional educational opportunities for farm and ranch families,
entrepreneurial job creation, small single-scale manufacturing, value-
added food processing, and others.
(3) Technology transfer.--Availability of information useful to
agricultural producers and practitioners has proliferated with
increased access to technology. Greater attention should be given to
the use and application of information and technologies that are
readily produced by the global agricultural research system. Databases
such as those maintained by NASA and the National Research Library
should be evaluated as to their utility to the agriculture sector.
Attention must be given to assisting users in the verification and
management of information specific to their needs.
Children, Youth and Families at Risk: $1.0 million
The national Children, Youth and Families at Risk initiative
provides funding to Cooperative Extension Service programs in Land-
Grant Universities to develop community based projects that are
designed to help at-risk audiences-both children and their families-
solve their own problems. Essential to the success of the projects is
self-sufficiency. Federal support for the projects extends for a
maximum of five years, with states contributing matching funds. This
highly successful program addresses parenting skills, building family
strengths, community leadership development, health and nutrition
education, positive youth development, and more. The return on
investment provided by this model program deserves strong continued
support and enhancement.
Higher education: $14.750 million
The Administration has proposed a mix of increases and some new
programs in the area of higher education, particularly in the area of
supporting the needs of minority communities. The Land-Grant
Universities support these proposals. In addition, the Land-Grants have
targeted much needed increases to the 1890 Institution Capacity
Building Grant Program and the Institution Challenge Grants.
Conclusion
Land-Grant Universities are key to the economic, environmental, and
social health of our nation. We work one-on-one to help farmers,
businesses, communities, and families thrive. We strive to help the
United States provide the safest, most abundant, and most affordable
food supply in the world. We do all of this in the context of a healthy
and protected environment.
With this budget proposal, we have identified the most urgent needs
of the people we serve. We believe this mix of basic and competitive
dollars, focused on these five priority areas, will best serve
agriculture and the general public. Thank you for your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Universities
and Land-Grant Colleges
Mr. Chairman, I am the Assistant Director of the International
Agriculture at Cornell University. I am also the current the chair of
the International Committee on Organization and Policy. I testify here
in support of the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture Appropriations. Our
committee is particularly interested in several programs. These
include:
--The proposed Competitive Grants program of USDA/CSREES for Global
Competitiveness. The goal of this program is to enhance U.S.
competitiveness in global markets through the development and
dissemination of information about markets, trade, non-tariff
trade barriers, and global agribusiness opportunities. The
Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act
(AREERA) of 1998 created a new competitive grants mechanism
specifically designed to address these and other tasks.
--Markets, Trade & Rural Development program under the National
Research Initiative (NRI)
This program supports the development of innovative research
concepts and methods to enhance understanding of the global forces that
affect the competitiveness of U.S. agricultural, aquacultural, and
forest products sectors in domestic and international markets.
--National Needs Competitive Grants program under Higher Education.
This program supports strengthening of higher education curriculum
and teaching. Increasingly, college graduates must be prepared to live
and work in a global society. Internationalization of the undergraduate
and graduate curricula through coursework and experiential learning is
essential. This in turn requires faculty and staff development.
By contributing to a better informed citizenry, these programs will
increase U.S. capacity to compete in the global economy.
The impact of current Asian economic turmoil on U.S. agriculture
has demonstrated in dramatic fashion the need for sound, research-based
understanding of global interdependencies. Studies to assess the impact
of national and international public policy, the changing trends in
comparative advantages across nations, and the causes and impacts of
changing demand patterns are clearly critical to sound public policy
and business decision-making. Universities are not only direct sources
of high quality research in these areas, but serve as the training
grounds for future government and private sector researchers.
Between 1970 and 1995, the fraction of world agricultural
production that moved through international markets more than doubled.
The United States currently exports over thirty percent of its
agricultural output, contributing significantly to the U.S. balance of
payments. There is little reason to believe that the international
marketplace will decline in importance for U.S. agriculture. U.S.
farmers, food industries and consumers are increasingly aware of these
trends. The result is a new set of stakeholder expectations for public
universities. Land-grant universities across the country are
responding, establishing as priority objectives the globalization of
research, extension and teaching programs.
In order to compete successfully in global and increasingly free
markets, U.S. producers must continue their remarkable progress in
improving production efficiency. Increasingly U.S. researchers find
genetic resources and ideas to fuel this continued progress through
collaboration with overseas scientists. Productivity gains, however,
are no longer sufficient to maintain or improve market position. Better
understanding of value added opportunities and international market
dynamics are now a major determinant of successful competition. It is
well known that other countries invest heavily to prepare their future
public and private sector leaders to function in an interdependent and
competitive world. Large enrollments of foreign students in the
universities of the United States and Europe give compelling evidence
of this. The U.S. needs to target investments in its own human capital
that will better prepare graduates in the food and agricultural
sciences for the global economy.
The Global Competitiveness Grants, the National Research Initiative
and the National Needs Competitive Grants (Higher Education) programs
are designed to help us expand capacity to increase production and
marketing efficiencies, and to extend them to users in the food system.
The Globalizing Agricultural Science and Education Program for America
(GASEPA) Agenda, which is sponsored by our Committee, focuses
specifically on how to harness available land-grant university
resources, including those to be provided through the above mentioned
programs, to increase capacity to compete in global markets. Let me
conclude with a brief review of the major components of the GASEPA
Agenda.
Under the GASEPA agenda, U.S. land-grant universities will work
with various agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to jointly
internationalize our staff and programs. We will seek ways to use funds
included in the above programs to promote these outcomes.
The GASEPA agenda proposes to initiate and to strengthen globally
relevant and useful agricultural teaching, research and outreach
programs at land-grant and other qualifying institutions. Specific
objectives are:
--Enhancing global competitiveness of U.S. agriculture through human
resource development
--Development and dissemination of information about market, trade
and business opportunities
--Mutually beneficial collaborative global partnerships
--Promoting trade through global economic development
--Promoting global environmental quality and stewardship of natural
resources
It is proposed that at least the first four of these objectives be
funded through some combination of the three competitive grants
mentioned at the beginning of this testimony. Each of these competitive
grant programs will be administered by an agency of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture. This framework will ensure that quality standards are
maintained and that program activities are integrated with those of
other related initiatives.
Among the activities to be supported under the GASEPA agenda are
those which will:
--increase the international content of teaching programs;
--provide university faculty and staff with cross-cultural,
professional experiences in areas related to their expertise;
--increase the ability of faculty and staff to adapt agricultural
technologies developed overseas for use in the U.S.;
--increase faculty, staff and student ability to support the
marketing of U.S. agricultural products and services overseas;
--help U.S. agribusiness identify overseas opportunities; and
--provide students in agriculture and related fields with study and
work experiences related to international competitiveness.
Land-Grant universities must continue to reorient their higher
education, research and extension programs to more effectively address
the global dimensions of the agricultural industry. Our stakeholders
expect it. The GASEPA agenda seeks to position U.S. agriculture as a
major contributor to global food security well into the 21st Century.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of University Fisheries
and Wildlife Programs
The National Association of University Fisheries and Wildlife
Programs (NAUFWP) submits this statement on the proposed fiscal year
2000 appropriations for the Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Services (CSREES), U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Fifty-two universities hold membership in the NAUFWP. They seek to
advance the science and practice of fisheries and wildlife ecology and
management, and enhance public understanding of natural resources
affairs.
Members recognize that information from research and education
outreach efforts of the CSREES and its Land Grant University partners
help to build public understanding that stimulates uses of new
technologies by private landowners, managers, community decision
makers, and other segments of the general public. Significant benefits
accrue to individuals, the states, and the nation by encouraging
sustainable uses of the natural resource base, while simultaneously
maintaining a competitive and profitable agricultural industry.
With more than two-thirds of the U.S. lands, or approximately 1.35
billion acres, owned or managed by more than 10 million private
individuals, it is essential that the CSREES/Land Grant system be
adequately funded. This long-standing partnership delivery system, with
its grass roots credibility, must function more effectively in
conveying important information to land managers and others. A
continuous flow of reliable information is essential to encourage uses
of the resource base that are ecologically sound, economically
compatible, and socially acceptable. This approach is required to
ensure that the natural resource base is used sustainably and yields
multiple products, services, and values, including quality of life
aspects for people.
The NAUFWP is disappointed in the President's proposed fiscal year
2000 budget. It lacks emphasis on natural resources research and
education. For example, the major portion of CSREES's proposed budget
is for production agriculture carried out by slightly more than 1
million farmers. Only a very small amount ($3,192,000) is identified
for the Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA), which provides
information and technical assistance to the more than 10 million
private landowners and managers who handle most of the U.S. natural
resource base. This proposed amount for RREA is inadequate and much too
small a percentage of the total $948,012,000 proposed for the CSREES in
fiscal year 2000.
Natural resources, upon which our economy and quality of life are
based, deserve much more attention and greater consideration. This
statement focuses on needed realignments in the President's proposed
fiscal year 2000 budget for CSREES. Five recommendations are provided
by the NAUFWP.
1. That the Renewable Resources Extension Act be allotted a minimum
of $15 million in fiscal year 2000.
RREA funds apportioned to State Extension Services leverage about
four dollars from cooperating partners for each appropriated dollar.
The major emphasis of this investment is to develop and disseminate
practical, useful information to rural and urban landowners and
managers. The recommended level of funding was originally authorized at
$15 million annually. This level is needed to enable the Extension
system to accomplish the goals and objectives set forth in the 1991-
1995 RREA Report To Congress.
Needs for RREA information and educational programs are greater now
than ever before. Parcels of private land are being fragmented into
smaller units, there is greater diversity in landowners needing and
requesting assistance, and the general public continues to be
increasingly concerned about how land uses are carried out. Funding
RREA at $15 million in fiscal year 2000 would permit the Cooperative
Extension Service to expand its capabilities to assist more than
500,000 private landowners and managers yearly in bolstering their base
of information for carrying out their management and other activities
on an estimated 35 million acres, while increasing productivity and
revenue by $200 million.
2. That Smith-Lever 3(b) & (c) base program funds should be
increased by 9.0 percent to $280,951,000, with an appropriate portion
of this increase designated for Extension's Natural Resource and
Environmental Management Programs (NREM).
The President's fiscal year 2000 proposal calls for a $18,795,000
reduction for Smith-Lever 3(b) & (c) from the fiscal year 1999 level.
This is inconsistent with the goal of enhancing information outreach to
individuals with local needs.
The 9.0 percent increase recommended by the NAUFWP would permit
developing expertise and services at state and local levels to address
existing and emerging natural resource concerns and problems
encountered by small landowners and farmers in both rural and urban
settings. Extension programs need to be strengthened, particularly on
natural resource topics such as forest management, wetlands, threatened
and endangered species, and wildlife/human interactions. The designated
portion of the 9.0 percent increase would be instrumental in improving
landowner understanding of changes and opportunities in conservation
provisions of the 1996 Farm Act and to enhance range management.
The NAUFWP strongly recommends that close cooperative working
relations be strengthened among representatives of State Extension
Services, State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, conservation organizations,
and others. More team efforts are needed. One of increasing interest
and value is the Extension 4-H youth natural resource program, with
more than 1,350,000 youngsters from both urban and rural communities
presently enrolled. Enrollments for this fundamental, popular program
continue to increase.
Increased Smith-Lever 3(b) & (c) funds, with appropriate targeting,
would assist CSREES in carrying out its essential education and service
programs, and help meet its NREM National Strategic Plan obligations,
nationwide.
3. That the Rangeland Research Grants budget be restored to
$500,000 for fiscal year 2000.
In view of the pressing needs to improve management of rangelands,
it is disappointing to see this Administration fail to recognize and
fund the Rangeland Research Grants Program. More than one-half of the
U.S. land area is rangeland, most of which requires increased attention
and management, especially to restore and maintain watershed integrity,
fish and wildlife, and outdoor recreational opportunities. Providing
$500,000 in fiscal year 2000 would reestablish interdisciplinary
research and education programs to help landowners and managers restore
and perpetuate multiple products, services, and values from these
extensive lands.
4. That an appropriate portion of the total increased appropriation
for Pest Management be dedicated to educational programs focused on
preventing and controlling vertebrate pests in urban and rural
communities, and to address invasive exotic species and noxious weed
problems on rangelands.
Funds are required to restore, manage, and sustain the ecological
integrity of the nation's resource base, upon which the economy and
quality of life are based. Regrettably, the President's proposed fiscal
year 2000 budget, with substantial increases for Pest Management ($15.5
million) and the National Research Initiative ($48 million for plant
and animal research), lacks opportunities to address vertebrate pests.
This void needs attention now, to help agricultural producers and other
private landowners address vertebrate pests and invasive species, which
are the most prevalent problems they encounter in many states.
Targeting a sizeable percentage of Pest Management funds for
research and educational programs is needed to enhance the
understanding and capabilities of landowners and managers to curtail
damages from vertebrate pests and invasive species. It also would
enable the CSREES and its Land Grant partners to respond more
effectively to the recent Presidential Executive Order on Invasive
Species (1999-20-03).
5. That Hatch Act funds be restored at least to the fiscal year
1999 level ($180,545,000), McIntire-Stennis be funded at least to $30
million for fiscal year 2000, and proposed increased funds for the
National Research Initiative (NRI) Competitive Grants be reevaluated.
The NAUFWP is deeply concerned over the proposed fiscal year 2000
decrease in funds for the Hatch Act (-$26,873,000) and McIntire-Stennis
Cooperative Forestry program (-$2,050,000). These proposed cuts are
inconsistent with recognized needs for research and information to
address natural resource problems, and to respond to the needs of more
than 10 million private landowners and managers. These cuts should not
be made.
The NAUFWP is pleased that the President's proposed fiscal year
2000 budget carries a $12,500,000 increase over fiscal year 1999 for
NRI research under the category Natural Resources and the Environment.
It is recommended that these funds, as well as others, be aligned to
address critical natural resource research and information needs, such
as those of private landowners and managers. Much greater attention and
more funds should be focused on CSREES Strategic Goal 4: Greater
Harmony Between Agriculture and the Environment. Soil erosion, water
quality, excessive nutrient enrichment, contaminants, and effects of
agricultural chemicals on living organisms warrant prompt attention and
investment of research, information, and Extension funds. The U.S. land
and water base must be maintained in a healthy, productive status.
In summary, the National Association of University Fisheries and
Wildlife Programs recommends the following realignments in the
President's proposed fiscal year 2000 budget for CSREES.
1. That the Renewable Resources Extension Act be fully funded at
$15 million.
2. That Smith-Lever 3(b) & (c) base program funds be increased by
9.0 percent to $280,951,000, with an appropriate portion of this
increase designated for Extension's Natural Resource and Environmental
Management Programs.
3. That Rangeland Research Grants be restored to $500,000.
4. That an appropriate portion of the total increased
appropriations for Pest Management be dedicated to research and
education programs to address prevention and control of vertebrate
pests, and problems associated with invasive exotic species and noxious
weeds.
5. That Hatch Act funds be restored at least to the fiscal year
1999 level, McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry be funded at least to
$30 million, and proposed increased funds for the National Research
Initiative Competitive Grants be revaluated, with more funds aligned to
address critical natural resource research and information needs, such
as those of private landowners and managers.
Please include this statement in the official record on the fiscal
year 2000 appropriations. Your positive response will be appreciated
very much.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Center for Resource Innovations
As ever, we appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony to the
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development
and Related Agencies.
The National Center for Resource Innovations (NCRI) was established
in 1990 through a joint private/federal initiative in an appropriation
to USDA's-Cooperative State Research, Extension and Education Service
(CSREES). The consortium now includes seven sites (including one added
last year at the Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute, Albuquerque,
NM) and an administrative office in Rosslyn, Virginia. Each site in the
consortium contributes unique expertise to this national program. NCRI
capabilities include integration of large data sets in a Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) framework from the national level down to the
farm field as well as weather analysis, land use planning, resource
management at state and local levels, and support for public and
private policy development.
The mission of NCRI
The mission of NCRI is to provide collaborative and innovative
transfer of geographic information systems technologies to support
local government and other public policy development and decision
making.
NCRI funding history, matching funds and cost effectiveness
In the past, NCRI has consistently requested $1.8 million annually
for minimum program operations. Grants have been awarded from funds
appropriated as follows: fiscal year 1990, $494,000; fiscal year 1991,
$747,000; fiscal year 1992 and 1993, $1,000,000; fiscal year 1994,
$1,011,000; fiscal year 1995, $877,000; fiscal year 1996, $939,000;
fiscal year 1997 and 1998, and 1999: $844,000.
NCRI has either matched federal funds or had to reduce program
objectives. The total non-federal support generated for fiscal years
1990 to 1998 was in excess of $5,500,000. The total federal
appropriated amounts for the same period were $8,600,000. In fiscal
year 1997, NCRI prepared, at the request of Congressman Skeen's office,
a cost-benefit study. Results showed that for every federal dollar
invested, $7.40 in benefits through innovative projects was realized.
NCRI site expertise and accomplishments
The advantage of the consortium of seven regional centers that
makes up NCRI is that each site has unique expertise and shares
technical support with other sites. In this way, projects are
strengthened through shared resources and the experience needed to
build complex and comprehensive information systems. Site-to-site
technology transfer and networking build NCRI's overall capabilities,
aids in problem solving and facilitates consistency.
joint activities (seven sites)
All of the NCRI sites plan engaged in two major collaborative
activities this year: a DISTANCE LEARNING PROGRAM broadcast at the
Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute site March 4th and a RESOURCES
TECHNOLOGY FAIR on Capitol Hill held on March 22nd, 1999 in the House
Science Committee Room. Congressmen and Senators were invited to act as
sponsors for the fair, which will include exhibits by the seven NCRI
sites as well as by federal agencies and private sector companies who
have been partners in technology implementation with NCRI sites.
ncri--great lakes university of wisconsin-madison, madison, wisconsin
The NCRI-Great Lakes project site is located at the Land
Information and Computer Graphics Facility (LICGF) in the College of
Agriculture at the University of Wisconsin. The Facility was instituted
in 1993 to function as a research, teaching, and outreach resource in
land and geographic information systems (LIS/GIS). Researchers at LICGF
explore uses of LIS/GIS for local and regional land and resource
planning to support social, economic, and environmental decision making
processes.
During 1999-2000, NCRI-Great Lakes has established the following
objectives:
--Conduct seminars for the Wisconsin Land Council to develop citizen-
based land use planning and the use of Land Information
Systems. Effectiveness of this approach will be assessed.
--Support Wisconsin State Legislature in GIS needs, Research and
Prototyping of Wisconsin Administrative Boundaries.
--Accelerate the use of GIS technology by governments with coastal
zone jurisdictions.
--Work with the State of Wisconsin on the 2000 Census and its
implementation.
ncri--chesapeake, inc., rosslyn, virginia
NCRI-Chesapeake builds cooperative integrated information systems
``from the nation to the neighborhood'' with federal and state
agencies, universities and others to provide new information for better
decision-making. These systems focus first, on the farm, productivity
and the farmers in their own very specific neighborhoods as related to
natural systems and their socio-economic position in the landscape.
NCRI-Chesapeake has established the following goals for 1999-2000:
--Continuing to expand through Internet research descriptions of
impacts of animal manure on water quality, evaluation of agro-
ecoindices, and assessment of watershed priorities.
--Assist citizens in becoming involved in planning future growth in
North Carolina, the Washington-Baltimore metropolitan area and
other urbanizing areas of the country regarding the impact of
urban sprawl on ecosystems.
--Cooperate with EPA in defining ecologically sensitive resources
potential affected by furze growth.
ncri--northwest, central washington university, ellensburg, washington
NCRI-NW continues to concentrate on the local and regional resource
issues of the Yakima Valley and eastern Washington. These issues
include irrigation of agricultural lands, county planning needs, Native
American interests, and the management of inter-mixed public and
private lands. The site works in close cooperation with the faculty and
staff of Central Washington University as well as the GIS lab.
NCRI-NW plans for 1999-2000 include:
--Work with the Natural Resources Conservation Service to speed the
delivery of digital soils maps to GIS users, precision farmers,
and others.
--Initiate a study for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation on the Yakima
River Floodplain.
--Continued assistance to the Kittitas Reclamation District for data
development and data exchange.
ncri--south west, university of arkansas, fayetteville, arkansas
NCRI-SW has been based at the University of Arkansas at
Fayetteville since its inception in May of 1990. Through university
support and hardware and software grants, the program has a fully
equipped research, training, and outreach facility capable of
demonstrating a wide range of software for geographic information
systems, remote sensing, spatial statistics, and database management.
In the fall of 1994, expansion of Center facilities was completed to
include five state-of-the-art teaching and research laboratories, ten
offices, and a library/reading room. A variety of advanced computer
equipment now facilitates the center's teaching, outreach, and
cooperative project capabilities. NCRI-SW continues to focus on
technology transfer through training, the development of statewide GIS
databases and representative projects demonstrating the cost benefits
and efficiency of GIS technology.
NCRI-South West has proposed the following objectives among those
to be achieved in 1999-2000:
--Provide technical support to the Arkansas Land Records
Modernization Board as well as serving as a member of the
Board.
--Participate with a consortium of private and public sector partners
to initiate the Seamless Warehouse of Arkansas Geodata (SWAG)
so that users will be able to access any selected area of the
state with the data provided over the net in OGC Simple
Features Format.
--Expand base of county and local government staff who are
knowledgeable as to benefits and costs for GIS technologies.
ncri--north central, university of north dakota, grand forks, north
dakota
NCRI-NC's interdisciplinary research and technology transfer
programs are located and supported at the University of North Dakota
Regional Weather Information Center. From this facility, NCRI-NC is
linked to the UND Aerospace Scientific Computing Center which houses a
CRAY 190. The resource issues in the region are related to the
enhancement and protection of farming and ranching, which are principal
contributors to the region's economy. The work performed by NCRI-NC and
the Regional Weather Information Center has resulted in their being
recognized by the Ford Foundation as a semifinalist in the 1995
Innovations in American Government Awards Program.
During 1999 and 2000, NCRI-NC has set the following objectives:
--Disseminate GIS technology to local, county and state agencies in
the North Central region.
--Intergate weather and climate data into the GIS environment.
--Provide support for agricultural datasets and methods in GIS
practices.
ncri--south east, south georgia regional development center, valdosta,
georgia
NCRI-SE's program is an integral component of the South Georgia
Regional Development Center--a regional agency that supports local
governments across ten counties. NCRI-SE's primary objective is to
encourage the use of geographic information for ecologically
responsible decisionmaking in this primarily rural region. ``Real
world'' presentations by NCRI-SE using actual local geographic data
have proven to be an effective method of demonstrating the value of
GIS. This, coupled with the experience gained by NCRI-SE personnel from
implementing GIS for local governments, has proven invaluable to
government managers in the South East region. NCRI-SE also provides
direct technical and ``hands on'' advice and training for any regional
entities working in the GIS realm.
NCRI-SE's goals include:
--Demonstrate the value of GIS to local governments using information
that applies directly to their own situations, using the
existing regional database and GIS applications built by NCRI-
SE.
--Provide leadership in the GIS development process by promoting
local government cooperative agreements in order to increase
involvement and defray costs, and to promote standards that
allow simple transfer of GIS data among state, local and
federal agencies.
--Continue to refine data and databases for regional wetlands.
southwest indian polytechnic institute, albuquerque, new mexico
NCRI-SIPI is the newest of the NCRI sites, having been added in
1997. SIPI is a National Indian Community College, funded by the
federal government. Nearly 50 percent of all American Indians live
within a 500-mile radius of the school. SIPI's overall objective is to
provide technology transfer through distance education in conjunction
with the development of precision farming on the SIPI campus and on
Indian reservation lands in New Mexico and southern Colorado.
For fiscal year 1999-2000, SIPI has the following objectives:
--Provide leadership, support and direction to advocates,
practitioners and users of geo-spatial predicts and services.
--Expand the base of county and local government staff who are
knowledgeable as to benefits and costs for GIS technologies.
--Offer GIS and GPS training/short courses locally for tribal
personnel.
conclusion
--The current level of funding for NCRI (fiscal year 1998) is
$844,000. We request that the level of funding through USDA/
CSREES be restored to $1.2 million for fiscal year 2000. For
the past two years, NCRI has provided SIPI with $50,000 of its
own funds. The requested funds would provide uniform funding
levels for all sites.
The NCRI Consortium appreciates this opportunity to provide
testimony to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture,
Rural Development and Related Agencies.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Commodity Supplemental Food Program
(CSFP)
Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members, I am Frank Kubik, President
of the National Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) Association.
Our association of state and local CSFP operators work diligently with
the Department of Agriculture Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Service to
insure a quality supplemental nutrition assistance commodity food
package program for elderly men and women, and mothers, infants, and
children. The program which was authorized in 1969 serves 412,000
individuals every month in 19 states and the District of Columbia.
This 30 year old CSFP program stands as testimony to the power of
partnerships between community-based organizations, private industry
and government agencies. The CSFP offers a unique combination of
advantages unparalleled by any other food assistance program.:
--The CSFP specifically targets our nation's most vulnerable
populations: the very young and the very old.
--The CSFP provides a monthly selection of foods specifically
tailored to the nutritional needs of the population we serve.
Each eligible participant in the program is guaranteed [by law]
a certain level of nutritional assistance every month.
--The CSFP purchases foods at wholesale prices which amounts to \1/3\
the cost it would be to provide the same supplemental nutrients
at retail voucher cost. The average food package cost for
fiscal year 1999 is $15.44 and retail cost would be at least
$50.
--The CSFP involves the entire community in the problems of hunger
and poverty. Thousands of volunteers as well as many private
companies donate money, equipment, and most importantly time to
deliver food to homebound seniors. These volunteers not only
bring food but companionship and other assistance to seniors
who might have no other source of friendship.
--For these historical reasons I would like to submit the National
CSFP Association legislative issues and a report of our 1998
survey of monthly volunteer labor hours to support our
requests.
Chairman Cochran, the committee has consistently been helpful with
funding support for our very prudent way of providing nutritional
supplements to the seniors and mothers and children. Please help us
continue.
legislative issues fiscal year 2000
Position: The CSFP Association recommends an appropriation of $95
million for fiscal year 2000. This would increase the budget figure of
$90.2 million. The increase is necessary for:
--a new state program
--additional caseload for existing programs
--adjustment for state/local support funding
Reasons:
--CSFP is a very effective food delivery system. According to USDA
FNS the average cost of a food package is $16. The average
retail value of those foods distributed by grassroots community
organizations is $50-$60. Our 1998 survey of monthly volunteer
labor hours shows we have at least $390,400/month donated to
stretch support funding for the program.
--The proposed funding for CSFP includes the transfer of $6 million
in food inventory for total program support for fiscal year
2000. This mix of funds and inventory will result in a decrease
of $1.2 million in state/local support funding due to
computation on funds not total program assets.
--There are requests from existing programs for 20,000 additional
caseload slots and one new state has a approved plan for a
pilot program of 5,000 slots.
Position: With the aging of America, CSFP should be an integral
part of USDA Senior Nutrition Policy. This is the most cost effective
way to provide the nutrient rich foods that low income seniors are
lacking.
Reasons: The advantages of CSFP include:
--The food box for seniors is nutritionally balanced.
--Supplemental nutrition is proven to reduce public health care
costs.
--Nutrition education is provided.
--Food is distributed through community and faith based
organizations, familiar to many seniors.
--Seniors resist participation in programs such as food stamps, but
readily access commodity programs.
--CSFP requires a means test that assures participants are truly
needy.
--Actual food is provided to those who need it most.
--CSFP supports United States farmers.
--Program operators utilize volunteers and other in-kind donations to
reach homebound seniors.
--Food boxes are valued at approximately $50-$60 retail and only cost
USDA $15.44.
NATIONAL COMMODITY SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM (CSFP) SURVEY 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed Mobile Volunteer Volunteer Dollars Square
State Sites Participants sites Participants sites Participants hours value miles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire.................................... 3 2,000 86 7,200 5 137 114 $1,566 9,304
New York......................................... 9 26,302 57 1,319 ......... ............ 142 1,951 3,700
Wash. D.C........................................ 5 7,718 4 792 13 2,143 519 7,131 63
Kentucky......................................... 1 5,300 ....... ............ 23 700 600 8,244 750
North Carolina................................... 1 1,036 8 314 ......... ............ ......... .......... 500
Tennessee........................................ 4 14,324 3 4,400 ......... ............ ......... .......... 1,850
Illinois......................................... 12 13,285 ....... ............ 72 5,972 3915 53,792 36
Michigan......................................... 22 47,170 102 21,688 366 14,173 5,922 81,368 58,527
Red Lake MN...................................... 1 325 ....... ............ ......... ............ ......... .......... ( \1\ )
Minnesota........................................ 2 2,822 83 5,994 ......... ............ 504 6,925 84,068
Louisiana........................................ 10 22,824 33 18,241 208 28,460 1,779 24,443 27,928
New Mexico....................................... 4 11,353 37 6,185 19 969 1,194 16,406 42,806
Colorado......................................... 9 19,180 32 1,714 61 2,090 1,632 22,424 18,656
Iowa............................................. 1 3,064 37 1,028 13 579 450 6,183 3,600
Kansas........................................... 9 2,185 24 1,175 62 1,192 640 8,794 N/A
Nebraska......................................... 22 8,923 85 3,457 49 1,536 1,417 19,470 74,866
South Dakota..................................... 2 461 3 69 ......... ............ ......... .......... ( \1\ )
Arizona.......................................... 16 5,995 ....... ............ 67 14,179 1,122 15,416 80,000
California....................................... ..... ............ 45 28,175 72 3,863 8,154 112,036 3,697
Oregon........................................... 1 712 ....... ............ ......... ............ 310 4,259 75
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals........................................... 134 194,979 639 101,751 1,030 75,993 28,414 390,408 410,426
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reservations.
FIXED SITE: Foods are warehoused and participants travel to the site and take food packages back to their homes. Distributed to participants by paid
staff.
MOBILE SITE: Distribution where foods are transported to a facility (not warehoused) and distributed to participants by paid staff.
VOLUNTEER SITE: Location where distribution of prepacked foods is performed by volunteer groups or individuals.
Prepared Statement of the National Conservation Buffer Council
The National Conservation Buffer Council and its sponsoring
organizations urge you to give high priority to conservation and
environment programs in the fiscal 2000 agricultural appropriations
bill.
NCBC is a private-sector, nonprofit organization formed to advocate
agricultural conservation practices, especially the family of practices
known as buffers, so as to protect water quality and reduce future
regulatory burdens on farmers and ranchers.
We hope to help encourage the establishment of two million miles of
buffers on private agricultural lands by 2002.
Such an ambitious goal can only be achieved through a vigorous
private-public partnership with the Department of Agriculture--
especially the Natural Resources Conservation Service--and the
continued availability of the department's incentive programs and
technical assistance to landowners. To those ends, we ask that you
consider the following recommendations regarding fiscal year 2000
appropriations:
Environmental Quality Incentives Program.--NCBC supports the
Administration's request for an additional $100 million in funding for
EQIP. This addition is critical to meet the overwhelming demand for the
program's cost-share and incentive payments and technical assistance--
demand which, it should be noted, stands to only increase as additional
requirements such as the Administration's Animal Feeding Operation
strategy and various state-level water quality regulations come on
line.
With these new environmental challenges for agriculture so
obviously on the horizon, it was extremely disheartening that EQIP
funding was actually reduced for fiscal year 1999. At the very least,
no cuts to EQIP should be made in the future.
Conservation Reserve Program.--Wetlands Reserve Program CRP and WRP
are major sources of incentives for buffer establishment. We request
that no restrictions on enrollments be enacted in fiscal year 1999.
The CRP continuous signup stands to be the most lucrative program
in many regions. However, participation in this option has been
limited. Our extensive contacts in the field suggest this is due in
part to several obstacles, including indifference of USDA personnel in
some counties toward the continuous CRP, inconsistent application of
program guidelines nationwide, and insufficient payment rates in some
areas. We would appreciate direction from your subcommittee to the
Secretary to remedy these barriers.
NRCS operations.--The agency's own workload analysis, based on
expectations of demand for technical assistance connected with the
environmental challenges mentioned above, suggests that the staffing
levels provided for in the Administration's own fiscal year 2000 budget
will leave NRCS about 1,000 person-years short of what will be needed.
This assistance is critical, especially for landowners with limited
resources. NCBC urges the subcommittee to carefully consider the
critical technical assistance needs of farmers and ranchers when
setting the funding level for NRCS. At this juncture, we would also
register our concern about the limitations on NRCS technical assistance
for development of CRP conservation plans that have arisen as a result
of the 1996 farm bill's amendment to Section 11 of the Commodity Credit
Corporation charter act. As you are aware, this is an issue with
respect to both the fiscal year 2000 agricultural appropriations bill
and the fiscal year 1999 supplemental appropriations measure. We
request your support for an exemption of conservation programs from the
so-called Section 11 cap on reimbursable agreements, especially since
conservation technical assistance was not among those agreements in
fiscal year 1995 that are the basis for the cap.
Alternatively, we would ask that you urge the Secretary to expedite
the process for contracting outside the Department for the technical
assistance necessary to allow the CRP enrollments to progress
unhindered.
Thank you for your consideration of our recommendations. I would be
happy to discuss these points, especially the suggestions of direction
to the Department, with you or your staff.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Cooperative Business Association
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we appreciate the
opportunity to present testimony as you prepare to consider
appropriations for the Department of Agriculture for fiscal year 2000.
I would like to discuss the Grants for Rural Cooperative Development
program and the centers for cooperative development receiving funding
from the program. I urge you to appropriate at least the President's
budget amount of $5 million for this valuable program that is offering
real solutions to the daunting challenges being faced in rural America.
The National Cooperative Business Association (NCBA) is proud of
its role in assisting the creation of a network of rural cooperative
development centers across the country. We know that Congress is
equally as proud of its role in fostering a cooperative business
development support network throughout rural America. Congress and this
Administration recognize the vital role that cooperatives play in
providing jobs, increasing incomes and reducing expenses for millions
of rural Americans.
The Grants for Rural Cooperative Development program was originally
authorized by section 2347 of the 1990 farm bill as a program of Grants
for Technology Transfer and Cooperative Development. In fiscal year
1993, this committee began to provide funding for the program, and
report language over the years has indicated your strong support for
the concept of using this funding for the purpose of creating a network
of centers for rural cooperative business development. While the
centers offer technical assistance, information and other resources for
cooperative business formation, their network provides a vital support
system for the centers to continue operating.
NCBA's members, along with other supporters of cooperatives around
the nation, joined together as the National Rural Cooperative
Development Task Force to advocate for support for a national network
of centers and to develop the linkages among the centers and between
the centers and local partners to sustain the network's development.
NCBA is now working with these regional centers that provide vital
technical assistance and support for the development of cooperative
enterprises in rural America. NCBA also signed a partnership agreement
in 1997 with USDA's Cooperative Services program to coordinate
strategies to assist rural cooperative development.
In 1996, Congress demonstrated its strong commitment to the centers
approach when it passed the FAIR Act, also known as the 1996 farm bill.
The program is now called Grants for Rural Cooperative Development in
section 747(c)(4) of Public Law 104-127. The program focuses on
supporting ``nonprofit institutions for the purpose of enabling the
institutions to establish and operate centers for rural cooperative
development.'' It is authorized to provide funding at $50 million per
year. The revised statutory language defines the goals of these centers
as ``facilitat[ing] the creation of jobs in rural areas through the
development of new rural cooperatives, value added processing, and
rural businesses.''
With the support of funding received from the program over the past
few years, the rural cooperative development centers have demonstrated
quantifiable results. The National Network of Centers that NCBA works
with has established more than 50 value-added cooperatives serving in
excess of 5,000 members. These centers have created or saved 16,500
jobs in the communities they serve. They have assisted more than 400
local communities and organizations. The centers have raised the
quality of technical assistance being provided on cooperative
development, they have developed significant information-sharing
capability among their network and created the first report of best
practices in the field of cooperative development.
This coming year, centers will be involved in replicating successes
they have achieved and breaking new ground in areas where cooperative
development is needed. The electricity industry is rapidly being
deregulated in every part of the country. Consumer-owned rural electric
cooperatives have provided reliable and affordable electricity to rural
Americans since the rural electrification program began directing
federal resources for them in the 1930s. Once again, a small federal
investment can provide essential assistance to develop consumer-owned
energy purchasing cooperatives so that Americans are able to provide
themselves with access to electricity. By pooling the purchasing power
of many small consumers, cooperative businesses give their members the
same bargaining power as large users of electricity. Centers are
working with rural Americans to create and build these self-help
enterprises.
Other cooperative development projects include the formation of new
value-added agricultural cooperatives, new child care cooperatives, and
cooperative housing projects. Value-added agricultural cooperatives
give farmers more of the consumer dollar. Child care cooperatives
provide former welfare recipients and other low-income people the
opportunity to reduce the cost of child care and give them control over
how their child care facilities are operated. Cooperative housing gives
seniors and others in rural areas the chance to save money on their
housing and live in safe communities.
The President's budget includes $5 million for this program. This
is a significant increase in funding from prior years, demonstrating
the Administration's acknowledgement of the value of this program.
USDA's National Commission on Small Farms recently recommended that
this program ``be increased by $10 million annually up to $20
million.'' The Commission's report calls the program ``one of the few
that supports rural cooperative development at the grassroots level.''
The program is authorized to be funded at $50 million annually.
We urge this committee to do what over 100 organizations from
around the country are urging Congress and the Administration to do:
increase funding for this valuable program. Mr. Chairman, I ask that
the letter signed by those organizations be included in the record of
this hearing along with my testimony.
NCBA is a national membership association representing
cooperatives--over 120 million Americans and 47,000 businesses ranging
in size from small buying clubs to businesses included in the Fortune
500. NCBA's membership includes cooperatives in the fields of housing,
health care, finance, insurance, child care, agricultural marketing and
supply, rural utilities and consumer goods and services, as well as
associations of cooperatives. NCBA brings its members together to
provide business opportunities and to develop, advance and to protect
cooperative enterprise.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Corn Growers Association
The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) appreciates the
opportunity to provide the subcommittee with corn growers'
recommendations regarding fiscal year 2000 appropriations for key
programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. NCGA
represents 30,000 corn growers in 48 states and the association's
mission is to create and increase opportunities for corn growers in a
changing world and to enhance corn utilization and profitability.
genomic research
For the fiscal year 2000 agricultural appropriations bill, NCGA
supports the Administration's budget request for an increase of $1.8
million for plant and animal genetic resources at the Agricultural
Research Service (ARS). We believe, however, that this amount should be
increased significantly to ensure that the ARS has sufficient resources
to participate fully in the ongoing genomics revolution. NCGA was
disappointed that the Administration's Information Technology proposal
did not include the ARS and that the Administration is no longer
proposing a new, competitive grants program for Food Genomics. NCGA
supports efforts to ensure that the $120 million in funding for the
Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems is utilized for
agricultural research and, in particular, for a significant plant and
animal genomics program at the USDA.
While many federal agricultural programs are important to the
nation's corn growers, NCGA believes that the future of the corn
industry is written in corn's genetic code and that plant genomics will
give us the fundamental information necessary for biotechnology to
revolutionize American agriculture. NCGA concurs with Philip H.
Abelson's statement, in a 1998 editorial, that we are in the early
phases of the third technological revolution--a genomics revolution--
and that `` * * * the greatest ultimate global impact of genomics will
result from manipulation of the DNA of plants.'' (Science, Vol. 279, p.
2019.) Thus, NCGA believes that the most important appropriations issue
for fiscal year 2000 is funding for coordinated, plant genomics
research. Genomics consists of mapping, sequencing and analyzing
genomes to determine the function of genes. Plant genomics research
advances our understanding of the structure, organization and function
of plant genomes. The complete genetic makeup of any organism is known
as its genome.
In January 1998, the National Science and Technology Council issued
an Interagency Working Group report on the National Plant Genome
Initiative. The report stated that the time was right for the
implementation of a comprehensive, five-year National Plant Genome
Initiative to meet the major challenges that will face mankind in the
21st Century. In the transmittal letter accompanying the report, the
President's science advisor, Dr. John H. Gibbons, stated the following:
The timing of this initiative is critical, since our
international and private sector partners are moving forward
aggressively. A significant public sector program * * * carried
out in partnership with industry will ensure plant genome data
and materials are openly accessible to all scientists. It is a
critical step toward promoting future scientific breakthroughs
in plant biology and their practical application.
To accomplish the short-term goals of the National Plant Genome
Initiative that focus on building plant genome research infrastructure,
the Interagency Working Group on Plant Genomes estimated that $400
million in funding was needed, over five years, to meet the anticipated
needs of the Initiative. For fiscal years 1998 and 1999, $90 million
was provided for the National Science Foundation Plant Genome
Initiative. Without a significant plant genomics investment from the
USDA, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve the level of
federal funding necessary to fulfill the short-term goals of the
National Plant Genome Initiative. Thus, NCGA strongly supports
increases for the plant genomics program at the ARS and supports
increases in competitively awarded plant genomics funding. The
Administration's budget request is inadequate for both the short-term
and long-term goals of the National Plant Genome Initiative.
The National Plant Genome Initiative will help scientists,
geneticists and plant breeders identify and utilize genes from corn and
other economically significant crops that control important traits,
such as nutritional value, stress tolerance and resistance to pests.
The far-reaching benefits of this Initiative include:
--protection of U.S. interests and access to important biotechnology
and gene patents;
--revitalization of rural America due to a more robust agricultural
sector;
--expansion of plant-based renewable resources for energy and raw
materials;
--significant reductions in crop losses and reliance on pesticides
through improved biological methods to control and alleviate
serious industrial threats and targeted pests;
--improved yields and reduced crop losses caused by adverse
environmental conditions such as heat, drought and salt;
--improved nitrogen-use efficiency, thereby, limiting the potential
for nitrates in the water supply;
--reduced environmental problems confronted by livestock producers,
such as modifying the digestibility of phosphorous in feed corn
to reduce the amount of phosphorous that enters our ground
water;
--improved animal nutrition leading to healthier meat and increased
meat productivity;
--reductions in the occurrence of mycotoxin contamination by
significantly improving resistance to fungal infection;
--the development of tailored hybrids with valuable specialty
starches, oils and protein content; and
--reduced worldwide malnutrition due to higher yielding and more
nutritious crops.
The National Plant Genome Initiative is critical to the long-term
viability of U.S. agriculture. To compete in the global market, the
U.S. must continually strive to efficiently and economically improve
production capabilities--to maximize yield and combat serious threats
from disease, pests and climate changes--without harming the
environment. Genomics research holds the key to achieving this goal.
The NCGA, also, understands that the American Seed Trade
Association (ASTA) is requesting a $5 million increase for the National
Plant Germplasm System (NPGS). The NCGA concurs with ASTA that the NPGS
is a fundamental, strategic resource. Access to diverse genetic
resources that are well maintained by the NPGS is essential to the
future of agricultural biotechnology. Thus, the NCGA supports the
request for a $5 million increase for the NPGS.
The NCGA urges Congress to provide increased funding for plant and
animal genomics research and plant germplasm research at USDA to ensure
that our growers have the tools to meet the challenges and demands of
the 21st century.
market development programs
The Market Access Program (MAP) and Foreign Market Development
Cooperator Program (FMD), both administered by USDA's Foreign
Agricultural Service (FAS), help promote access to key overseas markets
for U.S. agricultural products, including corn and value-added corn
products.
MAP uses funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to
reimburse a portion of the costs of carrying out overseas marketing and
promotional activities, such as direct consumer promotions, market
research, technical assistance, and trade servicing. MAP participants
include nonprofit agricultural trade organizations, State regional
trade groups, cooperatives, and private companies that qualify as small
business concerns. Historically, more than 80 percent of MAP funding
has been devoted to building export markets for U.S. high value
agricultural products.
FMD, also known as the Cooperator Program, seeks to develop long-
term export markets for generic U.S. agricultural commodities. For more
than 40 years, FMD has fostered a trade promotion partnership between
USDA and U.S. agricultural producers and processors who are represented
by nonprofit commodity or trade associations called cooperators. By
providing cost-share assistance and the opportunity to work closely
with FAS and its overseas offices, FMD has mobilized private sector
support and funding for market development activities in more than 100
countries worldwide. Historically, USDA's contribution to this program
has averaged approximately $30 million a year, with additional funding
provided by cooperators and third-party participants such as the
foreign firms or governments that import and distribute U.S. products
in the target markets.
NCGA urges appropriators to support full funding for the Market
Access Program at the authorized level of $90 million and to support
efforts to maintain funding for the Foreign Market Development
Cooperator Program for fiscal year 2000 at no less than the level
necessary to support marketing plans for the development of overseas
markets for U.S. commodities at current levels.
conservation programs
As society's expectations for clean air, clean water and abundant
wildlife habitat increase, so does the need to deliver conservation
technical assistance to our nation's farmers and ranchers. Private
lands comprise 70 percent of the lower 48 states and 80 percent of all
precipitation in our country falls on private land. Therefore it is
wise and in the public's interest to make sound investments in
educating and equipping private landowners to conserve the natural
resources in their care and to build upon stewardship efforts they
already have in place.
The Administration's proposed fiscal year 2000 budget for USDA's
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) included $584.7 million
for conservation technical assistance, an increase of approximately
$36.8 million from 1999. After accounting for policy decisions and
inflation, the president's request would result in a loss of 1,055
staff positions from fiscal year 1999, most of which will come from
NRCS field offices. It is estimated that an additional $90 million will
be needed to retain these 1,055 staff positions to deliver technical
assistance to the field. Therefore, we ask the committee to appropriate
$674.7 million for NRCS technical assistance for fiscal year 2000.
ethanol pilot plant
The nation's corn growers also urge your support for full funding,
through ARS, for the National Corn-to-Ethanol Research Pilot Plant to
be constructed in Edwardsville, Illinois. The Pilot Plant will provide
a necessary tool to expand and perfect new technologies in wet and dry-
mill corn processing. What many people do not understand is that
ethanol is just one of many products produced in corn processing
facilities. Other products include high fructose corn syrup, glucose,
dextrose and several high-protein animal feed ingredients. The corn
milling industry is expected to grind 1.885 billion bushels of corn in
the 1998-99 crop year, accounting for 16.4 percent of the total corn
crop. Ethanol production accounts for between 550 and 600 million
bushels of the corn grind. Corn processing adds value to corn and
provides U.S. consumers with a wide array of products we all use every
day.
Since 1990, the corn milling industry has expanded, primarily
because of expansion in the demand for ethanol. Many of the new corn
milling facilities are small dry mills that are farmer-owned co-ops.
While the capital investments required to build a dry mill are small
relative to a large integrated wet mill, there are severe limitations
in the product options dry mills have. Because of their small size and
limited financial resources, these dry mills are not able to conduct
the kind of research that is necessary to keep them competitive.
The Pilot Plant would allow small corn millers to band together and
form partnerships with NCGA, state corn grower associations, university
researchers, and each other to pursue the development and
commercialization of new technologies that will improve the economics
of corn processing. Moreover, developing technologies that convert the
cellulose in corn fiber into ethanol or other valuable products could
be shared by corn processors of all sizes. Breakthroughs in these areas
and the commercialization of new corn processing technologies could
boost the domestic demand for corn by one billion bushels or more
within the next seven to ten years.
In fiscal year 1996, Congress appropriated $500,000 for ARS to
study the feasibility of a Pilot Plant that industry, government and
universities could use to assess the commercial potential of laboratory
concepts. The project has moved forward with impressive results. In
fiscal year 1997, Congress further endorsed this project by
appropriating $1.5 million for final design and engineering. Final
plans were completed in August 1998, and the project is ready to
proceed with construction as soon as additional funds are appropriated.
The state of Illinois has appropriated $6 million as matching funds,
contingent upon $14 million in federal funds to construct this $20
million project.
The Ethanol Pilot Plant has been through an exhausting series of
feasibility and engineering studies that have confirmed the need for,
and the potential of, the project. It has also been endorsed by
Congress. The project is ready for construction, with 30 percent of the
capital funds provided by state government. Therefore, NCGA urges
Congress to appropriate $14 million to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture in fiscal year 2000 to bring the potential of this project
to bear in the marketplace.
The NCGA appreciates the opportunity to submit this testimony and
looks forward to working with the committee on these priority issues
for the corn industry.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Cotton Council of America
This is to transmit the cotton industry's request for fiscal year
2000 funding for selected programs under the jurisdiction of the
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies.
The National Cotton Council appreciates your assistance in making this
letter a part of the hearing records related to the fiscal year 2000
appropriations bill.
The National Cotton Council of America (NCC) is the central
organization of the U.S. cotton industry representing growers, ginners,
warehousemen, cottonseed crushers, merchants, cooperatives and
manufacturers whose primary business operations are located in 17
cotton producing states. Cotton Council International (CCI) is the
overseas promotion arm of the cotton industry. The annual average farm
gate value of U.S. cotton production is about $6 billion and its retail
value averages approximately $60 billion. U.S. raw cotton exports
normally account for approximately 40 percent of annual production and
are valued at approximately $4 billion. U.S. textile manufacturers have
invested nearly $25 billion in new plants and equipment in the U.S.
during the last 10 years and continue to be the U.S. cotton producer's
most important customers. Further, the growth in exports of U.S.
manufactured cotton textile products, approaching 3.5 million bale
equivalents, has been an important and positive development for the
cotton industry and for farm income.
Cotton prices have declined dramatically in recent months and
market observers predict low prices could continue for the next 12-36
months. The Asian economic crisis; changes in China's import policy;
over production of cotton in Uzbeckistan and the Southern Hemisphere
which has affected U.S. raw cotton export demand and spurred apparel
exports to the U.S.; excess production of and cheap prices for
synthetic fibers all contribute to a situation which has farmers deeply
concerned by shrinking operating margins.
The assistance Congress provided for economic and weather related
losses in late 1998 was very important. However, prices remain at their
lowest point in a decade and USDA projections suggest farm income will
remain under stress. For cotton, the exhaustion of funding for Step 2
competitiveness provision has left the industry unable to compete in a
heavily subsidized international market.
In the long-term, cotton farmers will benefit from activities
designed to reduce production costs and build demand. Successful
completion of the boll weevil eradication program, control of the pink
bollworrn, new technology developed by research, and demand building
export programs including MAP, FMD and GSM credit are all essential to
our industry.
The cotton industry's long-term viability and potential for
continued improvement depend on: an effective farm policy including
adequate funding for cotton's 3-step competitiveness provisions; an
investment in the development and application of scientific principles;
and, aggressive market development activities. The National Cotton
Council welcomes the opportunity to provide the following
recommendations and requests for fiscal year 2000 appropriations for
programs which make important contributions to our industry's ability
to compete and prosper (detailed description of these projects is
attached):
funding priorities
(1.) Pink Bollworm Programs--APHIS.--$6.0 million to continue San
Joaquin Valley containment program and initiate an eradication program
in 5 cotton producing counties in Arizona to move sequentially to
eastern Arizona, New Mexico and west Texas.
(2a.) Boll Weevil Eradication--FSA.--$3.0 million (or adequate
funding) to allow FSA to make at least $100 million in loans to
eligible Boll Weevil Eradication Foundations, clarify eligibility
criteria, and require FSA to collect acreage data.
(b.) Boll Weevil Eradication--APHIS.--Sufficient funds for APHIS to
restore Federal cost share to 30 percent from current level of less
than 5 percent.
(3a.) Market Access Program (MAP).--$90 million.
(b.) Foreign Market Development (FMD & FAS).--Sufficient funding to
provide authority for FAS to write marketing plans at same funding
level (approximately $33 million) as fiscal year 1999.
(c.) GSM-102 Credit Guarantee (FAS).--Maintain authority to make at
least $5.9 billion in GSM-102 guaranteed export credit available for
use by U.S. exporters and customers.
(4.) Aflatoxin.--Increase ARS aflatoxin research budget by $900,000
to expand the area wide management program in Arizona.
(5.) Ginning Research--ARS.--Urge ARS to provide adequate funding
for operation of 3 regional ginning labs at Stoneville, MS; Lubbock,
TX; and Mesilla Park, NM and instruct ARS not to reprogram fiscal year
1998 funds provided to Lubbock lab.
(6.) Farm Service Agency.--Adequate funding to deliver programs.
(7.) Other.--Support funding for value-added textile research at
New Orleans SRRC & Clemson; PM-10 research by CSREES; germplasm
enhancement; silverleaf whitefly control programs; various conservation
programs; and, Office of Pest Management Programs.
Thank you for your consideration of our recommendations.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
The National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC) appreciates very
much this opportunity to share its views regarding the fiscal year 2000
agriculture appropriations bill, and respectfully requests this
statement be made a part of the official hearing record.
Overview of NCFC
The National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC) is a national
trade association representing nearly 100 regional marketing, supply
and credit cooperatives, and state councils. Included among these
regional cooperatives are over 3,500 local cooperatives whose farmer-
owners represent a majority of America's 2 million individual farmers.
These farmer-owned cooperative businesses are engaged in virtually
every facet of agriculture. This includes handling, processing,
marketing and exporting of U.S. produced agricultural commodities and
related products; the manufacture, distribution and sale of farm
supplies; and the providing of credit and related financial services,
including export financing for, and on behalf of, their farmer owners.
Support for Farmer Cooperatives
For farmers, such cooperative self-help efforts provide the
opportunity to reduce risks, capitalize on market opportunities and
earn a greater return on their productivity and investment. Earnings
derived from such business are returned to the cooperative's farmer
owners on a patronage basis, which also helps contribute to local and
regional economic activity as well as the national economy. Another
important contribution is reflected in the fact these farmer-owned
cooperative businesses also employ nearly 300,000 people (full and
part-time) with a combined payroll of approximately $6.8 billion. Many
of these jobs are in rural areas where employment opportunities are
sometimes limited.
Recent changes in farm policy, along with trends shaping the global
business climate for U.S. agriculture, call for a renewed emphasis in
support of policies and programs to help farmers help themselves
through cooperative efforts to: (1) better manage the risks and
uncertainty inherent in production agriculture; (2) capitalize on new
market opportunities, including moving more into value-added production
and processing; (3) compete more successfully in a global marketplace
still characterized by subsidized foreign competition, and (4) help
maintain and create needed jobs in communities throughout rural
America.
USDA's Rural Business-Cooperative Service
For these reasons, we strongly recommend that funding and staffing
be strengthened for USDA's Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) and
its related programs aimed at achieving these important objectives.
Such action would help ensure that USDA is fully able to carry out its
historical mission as mandated by Congress in support of farmer
cooperatives. It should be noted that many of the programs administered
by RBS relating to farmer cooperatives are generally derived from
amounts made available for salaries and expenses in the Rural
Development mission area. To better provide for program continuity and
long term planning, we believe that specific language should be
included in the fiscal year 2000 agriculture appropriations bill to
ensure needed funding and staffing for RBS programs for research,
education and technical assistance in support of farmer cooperatives.
Commodity Purchase Programs and Farmer Cooperatives
We want to express our strong support for maintaining both the
statutory provisions and report language included in the fiscal year
1999 agriculture appropriations bill as an amendment by Senator Cochran
to ensure that farmer cooperatives are fully eligible to participate in
USDA's commodity purchase programs. Such programs serve two important
purposes. One, they help meet the food and nutrition needs of
consumers. Second, they provide an important market outlet for farmers,
especially during periods of surplus production, thereby helping
strengthen farm income and promoting orderly marketing.
We want to express our strong support for maintaining both the
statutory provisions and report language included in the fiscal year
1999 agriculture appropriations bill as an amendment by Senator Cochran
to ensure that farmer cooperatives are fully eligible to participate in
USDA's commodity purchase programs. Such programs serve two important
purposes. One, they help meet the food and nutrition needs of
consumers. Second, they provide an important market outlet for farmers,
especially during periods of surplus production, thereby helping
strengthen farm income and promoting orderly marketing.
However, under previous guidelines established by USDA, this
important market was eliminated for many farmers choosing to
cooperatively market their products. The Cochran amendment addresses
this by clearly providing that farmer cooperatives are fully eligible
to participate in such programs for and on behalf of their farmer
owners. In doing so, it preserves an important market outlet for many
farmers, promotes orderly marketing, encourages cooperative self-help
efforts, and helps maintain and strengthen farm income--since proceeds
from the sale of commodities and related products are returned to the
cooperatives' farmer owners as patronage income. The amendment also
serves to increase the potential quantity and quality of commodities
and related products available for purchase and use under such
programs, and provides for more competitive bidding among participants.
Finally, it helps contribute to stronger rural communities where farmer
cooperatives and their farmer owners are located.
Crop Insurance/Risk Management
As the Administration and Congress consider changes and
improvements in the federal crop insurance program, we believe there
needs to be an expanded role and opportunity for farmers through their
cooperatives and associations to join together to help obtain broader
coverage on a more cost-effective basis. We believe such action would
also help encourage program participation, improve the current delivery
system, strengthen private sector involvement, reduce administrative
and related costs, and further encourage cooperative self-help efforts.
Export Programs
We also believe it important to maintain and strengthen funding for
USDA's export programs, including the Market Access Program (MAP) and
Foreign Market Development (FMD) Cooperator Program, and we endorse the
recommendations of the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports
of which NCFC is a member. Such programs have been tremendously
successful and extremely cost-effective in helping maintain and expand
U.S. agricultural exports, countering subsidized foreign competition,
protecting American jobs and strengthening farm income.
Programs such as MAP and FMD have also helped encourage and
strengthen the ability of farmers to join together in cooperative
efforts to promote their products in overseas markets and improve their
income. Administered on a cost-share basis, they remain one of the few
tools specifically allowed under the Uruguay Round Agreement to help
American agriculture and American workers remain competitive in a
global marketplace still characterized by subsidized foreign
competition.
According to a recent analysis by USDA, the European Union (EU) and
other foreign competitors are now outspending the U.S. by a factor of
20 to 1 with regard to the use of export subsidies and other
expenditures for export promotion. The same study shows that such
countries are spending over $100 million just to promote sales of their
products in the United States. In other words, they are spending more
to promote agricultural exports to the United States, than the U.S. is
currently spending ($90 million) to promote American agricultural
exports worldwide!
For this reason, we believe the Administration and Congress should
give serious consideration to strengthening funding for MAP and other
export programs, and ensuring that such programs are fully and
aggressively utilized. Since MAP was originally authorized, funding has
been gradually reduced from a high of $200 million to its current level
of $90 million--a reduction of more than 50 percent. Again, given what
our foreign trade competitors are doing, we believe it's time to
restore funding for this vitally important program to its original
level.
We also urge continued funding for other related USDA export
programs, including the Export Enhancement Program (EEP), Dairy Export
Incentive Program (DEIP), GSM Export Credit Guarantee Program, and
Public Law 480. All of these programs continue to be essential to help
encourage U.S. agriculture exports, counter subsidized foreign
competition, protect American jobs, and strengthen farm income.
Agricultural Research
Another important area of emphasis when it comes to enhancing the
global competitiveness of farmer cooperatives and American agriculture
is research. It is equally important to help ensure that farmer
cooperatives and American agriculture can continue to help provide
consumers at home and abroad with a dependable supply of safe, high
quality food and fiber at reasonable prices, while meeting important
environmental and food safety objectives.
This includes recognition of the need to help farmers, their
cooperatives, and others engaged in agriculture meet the goals and
requirements of such statutes as the Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
and the Clean Air Act (CAA), among others. To help meet these
challenges, we believe every effort should be made to maintain and
strengthen the highly successful public-private partnership involving
USDA, the land grant universities and colleges, and the private sector.
This includes providing needed funding at the federal level through
USDA and ensuring that such funding helps achieve the important
objectives outlined above.
Conservation/EQIP
We strongly support continued funding for the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP), as well as restoring funding for the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), as recommended in the
Administration's budget. Such programs are necessary to help achieve
and maximize water quality and other environmental benefits.
The CRP and EQIP programs in particular are critical to empowering
farmers to continue voluntary efforts to sustain the natural resource
base and to respond to societal expectations and demands with regard to
water quality and protecting our natural resource base.
Crop Protection/Pesticide Programs
The Administration's budget request includes funds for Integrated
Pest Management (IPM) programs and IR-4 program to collect and analyze
data on pesticide residues through the Pesticide Data Program (PDP). We
endorse the views of: (1) the Food Quality Protection Act-
Implementation Working Group (FQPA-IWG) of which NCFC is a steering
committee member, and (2) the Minor Crop Farmer Alliance (MCFA) of
which NCFC is a member of its executive committee. USDA's role in this
process is critical if FQPA is to be implemented as intended by
Congress.
We believe USDA is uniquely qualified to (a) gather and provide
data to the EPA regarding pesticide use and dietary consumption
patterns, and (b) to provide information about crop protection needs
and efficacious and affordable alternatives. USDA has statutory
obligations to carry out regarding minor use pesticides pursuant to
FQPA, including establishment of a minor use office to facilitate
grower efforts to provide information needed to maintain or develop
label uses. Clearly, USDA has an essential role to play in working with
EPA regarding implementation of FQPA to ensure that food and
agricultural policy considerations are taken into account. For these
reasons, we strongly urge that adequate funding be provided to ensure
that it has the necessary resources to carry out such responsibilities.
Meat Inspection/User Fees
We continue to be opposed to user fees relating to Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) for meat inspection. Such inspection programs
provide important public benefits relating to food safety and quality
and should continue to be publicly funded.
Farmers through their farmer-owned cooperatives are already
contributing to meeting important food safety and quality requirements
through investment in new Pathogen Reduction Hazard Analysis and
Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems for meat and poultry. The
imposition of new user fees, to the extent that such fees could not be
passed on to consumers, would impose an additional cost burden on
farmer cooperatives and their farmer members, and reduce farm income.
Again, in recognition of the public benefits of such programs and the
need to maintain confidence in the safety and quality of such products,
the federal government should maintain its historic role.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of NCFC and its members, we want to again
thank you for the opportunity to share our views with regard to the
fiscal year 2000 agriculture appropriations bill. We also wish to take
this opportunity to express our appreciation to you and the members of
the Subcommittee for your interest and support of farmer cooperatives
and American agriculture.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Food Processors Association
The National Food Processors Association (NFPA) is pleased to
submit testimony to the Subcommittee expressing our views on the
President's fiscal year 2000 Budget Request for the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and Department of Agriculture (USDA).
NFPA is the voice of the $430 billion food processing industry on
scientific and public policy issues. Our members, whose headquarters
and plants span from California to Connecticut, Maine to New Mexico,
and points around the world, include large, small, and medium-sized
purveyors of all kinds of packaged foods.
Unique among food groups, NFPA is a science-based organization,
employing 60 Ph.D.'s and regulatory experts and maintaining state-of-
the-art laboratories in Washington, D.C., Dublin, California, and
Seattle. Our scientists conduct exacting experiments to protect the
safety of America's enviable food supply and to guard against risks to
consumers' well being.
We are a science-based organization that invests in food safety and
willingly shares its findings with all public health officials
throughout the world. As this suggests, NFPA takes its responsibilities
seriously.
Guiding Principles.--NFPA does not automatically oppose or promote
more spending on federal food safety programs. Rather, we recommend
that any spending decisions be measured against these principles:
(1) Congress should reject or delay any increases in spending to
expand the powers of the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture until these agencies demonstrate that their
current levels of funding are allocated in the most effective and
efficient manner possible to protect the public's health. Agencies
should be expected to clearly delineate their current statutory powers
and explain why any new authority is needed.
(2) The agencies should vigorously apply the principles of sound
science and risk assessment to their food safety programs.
(3) Appropriations should be linked to a determined effort by the
FDA and USDA to approve new technologies and food safety tools that can
safety deter or eliminate foodborne pathogens.
(4) Through its power of the purse, Congress should persuade
federal food safety agencies to fully exercise their capacity for
research and education.
User Fees.--For nearly a decade, the annual budget requests of
President Clinton and preceding Administrations have doggedly proposed
user fees--regulatory taxes--that require food processors to pay for
the privilege of being regulated. Congress has summarily rejected the
idea each year.
The President's fiscal year 2000 budget proposes nearly $525
million per year in regulatory taxes on the food industry--most of
which would be imposed on meat and poultry processing plants. Imposing
fees upon Federally regulated food processing facilities would amount
to nothing more than a highly regressive tax on food products to be
passed on to consumers in the form of higher food prices, and to
farmers and ranchers in the form of reduced profit margins. In fact,
the Supreme Court has held that the imposition of user fees on
regulated companies for benefits enjoyed by the general public must be
considered a tax.
There is no clearer example of a fundamental government function
that broadly benefits society than regulating the safety and soundness
of the food supply. Because all Americans benefit from this important
public health work the agencies' resources must come from appropriated
funds. Moreover, food taxes imposed upon the regulated industry
threaten to compromise public confidence in the independence of food
regulation.
Food Safety Initiative.--The President's fiscal year 2000 Budget
recommends nearly $105 million in increased spending for the third year
of the President's Food Safety Initiative (FSI), including new food
safety funding for FDA and USDA. NFPA has been supportive of funding in
fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 for FDA and USDA to enhance their
food safety programs relative to research, risk assessment,
coordination and education.
NFPA is concerned, however, with the Food Safety Initiative's
continued emphasis on seeking additional funds simply to hire
additional inspectors. In order to ensure that resources are used
wisely, it is essential that resources first be dedicated to
identification and prevention of foodborne illness, particularly in
high-risk foods. In that regard, NFPA strongly urges that if the
Subcommittee provides additional FSI funding in fiscal year 2000 that
such funds be dedicated toward risk assessment, research and education.
Funding for U.S. Codex Activities.--NFPA joins with other members
of the food industry and the Food Industry Codex Coalition (FICC) to
recommend that the Subcommittee provide initial ``seed'' funding to
support the activities of the U.S. Codex Office in the Department of
Agriculture. Codex Alimentarius (Codex) is the referenced organization
for food safety standards used to resolve trade disputes under the
World Trade Organization (WTO). Dedicated resources are necessary to
ensure U.S. leadership in Codex, and to expand and preserve export
opportunities for U.S. products and advance international food policy
based on sound science.
Juice Safety.--The FDA has proposed a pending regulation that would
impose a new layer of mandatory, costly, and unnecessary federal
regulation on juice processors who pasteurize their products or employ
equivalent methods to kill pathogens. Under FDA's proposed rule,
processors of pasteurized fruit and vegetable juices would have to
implement a Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) regimen.
Such action runs contrary to these findings: ninety-eight percent
of all fruit and vegetable juices consumed in the U.S. are pasteurized
or undergo an equivalent ``kill step'' to eliminate pathogens that can
cause sickness or worse. Each year, the FDA estimates that 6,000-6,200
Americans will suffer sickness from juices--and all are caused by the 2
percent of juices that are not pasteurized.
For unpasteurized juices, those that cause all the illnesses
recorded, the FDA has prescribed a mere label saying the juice isn't
pasteurized. For the 98 percent that have caused no sicknesses, the FDA
prescribes the redundant and costly application of HACCP.
NFPA supports HACCP as an effective means of protecting the
public's health when appropriate. Mandatory HACCP is decidedly not
appropriate here. NFPA recommends that the Subcommittee work to ensure
that FDA's final regulation on juice safety imposes no new HACCP
mandate, but instead requires that juices are pasteurized, or treated
by any equivalent method.
Reform of FDA's Food Additive Review Process.--The food additive
approval process at FDA is badly broken. Despite statutory requirements
for approval within six months, it can take a decade or more for the
FDA to approve new food additives. Problems associated with FDA's
failure to act in a timely manner on direct food additive petitions
were well documented in 1995 during hearings before the House
Government Reform Committee, but since then, little or no progress has
occurred. Because of these unreasonable delays and the disincentives
they impose, fewer companies seem willing to explore new roads to food
safety or submit food ``additive'' petitions to clear these paths.
The food industry, led by NFPA, has and continues to approach the
FDA with proposals to reform the food additive approval process.
Contrary to NFPA's general opposition to user fees where there is no
unique proprietary benefit, NFPA has agreed to support ``review fees''
in exchange for FDA's adherence to specific performance goals to
expedite the review and approval of direct food additive petitions.
NFPA does not support the Administration's fiscal year 2000 request to
impose user fees on food additive petitioners since there is no
apparent obligation upon FDA to ensure that a petitioner would enjoy a
more timely review of its petition.
Instead, NFPA recommends that the Subcommittee encourage the FDA to
work with its constituent groups to reach agreement on an approach that
will permanently reform the current food additive review and approval
process.
Food Irradiation.--NFPA continues to have serious concerns with the
slow pace of federal review and approval of food irradiation as a
proven and effective food safety technology. Irradiation poses no
threats, only advantages, to consumers and does not alter the taste or
texture of the food. Yet, it took FDA nearly three and one-half years
to approve its use on red meat in December 1997. Compounding this delay
has been the Department of Agriculture's failure to even propose a
regulation to enable irradiation's use until early 1999. USDA is not
expected to complete its review of red meat irradiation until the year
2000. Meanwhile, the need for red meat irradiation in the marketplace
has never been greater.
NFPA recommends that the Subcommittee ensure that USDA devote ample
resources to ensuring the timely review and approval of red meat
irradiation. In addition, we recommend that USDA and FDA be directed to
examine their review and approval procedures for irradiation to ensure
better coordination and to avoid duplicative and unnecessary resource
demands that undoubtedly have contributed to the lengthy delays.
Finally, NFPA recommends that the Subcommittee direct both USDA and
FDA to more thoroughly examine their existing policies toward food
irradiation labeling disclosures. Existing labeling requirements convey
uncertainty to many consumers about the safety of irradiated foods, and
may serve to deny many consumers access to irradiated food products.
Pending USDA and FDA rulemakings are soliciting public comment on this
subject, and NFPA urges this review be completed in a timely manner.
Imported food safety.--The FDA has requested additional funds for
fiscal year 2000 to increase inspections of imported food. FDA has also
indicated its intent to seek increased statutory authority in 1999 to
prevent the importation of foods from countries determined by FDA to
provide food safety systems that are less than ``equivalent'' to that
of the United States. NFPA and its member companies strongly support
efforts to improve the safety of imported foods, but believes FDA
should fully exercise its existing authority before seeking new powers.
NFPA recommends that the Subcommittee encourage FDA to identify
what specific new regulatory activities FDA would be expected to
undertake, along with commensurate resource demands, if the Congress
grants FDA new statutory. Furthermore, NFPA recommends that FDA
undertake a comprehensive review of its coordination with the U.S.
Customs Service to ensure utilization of the full panoply of existing
enforcement authorities to deter and reduce the incidence of imported
food violations attributable to repeat offenders.
Other routes to the same goal--safe food without debilitating
confrontations--are already in place. Codex Alimentarius, a framework
for international negotiations on food safety, is well established in
its process and success. Bilateral Equivalence Agreements, Memoranda of
Understanding, and Mutual Recognition Agreements are also in place.
NFPA sees in these approaches less provocation and intrusion,
coupled with more effect. Other strategies may include requiring
equivalent safety protocols in foreign countries (not ``the same as''),
punishing repeat offenders, and ensuring that port shopping is brought
to a halt (that is, when a shipment of food is rejected at one port,
they re-label the product and try to bring it in at another).
Once again, NFPA seeks a full explanation from the FDA of any
inadequacies they see in current statute before Congress wades into
changes in the law. Only through a complete disclosure can we engage in
a productive debate. We also think that this subcommittee would be well
served by demanding such documentation and delineation.
Thank you for your time and consideration of NFPA's views. Please
contact us if we can provide additional information to the
Subcommittee. In the meantime, please visit our web site a www.nfpa-
food.org.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Potato Council
My name is Chuck Gunnerson. I am a potato farmer from Minnesota and
current Vice President, Legislative/Government Affairs for the National
Potato Council (the Council). On behalf of the Council, we thank you
for your attention to the needs of our potato growers.
The Council is the only trade association representing commercial
growers in 50 states. Our growers produce both seed potatoes and
potatoes for consumption in a variety of forms. Annual production in
1997 was 407,164,000 cwt with a farm value of $2.2 billion. Total value
is substantially increased through processing. The potato crop clearly
has a positive impact on the U.S. economy.
The potato is the most popular of all vegetables grown and consumed
in the United States and one of the most popular in the world. Annual
per capita consumption was 143 pounds in 1996 up from 107 pounds in
1962 and is increasing due to the advent of new products and heightened
public awareness of the potato's excellent nutritional value. Potatoes
are considered a stable consumer commodity and an integral, delicious
component of the American diet.
The National Potato Council's fiscal year 2000 appropriations
priorities are as follows:
Agricultural Research Service (ARS).--The NPC proposes additional
potato research funds for:
--Orono, Maine.--Potato production in northern Maine has shown a
significant decline in recent years. This trend will, however,
be reversed with the construction of a new potato processing
facility in Maine by McCain Foods. It is estimated that 15,000
acres will be returned to potato production. The current ARS
research program has included a search for alternative crops
that could be used in a potato rotation. Potatoes are grown in
three-year rotations with soybean, canola, green bean, sweet
corn, and barley/clover. An interdisciplinary team of two
scientists is evaluating cropping system impacts on soil
nutrient dynamics and soilborne pathogen ecology. A third
scientist is being recruited to assess crop management system
effects on potato late blight. Integrating the production of
several crops is a high priority. The addition of an agronomist
to supplement the soil science and pathology research will
greatly strengthen the potato program in Maine. Estimated cost
is $300,000/year.
--Prosser, Washington.--The ``precision agriculture'' group at
Prosser that focussed on potato production was disbanded.
Currently, recruitments are in process for a weed and soil
scientist. There is a need to continue research on site-
specific management and to focus on the biology of potato
production. To accomplish this goal, an agronomist should also
be added to the Prosser group. The objective of this position
would be to integrate the soil, weed, pathology and entomology
information on potato production into a more effective system.
There is a need to achieve better quality as well as improved
yield. The estimated cost is $300,000/year.
--Beltsville, Maryland.--Improving the nutritional value of the
potato is a high priority of the NPC. The Beltsville Vegetable
Laboratory program has relied heavily on traditional breeding
and new high quality germplasm has been introduced over a
period of many years. Genes critical to the accumulation of
selected nutrients such as B-carotene, lycopene, polyamines,
lipoic acid, glutathione and ascorbic acid have been identified
in several crops. These phytonutrients have been correlated
with a reduced incidence of some forms of cancer. It is now
possible to introduce these genes, after specific modification,
into potatoes and other vegetable crops. Research should be
initiated that combines traditional breeding and plant
biotechnology to increase the nutritional value of the potato
and add value to the crop. Estimated cost would be $300,000/
year.
--Albany, California.--Introduction of genes for potato improvement
utilizing biotechnology procedures is a goal of ARS research.
Currently, there are significant restrictions on the use of
some important reagents that prevent successful
commercialization of plants transformed by ARS scientists. Dr.
William Belknap in Albany has been funded by ARS, with
endorsement from the NPC, to develop genetic constructs for
potato transformation that will be publicly available without
patent restrictions on their use. His laboratory should serve
as a source of reagents for use by ARS scientists and others
who work in the public sector. Estimated cost of providing this
service is an additional $100,000/year to Dr. Belknap's base
CRIS budget.
--Report Language.--Agricultural Research Service (ARS)--The NPC
urges that the Congress once again add Committee report
language urging the ARS to work with the NPC on how funds can
best be used for research priorities.
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service
(CSREES).--The NPC urges that the Congress increase funding to a level
of $1.4 million for the potato research special grant program to return
to previous year's funding levels.
The NPC also urges that the Congress, once again, include report
Committee language as follows:
``Potato research.--The Committee expects the Department to ensure
that funds provided to CSREES for potato research are utilized for
varietal development testing. Further, these funds are to be awarded
competitively after review by the potato industry working group.''
Plant Protection and Quarantine Service (APHIS-USDA).--The NPC
urges that the Congress appropriate $580,000 for the Golden Nematode
Quarantine Program, which amount is the fiscal year 2000 budget
request. The National Potato Council also supports increasing the
fiscal year 2000 budget request for AQI user fees from $95 to $100
million. The NPC also supports fiscal year 2000 budget requests for the
AQI appropriated funds, sanitary/phytosanitary (SPS) management and
pest surveillance and detection.
Finally, we also support the Administration's budget request for
funds to meet the data requirements of the new Food Quality Protection
Act, (FQPA).
______
Prepared Statement of the National Rural Telecom Association
summary of testimony requests
Project involved:Telecommunications lending programs administered
by the Rural Utilities Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Actions proposed:
--Supporting loan levels for fiscal year 2000 in the same amounts as
those contained in the fiscal year 1999 Agriculture
Appropriations Act (Public Law 105-277, Sec. 101(a)) for
hardship, cost-of-money and guaranteed loan programs and the
associated subsidy to fund those programs at existing levels.
--Supporting Rural Telephone Bank loans in the amount requested in
the President's budget and the associated subsidy to fund this
level.
--Supporting funding in the amount of $200 million in loans and $20
million grant authority designated for distance learning and
telemedicine purposes as requested in the President's budget.
--Supporting an extension of the language removing the 7 percent
interest rate ceiling on cost-of-money loans.
--Supporting continuation of the restriction on retirement of Rural
Telephone Bank class A stock in fiscal year 2000 at the level
contained in Public Law 105-277 and an extension of the
prohibition against the transfer of Rural Telephone Bank funds
to the general fund.
--Opposing the proposal contained in the budget to transfer funds
from the unobligated balances of the liquidating account of the
Rural Telephone Bank for the bank's administrative expenses and
loan subsidy costs.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: My name is John F. O'Neal.
I am General Counsel of the National Rural Telecom Association. NRTA is
comprised primarily of commercial telephone companies which borrow
their capital needs from the Rural Utilities Service of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (RUS) to furnish and improve telephone
service in rural areas. Approximately 1000, or 71 percent of the
nation's local telephone systems borrow from RUS. About three-fourths
of these are commercial telephone companies. RUS borrowers serve almost
6 million subscribers in 46 states and employ over 22,000 people. In
accepting loan funds, borrowers assume an obligation under the act to
serve the widest practical number of rural users within their service
area.
Program background
Rural telephone systems have an ongoing need for long-term, fixed
rate capital at affordable interest rates. Since 1949, that capital has
been provided through telecommunications lending programs administered
by the Rural Utilities Service and its predecessor, the Rural
Electrification Agency (REA).
RUS loans are made exclusively for capital improvements and loan
funds are segregated from borrower operating revenues. Loans are not
made to fund operating revenues or profits of the borrower system.
There is a proscription in the Act against loans which would duplicate
existing facilities providing adequate service and state authority to
regulate telephone service is expressly preserved under the Rural
Electrification Act.
Rural telephone systems operate at a severe geographical handicap
when compared with other telephone companies. While almost 6 million
rural telephone subscribers receive telephone service from RUS borrower
systems, they account for only four percent of total U.S. subscribers.
On the other hand, borrower service territories total 37 percent of the
land area--nearly 1\1/2\ million squares miles. RUS borrowers average
about six subscribers per mile of telephone line and have an average of
more than 1,000 route miles of lines in their systems.
Because of low-density and the inherent high cost of serving these
areas, Congress made long-term, fixed rate loans available at
reasonable rates of interest to assure that rural telephone
subscribers, the ultimate beneficiaries of these programs, have
comparable telephone service with their urban counterparts at
affordable subscriber rates. This principle is especially valid today
as the United States endeavors to deploy telecommunications
``information superhighway'' technology and as customers and regulators
constantly demand improved and enhanced services.
At the same time, the underlying statutory authority which governs
the current program has undergone significant change. In 1993,
telecommunications lending was refocused toward facilities
modernization. Much of the subsidy cost has been eliminated from the
program. The subsidy that remains has been targeted to the highest
cost, lowest density systems. Other loans are made at Treasury's cost-
of-money or greater.
We are proud to state once again for the record that there has
never been a default in the RUS/REA telephone program! All loans have
been repaid in accordance with their terms with interest. As of
December 31, 1997, over $4.5 billion of principal and over $5 billion
in interest had been paid by telephone borrowers to the federal
government under this program.
Need for RUS telecommunications lending continues
The need for rural telecommunications lending is great today,
possibly even greater than in the past. Technological advances make it
imperative that rural telephone companies upgrade their systems to keep
pace with improvements and provide the latest available technology to
their subscribers.
These rapid technological changes and federal policies of
competition and deregulation in the telephone industry, as evidenced by
passage of the ``Telecommunications Act of 1996'', underscore the
continuing need for targeted assistance to rural areas. The inherently
higher costs to serve these areas have not abated. Regulatory trends
encouraging competition among telephone systems increase pressures to
shift more costs onto rural ratepayers. Interstate subscriber line
charges have already shifted substantial costs to local exchange
customers. Pressures to recover more and more of the higher costs of
rural service from rural customers to foster urban competitive
responses will further burden rural consumers. And, as rural rates
rise, small telephone systems will tend to lose confidence that they
can recover the investments for costly network upgrades.
1996 Telecommunications Act effect on rural America
Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as the
culmination of more than a decade of debating national
telecommunications policy and balancing many diverse needs and
interests. The 1996 Act responded to a number of rural needs and
differences with a series of safeguards to ensure that rates, services
and network development in rural America will be reasonably comparable
to urban telecommunications opportunities.
The process of implementing the new law continues to raise
troubling uncertainties and concerns about whether the FCC and the
states will honor the balance Congress achieved in its policy, as
regulators (a) radically revise the mechanisms for preserving and
advancing ``universal service,'' (b) adjust the cost recovery
responsibilities and allocations of authority between federal and state
regulation, (c) effectuate the Act's somewhat different urban and rural
ground rules for how new companies and incumbent universal service
providers connect their networks and compensate each other and (d) peel
back layers of regulation developed over a century. So far, the FCC has
been overzealous in expanding the Act's market-opening provisions to
give new entrants a regulatory head start and advantage at the expense
of the Act's rural development and universal service provisions. The
FCC is trying to unsurp the role of competition by dictating a whole
new--and wholly inadequate--way to measure the costs of modern,
nationwide telecommunications access to information. The FCC needs to
reorder the sequence of its proceedings to ensure that rural Americans
are not denied the ongoing network development and new services the Act
requires. Rural telephone systems with universal service obligations
must not be thwarted in their efforts to upgrade and provide rates and
services reasonably comparable to urban offerings. The FCC must not
falter in delivery on these national policies either during or after
the difficult process of implementing the law. Congress and the courts
must carefully supervise the FCC's implementation to achieve the rural
access to information and an evolving modern public network intended by
Congress, as well as the benefits of deregulation and genuine
competition.
Expanded congressional mandates for rural telecommunications
Considerable loan demand is being generated because of additional
mandates for enhanced rural telecommunications standards contained in
the authorizing legislation enacted in 1993 by Congress in Public Law
103-129. These mandates coupled with the need for stable financing
sources to meet the infrastructure demands envisioned for rural areas
by the 1996 telecommunications act amply demonstrate the continuing
need for this important program at the following levels:
5 percent Hardship Loans................................ $75,000,000
Cost-of-Money Loans..................................... 300,000,000
Guaranteed Loans........................................ 120,000,000
Rural Telephone Bank Loans.............................. 175,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 670,000,000
These are the levels established in the fiscal year 1999
appropriations act for the hardship, cost-of-money and guaranteed loan
programs. The $175 million loan level is the historical level for Rural
Telephone Bank loans and the amount requested in the President's fiscal
year 2000 budget. However, the President's budget also seeks to reduce
the amount of hardship loans despite the substantial ongoing demand. We
believe that the needs of this program balanced with the minimal cost
to the taxpayer argue for its continuation at enacted levels given the
fact that it provides funding for the neediest borrower systems serving
the highest cost areas.
Specific Additional Requests
Continue the Removal of the 7 percent Cap on Cost-of-Money
Loans
Again this year we are supporting removal of the 7 percent ceiling
on cost-of-money loans even though long-term Treasury rates are
currently substantially below this level. This Committee included
language in the fiscal year 1996 act to permit borrower interest rates
on cost-of-money loans to exceed the 7 percent per year interest rate
ceiling contained in the authorizing act. The language has been
continued in subsequent acts. We support an extension of this provision
in the fiscal year 2000 bill. In the event that long-term Treasury
interest rates might exceed 7 percent during the next fiscal year. If
that happens, the cost-of-money loan program could be disrupted and
loan levels not achieved since adequate subsidy would not be available
to support the program at the authorized levels. For this reason, we
believe it is important to incorporate this language in the bill again
this year.
Continue the Restriction on Retirement of Class A
Government Stock in the Rural Telephone Bank (RTB)
and also Continue the Prohibition Against Transfer
of RTB Funds to the General Fund and Require the
Payment of Interest
The Committee should continue the restriction on retirement of the
amount of class A stock by the Rural Telephone Bank in fiscal year
2000. The Bank is currently in the process of retiring the government's
stock as required under current law. We believe that this process which
began in fiscal year 1996 should continue to be an orderly one as
contemplated by the retirement schedule enacted four years ago and
continued in last year's bill to retire no more than 5 percent of the
total class A stock in one year. We also urge the Committee to continue
the prohibition against the transfer of any unobligated balance in the
bank's liquidating account which is in excess of current requirements
to the general fund of the Treasury along with the requirement that the
bank receive interest on those funds. The private Class B and C
stockholders of the Rural Telephone Bank have a vested ownership
interest in the assets of the bank including its funds and their rights
should be protected.
Reject Budget Proposal to Transfer Funds from RTB
Liquidating Account for Subsidy and Administrative
Costs
In this same vein, we are also opposed to the proposal contained in
the President's budget again this year that the subsidy cost associated
with Rural Telephone Bank loans be funded by a transfer from the
unobligated balances of the bank's liquidating account rather than by a
traditional appropriation from the general fund of the Treasury which
has been the funding mechanism utilized for the bank since enactment of
the federal credit reform act in 1990. Requiring the bank to fund the
subsidy cost of its loans would dilute the interests of the bank's
stockholders. By definition, the bank's unobligated balances are not
exclusively federal funds but are subject to the respective ownership
interests of all the stockholders of the bank. Previous appropriations
acts, including the fiscal year 1997, 1998 and 1999 acts, have
recognized the ownership rights of the private class B and C
stockholders of the bank by prohibiting a similar transfer of the
bank's excess unobligated balances which otherwise would have been
required under the federal credit reform act. This cost is more
properly funded through a regular appropriation from the general fund
of the Treasury.
The President's budget also proposes that the bank assume
responsibility for its administrative costs also by a transfer of funds
from the unobligated balances of the bank's liquidating account rather
than through an appropriation from the general fund of the Treasury.
This recommendation is contrary to the specific language of Sec. 403(b)
of the RTB enabling act.
The budget language acknowledges that neither proposal would result
in budgetary savings. Both proposals were specifically rejected last
year by this Committee. No justification for these recommendations is
contained in the budget again this year. Both proposals would require
consideration by the authorizing committees and enactment of new
authorizing legislation as a prerequisite to an appropriation. As of
this date, no such legislation has been transmitted by the
Administration or is under consideration before the authorizing
committees.
Loans and Grants for Telemedicine and Distance Learning
The President's budget requests $200 million in loan authority for
fiscal year 2000 and $20 million in grants specifically devoted to
telemedicine and distance learning purposes. Loans are made at the
government's cost-of-money. The purpose is to accelerate deployment of
telemedicine and distance learning technologies in rural areas through
the use of telecommunications, computer networks, and related advanced
technologies by students, teachers, medical professionals, and rural
residents.
We believe this program specifically designated for distance
learning and telemedicine purposes is particularly important.
Continuing to target funds in this manner spurs deployment of this
important new technology which is vital for the survival of rural
schools, hospitals and the rural communities they serve. At the same
time, we believe the level proposed strikes a cost effective balance
for the taxpayer.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to present the association's views
concerning this vital program. The telecommunications lending programs
of RUS continue to work effectively and accomplish the objectives
established by Congress at a minimal cost to the taxpayer.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Telephone Cooperative Association
Regarding
summary
The information age continues to evolve at lightening speed,
permeating every element of our existence. No longer a luxury at all,
today, access to advanced, affordable, communications infrastructure
and services, by every American, is an absolute necessity. Indeed,
federal, state, and local executives, legislators, and regulators, as
well as the general public, are demanding nothing less.
The small rural incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) segment of
the communications industry has responded to these demands with
outstanding vigor, providing perhaps the most exceptional
telecommunications services of anywhere in the nation. It has done so
through both a deep commitment to community and by having access to the
affordable financing that is available via the Rural Utilities Service
(RUS) Telecommunications Loan Program.
For 50 years, NTCA's small rural ILEC members, in partnership with
the RUS, have fulfilled the joint statutory mission of both providing
and improving rural telecommunications service, with distinction. With
the RUS appropriately funded, they will be able to continue doing so
well into the future. Therefore NTCA recommends full funding for all
accounts of the RUS Telecommunications Loan Program and its related
community development program. Additionally, NTCA recommends that
language be included in the fiscal year 2000 appropriations package
which will protect the program, and particularly the Rural Telephone
Bank (RTB), from frivolous or premature actions intended to redirect
their course.
background
NTCA is a national trade association representing more than 500
small, rural, cooperative and commercial incumbent local exchange
carriers (ILECs) located throughout the nation. These locally owned and
operated ILECs provide local exchange service to more than 5 million
rural Americans. Through the 50 year history of the RUS
Telecommunications Loan Program, more than 80 percent of NTCA's member
systems have been able to utilize the federal program to one degree or
another.
NTCA's members, like most of the country's independent ILEC's,
evolved to serve high cost rural areas of the nation that were
overlooked by the industry's giants as unprofitable. And there can be
no doubt regarding the high cost of such markets. Consider that the
combined service area's of these ILECs constitutes approximately 40
percent of the nation's geographic area, yet the more than 5 million
subscribers served in this territory account for little more than 4
percent of the nation's total access lines. On average, RUS borrowers
have approximately 6 subscribers per mile of infrastructure line,
compared with 130 for the larger urban-oriented, non-RUS financed
systems. This results in an average plant investment per subscriber
that for RUS borrowers is 38 percent higher than for most other
systems.
Congress recognized the unique financing dilemma confronting
America's small rural ILECs as early as 1949. It was in that year that
it amended the Rural Electrification Act (RE Act) to create the Rural
Electrification Administration (REA) Telephone Loan Program, today
known as the RUS Telecommunications Loan Program. Through the years
Congress has periodically amended the RE Act to ensure that that
original mission--to furnish and improve rural telephone service--was
met. In 1971, the Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) was created as a
supplemental source of direct loan financing. In 1973, the RUS was
provided with the ability to guarantee Federal Financing Bank (FFB) and
private lender notes. In 1993, Congress established a fourth program
lending facet, the Treasury Cost of Money account.
rus helps meet infrastructure demands
While the RUS has helped the subscribers of NTCA's member systems
receive service that is comparable or superior to that available
anywhere in the nation, their work is far from complete. As federal
policies such as the Telecommunications Act of 1996 continue to evolve,
the high costs associated with providing modern telecommunications
services in rural areas will not diminish. Three years into the
implementation of the 1996 Act, the Federal Communications Commission's
(FCC's) interpretation of the statute, and several court decisions,
have held little regard for congressional intent particularly with
respect to universal service which is so vital to small rural ILECs.
Consequently, the ongoing need for the well defined, understood, time-
tested RUS Telecommunications Loan Program is even greater.
For example, RUS telecommunications lending has stimulated billions
of dollars in private capital investment in rural communications
infrastructure. In recent years, on average, less than $10 million in
federal subsidy generated $670 million in federal loans and loan
guarantees. For every $1 in federal funds that were invested in rural
communications infrastructure, $4.50 in private funds were invested.
The RUS is also making a difference in our rural schools,
libraries, and hospitals. Since 1993, the RUS Distance Learning and
Telemedicine Grant and Loan program has funded approximately 200
projects throughout the nation for interactive technology in rural
schools, libraries, hospitals, and health clinics. This program has
provided unprecedented educational opportunities for rural students and
enhanced health care for rural residents.
In addition, two other RUS related programs are making a difference
in rural America. Formerly under the RUS and known as the Zero Interest
Loan and Grant Program, the Rural Economic Development Grants Program
and the Rural Economic Development Loans Program are now managed by the
Rural Business Cooperative Service. The two programs provide funds for
the purpose of promoting rural economic development and job creation
projects, including funding for project feasibility studies, start-up
costs, incubator projects and other expenses tied to rural development.
The two programs have allowed hundreds of communities to build,
acquire, and/or install everything from firehouses to recreational
facilities that enhance the viability of the community.
ntca's appropriations recommendations
Fully Fund The RUS Telecommunications Loan Program:
Increasing demand for expanded telecommunications services and
infrastructure upgrades indicates a continuing strong need for stable
loan levels at the authorizations established by the Rural
Electrification Loan Restructuring Act of 1993. The president's budget
proposal to cut the Hardship account to a level of $50 million is
inappropriate considering that a backlog of applications for these
funds continues to exist. Likewise, last year's congressional response
to fully funding the Hardship account by reducing funding for the RTB
account would be inappropriate as the RTB is again being fully
utilized. Adequate subsidy must be appropriated to support the
following fiscal year 2000 loan account levels:
Hardship Account........................................ $75,000,000
Treasury-rate Account................................... 300,000,000
Guaranteed Account...................................... 120,000,000
Rural Telephone Bank Account............................ 175,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 670,000,000
Extend Removal Of The Interest Rate Cap On Treasury-Rate Loans:
NTCA is also requesting that Congress again include language
removing the 7 percent interest rate cap on Treasury-rate loans. This
provision has been included in recent appropriations measures to
prevent the potential disruption of the program in the case where
interest rates exceed 7 percent and insufficient subsidy cannot support
authorized lending levels.
Prohibit The Transfer Of Unobligated Balances Of The RTB Liquidating
Account
NTCA also recommends that Congress continue the prohibition against
the transfer of any unobligated balances of the Rural Telephone Bank
liquidating account to the general fund of the Treasury. This language
has routinely been included in annual appropriations measures since the
enactment of the Federal Credit Reform Act (FCRA), Public Law 101-508,
that allows such sweeping to potentially occur. Restatement of this
language will again ensure that the RTB's private class B & class C
stockholder are not stripped of the value of their statutorily mandated
investment in the Bank.
Prohibit RTB From Self Funding Subsidy And Administrative Costs
The Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget proposal suggests
funding the RTB's loan subsidies and administrative expenses out of
unobligated balances in the bank's liquidating account rather than out
of the general fund of the Treasury as is required by the RE Act. NTCA
urges Congress to reject this proposal, as it did last fiscal year, for
the following basic reasons: (1) such action would require amendment of
the RE Act, (2) the proposal appears to be in conflict with the intent
of the FCRA, (3) the proposal will not result in federal budgetary
savings, (4) it is unnecessary to the determination of whether the bank
could operate independently, and thus would amount to wasting the
resources of the bank which could be put to better use upon its
complete privatization, and (5) the bank should not be expected to self
fund these expenses while concurrently being prohibited from utilizing
the unobligated balances in its liquidating account for the re-making
of new loans.
Rural Telephone Bank Privatization
Under the President's fiscal year 2000 budget proposal, the RTB is
proposed to ``become a Performance Based Organization (PBO) to
establish its financial and operational independence prior to its being
privatized within ten years.'' At this time, it is difficult to
support, or evaluate any privatization proposal without first obtaining
an answer to the critical question of who owns the assets of the bank
at any given time during the privatization period, which is already
underway at a minimal statutory pace. Without a definitive and official
determination of this central issue, it is not possible to formulate an
informed position regarding privatization of the bank.
NTCA believes any privatization plan should be well conceived
before implementation. At the very least, privatization should proceed
in an orderly fashion with a full accounting of the various financial
and legal implications involved. Congress, RTB Stockholders, and the
rural telecommunications industry deserve the benefit of having RTB
privatization reviewed thoroughly, and not in the vacuum of the
budgetary process. In addition to having a high concentration of RTB
stockholders as members, NTCA itself is a RTB stockholder. The RTB's
portfolio is currently valued at well over $2 billion and consequently
it continues to play a critical role in the modernization of rural
telecommunications infrastructure throughout the United States. For
these reasons, the RTB's future will continue to be closely monitored,
and protected, by NTCA and its members. Furthermore, NTCA urges
Congress to refrain from commencing such deliberations without the
asset question answered, or in an effort to simply respond to the
administration's budget suggestion.
Continue RUS Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loan and Grant
Program The RUS Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loan and Grant
program has proven to be an indispensable tool for rural development.
In this regard, NTCA urges Congress to provide adequate funding for
this critical program. NTCA supports the recommendations for this
program that are contained in the president's budget proposal.
Preserve RBCS Rural Development Grant and Loan Programs
Likewise, NTCA has witnessed the good these programs have done for
rural communities. NTCA urges Congress to ensure funding is at levels
that are adequate to meet current demand for the programs.
conclusion
The RUS Telecommunications Loan Program bears a proud 50-year
record of commitment, service, and achievement to rural America. Never
in its entire history has the program lost even a dollar to abuse or
default--an unparalleled feat for any government-sponsored lending
program. Clearly such a successful program should remain in place to
continue to ensure rural Americans have the opportunity to play a
leading role in the information age in which we live. After all, an
operational and advanced rural segment of the nation's
telecommunications infrastructure is critical to truly ensuring that
the national objective of universal telecommunications service is
fulfilled. Please help us accomplish that objective.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Utility Contractors Association
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Andy
Mayts. I am Director of Operations for Gigliotti Contracting North in
Palm Harbor, Florida. Thank you for the opportunity to submit written
testimony on behalf of the National Utility Contractors Association
(NUCA) regarding the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural
Utilities Service (RUS) Water and Waste Disposal infrastructure funding
for fiscal 2000.
fiscal 2000 recommendation
NUCA respectfully requests that the Committee reject the
Administration's proposed 12 percent cut to the RUS Water and Waste
Disposal loan and grant budget authority and appropriate, at minimum,
the current funding level of $645 million for fiscal 2000.
RUS Water and Waste Disposal loan and grant programs provide funds
for small communities with 10,000 or fewer residents that cannot secure
reasonable financing for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements. As you well know, these are widely popular and successful
programs among rural communities. In fact, currently there is a $3.2
billion backlog of eligible applications for the grant ($1 billion) and
loan ($2.2 billion) programs.
For fiscal 2000, the President proposed $503 million in grants for
water and waste disposal and $64 million in loans for water and waste
disposal. We recognize that the fiscal 2000 subsidy rate of 7.1
percent, as determined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, is
such that the proposed cut does not result in a reduction in programs.
But the President has failed to recognize the historic opportunity to
capitalize on the low subsidy rate and make a big dent in the backlog
of $3.2 billion of eligible loan and grant applications. As illustrated
on the chart on the following page, merely maintaining the current
funding level could provide an additional $766,590,520 to the RUS
programs to tackle the backlog. Please compare:
Assumptions: Row 1 reflects the fiscal 1999 Budget Authority of
$645,007,000 and the fiscal 1999 subsidy rate of 16.52 percent. For
fiscal 1999, grant programs assumed approximately 82 percent percent of
the Budget Authority. Row 2 reflects the Administration proposal of
$567 million for fiscal 2000, and the OMB subsidy rate of 7.10 percent.
The Administration proposed $503 for RUS grants and $64 million for
loans, thus grants assume 89 percent of the total proposed Budget
Authority. Row 3 reflects NUCA's recommendation that the Committee
maintain the current funding level, $645 million. It also assumes the
OMB subsidy rate of 7.10 percent and allocates 89 percent of the total
Budget Authority to grants. Row 4 reflects the current funding level,
the fiscal 1999 percentage of grants of total Budget Authority (82
percent), and the fiscal 2000 subsidy rate of 7.10 percent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidy
Fiscal year Budget Grants rate Loans Program dollars
authority (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 actual.................. $645,007,000 $528,363,000.... 16.52 $706,077,482 $1,234,440,482
(at fiscal year
1999, 82
percent).
2000 Admin proposal.......... $567,000,000 $503,000,000.... 7.10 $901,120,000 $1,404,120,000
(at fiscal year
2000, 89
percent).
2000 at fiscal year 1999 $645,007,000 $574,056,230.... 7.10 $998,986,842 $1,573,043,072
funding. (at fiscal year
2000, 89
percent).
2000 at fiscal year 1999 $645,007,000 $528,363,000.... 7.10 $1,642,347,520 $2,170,710,520
funding. (at fiscal year
1999, 82
percent).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RUS Water and Waste Disposal programs are popular and important
investments and have proven track records. They provided $28 billion in
loans and grants to more than 12,500 communities across the country
between 1965 and 1995. With a loan default rate of 0.1 percent and a
repayment delinquency rate less than 2 percent, RUS loans and grants
are wise investments in rural America.
rural water and waste disposal needs and the rus cure
NUCA is comprised of nearly 2,000 companies that build and maintain
water, sewer, and other underground infrastructure systems in rural
communities as well as in metropolitan areas nationwide. Every day of
the week we witness the consequences of failed or nonexistent water and
waste disposal infrastructure on the most dire of human needs--WATER!
Without water, our bodies cease to function, and without clean water,
our ability to live healthy, productive lives is diminished. Waterborne
illness is a serious, life-threatening condition that affects nearly 1
million people annually. Children and the elderly are particularly
vulnerable because of weaker immune systems. Fortunately, there is a
cure for this needless illness in rural America. RUS capital investment
in water and waste disposal facilities (including solid waste disposal
and storm drainage) is the first line of defense in protecting water
quality and thus public health.
Once the RUS investment is in place, additional dividends in the
form of jobs, quality of life, environmental protection, and public
safety are attained. The now-healthy workforce in what would be a high-
unemployment community can go to work. When $1 billion is invested in
clean water infrastructure, as many as 57,400 jobs are created, and
more than half of these jobs are permanent because new businesses
relocate to the area and existing businesses expand operations. In
rural communities where unemployment and poverty rates are much higher
than the national average, RUS programs improve people's lives.
RUS water and waste disposal loans and grants also provide for the
everyday conveniences that you and I generally take for granted, such
as the simple acts of watering the tomato plants, taking a shower, or
making a pitcher of lemonade. The programs also protect the natural
environment--often the very reason people wish to live in rural
communities--from the degradation caused by untreated sewage and
stormwater runoff tainted with chemicals and animal feces that
contaminate waterways and groundwater supplies. Finally, public safety
in the form of fire protection is enhanced by modern water storage and
distribution systems. Leaking, clogged, and undersized water lines
compromise water pressure and make it virtually impossible for
firefighters to do their jobs. Similarly, aged water and sewer mains
can burst and collapse, creating dangerous sinkholes and shutting off
travel routes. These threats to public safety drive up the price of
community services and homeowner insurance, hampering individuals and
communities from achieving economic prosperity. If the public
investment is made, however, it repays itself over time and produces
lasting rewards for the community.
rus proposal in relation to epa estimates
There are an estimated 46,500 small drinking water systems in the
United States serving 3,300 or fewer people. The Environmental
Protection Agency's 1997 Drinking Water Needs Survey (EPA) projected
more than $37.2 billion in needed infrastructure improvements for these
systems over the next 20 years. In addition to these identified needs,
a significant number of households are not served by a centralized
water distribution and treatment facility. Some 15 million households
use private wells, and another 1 million homes rely on untreated
sources that include cisterns and water hauled from springs, rivers,
and lakes.
The EPA 1996 Wastewater Needs Survey estimates that small
communities with 10,000 or fewer residents face more than $13.8 billion
in capital costs over the next two decades for sewage collection and
treatment works. That figure does not include an estimation of septic
system needs. The total $51 billion is considered by most to be a
conservative estimate. Thus, a $645 million investment for fiscal 2000
is worth every penny.
nuca clean water for rural america brochure
Attached, please find a copy of one of NUCA's new brochures titled,
Clean Water for Rural America. Our state chapters and members will
share this information with other business leaders and public officials
in the rural communities where they live and work. NUCA is pleased to
serve as an information resource for this widely popular and beneficial
program. We will also provide copies of the brochure to the full Senate
and House.
conclusion
We, the members of NUCA, urge you to reject the Clinton
Administration's fiscal 2000 proposed cut to the RUS Water and Waste
Disposal loans and grants programs and appropriate, at minimum, the
current funding level, $645 million. These are important sources of
financing for small, rural communities that have been turned down by
more conventional lenders. The program has a solid track record in
terms of loans repaid and maximum use of appropriated dollars. More
than $50 billion in water and waste disposal needs exist in the
communities RUS serves. And currently there is a backlog of more than
$3.2 billion in eligible applications to be funded.
Thank you for considering our recommendation.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Watershed Coalition
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: The National
Watershed Coalition (NWC) is pleased to present this testimony in
support of some of the most beneficial water resource conservation
programs ever developed in the United States. The Coalition recognizes
full well the need to use our tax dollars wisely. That makes the work
of this Subcommittee very important. It also makes it imperative that
the federal programs that are continued are those that provide real
benefit to society, and are not programs that would be nice to have if
funds were unlimited. We believe that the Small Watershed Program
(Public Law 83-566) and the Flood Prevention Operations Program (Public
Law 78-534) are examples of those rare programs that address our
nation's vital natural resources which are critical to our very
survival, do so in a way that provide benefits in excess of costs, and
are programs that serve as models for the way all federal programs
should work.
The National Watershed Coalition is an alliance of national,
regional, state and local organizations that have a common interest in
advocating the use of the watershed when dealing with natural resource
issues. We also support the use of total resource management principles
in planning. We are advocates of both the Small Watershed Program and
the Flood Prevention Operations Program administered by USDA's Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). These resource protection
programs deserve much higher priority than they have had in the recent
past. Even in difficult financial times, and we keep hearing we are in
a period of budget surpluses, their revitalization would pay dividends
in monetary and other benefits, and jobs! The disastrous 1993 Midwest
floods and the floods in Texas last fall, should have taught us
something. If one examines the Report of the 1994 Interagency
Floodplain Management Review Committee that studied the 1993 Midwest
flood event, we see that flood damages were significantly reduced in
areas where Public Law 566 projects were installed. The requests for
disaster assistance were also less.
The watershed as the logical unit for dealing with natural resource
problems has long been recognized. Public Law 566 offers a complete
watershed management approach, and should have a prominent place in our
current federal policy emphasizing watersheds and total resource
management based planning. Why should the federal government be
involved with these watershed programs?
--They are programs whose objectives are the sustaining of our
nation's precious natural resources for generations to come.
--They are not federal, but federally assisted, locally sponsored and
owned. They do not represent the continued growth of the
federal government.
--They are locally initiated and driven. Decisions are made by people
affected, and respect private property rights.
--They share costs between the federal government and local people.
Local sponsors pay between 30--40 percent of the total costs of
Public Law 566 projects.
--They produce net benefits to society. The most recent program
evaluation demonstrated the actual ratio of benefits to costs
was approximately 2.2:1. The actual adjusted economic benefits
exceeded the planned benefits by 34 percent. How many other
federal programs do so well?
--They consider and enhance environmental values. Projects are
subject to the discipline of being planned following the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the federal
``Principles and Guidelines'' for land and water projects. That
is public scrutiny!
--They are flexible programs that can adapt to changing needs and
priorities. Objectives that can be addressed are flood damage
reduction, watershed protection (erosion and sediment control),
water quality improvement, rural water supply, water
conservation, fish and wildlife habitat improvement,
recreation, irrigation and water management, etc. That is
flexibility.
--They are programs that encourage all citizens to participate.
--They can address the needs of low income and minority communities.
--And best of all--they are programs the people like!
The National Watershed Coalition commends the Congress for the
support given these programs over the years, and hopes that the outcome
of the fiscal year 2000 appropriations process will enable this vital
work to continue and expand as we seek to preserve, protect and better
manage our nation's water and land resources. Every State in the United
States has benefited from the Small Watershed Program.
In order to continue this high priority work in partnership with
states and local governments, the Coalition recommends a fiscal year
2000 funding level of $250 million for Watersheds and Flood Prevention
Operations, Public Law 83-566 and Public Law 78-534. We recommend that
$30 million of this amount be for Public Law 78-534 projects. We would
also suggest that $60 million be used for structural rehabilitation and
replacement, in accordance with H.R. 728 recently introduced in the 106
Congress by Representative Frank Lucas of Oklahoma. We recognize that
Congress may not find it possible to provide these amounts, but we also
believe that we are not doing our job of helping you recognize the true
need if we continually recommend the federal share of these needed
funds be less. We would hope that everyone understand that these funds
are only a part of the total that are committed to this vital purpose.
The local project sponsors in these ``federally assisted'' endeavors
have a tremendous investment also. Additionally, the Coalition supports
$25.0 million for watershed planning, surveys and investigations. We
also suggest that the Emergency Watershed Program (EWP) be provided
with $20 million to allow the NRCS to provide rapid response in time of
natural disaster. Our recommendations are considerably different from
those proposed by the Administration for the fiscal year 2000 budget.
Congress increasingly talks of wanting to fund those investments in our
nation's infrastructure that will sustain us in the future. Yet this
and past Administration's budgets have regularly cut funding for some
of the best of these programs. This makes absolutely no sense! We
continue to read that we are in a period of budget surpluses, almost as
if the federal coffers were overflowing with cash, yet there is next to
nothing for watershed protection and improvement. Our Gross Domestic
Product has risen for about 93 straight months, unemployment is low,
the stock market has risen to new highs, and we can't seem to invest
and re-invest in our vital watershed infrastructure. That is simply
unconscionable.
The issue of the current condition of those improvements
constructed over the last fifty years with these watershed programs is
a matter of great concern. Many of the nearly 10,400 dams that NRCS
assisted sponsors build throughout the United States no longer meet
current dam safety standards and need to be upgraded to current
standards. A USDA study published in 1991 estimated that in the next
ten years, $590 million would be needed to protect the installed works.
Of That amount, $100 million would come from local sponsors as their
operation and maintenance contributions. NRCS also conducted a more
recent survey, which indicated the current national needs were about
$540 million. That is the reason we are recommending starting with $60
million for the work necessary to protect these installed structures,
and commend Oklahoma Representative Frank Lucas for his leadership in
introducing H.R. 728, the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of
1999. Watershed project sponsors throughout the US appreciate his
leadership on this vital issue. If we don't start to pay attention to
our rural infrastructure needs, the ultimate cost to society will only
increase, and project benefits will be lost. This is a serious issue we
hope you will recognize.
In addition to offering our thoughts on needed conservation program
budget levels, we would like to express our great concern with the way
in which the Administration's budget proposes to change the watershed
program funding in fiscal year 2000. We will address each ``account''
in some detail as to the adverse impacts we see.
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations.
--The Administration proposes $83,423,000, a decrease of $16,010,000
from the grossly inadequate funding of fiscal year 1999. They
talk of their concern for the environment, but it is not
reflected in their budget proposals.
--All watershed funds would be transferred to the Conservation
Operations (CO) account. We believe again that this is another
attempt by the Administration to put these finds into an
account where they may not be used for Small Watershed
Projects. In our view this represents the desire of some in the
Administration to circumvent the will of Congress and eliminate
Small Watershed projects. We ask that you not allow this to
happen.
--Of the funds proposed under the Public Law 566 authority, no funds
are specifically suggested for the Public Law 534 projects,
only $9 million is available from the Public Law 566 account
for Public Law 534 projects, a decrease of $6 million--or 40
percent --from fiscal year 1999. This is unacceptable.
--No funding is proposed to address the aging watershed
infrastructure problem which poses great risk to human health,
safety and quality of life, and which we discussed earlier. We
suggest $60 million is needed in fiscal year 2000. Pass H.R.
728!
Watershed Surveys and Planning.
--The Administration proposes $11,732,000 for these vital planning
activities, and we think $25 million is a more realistic figure
considering the need. There are many potential projects and
project sponsors in every state wanting watershed planning
assistance, and that assistance is not available. And this at a
time when our federal government is encouraging the watershed
approach and local leadership. Here we have the ideal
partnership cost-share program that encourages local
leadership, and the federal share of the funds is not there.
--The Administration again proposes putting all these funds in the
Conservation Operations account, and we have the same concern
we expressed under watershed operations. This must not be
allowed to happen. We demand fiscal accountability!
Emergency Watershed Protection Program.
--The Administration proposes no funds to maintain readiness to deal
with emergencies caused by natural disasters, or maintain any
technical staff capacity. This makes no sense! We suggest that
$20 million be put into this account to provide rapid early
response, and then deal with total disaster needs for each
incident with supplemental appropriations as in the past.
There are a number of suggestions we would like to make concerning
this very important legislation, that we will be making to other
committee's and they have budget implications. We believe the
objectives of this legislation should be expanded to include more non-
structural practices, allow the law to provide assistance in developing
rural water supplies (without water there is no rural development) and
eliminate the current requirement that mandates that twenty percent (20
percent) of the total projects benefits be ``directly related to
agriculture'' which can be very subjective and has the unintended
effect of penalizing projects in poor, small, rural communities.
The Coalition appreciates the opportunity to offer these comments
regarding fiscal year 2000 funding for the water resource programs
administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. With the
``downsizing'' the NRCS has experienced, we would be remiss if we did
not again express some concern as to their ability to provide adequate
technical support in these watershed program areas. NRCS technical
staff has been significantly reduced and budget constraints have not
allowed that expertise to be replaced. Traditional fields of
engineering and economics are but two examples. We see many states
where the capability to support their responsibilities in these program
areas is seriously diminished. This is a disturbing trend that needs to
be halted. This downsizing has a very serious effect on state and local
conservation programs. Local Watershed and Conservation Districts and
the NRCS combine to make a very effective delivery system for providing
the technical assistance to local people--farmers, ranchers and rural
communities--in applying needed conservation practices. But that
delivery system is currently very strained! Many states and local units
of government also have complementary programs that provide financial
assistance to land owners and operators for installing measures that
reduce erosion, improve water quality, and maintain environmental
quality. The NRCS provides, through agreement with the USDA Secretary
of Agriculture, ``on the land'' technical assistance for applying these
measures. The delivery system currently is in place, and by downsizing
NRCS we are eroding the most effective and efficient coordinated means
of working with local people to solve environmental problems ever
developed. Our system and its ability to produce food and fiber is the
envy of the entire world. In our view, these programs are the most
important in terms of national priorities.
We are also disappointed that the subcommittee has a practice of
not accepting oral testimony from organizations such as the National
Watershed Coalition. When we were allowed to make an oral presentation
in the House, we were able to talk to subcommittee members who could
ask us questions. It was a chance for them to actually talk with people
doing the work on the land. That personal contact in both houses is now
missing, and it would be easy to think that our written testimony may
not be seriously considered. We hope you will reconsider this practice
in future years, and again allow oral testimony.
The Coalition pledges its full support to you as you continue your
most important work.
Our Executive Director/Watershed Programs Specialist Mr. John W.
Peterson, who has over forty years experience in natural resource
watershed conservation, is located in the Washington, DC area, and
would be pleased to serve as a resource as needed. John's address is
9304 Lundy Court, Burke, VA 22015-3431, phone 703-455-6886 or 4387,
Fax; 703-455-6888, email: jwpeterson.erols.com.
Thank you for allowing the National Watershed Coalition (NWC) this
opportunity.
______
Prepared Statement of the Nature Conservancy
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to submit this testimony for the record on fiscal year 2000
appropriations for the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
The Nature Conservancy is an international, non-profit organization
dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity. Our mission is
``to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that
represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and
waters they need to survive.'' The Conservancy has more than 900,00
individual members and over 1,850 corporate sponsors. We currently have
programs in all 50 states and in 17 nations. To date our organization
has protected more than 9 million acres in the 50 states and Canada,
and has helped local partner organizations preserve millions of acres
overseas. The Conservancy itself owns more than 1,600 preserves--the
largest private system of nature sanctuaries in the world. Three
concepts have been fundamental to our success: sound science; strong
partnerships with public and private landowners; and tangible results
at local places.
The Conservancy is deeply committed to working with agricultural
producers to conserve biodiversity on private lands. We currently work
with local landowners at approximately 75 sites across the country to
implement conservation on the ground, and plan to increase this number
to 500 sites within the next decade.
recommendation
The Conservancy recommends:
Wetland Reserve Program WRP enrollment level of 209,000 acres in
fiscal year 2000. In addition, we ask the committee not to use the WRP
account to offset other expenditures.
EQIP funding of $300 million for fiscal year 2000. We also urge the
committee not to target EQIP to offset other expenditures.
Full support to the President's budget request of $680 million in
appropriations for the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
This appropriation supports principally the agency's basic conservation
program, called Conservation Technical Assistance.
Wetland Reserve Program (WRP)
The agriculture conservation program most important to the
Conservancy is the WRP. This program makes a sizeable amount of money
available to producers who enroll in the program after having concluded
that the best economic return on their land would be from the receipt
of program dollars rather than from crop or livestock production.
Because wetlands provide excellent habitat for wildlife, the program
serves the Conservancy's mission of habitat conservation, and at the
same time provides farmers who elect to enroll in the WRP with the
opportunity to generate income by renting WRP acres to hunting groups.
The Conservancy strongly supports WRP because it is the only
program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that at
least in part buys permanent protection for resource values on private
lands. These values include: 1) conservation of wildlife habitat, 2)
purification of groundwater runoff and, 3) regulation of the flow of
water in watershed systems by storing surface and groundwater.
Permanent protection of environmentally significant resources is the
best investment of public conservation dollars. In these times of
economic distress for many producers, making financial options
available for producers that also results in conservation benefits for
the general public is good public policy.
The Conservancy asks that the committee not turn to the WRP account
to offset expenditures in other program areas. We recognize that the
budget caps set a difficult goal for Congress in crafting a budget for
fiscal year 2000. Still, we believe that voluntary, cost-effective
programs like the WRP must be made available to producers to conserve
resources on private lands.
The Conservancy recommends a WRP enrollment level of 209,000 acres
in fiscal year 2000. Additionally, we are working with the Agriculture
Committee to increase the number of acres that may be enrolled in the
program and ensure that WRP continues to operate at an appropriate
level in the future.
Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP)
The Conservancy seeks a $100 million increase in funding for EQIP
for fiscal year 2000, for a total of $300 million. In addition, we urge
the committee not to target EQIP to offset other expenditures. The
agricultural conservation community recognizes the significant
contribution made by farm runoff to the impairment of our nation's
watersheds. An important strategy for addressing this problem must be
voluntary farm runoff abatement measures, such as that provided by the
EQIP program. The increased funding recommended will begin to help
animal feeding operators in financial distress deal with regulatory
pressure to keep water clean.
Conservation Technical Assistance
Agricultural production depends on the conservation of the soil and
water resource base. NRCS and the Conservancy both know that
conservation will succeed ultimately only to the extent that it also
serves the need of producers to engage in economically viable farming.
NRCS has a relationship of trust with private landowners that is
unusual among federal agencies. It takes a non-regulatory, voluntary
approach to conservation. The voluntary conservation programs
administered by NRCS, along and the Conservation Reserve Program
administered by the Farm Service Agency, provide farmers with highly
effective tools for conserving soil and water resources.
NRCS provides Conservation Technical Assistance through their
district conservationists, who give free advice to producers interested
in managing the natural resources on their land. In addition, district
conservationists provide a number of products requested by producers.
These include conservation management systems for a variety of land
types, irrigation water management plans, animal waste management
plans, program eligibility determinations, wetland creation or
restoration plans, conservation education, and long-term strategic
resource planning to individuals and communities.
Congress appropriated $641 million for the agency in fiscal year
1999. The current demand for these services approximately doubles NRCS'
ability to provide them. The Conservancy believes that if NRCS is not
funded at a level sufficient to provide these services, the resource
base on private lands will be impaired and biodiversity will be put at
greater risk. In particular, NRCS will have difficulty providing
technical assistance in support of the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP)
and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in the absence of full
funding of the Conservation Technical Assistance account.
A comprehensive clean water policy at the federal level must
include funding for the tools that enable producers to implement
voluntarily conservation practices and regulatory activities. An
increase in appropriations for Conservation Technical Assistance is
needed this year in particular because of the increased requirements
for animal feeding operators to change practices that affect water
quality.
We appreciate the support that you have shown for agriculture
conservation through the years, and appreciate this opportunity to
present a written statement to your committee. The Conservancy looks
forward to working with you on these issues in this and future
agriculture appropriations bills.
______
Prepared Statement of the Organization for the Promotion and
Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies
summary of request
The Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small
Telecommunications Companies [OPASTCO] seeks the Subcommittee's support
for fiscal year 2000 loan levels for the telecommunications program
administered by the Rural Utilities Service [RUS] in the following
amounts:
Telecommunications Loans Program
5 percent hardship loans................................ $75,000,000
Treasury rate loans..................................... 300,000,000
guaranteed loans........................................ 120,000,000
Rural Telephone Bank [RTB] loans........................ 175,000,000
In addition, OPASTCO requests the Subcommittee's support for the
following: removal of the statutory 7 percent cap on Treasury rate
loans for fiscal year 2000; a prohibition on the transfer of
unobligated RTB funds to the general fund of the Treasury; and, funding
of the distance learning and telemedicine grant and loan program at
sufficient levels.
general
OPASTCO is a national trade association of approximately 500
independently owned and operated telephone companies serving rural
areas of the United States. Its members, which include both commercial
companies and cooperatives, together serve over 2,000,000 customers in
42 states. Well over half of OPASTCO's members are RUS or RTB
borrowers.
Perhaps at no time since the inception of the RUS (formerly the
REA] has the telecommunications program been so vital to the future of
rural America. The telecommunications industry is at a crossroads, both
in terms of technology and public policy. Advances in
telecommunications technology in recent years will deliver on the
promise of a new ``information age.'' The Federal Communication
Commission's [FCC] implementation of the landmark Telecommunications
Act of 1996, as well as modernization resulting from prior statutory
changes to RUS's lending program, will expedite this transformation.
However, without continued RUS and RTB support, rural telephone
companies will be hard pressed to build the infrastructure necessary to
bring their communities into this new age, creating a bifurcated
society of information ``haves'' and ``have-nots.''
Contrary to the belief of some critics, RUS's job is not finished.
Actually, in a sense, it has just begun. We have entered a time when
advanced services and technology--such as broadband fiber optics,
digital switching equipment, custom calling features, and the
Internet--are an expected and needed part of a customer's
telecommunications service. Unfortunately, the inherently higher costs
of upgrading rural networks has not abated. Rural telecommunications
continues to be more capital intensive and involves fewer paying
customers than its urban counterpart. RUS borrowers average only 6.3
subscribers per route mile versus 130 subscribers per route mile for
large local exchange carriers. In order for rural telephone companies
to modernize their networks and provide their customers with advanced
services at reasonable rates, they must have access to reliable low-
cost financing.
The relative isolation of rural areas increases the value of
telecommunications services for these citizens. Telecommunications
enables applications such as distance learning and telemedicine that
can alleviate or eliminate some rural disadvantages. Telecommunications
can also make rural areas attractive for some businesses and result in
revitalization of the rural economy. For example, businesses such as
telemarketing and tourism can thrive in rural areas, and telecommuting
can become a realistic employment option.
While it has been said many times before, it bears repeating that
the RUS telecommunications loans and RTB programs are not grant
programs. The funds loaned by RUS are used to leverage substantial
private capital, creating public/private partnerships. For a very small
cost, the government is encouraging tremendous amounts of private
investment in rural telecommunications infrastructure.
Most importantly, the programs are tremendously successful.
Borrowers actually build the infrastructure and the government gets
paid back with interest. There has never been a default in the history
of the lending programs.
recent legislation has heightened the need for the rus
telecommunications loans program
The Telecommunications Act of 1996
The FCC's implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 will
only increase rural telephone companies' need for RUS assistance in the
future. The forward-looking Act defines universal service as an
evolving level of telecommunications services that the FCC must
establish periodically, taking into account advances in
telecommunications and information technologies and services. While the
competitive environment engendered by the 1996 Act may offer the means
of meeting this definition in urban areas, rural and high cost areas
have less potential for economically sound competitive alternatives.
RUS now has an essential role to play in the implementation of the new
law, as it will compliment new funding mechanisms established by the
FCC and enable rural America to move closer to achieving the federally
mandated goal of rural/urban service and rate comparability.
At present, considerable regulatory uncertainty exists for rural
telephone companies as several critical FCC proceedings implementing
the 1996 Act remain unresolved. These include fundamental changes to
the universal service and access charge systems and the procedures
incumbent carriers use to separate their costs between the Federal and
state jurisdictions. In addition, uncertainty exists as to whether
rural incumbent carriers will be able to recover the costs of the
extensive regulatory obligations and potential infrastructure
development demands placed on them under the Act. If, as it presently
appears, these outstanding issues are resolved in a piecemeal fashion
and/or with a strong bias toward new entrants, rural incumbent carriers
with universal service obligations could be hampered in their ability
to modernize their networks and provide quality, affordable service to
all of their customers. Managed sequencing and coordination of existing
proceedings is necessary if the Commission is to achieve Congress's
public policy goals of affordable rates and access to an evolving
telecommunications network for all Americans. Equally important is for
Congress to monitor the FCC's implementation of the Act to ensure that
all of its goals--including universal service, an even playing field
for competition, and deregulation--are realized in rural areas.
relra
Working in tandem with the 1996 Act, the Rural Electrification Loan
Restructuring Act of 1993 [RELRA] will further help to ensure the
comparability of telecommunications service between urban and rural
America. As a prerequisite to eligibility for insured and RTB loans,
RELRA requires that every state have an RUS approved modernization plan
which provides a timeline for the improvement of the state's
telecommunications network and assures that the purpose of every loan
is consistent with achieving the requirements of the borrower's state
plan. These plans set forth the requirements for the transmission of
video images and high speed data that will promote educational and
health care opportunities as well as provide the necessary
infrastructure for economic development. Implementation of these plans
has already begun to generate additional loan demand as rural telephone
systems strive to meet the increased service objectives in the rural
areas they serve.
a $75 million loan level should be maintained for the 5 percent
hardship loan program
One of the most vital components of RUS's telecommunications loans
program is the 5 percent hardship loan program. These loans are
referred to as hardship loans for good reason: They provide below-
Treasury rate financing to telephone companies serving some of the most
sparsely populated, highest cost areas in the country. The commitment
these companies have to providing modern telecommunications service to
everyone in their communities has made our nation's policy of universal
service a reality and, in many cases, would not have been possible
without RUS's hardship loan program. Companies applying for hardship
loans must meet a stringent set of eligibility requirements and the
projects to be financed are rated on a point system to ensure that the
loans are targeted to the most needy and deserving. For fiscal year
1999, the government subsidy needed to support a $75,000,000 loan level
was under $7,500,000. Given the necessity of this indispensable
program, it is critical that the loan level be maintained at
$75,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.
removal of the 7 percent cap on treasury rate loans should be continued
With regard to RUS's Treasury rate loan program, OPASTCO supports
the removal of the 7 percent ceiling on these loans for fiscal year
2000. This Subcommittee appropriately supported language in the fiscal
year 1996 Agriculture Appropriations Act to permit Treasury rate loans
to exceed the 7 percent per year ceiling contained in the authorizing
act. This language was continued in fiscal year 1997, 1998, and 1999.
Were long-term interest rates to exceed 7 percent, adequate subsidy
would not be available to support the Treasury rate loan program at the
authorized levels. Accordingly, OPASTCO supports the continuation of
this language in the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill in order to
prevent potential disruption to this important program.
the prohibition on the transfer of any unobligated balance of the rtb
liquidating account to the treasury and requiring the payment of
interest on these funds should be continued
OPASTCO urges the Subcommittee to reinstate the language introduced
in the fiscal year 1997 Agriculture Appropriations Act, and continued
in fiscal year 1998 and 1999, prohibiting the transfer of any
unobligated balance of the RTB liquidating account to the Treasury or
the Federal Financing Bank which is in excess of current requirements
and requiring the payment of interest on these funds. As a condition of
borrowing, the statutory language establishing the RTB requires
telephone companies to purchase Class B stock in the bank. Once all
loans are completely repaid, a borrower may then convert its Class B
stock into Class C stock. Thus, all current and former borrowers
maintain an ownership interest in the RTB. As with stockholders of any
concern, these owners have rights which may not be abrogated. The
Subcommittee's inclusion of the aforementioned language into the fiscal
year 2000 appropriations bill will ensure that RTB borrowers are not
stripped of the value of this required investment.
the administration's proposal to fund the rtb's administrative expenses
and subsidy from the bank's liquidating account should be rejected
As it did last year, the Subcommittee should reject the
Administration's proposal to fund the RTB's administrative expenses and
subsidy budget authority through the bank's liquidating account
balances. The Administration's proposal is inappropriate on both legal
and policy grounds. Statutorily, the Rural Electrification Act provides
for the RTB's use of facilities and services of employees of the
Department of Agriculture, without cost to the RTB, until such time as
the bank is privatized. The proposal also appears inconsistent with the
bifurcated structure of the RTB under the Federal Credit Reform Act of
1990 which does not permit funds in the liquidating account to finance
new loans. From a public policy standpoint, unobligated balances of the
liquidating account have been targeted to support the privatization of
the RTB and use of these funds for other purposes would only serve to
dilute the value of the bank for all stockholders. Finally, paying for
the RTB's administrative expenses and subsidy through the liquidating
account offers no budgetary savings. For these reasons, OPASTCO is
opposed to the Administration's proposal and urges the Subcommittee to
continue to fund the RTB through the general fund of the Treasury.
the distance learning and telemedicine program should continue to be
funded at adequate levels
In addition to RUS's telecommunications loans program, OPASTCO
supports adequate funding of the distance learning and telemedicine
grant and loan program authorized in the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. This sensible investment allows
rural students to gain access to advanced classes which will help them
prepare for college and jobs of the future. Also, rural residents will
gain access to quality health care services without traveling great
distances to urban hospitals. Loans are made at the government's cost-
of-money, which should help to meet demand for the program in the most
cost effective way. In light of the Telecommunications Act's
requirement that schools, health care providers, and libraries have
access to advanced telecommunications services, sufficient targeted
funding for this purpose is essential in fiscal year 2000.
conclusion
The development of the nationwide telecommunications network into
an information superhighway, as envisioned by policymakers, will help
rural America survive and prosper in any market--whether local,
regional, national, or global. However, without the availability of
low-cost RUS funds, building the information superhighway in
communities that are isolated and thinly populated will be untenable.
By supporting the RUS telecommunications programs at the requested
levels, the Subcommittee will be making a significant contribution to
the future of rural America at a negligible cost to the taxpayer.
______
Prepared Statement of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of
America
On behalf of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of
America (PhRMA), I present recommendations on the fiscal year 2000
budget request submitted by the Administration for the Food and Drug
Administration, for inclusion in the Subcommittee hearing record. PhRMA
represents the country's leading research-based pharmaceutical and
biotechnology companies, which are devoted to investing more than $24
billion annually in discovering and developing new medicines. PhRMA
companies are leading the search for new cures and treatments.
We recognize the difficulties confronting the Subcommittee in
meeting overall domestic spending caps affecting programs under your
jurisdiction, under the 1997 budget agreement. We also recognize that
pressures on appropriators to ensure an appropriate level of U.S.
defense spending is likely to be even greater in light of the recent
military activity with NATO. Decisions about which domestic programs to
maintain or increase thus will be even more difficult. We urge you,
however, to remember that many of the fruits of biomedical research are
brought to the bedsides of patients through the research and
development of new pharmaceuticals and through actions by the FDA to
bring those safe and effective medicines to patients as soon as
possible. To achieve this translation of medical research into better
health for our citizens requires a commitment to appropriate funding
for FDA.
That is why PhRMA fully supports the Administration's fiscal year
2000 request for budget authority specifically for direct federal
appropriations of $1.016 billion (excluding rental payments of $95
million) for FDA salaries and expenses. This account is the major and
essential component of FDA's resources, and the budget request
represents a $128 million increase over the appropriations enacted by
Congress for the current fiscal year under Public Law 105-227.
This level of funding is particularly important under the
``trigger'' provisions of the 1997 FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA) if the
pharmaceutical industry is to continue to be required to pay the user
fees that have enabled FDA to make new life-saving, cost effective
medicines available to patients much more quickly. The trigger
provisions require that general fund appropriations for all FDA
salaries and expenses must equal or exceed the fiscal year 1997
appropriation level (excluding user fees), as adjusted for inflation or
changes in discretionary budget authority for overall domestic
spending, beginning after fiscal year 1997.
As FDA Commissioner Jane E. Henney, M.D., noted in her recent
prepared testimony before your Subcommittee, FDA's dedication to the
health and safety of the American people is well established. It is
America's most important consumer protection agency. The FDA regulates
products that account for one-quarter of all consumer spending and that
comprise about $1 trillion in sales--including foods, medical and
radiological devices, medicines, animal drugs, and cosmetics. These are
goods that Americans expect to be safe and reliable.
However, Congress has imposed increasing responsibilities on FDA's
staff during the past decade--most recently, under FDAMA and the Animal
Drug Availability Act. For example, FDAMA requires that FDA inspect
establishments that make drugs and devices every two years. But between
1990 and 1998, the number of firms subject to inspections reportedly
rose from 89,000 to 114,000--a 28 percent increase.
In addition, the agency has had to respond quickly to an increasing
variety of new public health issues, such as ensuring the safety of
food and the nation's blood supply. For these reasons, it is of
critical importance that FDA be able to retain and recruit highly
qualified staff.
The research-based pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are
particularly concerned that FDA be able to continue to meet highly
important performance goals, mutually agreed upon in an historic
compact between FDA, Congress and industry. The agreement was first
reached in 1992 in the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) and was
confirmed in 1997 under FDAMA as PDUFA ll. The total FDA ``program''
request for salaries and expenses in fiscal year 2000 includes
authorized appropriations of over $145 million for PDUFA II user fees--
an increase of some $13 million over the current fiscal year, to add
staff to handle vitally important drug reviews. During fiscal year
1998-2002, pharmaceutical companies will pay over $550 million in user
fees under FDAMA, so FDA can continue to reduce both review and overall
drug development times. As FDA Commissioner Henney has testified:
``PDUFA is among the most successful agency programs in history.
Within its first five years of implementation, the increased resources
provided by PDUFA to hire additional review staff has resulted in
cutting the average review times for new drugs, without compromising
the high standards that FDA has traditionally applied in weighing the
risks and benefits of new drugs and thereby in determining their safety
and effectiveness.''
Under PDUFA, the pharmaceutical industry and FDA are continuing to
work to serve a common client--the patient. The industry is working to
develop new and better drugs, FDA is striving to improve the drug
development and review process.
The critical importance of this partnership, in cooperation with
Congress, in delivering new medicines to patients as soon as possible
cannot be overemphasized. The 30 new drugs and 9 new biologics approved
by FDA in 1998 are to treat diseases that affect 180 million patients
and that cost more than $400 billion a year. New treatments include
medicines for patients suffering from AIDS, cancer, including breast
cancer, cardiovascular disease, Crohn's disease, tuberculosis,
rheumatoid arthritis, depression, Parkinson's disease, erectile
dysfunction, and the first vaccines to prevent Lyme disease and
retrovirus infection. The prescription drug user fee program--which
must be sharply distinguished from proposals for general purpose user
fees--is based on three key principles:
--User fees must supplement FDA appropriations, not substitute for
them.
--User fees must be targeted to the review and approval of innovative
prescription medicines and their supplemental indications, and
are not to be used for general agency activities.
--User fees must be applied to meet specific performance goals,
agreed upon by FDA, to ensure the timely review and approval of
new drugs.
Before user fees, FDA review times averaged about 30 months. But
the 30 drugs approved in 1998 were reviewed in an average of 11.7
months--slightly better than the 12-month goal specified in PDUFA II.
FDA also exceeded the fiscal year 1998 goal to review 90 percent of all
standard new drug and biologic applications within 12 months, by
completing 100 percent of the reviews within this timeframe.
The prescription drug user fees collected in fiscal year 2000 will
enable FDA to continue to meet its PDUFA II performance goals,
including:
--Review and act upon 90 percent of standard original NDA and PLA/BLA
submissions filed during fiscal year 2000 within 12 months of
receipt, and review and act on 50 percent within 10 months of
receipt.
--Review and act on 90 percent of priority original drug NDA and
biotechnology BLA submissions filed during fiscal year 2000
within six months of receipt.
--Review and act on 90 percent of standard drug efficacy supplements
filed during fiscal year 2000 within 12 months of receipt, and
review and act on 50 percent within 10 months of receipt.
Review and act on 90 percent of priority drug efficacy supplements
filed during fiscal year 2000 within six months of receipt.
What this means is that FDA can continue to build on its record of
helping patients to obtain new medicines more than a year and a half
sooner than they did before user fees were enacted, while maintaining
its high standards of safety and effectiveness.
In addition, FDAMA contains important provisions that facilitate
access by patients to experimental drugs; give FDA more flexibility in
determining effectiveness; expand access by doctors to peer-reviewed
medical information; and encourage the development and testing of
medicines for children.
The U.S. system of new drug approvals is the most rigorous in the
world. On average, a company invests about $500 million and takes about
12-15 years to discover and develop a new drug. Only five in 5,000
compounds that enter preclinical testing make it to human testing. And
only one of these five is approved for use by patients.
R&D investment by research-based pharmaceutical firms continues to
break records. In 1999, pharmaceutical companies will invest $24
billion to discover and develop important new medicines. That figure
represents a 14.1 percent increase over last year's record setting R&D
spending. And no industry devotes a higher percentage of sales to R&D--
20.8 percent--than the research-based pharmaceutical industry.
However, the pharmaceutical industry's ever increasing R&D
investment, and FDA's determined efforts to improve the drug
development and review process, will be nullified if adequately
increased baseline appropriations for all of the agency's programs are
not provided.
For these reasons, PhRMA strongly urges that Congress appropriate
$1.016 billion (exclusive of rental payments) in fiscal year 2000 for
FDA salaries and expenses, as requested by the Administration, to
ensure that the agency can fulfill its vital responsibilities to
promote and protect the health and safety of the American people.
______
Prepared Statement of the Red River Valley Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Lynn Lowe, and I am
pleased to represent the Red River Valley Association as its President.
Our organization was founded in 1925 with the express purpose of
uniting the citizens of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas to
develop the land and water resources of the Red River Basin.
As an organization that knows the value of our precious water
resources we support the most beneficial water and land conservation
programs administered through the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS). We understand how important a balanced budget is to our
nation; however, we cannot sacrifice what has been accomplished. The
NRCS programs are a model of how conservation programs should be
administered and our testimony will address the needs of the nation as
well as our region. We believe strongly that the whole, national
program must be preserved.
We appreciate that the fiscal year 2000 President's budget
increases the NRCS overall funding; however, some programs are NOT
adequately funded, to the detriment of the agency and our citizens. The
increases are earmarked for grants, financial assistance and other non-
federal personnel items. The effect is a decrease of funds for direct
technical assistance. It is imperative to understand that NRCS is
funded by program and not by employees.
We would like to address several of the programs affected by the
President's fiscal year 2000 budget proposal. Failure to fund these
initiatives would reduce assistance to those who need it.
1. Conservation Operations Budget.--This has been a steady decline
in real dollars over the past several years. This has happened partly
as a result of dollars being diverted from Conservation Operations to
fund newer programs, especially the increases in financial assistance
for conservation. The recent Workload Analysis conducted by NRCS shows
that nationally the needs by private land users for conservation
services of all the kinds provided by NRCS exceeds the funded levels by
$300 million. RRVA supports the increase in the Conservation Operations
budget for NRCS by $300 million per year beginning in fiscal year 2000.
The Conservation Operations budget of NRCS is the foundation of
technical support for conservation to the private users and owners of
land in the United States. The President's Clean Water Action Plan and
the Unified Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations will rely heavily on
the technical assistance provided through NRCS's Conservation
Operations program. Increases in other programs such as EQIP will not
make up for the declines in Conservation Operations.
Another factor which has seriously reduced the ability of NRCS to
meet the considerable demands for its technical assistance is the
limitation on funding which can be provided to NRCS due to the Section
11 cap on transfer of funds from the Community Credit Corporation
(CCC). The CCC provides the funding for NRCS technical assistance for
several programs including EQIP and CRP. Currently, this cap prevents
NRCS from covering its staff costs for these crucial programs. We
support the lifting of the Section 11 cap.
2. Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (Public Laws 566 &
534).--More than 10,400 individual structures have been installed
nationally. They have contributed greatly to environmental enhancement,
economic development and the social well being of our communities. More
than half of these structures are over 30 years old and several hundred
are approaching their 50 year planned life.
These programs offer a complete watershed management approach and
should continue for the following reasons:
--They protect people and communities from flooding.
--Their objectives sustain our nation's natural resources for future
generations.
--They are federally assisted and do not grow the federal government.
--Initiatives and decisions are driven by the communities.
--They are cost shared.
--They follow NEPA guidelines and enhance the environment.
--They can address the needs of low income and minority communities.
--The benefit to cost ratio of this program has been evaluated to be
2.2:1. What other federal programs can claim such success?
There is no doubt of the value of this program. The cost of losing
this infrastructure exceeds the cost to reinvest in our existing
watersheds. Without repairing and upgrading the safety of existing
structures we will miss the opportunity to keep our communities alive
and prosperous. It would be irresponsible to dismantle a program that
has demonstrated such great return and is wanted by our citizens.
We fully support H.R. 728, recently introduced by Representative
Frank Lucas (R-OK). This is a crucial bill to address a serious
problem.
In addition to the needs for reinvesting in existing infrastructure
there are many new projects which are awaiting funds to be built. The
present level, outlined in the budget, of $83 million is not adequate.
We strongly recommend that a funding level of $250 million be dedicated
to Flood Prevention Public Law 534 and Watershed Operations Public Law
566. This is more realistic and compares to the programs appropriated
in the years prior to 1997. At the proposed funding level it would take
over 30 years to complete just the identified projects, with no
attention given to rehabilitation needs.
3. Emergency Watershed Protection Program.--This program comes
under Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, but is a separate line
item. This has been a zero budget item; however, there will always be
emergency needs. It is estimated that $80 million was spent in fiscal
year 1998 and funds are already being used for this purpose in fiscal
year 1999.
As our land use expands, to include sensitive environmental
ecosystems, major weather events will have an adverse impact requiring
NRCS to assist under this program; therefore it should be funded up
front. It is important for NRCS to be prepared for a rapid response.
With funds available they can react immediately to any emergency when
it occurs.
We request that a minimum of $50 million be appropriated for this
program in the fiscal year 2000 budget and that these funds are not
taken from elsewhere in the NRCS budget.
4. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).--This program, administered
by Farm Services Agency, impacts NRCS the most. NRCS conducts and is
reimbursed for the technical assistance of this program.
In fiscal year 1999 approximately 6.8 million acres was enrolled
into CRP. Only 1.8 million acres will be enrolled in fiscal year 2000
as the Congressionally mandated cap is reached.
This reduction in the program would mean a loss of about 1,000
staff years nationwide. This is a tremendous loss in manpower, all
realized at the field level where technical assistance is most
valuable. You cannot allow this to occur.
We request that, as a minimum, the CRP cap be increased to 45
million acres. This is an extremely beneficial program to our nation
and should not be allowed to expire. It provides a safety net to those
farmers trying to make a living on the marginal lands most suited for
this program.
5. Watershed Survey and Planning.--This was budgeted by the
President at $11.7 million and is an extremely important community
program. NRCS has used this to become a facilitator for the different
community interest groups, state and federal agencies.
It is imperative that our communities conduct proper water resource
planning as they grow. The consequences for the lack of planning will
be detrimental. Watershed Survey and Planning insures that water
resource issues are addressed, bringing the community leaders, agencies
and interest groups together.
As our municipalities expand the water resource issues tend to be
neglected until a serious problem occurs. Proper planning and
cooperative efforts, through this program, can prevent problems and
insure the water resource issues are met.
We request that this program be funded at a level of $15 million.
6. Forestry Incentives Program.--The President's budget has no
funding for this program. Congress transferred this program to NRCS
from the Farm Service Agency as a restructuring in the Federal
Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. Forestry on small,
privately owned lands is recognized as a farming activity. NRCS is the
best agency to administer this program which assists farmers in
production agriculture.
It is more than just a timber production program. Forests are the
most effective land users as they relate to water quality, non point
source pollution, air quality, greenhouse gas reduction and wildlife
habitat. The fact that this program pertains to small, privately owned
forests is another important aspect. Even though the initial impact is
on wood fiber production, without it the landowners may sell the land
for other development or misuse the resource jeopardizing water quality
and proper runoff practices. This is a needed conservation program.
We request Congress to fund the Forestry Incentives Program at a
level of $6.5 million for fiscal year 2000.
7. Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).--Requests for
assistance through the EQIP program have been overwhelming. The
resulting requests far exceed the available funds and is an additional
workload on NRCS's delivery system. Additionally, the Administration
must provide adequate funding for technical assistance to implement the
program. We are appreciative that the President's fiscal year 2000
budget increases the program by $126 million but the technical
assistance must be set and maintained at a minimum of 19 percent of the
total program, or $57 million. In essence, the program, or workload,
cannot be increased while the technical assistance is reduced, as was
attempted in fiscal year 1999.
It appears that EQIP will be the primary means of supporting the
voluntary portion of the Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding
Operations. Implementation of this strategy will greatly increase the
demands for EQIP funds and technical services. Funding for NRCS to
staff the technical assistance part is critical for the success of
EQIP.
The $300 million proposed for the EQIP program is an adequate
budget for fiscal year 2000; however, we request that the technical
assistance for this program be a minimum of $57 million.
8. Wetlands Reserve Program (CCC).--As the WRP reaches its mandated
cap in fiscal year 2000 the cap must be raised. This is a very popular
and important program. It serves as a safety net to those farmers
trying to make a living on these marginal lands. It also addresses
conservation needs from water quality to global warming. The
President's budget increased the program in fiscal year 2000 by $100
million to $209 million. In addition, the budget only allows for $11.8
million for technical assistance when a minimum of $18.3 million is
required for NRCS to support this level of sign up.
We agree with the funding level for this program; however, the
acreage cap will be met in fiscal year 2000. We strongly recommend that
the program be amended to add 1 million acres. This will allow the
program to continue until fiscal year 2002 when a reauthorization for
the program can be made.
9. Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA).--A further reduction to
technical assistance will jeopardize the local, state and federal
partnership in conservation making it impossible to meet this nation's
commitment to land stewardship in a voluntary manner. CTA provides
landowners one-on-one assistance in planning and application of
practice to protect our natural resources. The President's fiscal year
2000 budget degrades this assistance. Much of the funds will be used
for grants and ``passed through'' for use other than field delivery
staff. After analysis of the proposed budget NRCS would actually be
reduced by 1,055 staff years. You and our nation cannot allow this
reduction in service and conservation management to happen.
Over 70 percent of our land is in private ownership. This is
important to understanding the need for NRCS programs and technical
assistance. Their presence is vital to ensuring sound technical
standards are met in our conservation programs. These programs not only
address agricultural production, but sound natural resource management.
Without these programs and NRCS properly staffed to implement them many
owners of our private lands will not apply conservation measures needed
to sustain our natural resources for future generations.
The administration has proposed ``new'' Clean Water Initiatives,
but why do they ignore the agency that has a proven record for
implementing conservation watershed programs? Congress must decide:
will NRCS continue to provide the leadership within the communities to
build upon the partnerships already established? The President's
proposal does not provide for that leadership and so it is up to
Congress to insure NRCS is properly funded and staffed to provide the
needed help to our taxpayers for conservation programs.
All these programs apply to the citizens in the Red River Valley
and we are concerned for the future. The RRVA is dedicated to work
toward the programs which will benefit our citizens and provide for
high quality of life standards. We therefore request that you
appropriate the required funding levels within the individual programs
to insure our nation's conservation needs are met.
Attached is a summary of the additions and amendments we believe
should be made to the President's budget to insure that NRCS remains
funded to deliver America's conservation services and programs to our
citizens.
I thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony on behalf
of the members of the Red River Valley Association and we pledge our
support to assist you in the appropriation process.
Red River Valley Association Summary of Budget Request, Fiscal Year 2000
Appropriations, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
Appropriations:
President's fiscal year 2000 Budget................. $1,601,000,000
Conservation Operations (President's Budget--$680.7
million) Additional Request....................... 300,000,000
Watershed and Flood Protection Operations:
Public Law 566 & Public Law 534 (President's
Budget--$83 million) Additional Request....... 167,000,000
Emergency Watershed Protection Program.......... 50,000,000
Watershed Survey and Planning (President's Budget--
$11.7 million) Additional Request................. 3,300,000
Forestry Incentive Program.......................... 6,500,000
Wetlands Reserve Program (Tech Asst, President's
Budget--$11.8 million) Additional Technical
Assistance........................................ 6,500,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total NRCS fiscal year 2000 Appropriation....... $2,134,300,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
Technical Assistance: Environmental Quality Incentives
Program Technical Assistance (Min 19 percent of the
proposed budget).................................... 57,000,000
Acreage Cap Increases:
Conservation Reserve Program........................ 45,000,000
Wetland Reserve Program............................. 1,000,000
Grant Disclosure: The Red River Valley Association has not received any
federal grant, subgrant or contract during the current fiscal year or
either of the two previous fiscal years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the Catfish Farmers of America
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to provide testimony in support of the USDA Regional
Aquaculture Center program. My name is Hugh Warren, and I am Executive
Vice President of the Catfish Farmers of America. Founded in 1968, and
with current membership from 30 states, the Catfish Farmers of America
is the trade organization that represents the interests of the farm-
raised catfish industry.
Production of farm-raised catfish has increased over SO-fold since
1970, a rate of growth unmatched in other segments of domestic
agriculture. Per capita consumption of farm-raised catfish ranks fifth
among all seafood products in the United States, behind tuna, shrimp,
pollock, and salmon. Because farm-raised catfish has become a widely
accepted food item throughout much of the United States, the demand for
catfish should continue to increase as American consumers increasingly
turn toward fish as part of their overall diet.
The rapid growth of the catfish industry has brought about a
pressing need for research to make farming more efficient and to assure
the continued production of a safe, healthy food for American
consumers. The Southern Regional Aquaculture Center has become an
important part of that research support as Center programs are
responsive to industry needs within the region, and projects are
conducted as cooperative, interstate projects that ensure that the best
scientific talent in the region is brought to bear on the problem in a
cost-efficient manner. I would like to highlight two projects developed
through the Southern Regional Aquaculture Center that illustrate the
response of the program to important national and regional issues.
Production of safe, high-quality products is the foremost goal of
fish farmers. Through the Southern Regional Aquaculture Center,
research and extension scientists from Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia evaluated methods of
detecting pathogenic microorganisms and reducing spoilage of farmed
raised channel catfish, trout, and crawfish. Packaging techniques
developed through this project have been implemented in commercial
processing plants throughout the country, and have helped to improve
shelf-life on many aquaculture products. More than 100 scientific and
lay publications were developed through this project, and have provided
critical information on processing, temperature control, spoilage,
purchasing, storage, handling, and preparation of aquaculture products.
This project has helped assure the quality and safety of aquaculture
products.
Producing food in an environmentally sound manner is another
fundamental goal of American aquaculture. Research and extension
scientists in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina and South Carolina recently cooperated in a
Southern Regional Aquaculture Center project to evaluate waste
management practices that reduce the impact of aquaculture on the
environment. Results of the project showed that aquaculture ponds can
be operated with minimal impact on the environment by using simple
management practices that can be implemented with little or no extra
expense or labor. These practices have been widely adopted in the
southeast because aquaculture producers are aware that the use of
environmentally responsible farming practices can be part of the
marketing appeal of farm-raised fish.
Funding for the Regional Aquaculture Center program has been level
for the past decade. Over that time, domestic aquaculture has grown at
a remarkable rate and the cost of conducting research has increased.
Accordingly, it has become increasingly difficult for the Center
program to address the needs of this important segment of American
agriculture. I respectfully request your sincere consideration of the
Regional Aquaculture Centers in the fiscal year 00 budget, and I urge
you to provide funding at the full authorized level of $7.5 million for
the five Regional Centers.
______
Prepared Statement of the Second Harvest National Network of Food Banks
Chairman Cochran, Ranking Member Kohl, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit this written
testimony before the Subcommittee.
Second Harvest is the nation's largest hunger relief charity. Our
network is compromised of nearly 200 regional certified affiliate food
banks, which provide more than one billion pounds of food and grocery
products to an estimated 50,000 local private charitable agencies,
operating 95,000 social service programs. Second Harvest network food
banks provide assistance in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico.
On behalf of Second Harvest and its member food banks, I want to
express our deep gratitude to each of you for your attention to the
needs of the food banks in your state and their efforts to feed
America's hungry. America's food banks have more nutritious, higher
quality and greater quantities of food because of your work.
To cite just one example, in your state Mr. Chairman, the
Mississippi Food Network, led by Mr. John Alford, provides food and
grocery products to more than 350 local charities around the state and
distributed more than 6 million pounds in federal commodities to needy
Mississippians in 1997. The efforts of Mr. Alford's food bank, its
network of churches and local agencies and thousands of volunteers, is
made more effective through the distribution of USDA commodities made
possible by this Subcommittee. Thank you.
In 1998, through the generosity of private donations and the grant
of federal commodities through the Emergency Food Assistance Program
(TEFAP), our network provided food to an estimated 26 million low-
income Americans, including 21 million people who were aided at
emergency feeding sites such as soup kitchens, food pantries, and
emergency shelters.
Mr. Chairman, I submit my testimony today urging the Subcommittee
to fund TEFAP at the level recommended by the Administration, $100
million for commodity food assistance and $45 million for
administrative funds. The need for adequate TEFAP funding is essential
to our food banks and the hungry Americans they serve.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ HUNGER 1997: The Faces & Facts. The Second Harvest National
Research Study, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last year, Second Harvest released HUNGER: The Faces & Facts,
independent research providing the most comprehensive review of the
private sector response to the problem of hunger ever conducted in the
United States. What our research provided--and what I hope will
influence the fiscal year 2000 appropriations process now being
considered by this Subcommittee--is important demographic information
about hungry Americans and the local charities that serve them.
What our research found was that disproportionately higher
percentages of women, children, and elderly people are served at
emergency feeding sites than are represented in the general US
population. They are typically the poorest of the poor, with more than
86 percent with incomes below the federal poverty level and more than
11 percent with no income in the past month at all. These are our
nation's most vulnerable families, and they rely heavily on the
assistance of community based charities like the local food bank.
We also find ``working poor'' families being served through food
pantries. Increasingly, these working poor are being fed at soup
kitchens that were once almost exclusively utilized by homeless people.
Working poor households represent more than one-third of emergency food
recipients. They are people who are working, paying taxes and
contributing to the productivity and economic prosperity of our nation,
but are reaping few of the rewards. A recent study in Virginia found
that half of all people relying on food pantries and other local
feeding agencies had been employed in the past six months.\2\
Unfortunately, the economic boats of these working Americans have not
been lifted by the rising tide of our nation's current economic boom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Promise and the Reality, The Outlook for Virginians Leaving
Welfare, Campaign for Virginians in Need and Social Action Linking
Together, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ranks of the working poor that turn to charities for aid is
also increasing through the often-difficult transition from welfare to
work. A South Carolina Department of Social Services report found that
17 percent of former welfare recipients had no way to buy food some of
the time, since leaving welfare.\3\ A recent study in Massachusetts
found that 10 percent of former welfare recipients reported having gone
hungry, and the length of time former recipients went without food grew
to 10 days in some cases.\4\ In each of these states food banks have
reported significant increased demand for emergency food services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Survey of Former Family Independence Program Clients Whose
Cases Were Closed Between January and March 1997. South Carolina
Department of Social Services 1998.
\4\ Life After Welfare: Still Poor, Still Hungry. Massachusetts Law
Reform Institute and the Family Economic Institute, Boston, MA. 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food banks have become an essential component in the public-private
partnership that has emerged in the efforts of local communities to end
hunger. In 1998, the Second Harvest network distributed approximately
1.2 billion pounds of food to local charities with an estimated value
of $1.5 billion. More than 85 percent of all the food and grocery
products distributed throughout our network are provided by the private
sector. Two-thirds of all private sector donations to food banks come
through local activities such as canned food drives, church and
synagogue sponsored activities, local grocery retailers and
wholesalers, local food manufacturers and processors, and farmers who
make available their fields for a ``second harvest'' for the needy in
their communities.
Despite the generous donation of food and grocery products by the
private sector, we are finding increased demand for emergency food
assistance that is outstripping our available resources. The Hunger
1997 Second Harvest report provides quantifiable data showing a
substantial shortage of emergency food aid in the charitable sector.
Our research findings have been confirmed by other human service
organizations that have experienced similar shortages of emergency
food. For example, Catholic Charities USA reported in December 1997
that the number of people receiving emergency food assistance at
Catholic Charities sites increased by 14 percent since 1995.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Catholic Charities USDA, 1996 Annual Survey (December 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the US Conference of Mayors Annual Survey of Hunger and
Homelessness found that emergency food assistance was up 14 percent in
1998.\6\ Eighty-four percent of the cities surveyed reported increased
demand for emergency food among families with children. And, due to
insufficient stocks of emergency food, emergency feeding agencies were
forced to turn away one in five individuals in cities surveyed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. Conference of Mayors, A Status Report on Hunger and
Homelessness in America's Cities, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate that in 1997, approximately 16 percent of requests for
emergency food aid went unmet. Nearly half (46 percent) of all local
agencies reported that they were forced to stretch food resources in
the past year. Moreover, emergency food pantries experienced shortages
most often, with nearly 60 percent reporting that they have had to
stretch food at some time in the past year, and 17 percent stretching
food resources monthly.
Local agencies reporting a need for additional food resources were
asked to estimate the amount of additional food needed. Based on those
agency reports, researchers were able to project a national shortage of
900 million pounds of emergency food. In the worst instances, local
charities can no longer stretch food resources and are forced to
operate on a sort of ``triage'' system, serving only the most needy, or
the charity simply closes. Our research found that a median number of
20 people were turned away last year by those food programs lacking
sufficient food resources to serve them. In 1997, at least 115,000
people were turned away and denied emergency food assistance because
the local charitable agency had no food available.
Mr. Chairman, it should be noted that it takes a serious and nearly
insurmountable shortage of donated food to force a charity to turn a
needy person away, or, worse yet, close a soup kitchen, pantry or
emergency shelter. The director of soup kitchen or church food pantry
will go to extraordinary efforts before they will accept that they must
turn someone away or close their doors for even a short period of time.
Mr. Chairman, the depth of the emergency food shortage is profound
and provides a compelling argument for the subcommittee to fully fund
TEFAP to the Administration's request of $100 million in commodity food
donations and $45 million in administrative funding. This is the same
TEFAP mandatory funding level provided for in fiscal year 2000 through
the Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (Public
Law 104-193). We cannot cut emergency food assistance at a time when
food banks, food pantries and soup kitchens are reporting that
approximately 16 percent of emergency food requests currently go unmet.
TEFAP is the cornerstone program in the charitable efforts to feed
America's hungry, and is the ``bridge'' between public and private
hunger relief efforts. TEFAP is a unique community based and community
supported federal nutrition program, which relies on volunteers at food
banks and local agencies to prepare and distribute federally donated
agricultural commodities to hungry people in those communities.
TEFAP serves the public good in two primary and important ways:
high quality, nutritious food gets to hungry Americans in an efficient
manner utilizing the assistance and efficiencies of the private sector,
and the agricultural economy is strengthened through surplus removal
and providing a non-competitive market for agricultural commodities. A
1994 USDA--Economic Research Service report stated ``although TEFAP's
sector-wide farm impacts are small because the program is small,
producers of the commodities donated through TEFAP can be significantly
affected ... as a surplus disposal program TEFAP returned to farmers
approximately 85 cents for every dollar of Federal TEFAP expenditure.''
\7\ TEFAP provides increased farm-gate income and serves as direct
connection between America's farmers and hungry Americans in a manner
that few federal programs can.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Comparing the Emergency Food Assistance Program and the Food
Stamp Program, USDA-ERS Agricultural Economic report Number 689, 6/94;
page 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fiscal year 1998, TEFAP commodities (purchased and bonus)
represented more than 15 percent of all the food supplied through the
Second Harvest network. Nearly 190 million pounds of TEFAP food--the
equivalent of 148 million meals--was distributed through the Second
Harvest network last year. We estimate that a similar level of TEFAP
commodities (150 million to 180 million pounds) will be distributed
through the network of food banks in fiscal year 1999, based on
projections of surplus commodities available through Section 32 of the
Agricultural Act of 1935.
Though USDA commodities seemingly represent a proportionally small
amount of the total food distributed through our network, TEFAP
commodities are critical in that they help stabilize a massive system
of unpredictable donated supplies that are typical in a charitable
network such as ours.
According to our research, the types of food most needed by local
charities, primarily meat, dairy, fish, fruits and vegetables, and
grain products, are almost exclusively the commodities provided through
TEFAP. Those are also the least likely types of food to be donated in
significant quantities or with any kind of regularity. This year,
nearly two dozen types of nutritious commodities will be available to
food banks through TEFAP mandatory commodity purchases.
Americans are a fair, compassionate and generous people, and it is
through their kind donations of food, funds, and volunteer time that
food banks are able to come to the aid of the 21 million low-income
people with emergency hunger relief. But, more must be done. Hunger
relief charities are the last line of defense against hunger in most
American communities, and too many needy people have already been
turned away for a lack of food and resources.
I am mindful of the difficult fiscal constraints faced by this
Subcommittee. But I am also aware of the even more difficult reality of
21 million Americans that turn to us for aid and help in their hunger.
We cannot allow these vulnerable and needy people to be turned away.
TEFAP is essential to our ability to feed America's hungry. I urge you
to not cut TEFAP, and allow the mandatory funding paid for in the 1996
Welfare Reform Act to proceed through the Committee without reduction.
In light of the nation's considerable agricultural surpluses and
the first federal budget surplus in three decades, it is morally
unacceptable that there are tens of thousands of American children that
may go to bed tonight because they have no food in their home or
because the church pantry they have visited is empty. The TEFAP program
is an essential component in our work. Please fund the program no less
than the Administration's request.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that the following two front-page articles from
the New York Times, (2/26/99 and 2/27/99) be submitted with my
testimony for the hearing record. These articles provide additional
information that I sincerely hope will help guide the Subcommittee in
its deliberations on fiscal year 2000 TEFAP funding.
Thank you Chairman Cochran, Ranking Member Kohl and Members of the
Subcommittee.
______
Prepared Statement of the Seminole Tribe of Florida
The Seminole Tribe of Florida is pleased to submit this statement
regarding the fiscal year 2000 budget for the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) in the Department of Agriculture. The Tribe
asks that Congress provide $946 million for NRCS's Conservation
Operations Partnership; this request exceeds fiscal Year 1999 spending
levels by $300 million. The Seminole Tribe's agricultural enterprises
and environmental programs benefit from the technical assistance the
NRCS provides through its Conservation Operations Partnership.
Recently, the Tribe has been working closely with the Florida State
Conservationists on a number of 1996 Farm Bill programs and anticipates
increased technical assistance needs in the coming fiscal year.
the seminole tribe of florida
The Seminole Tribe lives in the Florida Everglades. The Big Cypress
Reservation is located in the western basins, directly north of the Big
Cypress National Preserve. The Everglades provide many Seminole Tribal
members with their livelihood. Our traditional Seminole cultural,
religious, and recreational activities, as well as commercial
endeavors, are dependent on a healthy Everglades ecosystem. In fact,
the Tribe's identity is so closely linked to the land that Tribal
members believe that if the land dies, so will the Tribe.
During the Seminole Wars of the 19th Century, our Tribe found
protection in the hostile Everglades. But for this harsh environment
filled with sawgrass and alligators, the Seminole Tribe of Florida
would not exist today. Once in the Everglades, we learned how to use
the natural system for support without harm to the environment that
sustained us. For example, our native dwelling, the chickee, is made of
cypress logs and palmetto fronds and protects its inhabitants from the
sun and rain, while allowing maximum circulation for cooling. When a
chickee has outlived its useful life, the cypress and palmetto return
to the earth to nourish the soil.
In response to social challenges within the Tribe, we looked to our
Tribal elders for guidance. Our elders taught us to look to the land,
for when the land was ill, the Tribe would soon be ill as well. When we
looked at the land, we saw the Everglades in decline and recognized
that we had to help mitigate the impacts of man on this natural system.
At the same time, we acknowledged that this land must sustain our
people, and thereby our culture. The clear message we heard from our
elders and the land was that we must design a way of life to preserve
the land and the Tribe. Tribal members must be able to work and sustain
themselves. We need to protect the land and the animals, but we must
also protect our Tribal farmers and ranchers.
Recognizing the needs of our land and our people, the Tribe, along
with our consultants, designed a plan to mitigate the harm to the land
and water systems within the Reservation while ensuring a sustainable
future for the Seminole Tribe of Florida. The restoration plan will
allow Tribal members to continue their farming and ranching activities
while improving water quality and restoring natural hydroperiod to
large portions of the native lands on the Reservation and ultimately,
positively effecting the Big Cypress National Preserve and Everglades
National Park.
The Seminole Tribe's project addresses the environmental
degradation wrought by decades of federal flood control construction
and polluted urban and agricultural runoff. The interrupted sheet flow
and hydroperiod have stressed native species and encouraged the spread
of exotic species. Nutrient-laden runoff has supported the rapid spread
of cattails, which choke out the periphyton algae mat and sawgrass
necessary for the success of the wet/dry cycle that supports the
wildlife of the Everglades.
The Seminole Tribe designed an Everglades Restoration project to
allow the Tribe to sustain ourselves while reducing impacts on the
Everglades. The Seminole Tribe is committed to improving the water
quality and flows on the Big Cypress Reservation. We have already
committed significant resources to the design of this project and to
our water quality data collection and monitoring system. We are willing
to continue our efforts and to commit more resources, for our cultural
survival is at stake.
In addition to addressing the ecosystem concerns related to the Big
Cypress Reservation, the Tribe has been actively involved in the
development of the ecosystem-wide restoration plan. The Tribe, as an
active member of both the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South
Florida and the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force and
Working Group, has worked cooperatively with our neighbors to design a
sustainable future for all of South Florida.
seminole tribe everglades restoration initiative
The Tribe has developed a conceptual water conservation plan that
will enable us to meet new water quality standards essential to the
cleanup of our part of the Everglades ecosystem and to plan for the
storage and conveyance of our water rights. We have also designed, with
the assistance of the NRCS, the Tribe's best management practices
program. We continue to use available funds to further the design and
planning work necessary to implement our Everglades Restoration
Initiative.
The Tribe's Everglades Restoration Initiative is designed to
mitigate the degradation the Everglades has suffered through decades of
flood control projects and urban and agricultural use and ultimately to
restore the nation's largest wetlands to a healthy state. Our
Everglades Restoration Initiative will enable the Tribe:
--to collect and monitor data to establish a baseline and to evaluate
performance of the overall system design;
--to design and construct surface water management systems to remove
phosphorus, convey and store irrigation water, improve flood
control, and rehydrate the Big Cypress National Preserve;
--to commit to the long-term operation and maintenance of new water
management systems; and
--to design and implement comprehensive best management practices for
the Big Cypress Reservation.
This project will enable the Tribe to meet proposed numeric target
for low phosphorus concentrations that is being used for design
purposes by state and federal authorities. It will also provide an
important public benefit: a new system to convey excess water from the
western basins to the Big Cypress National Preserve, where water is
vitally needed for rehydration and restoration of lands within the
Preserve.
Conclusion
Everglades restoration is a well-recognized national priority.
Through its assistance to the Tribe, NRCS has provided valuable
technical assistance to date. The Tribe anticipates that beginning in
fiscal year 1999, NRCS will provide programmatic support through EQIP
and WRP. In the following fiscal year, the Tribe anticipates additional
programmatic assistance through the implementation of a significant
portion of the Tribe's water conservation plan through the small
watershed program as authorized through Public Law 566. None of the
joint objectives of the Tribe and the NRCS can be accomplished,
however, without sufficient funding of the Florida Conservationist's
technical assistance budget.
The Seminole Tribe is ready, willing, and able to begin work
immediately. Doing so will require substantial commitments from the
Tribe, including the dedication of over 9,000 acres of land for water
management improvements. However, if the Tribe is to move forward with
its contribution to the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, a
substantially higher level of federal financial assistance will be
needed as well.
The Tribe has demonstrated its economic commitment to the
Everglades Restoration effort; the Tribe is asking the federal
government to also participate in that effort. This effort benefits not
just The Seminole Tribe, but all Floridians who depend on a reliable
supply of clean, fresh water flowing out of the Everglades, and all
Americans whose lives are enriched by this unique national treasure.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the request of the
Seminole Tribe of Florida. The Tribe will provide additional
information upon request.
______
Prepared Statement of the Society for Animal Protective Legislation
We respectfully request the following modest appropriations and
oversight to permit these programs within the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to be carried out effectively and efficiently.
$13 million appropriation for aphis/animal care to enforce the animal
welfare act
APHIS/Animal Care is responsible for ensuring basic protections to
millions of animals nationwide through enforcement of the federal
Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The Animal Care program oversees the care and
handling of animals used in research, exhibition, and the wholesale pet
trade. More than 10,000 separate locations across the country must be
inspected for compliance with the AWA by Animal Care's field staff of
only 70 inspectors. A total of 100 inspectors are desperately needed
for USDA to meet their responsibilities under the law.
Animal Care's dedicated, hard-working staff are struggling to do
the best possible job despite woefully insufficient funding, but they
have reached a limit on what they can squeeze our of their
appropriation. The agency's responsibilities have grown over time, yet
its current budget is below the fiscal year 1993 level.
An unprecedented list of 350 organizations including the American
Veterinary Medical Association, the American Zoo and Aquarium
Association, the National Association for Biomedical Research and the
Society for Animal Protective Legislation are supporting a request for
an increase in appropriations for Animal Care of $3.825 million for its
enforcement of the AWA. A copy of the letter is attached to my
testimony.
A budget of $13 million for fiscal year 2000 for Animal Care would
ensure compliance with the law by permitting: regular unannounced
inspections of all entities regulated under the Animal Welfare Act;
increased vigilance at substandard facilities; prompt response to
complaints; and increased attention to searches for unlicensed dealers
and exhibitors.
Allocation for USDA/APHIS Animal Care of Additional $3.825 Million for
Fiscal Year 2000
Field Inspection Staff Expansion:
18 Veterinary Medical Officers (salary and benefits)--
69,696 18.....................................$1,254,528
12 Animal Care Inspectors (salary and benefits)--49,212
12............................................ 590,544
Transportation, equipment, phone and on-line service, and
training for new spectors 25,245 30........... 757,350
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal.............................................. 2,602,422
Critical Needs of Existing Animal Care Program:
Current Field Inspection Staff Needs: adequate training to
permit performance-based inspections; upgrading
computers and computer training to permit acquisition,
transfer and storage of data; repair and acquisition of
vehicles; equipment; supplies including gas; overnight
travel; and departmental services....................... 972,600
Crisis Management: emergency funds for seizure and
subsequent care of animals; containment of potential
public or animal health threats; consulting fees for
veterinary specialists; emergency travel; and other
services as needed...................................... 250,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal.............................................. 1,222,600
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................. 3,825,022
The breakdown of expenses for each of the 30 new members of the
field staff is as follows: $15,935 for acquisition of a vehicle; $4,860
for a laptop computer; $2,210 for job and computer training; $1,490 for
gasoline; and $750 for phone and on-line service. The total for
individual expenses is $25,245 30 inspectors equals $757,350.
The breakdown of expenses for existing program needs is as follows:
$467,900 for repair, and when necessary acquisition, of vehicles;
$175,000 for computer upgrades and training; $109,400 for overnight
travel; $105,000 for job training including specialized training in
enforcement of performance-based standards; $69,800 for departmental
services; and $45,500 for equipment (cameras, etc.) and supplies. The
total of these expenses is $972,600.
Congress and USDA should support H.R. 453 to save money and
strengthen enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act.--Last month another
USDA licensed Class B random source dog dealer and 8 accomplices were
convicted of charges related to theft of animals for sale to
experimental laboratories. According to the U.S. Department of Justice,
the dealer conspired with others to acquire dogs through deception and
theft and conspired to falsify the records of acquisition required by
Animal Care. Only 3 pets were reunited with their families; the others
had already been experimented on by researchers and were euthanized.
This case exemplifies the problems associated with random source dog
and cat dealers who provide these animals for research purposes.
There are only 40 random source Class B dog and cat dealers left,
but Animal Care is spending an inordinate amount of time and money
attempting to get them to comply with the minimum requirements under
the AWA, including one of the fundamental objectives of the Act:
preventing the theft of pets for research purposes. Despite all of the
time and attention Animal Care is putting into enforcing the law at
Class B dealer facilities, Animal Care is not able to assure the public
that pets are not being taken and sold for research as the former USDA-
licensed dealer cited above did.
H.R. 453, The Pet Safety and Protection Act sponsored by House
Agriculture Committee Members Charles Canady and George Brown, would
end the supply of dogs and cats to research facilities by Class B
dealers. Other sources will remain available to ensure that researchers
will be able to obtain the dogs and cats they need for experimentation.
Report language could offer support for H.R. 453; adoption of this
legislation would greatly reduce USDA's regulatory burden, while still
permitting research to continue unhindered.
$900 thousand line item appropriation for the animal welfare
information center at the national agricultural library
In 1985, Congress had the ingenuity to create the Animal Welfare
Information Center (AWIC) to serve as a resource for all individuals
involved in the care and use of animals in research. Those who use the
services of AWIC include scientists, veterinarians, animal caretakers,
research facility administrators, members Institutional Animal Care and
Use Committees and APHIS/Animal Care inspectors who are responsible for
enforcing the Animal Welfare Act.
AWIC provides information on : (a) appropriate care for animals
including minimization of pain and distress, (b) reduction and/or
replacement of the use of animals in research where possible, (c)
preventing unintended duplication of experiments, (d) training for
employees in the laboratory, and (e) legal requirements regarding the
use of animals in research. Its value to the research community has led
to an ever-increasing demand for assistance.
AWIC has not received an increase in appropriations during its 12
years, making it impossible to provide services as needed. Lack of
funds is restricting the Center's ability to publish critical
documents. Travel to important national meetings has been cut back too.
At the most recent annual meeting of the American Association for
Laboratory Animal Science, the AWIC educational exhibit was being run
by only one, extremely overworked employee, and he ran out of AWIC's
extremely popular materials during the first day of the three day
meeting. The Center had to cut back on employees and cease its work
study program with students from Prince Georges County schools.
The Center staff have responded to more than 24,000 requests for
specific publications and more than 2,000 requests for reference
services. AWIC produces a bulletin, now in its ninth year. It also
maintains a worldwide web site (http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic) which by
the end of February was being used an average of nearly 900 timers per
day!
A line item appropriation of $900 thousand is requested for AWIC to
increase production and dissemination of its excellent information.
AWIC's resources are vital to assist registered research facilities
with compliance with the Animal Welfare Act and to encourage the
replacement, reduction and refinement of experiments involving the use
of animals.
$500 thousand appropriation for aphis/animal care to enforce the horse
protection act
The Horse Protection Act (HPA), passed in 1970 and amended in 1976,
is intended to prevent the cruel practice of ``soring'' gaited horses.
According to APHIS, soring is defined as ``the application of any
chemical or mechanical agent used on any limb of a horse or any
practice inflicted upon the horse that can be expected to cause it
physical pain or distress when moving.'' Soring is done to give the
animal an exaggerated gait. Tennessee Walking horses are the common
victims.
It has been almost 30 years since the HPA was signed into law, yet
many competitors in the industry are still defying the law. Horse
Industry Organizations should adopt a policy of ``zero tolerance'' for
violators of this federal law, and they should shun individuals who are
soring horses. Instead, industry representatives appear to be bent on
weakening enforcement of the HPA to make it easier to violate the law
with impunity.
APHIS' Horse Protection Enforcement reports to Congress repeatedly
document the soring of hundreds of horses; the National Horse Show
Commission, Heart of American Walking Horse Association and Spotted
Saddle Horse Breeders and Exhibitors Association consistently have high
turndown rates because of noncompliance with the law.
The lack of funds has made it necessary for APHIS to increasingly
turn over enforcement of the law to industry. This trend has continued
despite evidence that the industry has failed to achieve the level of
enforcement of the unbiased, well-trained, professional inspectors who
work for Animal Care. The inspectors from industry are called
``Designated Qualified Persons'' (DQPs). The rate at which DQPs turned
down horses for soring in fiscal year 1997 was 1.42 percent, less than
half the rate of government inspectors who had a turndown rate of 3.57
percent.
541 horse industry organization shows took place in fiscal year
1997, yet Animal Care veterinary inspectors were only able to inspect
31. Based on APHIS figures for the horse shows that are inspected, we
estimate that at least 2,000 sore horses a year are going undetected.
Additional resources are needed to permit Animal Care inspectors to
attend more shows thereby ensuring significantly stronger compliance
with the HPA.
increased oversight of wildlife services
Last year, the House of Representatives nearly slashed funding for
the predator control field operations of Wildlife Services (WS). Many
Members supported this effort because of the inhumane, ineffective
methods of predator control used by WS. Development of effective,
publicly acceptable, humane alternatives is essential by the research
section of WS. As these alternatives are developed they must be
implemented in the field.
Steel jaw leghold traps, notorious for their cruelty, have been
condemned as ``inhumane'' by the American Veterinary Medical
Association, the American Animal Hospital Association and the World
Veterinary Association. Not surprisingly, an increasing number of
states are prohibiting use of leghold traps, making the work of the
research section of WS all the more critical.
The 30,000 steel traps owned by WS should be discarded in favor of
less cruel alternatives such as footsnares and box traps. The
successful development of tranquilizer tabs by the research section
must continue and use of the tabs by the operations staff should be
pursued.
In an international trapping ``Understanding'' reached on December
11, 1997, between the U.S. and the European Union, the U.S. agreed to
phase out use of ``conventional steel-jawed leghold restraining
traps''. WS has the responsibility of complying with the U.S.
obligation by ending its use of these barbaric traps.
No further testing of leghold traps should be pursued by WS as this
would be an extremely wasteful and cruel use of taxpayer funds.--In the
past, such funds designated for trap research were merely passed on to
a nongovernmental organization to utilize as it saw fit. If any funds
are allocated for trap testing, the research should be conducted by WS
since the agency has the technical expertise.
WS has been involved in extremely successful oral rabies vaccine
programs. Despite the positive results to date, the Agency has
suggested that funding would be reduced for this work. Funding for the
oral rabies vaccine work is important and should be continued.
Thank you for your consideration of our requests.
______
Prepared Statement of Suffolk County, NY
Mr. Chairman, my name is Robert J. Gaffney and I am the County
Executive of Suffolk County, New York. I want to thank you for the
opportunity to present the following testimony in support of the
Federal Farmland Protection Program.
Suffolk County was first settled in 1640 and was incorporated in
1683 as one of the ten original counties in New York State. Suffolk
County is located on New York's Long Island, east of New York City, and
bordered on the west by Nassau County. Suffolk's land area totals 911
square miles, is 86 miles long, and 15 miles wide. Shoring on both the
Atlantic Ocean and the Long Island Sound, Suffolk's shoreline totals
987 miles. Suffolk's prime agricultural locale can be found on its east
end, commonly known as the ``twin forks'' of the island. The 28-mile
northern peninsula, known as the ``North Fork'' is the County's primary
farm country, and ends at Orient Point.
the need for farmland preservation
Despite booming commercial and residential development and its
proximity to New York City, Suffolk County and its residents have, and
continue to maintain its rural tradition via a sound agricultural
industry. This expanding industry is seasonally highlighted by
Suffolk's vineyards, strawberry and pumpkin patches, local produce
stands, nursery and greenhouse cultivation, and an established potato
growth. As aforementioned, Suffolk's wine industry is experiencing
considerable expansion and currently accounts for the largest premium
wine industry of any county in the United States outside the State of
California. It is these agricultural products that have afforded
Suffolk's residents a profitable link to the past, while at the same
time affording protection from developmental pressures.
Suffolk County's Farmland Preservation Program is now 23 years old,
and was the first Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program in the
United States. Farmland preservation in Suffolk County is crucial on
many fronts. The remaining farmland in Suffolk County represents the
last vestige of an historical way of life dating back to the mid
1600's. Farmland preservation is critical to maintaining a rural
character that will result in ensuring the scenic beauty of Suffolk's
east end. Additionally, on a larger scale, it is this rural character
that contributes to tourism on Long Island, currently a $2 billion
industry. Economically, as an agricultural producer, Suffolk County
continues to lead New York State in the market value of agricultural
products sold, totaling over $133 million.
Suffolk County's farms are facing significant, even intense,
developmental pressure. Commercial and residential development has
already consumed a large percentage of the vast blocks of vacant land
and farmland in the County's four western towns. Less than 1,800 acres
remain, and much of this is in the process of being developed. The
remainder is prohibitively expensive, with approximate values ranging
from at least $50,000 to $100,000 per acre. Unless farmland is
preserved now, significantly higher prices will result in the Town of
Brookhaven and the five eastern Towns.
our commitment to farmland preservation
Recognizing the necessity of immediate action in preserving our
last remaining farmland acres, I have recently increased the amount of
money included in my capital budget from $1.5 million per year to $5
million per year commencing in 1998. Moreover, a Community Greenways
Fund was recently established, allocating an additional $20 million for
farmland purchases. Overwhelmingly passed by referendum in November of
1998, we hope to leverage these dollars with both federal and state
funds.
Suffolk County has demonstrated a commitment to long term
conservation of our prime farmlands, which are among the most fertile
in the United States. Overall, we have appropriated in excess of $32
million to preserve over 6,200 acres. These voluntary easements are
used with other preservation mechanisms such as clustering and
agricultural districting to protect Suffolk's farmlands against
nonagricultural conversion uses. Suffolk County's current farmland
preservation agenda also stems from the County's 1982 passage of a
``Right to Farm'' law, establishing an official County policy to
conserve, protect, and encourage agricultural uses.
Suffolk County is currently in contact with the owners of 1,763
farm acres that have offered to sell the development rights to the
County. This list awaits necessary funding, and would require
approximately $15 million to acquire. On average, two farms are added
to the list each month. As evidenced by the decline in total acreage in
Suffolk County from 123,346 acres in 1950 to 35,323 acres in 1992,
federal funds are needed to help accelerate the PDR programs before a
critical mass of Suffolk farmland is lost forever. Alarmingly, Suffolk
County loses approximately 1,289 acres annually. At the County's
previous annual spending rate of $1.5 million, it may be as soon as 15
years before the remaining farmland left in Suffolk numbers only 10,000
acres. As outlined in the Suffolk County Farmland Preservation Plan of
1996, in order to meet our goal of preserving 20,000 acres, an
expenditure of $15 million annually would be necessary. Suffolk County
and its residents cannot afford to bear this cost alone.
To date, disproportionate to our overall financial need, Suffolk
County has received only a small appropriation of federal funds through
the Federal Farmland Protection Program. Additional federal funding
will ensure that future generations of Suffolk County residents will
gain from, and participate in the rich rural heritage that attracted
the County's original inhabitants. Furthermore, with federal funds, we
will encourage and stimulate local Town involvement in farm
conservation, namely the four eastern Towns of Suffolk County. On an
individual basis, support of the County's preservation initiative has
proven to be overwhelming in terms of farmer assistance and
participation. Suffolk's farmers and non-farmers alike recognize the
urgency of shielding one of the County's last remaining natural
resources. With a new millennium of high tech industrialization
approaching, Suffolk County recognizes that such aspirations will prove
futile without appropriate federal funding.
In conclusion, non-agricultural conversion of such lands will
remove excellent soil from productive use, destroy historic farming,
and diminish the scenic attractiveness traditionally enjoyed by
Suffolk's residents. Therefore, farmland preservation in Suffolk County
is not an option, but a necessity. It is for these reasons that I ask
for your support in appropriating additional dollars into the Federal
Farmland Protection Program.
Thank you for your sincere consideration of this matter.
______
Prepared Statement of the Southern Legislative Conference (SLC)
Agriculture and Rural Development Committee and of the SLC Fire Ant
Task Force
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before the Committee. As the Chairman of the
Southern Legislative Conference (SLC) Agriculture and Rural Development
Committee and of the SLC Fire Ant Task Force, I am very concerned about
the appropriation for the fire ant research budget within the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) of the United States Department of
Agriculture. The SLC Agriculture and Rural Development Committee and
the Fire Ant Task Force strongly supports the administration's request
for an additional $300,000 appropriation for the ARS's fire ant
program. Furthermore, we feel that in order to continue the successes
of this program and to develop successful pilot programs in affected
states, an additional $1.5 million is necessary.
Fire ants are a problem for urban, suburban, and rural communities
alike, costing Southerners billions of dollars each year. Fire ants
have a powerful sting which gave them their name. For the one person in
a hundred allergic to the sting, a fire ant attack can cause extreme
medical complications. Fire ants also are blamed for a handful of
deaths every year. Less serious, but still worrisome, are the pain and
discomfort the stings give the hundreds of thousands of people attacked
each year. Fire ants have been known to invade houses, hospitals, and
nursing homes, where they have attacked bedridden patients, and have
colonized playgrounds and parks. The ants are attracted to low-level
electrical current, have shorted out electrical junction boxes and air
conditioner units, and attacked utility workers who unknowingly disturb
their nests. As an agricultural pest, the fire ants' impact ranges from
attacking calves and chicks, girdling young crops, blocking or
destroying drip irrigation systems, restricting hand and mechanical
harvesting of crops, and damaging harvesting equipment. Fire ants also
can have a devastating effect on biodiversity and have caused
significant problems for several endangered species.
While fire ants can colonize new territory through mating flights,
relocation of their colony, and by ``rafting'' during floods, their
real ``invasion'' of the South was assisted by the actions of people,
especially in the transport of sod, nursery stock, and agricultural
equipment. During the housing boom following World War II, the fire ant
began to appear in areas not contiguous with its previous range and, by
1953, a connection between commercial plant nurseries and the spread of
fire ants was established. By 1958, with the ants in eight southern
states, federal quarantine regulations went into effect which has
undoubtably helped to slow the further spread of the pest.
During this period, and up into the early 1970's, two chemicals,
heptachlor and mirex, were used to control the ant, but both were
eventually banned because of their impact on non-target species, their
persistence in the environment and the possible risk to human health.
In 1980, new chemical compounds which would break down more quickly,
began to appear on the market, including Ambdro, Logic, Ascend, and
Affirm. They are neither as cheap nor as effective as previous
treatments, but they do still provide 80 percent to 90 percent control
with little residual effect. New chemical applications are being
developed, but it is certain that future fire ant management will add
cultural and biological controls and integrated pest management to
chemical controls.
Chemical controls are generally broad in scope and eliminate
beneficial and harmful ants indiscriminately, with fire ant
reinfestations almost certain to occur, often in even greater numbers.
The expense of pesticide treatment and the environmental impacts of
excessive or improper application of chemical treatments can extract a
heavy toll as well. Biological controls, while not as immediately
effective in controlling fire ants, can have excellent long-term
results with minimal recurrent costs and can re-establish balance to
the ecosystem. An integrated approach which uses both chemical and
biological methods seems to offer out best hope for controlling the
worrisome ant.
The SLC Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, for which I
serve as Chairman, has had a long-standing interest in activities to
control fire ants. In 1997, the Committee formed a special Fire Ant
Task Force to serve as a driving force behind fire ant research,
education, pilot testing of control activities, information-sharing,
and area-wide management. In January 1998, the SLC Fire Ant Task Force
met in Atlanta with representatives of ARS and members of the research
and extension communities to discuss strategies for developing a
cooperative effort to control the imported fire ant.
During this meeting, the SLC Fire Ant Task Force formally requested
assistance from the USDA on creating a strategic plan for developing
and field-testing new technologies aimed at controlling the fire ant.
This strategy, which was subsequently developed in cooperation with
state level scientists and extensionists identified by Task Force
members, provides the framework for cooperation between states and the
USDA/ARS. The goal of the strategy is the management of fire ants to
levels below economic thresholds on agricultural lands and to eliminate
the fire ant as a nuisance or health threat in urban environments.
Recently, ARS has had some success in developing new strategies and
technologies for controlling fire ants. Much of their work involves
biological control agents which selectively attack fire ants and
precision targeting of fire ant baits to suppress fire ant populations,
reducing the total amount of pesticide needed for control.
Work conducted by ARS over the past six years in America, Brazil,
and Argentina has identified three biological control agents as most
promising: the Thelohania microsporidium, a bacteria; a parasitic ant;
and a phorid fly. These biological controls should give native
competitor species an edge over the more competitive fire ant. This
will hopefully return balance to ecosystems thrown out of alignment by
this aggressive ant and remove the serious threat of harm by the fire
ant.
In order to test the effectiveness of the new technologies, and to
speed the process of transferring these technologies to the states, the
SLC and the USDA have entered into a partnership to provide states
access to ARS technologies, allowing states to conduct field tests on
these new advances in their region at a fraction of the cost of
developing them independent of the ARS.
The states of Oklahoma and South Carolina, and soon the state of
Texas, all have committed substantial resources to further the USDA's
research, including direct cost-share money to support USDA research.
Testing activities are underway as well in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida,
Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina and Tennessee. In all, there are 14
test sites in 10 states investigating the viability of biocontrol
agents through a partnership with the USDA and the states. These test
sites, intended for research, are very local in their scope. More
ambitious, and critical, pilot projects in key affected states are the
next logical steps, and this is the direction the states and the USDA
are heading.
The new technologies do not offer a ``magic bullet'' for the
elimination of fire ants. Realistically, fire ant eradication may be
beyond the capacity of any treatment. But managing fire ants to levels
below economic and public safety threats is perceived as possible. The
new SLC/USDA partnership is a step toward that goal, and a step aimed
at providing states access to the most current research and information
with the flexibility to direct their own controlled field tests.
The commitment of state resources to this effort is a key element
of its success, but there is a need for continued and increased support
of this effort from the USDA. As the new technologies and control
agents enter into broader tests and proposed pilot projects, the USDA
will need additional funds to support these activities. It is for this
reason that the SLC Agriculture and Rural Development Committee and the
Fire Ant Task Force strongly support the administration's additional
$300,000 appropriation for the ARS's fire ant program. We feel that in
order to continue the successes of this program and to develop
successful pilot programs in affected states, an additional $1.5
million is necessary.
To put this in perspective, the state of California is considering
spending $100 million over the next five years to combat fire ants
which infest only about 50 square miles of the state. With more than
310 million acres in the southern U.S. and Puerto Rico infested with
fire ants, the USDA is strained to its capacity to provide the
necessary resources to states to continue research efforts. Any
expansion of the program, including new pilot projects, would require
input at the federal level to complement state contributions and
commitments.
In closing, I want to underscore two points. The first is the
tremendous impact the fire ant has had on the South, and the great
potential for harm it has should it spread throughout the West. The
second is the commitment of the states to a process already underway to
find control solutions to this invasion. I hope you will agree with me
that this is an appropriate and important area for increased federal
activity. Thank. you.
______
Prepared Statement of Texas A&M University System
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Ed Hiler, Vice
Chancellor for Agriculture and Life Sciences in the Texas A&M
University System. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today, to describe a few exciting research projects we have underway,
and to ask for your support for continued federal funding. New
technology is the life blood of American agriculture. With the 1996
Farm Bill and resulting phase down in federal farm programs, it is
imperative that research continues providing a technological
underpinning for agriculture. Today, I will describe several examples
of how we can provide this underpinning.
Designing fruits, vegetables and other food plants for prevention
of life-threatening diseases.--Diet-related diseases--certain kinds of
cancer, heart disease, stroke, atherosclerosis, and diabetes mellitus--
are leading causes of two-thirds of the 2 million deaths that occur in
the United States each year. Antioxidants in fruits and vegetables,
including anthocyanins, beta-carotene, lycopene, quercetin, and
vitamins C and E, can help prevent certain types of cancer, coronary
heart disease, stroke, and atherosclerosis. However, additional study
is needed to determine the most effective levels of these compounds;
validate their mechanisms of action; and investigate their
availability, absorption, metabolism, and interactions with other
chemicals. Scientists at the Vegetable Improvement Center within the
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University-Kingsville
Citrus Center, University of Texas Southwest Medical Center in Dallas,
University of Texas Health Science Center-San Antonio, Texas A&M
University System Health Science Center, Baylor College of Dentistry,
and South Carolina Cancer Center will cooperate in the effort. We are
requesting increased funding for this important continuing project at
$2,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.
Increasing food safety through biotechnology.--As many as 9,000
deaths and up to 81 million cases of foodborne illness occur in the
U.S. every year. Approximately 5 percent of all cases can be linked to
fresh produce and another 16 percent to contaminated meat products. New
and rapidly improving biochemical techniques popularly known as
``biotechnology'' hold great promise for helping the food industry
trace foodborne pathogens to their source using genetic
``fingerprinting''. Rapid tracing would prevent further consumption of
contaminated food during an outbreak by quickly alerting health
agencies and the public. In addition, more effective strategies can be
developed to reduce sources of contamination and minimize emergence of
disease-causing organisms. Scientists from Iowa State University, the
Institute of Food Science and Engineering at Texas A&M University, and
The Center for Research on Animal Production Issues at Texas Tech
University will cooperate on the project, which we estimate will
ultimately reduce medical cases associated with food borne pathogens by
210,000 and the numbers of deaths by 380 per year. We are requesting
funding for this project at $1,250,000 for fiscal year 2000.
Southern Plains Cotton Research and Education Consortium.--Cotton
producers and processors of the Southern Plains face unprecedented
challenges from declining commodity prices and profit margins. Over the
last several years, elimination of government acreage control programs
combined with much improved boll weevil control in the southeastern
U.S. have increased cotton production and depressed prices. During this
same period, the boll weevil has become established on more than 4
million acres of cotton in the Southern Plains of Texas, threatening to
cause $500 million in annual economic losses if successful management
strategies are not implemented. To help Southern Plains producers,
Texas Tech University, the Texas A&M University System Agriculture
Program, and the USDA-ARS have formed a consortium to develop
integrated research and education programs for the world's largest
cotton patch. The principal elements of the integrated program will be
genetic enhancement of cotton yields, quality, and stress tolerance, as
well as improved management of the boll weevil. We are requesting
funding of $5,500,000 for this project for fiscal year 2000.
Efficient irrigation for water conservation in the Rio Grande
Basin.--The region along the U.S.-Mexico border north of the Rio Grande
River is a land of contrasts, including severe poverty, rapid economic
growth, and intensive irrigated agriculture. Recent drought conditions
highlight the importance of ample water resources for the region's
economy and environment. More efficient agricultural and urban
irrigation systems can conserve large amounts of water. This initiative
will focus resources of the Agricultural Experiment Stations and
Extension Services of Texas and New Mexico and the Texas Engineering
Extension Service on reducing amounts of irrigation water needed to
economically produce field and horticultural crops and to maintain
attractive urban landscapes. Training will be provided in the areas of
water supply, irrigation, and waste water system assessment, planning,
design, financing, installation, use, and maintenance. Applied research
will be conducted on irrigation system efficiency, biological and
chemical hazards of waste water, reuse of agricultural and municipal
waste waters, and integration of municipal and agricultural water
supplies. Conservation will be achieved through improved irrigation
supply networks, urban and agricultural irrigation systems, salinity
and drainage control, and reuse of municipal water. We are requesting
funding of $3,250,000 for this project for fiscal year 2000.
Environmental services of rice lands in Arkansas, Louisiana, and
Texas.--Privately-held rice lands provide a variety of ecological
services, but they can also have adverse environmental impacts. Public
benefits include wildlife habitat, water filtration through wetlands,
and flood protection. Adverse impacts can include degradation of soil
organic matter, salinization, sedimentation, agricultural chemical
losses, and groundwater depletion. Elimination of Federal agricultural
commodity price support programs is reducing acreage in some parts of
the Rice Belt and increasing it in others--with the unintended result
of decreasing ecological services in some regions and increasing
adverse environmental impacts in others. Scientists from the Texas A&M
University System, the University of Arkansas, Louisiana State
University, and USDA-ARS will examine environmental benefits and costs
of alternative rice production technologies and how we might strengthen
communities and increase the environmental and economic benefits of
rice culture. We are requesting funding of $1,000,000 for this project
for fiscal year 2000.
Revenue insurance as a risk management tool.--Increased volatility
of commodity prices and dissatisfaction with crop insurance as an
income safety net policy have heightened interest in revenue insurance.
Decision makers need a comprehensive farm level, regional, and
aggregate sector analysis of revenue insurance as a risk management
tool, including the place of current private sector insurance
instruments. The Agricultural and Food Policy Center at Texas A&M
University is currently involved in developing a preliminary
exploration of the feasibility of revenue insurance as a safety net for
farmers. In addition, it has led the development of a financial and
risk management assistance decision aid to quantify payoffs to
individual producers utilizing alternative risk management packages.
This initiative would also examine the conditions under which revenue
insurance could serve as a safety net for farmers and, therefore, as a
substitute for conventional farm programs. We are requesting funding of
$750,000 for this project for fiscal year 2000.
Animal fiber research.--The phase out of wool and mohair incentive
payments has left the United States sheep and Angora goat industry in a
very difficult position. This is especially important for the large
areas of semiarid U.S. lands that have few options for alternate
agricultural enterprises. Scientists in Texas, Montana, and Wyoming
have developed image analysis applications for measuring most of the
important characteristics of wool, mohair, and cashmere. Results from
this work have contributed significantly to acceptance and marketing of
U.S. wool. More research is needed before industry fully adopts these
innovative practices for product selection and marketing, helping
producers become more competitive in new and existing markets. We are
requesting continued support of this project at $300,000 per year.
Farm level impacts of agricultural policy.--The Agricultural and
Food Policy Center conducts research directly supporting Congressional
Committees that set agricultural policy. Its research emphasizes
regional and farm-level effects of alternative agricultural policies on
crop and livestock producers. The Center provides estimates of how
regional production, commodity prices, farm incomes, and consumer food
costs are economically affected by U.S. policy. It assesses how U.S.
economic relationships impact individual representative farms, and the
viability of the U.S. food and fiber industry. This activity is
critical with a reduced government role embodied in the 1996 Farm Bill;
moreover, these analyses are not available to Congress from USDA or
other research centers. This program is conducted in collaboration with
the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute (University of
Missouri-Columbia) and the Farm Sector Financial Analysis Branch of
CSREES/ERS. Since this effort was initiated in fiscal year 1990, it has
helped agriculture committees assess more than 100 policy options. For
fiscal year 2000, we request continued funding of this project at the
level of $500,000.
Livestock and dairy policy analysis.--The Livestock and Dairy
Policy Analysis project is a joint effort of Texas A&M University and
Cornell University. It supports a dairy policy education program that
involves economists at the University of Wisconsin, Ohio State
University, Pennsylvania State University, and Clemson University. In
the past, faculty at these universities have helped conduct a ``dairy
policy school'' in the House of Representatives. Moreover, our faculty
have been consistently available to the Livestock Subcommittee for
analyses of dairy policy options. Building on the success of this
initiative, we propose to expand the activities to create a national
dairy economics education center at Cornell University with Texas A&M
as a cooperating institution. For fiscal year 2000, we request
continued funding of this project at $625,000.
Center for North American studies.--The Center for North American
Studies, now in its sixth year of operation, promotes cooperative
research, policy analysis, and training on critical agricultural issues
of common interest to the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The
Center's primary focus has been impacts of NAFTA, especially impacts on
expanded trade and associated public policy concerns. Though the Center
is located at Texas A&M University, it has strong cooperative linkages
with Louisiana State University, Texas A&M University at Kingsville,
and Texas A&M International University at Laredo. Since 1994, Center
personnel have conducted nearly 30 workshops or conferences annually,
reaching an estimated 3000 people per year. In July 1998, the Center
initiated, in cooperation with USDA-FAS, a five-state interactive video
conference to inform more than 100 agribusiness representatives about
market opportunities, trade regulations, and economic conditions in
Mexico, Central America, and Asia. We are requesting continued funding
for this project at $300,000 for fiscal year 2000.
New products from rangelands at Texas A&M University-Kingsville.--
This initiative will continue efforts to gain commercial products from
native plants such as cacti and mesquite. Congress has funded this
program at Texas A&M University-Kingsville for several years, and
excellent progress has been made. A mesquite lumber grading system and
industry is developing under project funding. The grading system has
helped producers market mesquite wood for furniture, flooring, and
other uses. Similarly, progress has been good on marketing cactus
products, and a major grocery chain now offers fresh cacti fruit to
consumers. In 1998, a tall-straight mesquite contest was conducted to
identify trees that will serve as the basis for a genetic improvement
program in mesquite . In 1999 the program will plant nearly 1,000
seedlings to evaluate for lumber quality and serve as a seed source for
future selection. We are requesting continued support at $120,000 per
year for Texas A&M University-Kingsville in fiscal year 2000.
International goat research at Prairie View A&M University.--The
International Dairy Goat Research Center was established in 1983 and is
now an important program of the Cooperative Agricultural Research
Center at Prairie View A&M University. The primary objective of the
Center is to generate and distribute technical information to owners of
dairy goats concerning proper management of their animals. This
research program conducts research on overall dairy and meat goat
management and care in the areas of reproduction, reproductive
efficiency, health, disease and toxicology. The Center also conducts
comprehensive outreach activities, including an annual field day, short
courses, and workshops. Special emphasis is given to assisting small
landowners to diversify their production systems. We are requesting
expansion of this project at Prairie View A&M University to $750,000 in
fiscal year 2000.
Shrimp aquaculture research.--The U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming
Program develops technology and provides service to the marine shrimp
industry. The market for farm-raised salt water shrimp is expanding
rapidly, especially as the wild catch in the Gulf of Mexico declines.
With the help of this Program, the Texas marine shrimp farming industry
has rebounded since a serious outbreak of Taura Syndrome Virus disease
in 1995, reaching unprecedented $30 million in production in 1998, more
than three quarters of all U.S. farmed shrimp. This initiative will
extend the U.S. competitive technological advantage over foreign
countries by supporting researchers working to improve animal quality,
herd health, water quality, seedstock supply, pond management,
production risks and profitability. The USDA/CSREES for the Oceanic
Institute currently funds this program in Hawaii and the Gulf Coast
Laboratory Consortium. We request funding at $5,000,000 for fiscal year
2000 through the USDA/CSREES Federal Administration Program.
Center for animal research and production issues.--This
collaborative partnership led by Texas Tech University and including
the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, the Texas A&M
University System, and the USDA-ARS, will conduct research to solve
problems related to animal production, including animal health and
well-being, safety of animal products (pre-and post-harvest), and
development of environmentally and economically sustainable production
systems. We are requesting $2,100,000 for Texas Tech University to
support this program in fiscal year 2000.
Efficient peanut production in west Texas.--Peanut acreage has
increased dramatically in West Texas, which now accounts for 72 percent
of the state's production. This initiative joins Texas Tech University,
the Texas A&M University System, and regional peanut producers in a
comprehensive research and education program to address peanut
production and management strategies for West Texas. We are requesting
$2,000,000 for Texas Tech University to support this program in fiscal
year 2000.
Precision agricultural management systems for the Southwest.--This
initiative is a partnership among Texas Tech University, the Texas A&M
University System, New Mexico State University, West Texas A&M
University, and USDA-ARS. Its objective is to develop and enhance the
efficient use of resources in crop production and the management of
rangeland, wildlife and the forests of the Southwestern US. We are
requesting $4,200,000 for Texas Tech University to support of this
program in fiscal year 2000.
Food safety and water quality at west Texas A&M University.--The
West Texas A&M University Feedlot Research Group proposes to
collaborate with the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas
Agricultural Extension Service, and USDA-ARS to characterize the role
of water as a vehicle for food safety-related pathogens in feedlot
cattle. The cooperating agencies will then evaluate the effectiveness
of intervention strategies to reduce contamination of carcasses, cattle
and water. We are requesting $1,000,000 for West Texas A&M University
to support this program in fiscal year 2000.
Plant Stress Research Program.--This initiative provides support
for the integration of Texas Tech University, USDA-ARS, and the Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station into a world class plant stress
research effort. The main research efforts will be to increase water
use efficiency, develop crops that are genetically superior in stress
tolerance, utilize sophisticated modeling systems to maximize
production, and overcome adverse water quality. We are requesting
$1,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 for USDA-ARS to support this program.
______
Prepared Statement of the U.S. Apple Association
The U.S. Apple Association (USApple) appreciates the opportunity to
provide comments on U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) fiscal year
2000 appropriations.
Our testimony will focus on the following three areas: the Foreign
Agricultural Service Market Access Program; Food Quality Protection Act
implementation; and Agricultural Research Service funding.
The U.S. Apple Association (USApple) is the national trade
association representing all segments of the apple industry. Members
include more than 450 individual firms involved in the apple business,
as well as 30 state apple associations representing the 9,000 apple
growers throughout the country. The U.S. Apple Association's mission is
to provide the means for all segments of the U.S. apple industry to
join in appropriate collective efforts to profitably produce and market
apples and apple products.
foreign agricultural service market access program (map)
U.S. Apple strongly supports increasing the annual appropriation for
MAP from $90 million to $200 million
All segments of the U.S. apple industry benefit directly from the
use of export promotion funds, which increase export demand. In fiscal
year 1998, the apple industry received $4 million in MAP export-
development funds. These funds are matched by grower funds, and are
used to promote apples in more than 20 countries throughout the world.
Since 1987, when the apple industry first utilized MAP funds, apple
exports have increased by 53 percent.
The U.S. apple industry faces keen competition around the globe
from competitors who receive significant government funds for generic
promotions. Foreign governments spend approximately $500 million on
export promotion and market development. With apple production
increasing around the world, competition is expected to further
intensify. MAP is of paramount importance to the apple industry as
exporters endeavor to revive export demand in countries hard hit by
economic shocks and currency devaluations over the past two years.
food quality protection act (fqpa) appropriations
U.S. Apple strongly supports full funding for the following programs
intended to facilitate fair FQPA implementation and to offset
its anticipated negative impact on apple growers
U.S. Apple supports the Administration's USDA budget requests of:
--$13.1 million for the Pesticide Data Program, managed by the
Agricultural Marketing Service;
--$2 million for the food consumption survey undertaken by the
Agricultural Research Service;
--$.3 million for the National Agricultural Statistics Service
pesticide-usage surveys;
--$2.7 million the National Agricultural Pesticide Impact Assessment
Program in support of the Office of Pest Management Policy;
--$12.3 million for the Cooperative State Research, Extension and
Education Service Integrated Pest Management Research Grant
Program; and
--$18 million for research and transition programs for crops
negatively impacted by FQPA.
agricultural research service (ars)--temperate fruit fly research
position--yakima, washington
U.S. Apple requests that $300,000 be appropriated to fill a
critical position at the USD-ARS laboratory in Yakima, Washington to
conduct research of temperate fruit flies, a major pest of apples.
FQPA implementation is expected to significantly reduce the number
of pesticides currently being used by growers to control pests such as
cherry fruit fly and apple maggot. Left unchecked, these temperate
fruit flies can be devastating. Research is critically needed to
develop alternative pest controls should presently-available crop
protection tools be phased out under FQPA implementation.
Thank you for this opportunity to present this testimony in support
of the apple industry's top USDA appropriations.
______
Prepared Statement of the United States Telephone Association
summary of request
Project involved.--Telecommunications Loan Programs Administered by
the Rural Utilities Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Actions proposed.--Supporting RUS loan levels and the associated
funding subsidy for the hardship, cost of money, and loan and subsidy
guarantee programs in fiscal year 2000 in the same amount as loan
levels specified in the fiscal year 1999 Agriculture Appropriations Act
(Public Law 105-277). Also supporting Rural Telephone Bank loans and
associated subsidy in the amount requested in the President's budget.
Also supporting an extension of the language removing the 7 percent
interest rate cap on cost of money loans for fiscal year 1999. Also
supporting continuation of the restriction on the retirement of class A
Rural Telephone Bank stock in fiscal year 2000 at the level contained
in Public Law 105-277) and an extension of the prohibition against the
transfer of Rural Telephone Bank funds to the general fund. Supporting
funding for $200 million in loan authority and $20 million in grants
designated for distance learning and telemedicine purposes. Opposing
the President's budget proposal to transfer funds from the unobligated
balances of the liquidating account of the Rural Telephone Bank for the
Bank's administrative expenses and loan subsidy costs.
The United States Telephone Association (USTA) represents over 1000
local telephone companies that provide over 95 percent of the access
lines in the United States. USTA members range from large public held
corporations to small family owned companies as well as cooperatives
owned by their customers. We submit this testimony in the interests of
the members of USTA and their subscribers.
USTA members firmly believe that the targeted assistance offered by
a strong telecommunications loan program remains essential in order to
maintain a healthy and growing rural telephone industry that
contributes to the provision of universal telephone service. We
appreciate the strong support this committee has provided for the
telephone program since the program's inception in 1949 and look
forward to a vigorous program for the future.
a changing industry
As Congress recognized through passage of the Telecommunications
Act of 1996, the telephone industry is in the midst of one of the most
significant changes any industry has ever undergone. Both the
technological underpinnings and the regulatory atmosphere are
dramatically different and changing very quickly. Without system
upgrades funded by the reliable source of lower cost debt capital
provided by the RUS telecommunications program, rural areas will be
left out of the emerging information revolution.
The need has never been greater for the technology employed by RUS
borrower rural telephone companies to continue to be modernized. The
demand for new switches to serve rural areas could be unprecedented in
the next year. What is driving this demand? First, there are several
Federal Communications Commission mandates that incumbent local
companies will have to meet. Upgrades related to new rules regarding
pay phone compensation, implementation of four digit Carrier
Identification Codes (CICs), and number portability are all new
Commission requirements driven by the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
Second, there are still some companies that are not equipped to offer
equal access to competing long distance carriers. Third, the
Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) imposes new
requirements on all carriers to upgrade their capabilities to assist
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies.
Fourth, telephone company switches, which are really just sophisticated
computers, are impacted by the ``year 2000'' problem.
In addition to upgrading switching capability, it is important that
rural areas be included in the nationwide drive for greater bandwidth
capacity. In order to provide higher speed data services, such as ISDN
(Integrated Services Digital Network) or even faster connections to the
Internet, outside plant must be modernized in addition to new
electronics being placed in switching offices. Rural areas with
relatively long loops are particularly difficult to serve with these
higher speed connections and require additional investment to allow
modern services to be provided.
Provision of greater bandwidth and switching capabilities are
crucial infrastructure elements which will allow rural businesses,
schools and health care facilities to take advantage of the other
programs available to them as end users. The money spent on having the
most modern and sophisticated equipment available at the premises of
the business, school or clinic is wasted if the local telephone company
cannot afford to quickly transport and switch the large amounts of data
that these entities generate. RUS funding enhances the synergies among
and RUS programs and other federal telecommunications targeted at
improving rural education and health care through telecommunications.
The RUS program provides needed incentives to help offset
regulatory uncertainties related to universal service support and
interconnection rules with a reliable source of fairly priced long term
capital. After all, RUS is a voluntary program designed to create
incentives for local telephone companies to build the plant essential
to economic growth. RUS endures because it is a brilliantly conceived
public private partnership in which the borrowers are the conduits for
benefits from the federal government to flow to rural telephone
customers, the true beneficiaries of the RUS program. The government's
contribution is leveraged by the equity, technical expertise and
dedication of local telephone companies.
impact of credit reform on the rural telephone bank
Contrary to the intent of Congress, the interpretation of credit
reform by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has significantly
affected the operation of the Rural Telephone Bank (RTB). One of the
most damaging impacts of OMB's interpretation of the credit reform law
is to essentially cleave the RTB into two banks--a liquidating account
bank which is responsible for pre-credit reform loans, and a financing
account bank which is responsible for post credit reform loans. Until
the Administration's current budget proposal, OMB has clung to the
proposition that funds from the two banks could not be intermingled.
USTA has protested this arrangement since it began, since it prevents
the relending of borrower repayments to fund new loans in direct
contravention of Sec. 409 of the Bank's enabling act.. This, in turn,
forces the RTB to borrow unnecessarily from the Treasury to fund new
loans. It also permits funds to build up in the liquidating account
that were generated by GAO documented interest rate overcharges,
instead of those funds being returned through relending to the same
universe of borrowers that initially generated them.
In this new budget proposal, the Administration proposes to take
funds from the liquidating account and fund the loan subsidy for new
loans as well as the RUS administrative expenses allocated to the RTB
beginning in 2000. This is in direct conflict with an existing
provision of law, Sec. 403(b) of the Rural Telephone Bank Act (Public
Law 92-12). That provision states ``. . . in order to perform its
responsibilities under this title, the telephone bank may partially or
jointly utilize the facilities and the services of employees of the
Rural Electrification Administration or of any other agency of the
Department of Agriculture, without cost to the telephone bank.''
(Emphasis added)
Instead of using the repayments into the liquidating account to
fund the expenses of the RTB (contrary to the Rural Electrification
Act) or to fund the loan subsidy, neither of which would result in any
budget savings, those repayments should be used to fund new RTB loans,
consistent with Sec. 489 of the Rural Electrification Act.
rus telephone program procedures should continue to be streamlined
By revising its Annual Statistical Report as well as making other
changes to reduce red tape and focus on results and service delivery,
Administrator Beyer, Deputy Administrator McLean and Assistant
Administrator Purcell have begun to take significant actions to
streamline RUS telecommunications program procedures. These actions
encourage the use of this voluntary program and promote the provision
of modern telecommunications service to rural Americans. USTA is fully
in support of less regulation and improved service delivery, within the
context of the government's interest in security for these rural
telecommunications infrastructure improvement loans. We applaud the
efforts of RUS to this end and strongly support and encourage
continuation of this long overdue initiative.
recommendations
Continuation of the loan levels and necessary associated subsidy
amounts for the RUS telephone loan programs that were recommended by
this committee and signed into law for fiscal year 1999 would maintain
our members' ability to adequately serve the nation's
telecommunications needs and to maintain universal service.
For a number of years, through the appropriations process, Congress
has eliminated the seven percent ``cap'' placed on the insured cost-of-
money loan program. The elimination of the cap should continue. If long
term Treasury interest rates exceeded the 7 percent ceiling contained
in the authorizing act, adequate subsidy would not be available to
support the program at the authorized level. This would be extremely
disruptive and hinder the program from accomplishing its statutory
goals. Accordingly USTA supports continuation of the elimination of the
seven percent cap on cost-of-money insured loans in fiscal year 2000.
The restriction on the retirement of the amount of class A stock by
the Rural Telephone Bank, adopted in fiscal 1997, should be continued.
The Bank is currently retiring Class A stock in an orderly, measured
manner as current law requires. This should continue. The Committee
should also continue to protect the legitimate ownership interests of
the Class B and C stockholders in the Bank's assets by continuing to
prohibit a ``sweep'' of those funds into the general fund.
Recommended Loan Levels
USTA recommends telephone loan program loan levels for fiscal year
2000 as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
RUS Insured Hardship Loans (5 percent)............................ -75
RUS Insured Cost-of-Money Loans................................... -300
Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) Loans.................................. -175
Loan Guarantees................................................... -120
______
Total......................................................... 670
The President's budget proposes a reduction of in the hardship
program designed for the neediest borrowers. There is strong demand for
hardship loans. Rural Americans cannot wait any longer to be full
participants in the Information Age. A minimum amount of subsidy
authority would restore the hardship loan level to its fiscal year 1999
level. We cannot imagine a more deserving use of scarce government
resources for the benefit of rural Americans.
Distance Learning and Telemedicine
USTA strongly supports the loan and grant proposal and recommends
its funding for fiscal year 2000 at the levels proposed in the
Administration's budget submission, that is, $20 million for the grant
program and $200 million for the loan program. This program is a
perfect complement to the traditional RUS telephone loan programs. For
distance learning and telemedicine to become a reality, schools and
hospitals need training and equipment. Similarly, local telephone
companies need modern infrastructure to connect these facilities to the
telecommunications network.
conclusion
Our members take pleasure and pride in reminding the Subcommittee
that the RUS telephone program continues its perfect record of no
defaults in almost a half century of existence. RUS telephone borrowers
take deadly seriously their obligations to their government, their
nation and their subscribers. They will continue to invest in our rural
communities, use government loan funds carefully and judiciously and do
their best to assure the continued affordability of telecommunications
services in rural America. Our members have confidence that the
Subcommittee will continue to recognize the importance of assuring a
strong and effective RUS Telephone Program through authorization of
adequate loan levels.
______
Prepared Statement of the University of Illinois
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Agriculture, Rural
Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.--We are pleased to
provide this updated testimony on behalf of the federally-funded
project entitled ``Studies to Reduce the Aflatoxin Problem in Corn''
being carried out in the University of Illinois Crop Sciences
Department by Professors J. M. Widholm and D. G. White, in cooperation
with scientists in other institutions and agencies. Professors White
and Widholm provided the technical information in this report. We wish
to thank you, Mr. Cochran and others on the Committee, for
appropriating $1,119,000 to date for this important research. During
the past year, some important milestones were achieved, bringing the
project closer to achieving its objective. We request an fiscal year
2000 allocation of $180,000 so that we can move these promising results
further toward fruition for U. S. corn producers and consumers.
the aflatoxin problem
Because of its toxicity and carcinogenicity (causes cancer),
aflatoxin in corn grain is a very serious problem. When the causal
fungus, Aspergillus paves, is present on the grain, the toxin is often
present also. Aflatoxin problems occur primarily in years and areas of
moisture stress, which means their occurrence is relatively
unpredictable. According to our studies of sixty-five widely grown
commercial corn hybrids, including normal corn, white corn, and food-
grade corn, there is little or no resistance to A. pavus in commonly
grown hybrids. The inbred lines of corn widely used to produce these
hybrids lack resistance genes.
The toxin can form in the maturing grain before harvest and in
stored grain if the moisture levels are too high. Due to the danger
posed by aflatoxin, levels of the toxic compound are closely Stored in
corn grain. If levels of aflatoxin are too high in a given sample, the
grain represented by the sample cannot be sold in interstate commerce.
There is a significant monitoring cost, but it is small relative to
other costs incurred by aflatoxin.
It is estimated that in any given year 5 to 30 percent of the
nation's corn crop experiences severe moisture stress. Direct yield and
quality losses caused by aflatoxin are at least $500 million annually.
That loss accrues to producers. In addition, there are harmful health,
social, and economic effects of aflatoxin when it is present in corn-
based food products. Aflatoxin is one of the most carcinogenic of
naturally occurring compounds. It is very detrimental to the health of
humans or animals that ingest it. For these reasons, it is important to
eliminate aflatoxin from corn grain. That is the mission of this
project.
the strategy for removing aflatoxin from corn
The strategy of the project is to: through field tests, identify
resistant germplasm in existing collections, using tissue culture
techniques, evaluate and select corn cultures that inhibit A. paves
growth and/or aflatoxin production, regenerate promising plants for
greenhouse and field evaluation, using recombinant DNA techniques,
introduce into corn antifungal genes encoding enzymes such as chitinase
and B-glucanase, which may impart resistance to A flavus, and determine
the effect of fungicides on A. paves growth and aflatoxin production.
progress report and look to the future
Previous and current conventional breeding and selection approaches
Since 1991 we screened thousands of corn inbred lines, some of
which already existed in various collections and some of which we
derived from existing material. We identified 11 lines with high levels
of resistance to Aspergillus ear rot and to the production of
aflatoxin. We concentrated on sources of resistance that can be used to
improve inbred lines B73 and Mol7, from which most important
commercially used inbred lines are derived.
In inheritance studies, we found that resistance genes have both
additive and dominant affects. It is desirable for resistance genes to
be dominant, so that when resistant and susceptible lines are crossed,
the resulting hybrids will be as resistant as the resistant parent.
Some of the resistance genes discovered are strongly dominant. Much of
the effort was concentrated on inbred line Tex 6, developed at the
University of Illinois by selecting from a southern white corn
population that has high levels of resistance to southern corn leaf
blight.
Tex 6 confers extremely high levels of aflatoxin resistance when
crossed with most of the inbreds that are important in the cornbelt.
Inheritance studies indicate that the resistance in Tex 6 is controlled
by just a few genes, which is very desirable. The fewer the genes
controlling a trait, the easier it is to transfer that trait to
otherwise desirable lines and the faster the trait can be introduced
into widely used material using the common backcrossing approach. At
best, it takes several years of backcrossing to restore the high yield
potential of important inbreds, while at the same time retaining
aflatoxin resistance introduced in the original cross with Tex 6.
A major milestone was reached when, using Tex 6 and other
experimental lines and the backcrossing approach, we were able to
transfer effective aflatoxin resistance into commercially used inbreds
related to both B73 and Mol7. In 1995 and 1996 yield trials, hybrids
with some of these new aflatoxin resistance inbreds as one parent
yielded as well as popular commercial hybrids. This is extremely
important because unless resistant varieties yield as well or better
than normal varieties when aflatoxin is not a problem, they won't be
acceptable to producers. This breakthrough paves the way for private
firms to introduce resistance to A. pavus and aflatoxin into their best
lines.
Important finding in fiscal year 1998
The most important development in corn production in recent years
was the introduction of practical high oil corn hybrids by Dupont and
Pfister Hybrids, using materials developed at the University of
Illinois. Unfortunately, high oil hybrids, which are produced by the
so-called topcross method, are more susceptible to Aspergillus ear rot
and aflatoxin production than are normal hybrids of the same pedigree
with a normal pollinator. Fortunately, high oil top crosses that
involve some of the sources of resistance developed in this aflatoxin
project are equal in resistance to normal resistant hybrids. Thus, this
project is providing the mechanism to assure that the enormous
potential of high oil corn is not reduced by aflatoxin.
Past, current, and future biotechnology research on aflatoxin
Three years ago, we used Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism
(RFLP) markers, a powerful biotechnology technique, to identify those
chromosome regions associated with specific genes for aflatoxin
resistance. We found that some genes confer resistance to the fungal
disease organism (A. paves) that causes ear rot. Some do not confer
resistance to the fungal organism but do inhibit its production of
aflatoxin. Some genes do both.
A cooperator, Professor Gary Payne of North Carolina State
University, identified a specific protein from seed of inbred Tex 6
that inhibits aflatoxin production in culture but has very little
effect on growth of the fungus. He identified another protein that
inhibits the growth of the fungus. Apparently there are corn genes that
code for each of these proteins. Researchers are now trying to develop
a quick biotechnology test for these proteins and to locate the
associated genes on the map of the corn genome. Among other advantages,
this will enable corn breeders to use marker-assisted selection, a
molecular selection technique, which should greatly speed the process
of screening and selecting high-yield, aflatoxin-resistant lines of
corn.
This year we started work with inbred line C12, which has good
levels of resistance and also makes a protein that blocks some, but not
all, aflatoxin synthesis. If we can enhance the production of these
blocking proteins and transfer the gene or genes that code for them
into otherwise productive corn hybrids, several advantages will accrue.
First, fewer genes will have to be transferred to achieve the desired
result. This should speed up the process of incorporating desirable
aflatoxin-reducing genes into commercially important hybrids. Since the
aflatoxin-synthesis-blocking corn genes will place little selection
pressure on the fungus itself, the fungus will be less likely to
develop ways to defeat the resistance mechanism.
Once these genetically controlled resistance mechanisms are fully
characterized and understood, the resistance genes can be transferred
to other crops, such as peanuts, that also have aflatoxin problems. The
aflatoxin resistance mechanisms described above may resist other
diseases as well. Corn lines identified in this project that are
resistant to A. pavus also are resistant to Fusarium maniliforme, which
produces fumonison, another highly toxic and carcinogenic mycotoxin.
There is direct evidence that fumonison causes cancer in humans, not
just in laboratory animals.
Fiscal year 1998 biotechnology breakthrough
After years of effort, we experienced a major breakthrough during
early fiscal year 1998 with the successful introduction of antifungal
genes bean chitinase and B-1,3-glucanase into corn cells, both alone
and in combination. The particle gun was used to accomplish this
transformation. The transformed cells were regenerated into plants and
were self-pollinated to obtain plants that are homozygous for the
antifungal genes. Subsequently, we demonstrated by several different
methods that the introduced genes are stable, are passed to progeny in
normal reproduction, and are expressed in seeds of the transformed
plants. In other species, these particular genes are expressed as
enzymes that break down cell walls of invading fungi, thus preventing
or reducing fungal diseases. We found that Tex 6, which confers the
highest level of natural fungal resistance, has high levels of natural
chitinase in its tissues. This is a different chitinase, however, than
the one we introduced by ombinant DNA techniques.
Plans for fiscal year 2000
In fiscal year 2000, we will conduct tests to determine how
effective the bean chitinase and B-1,2-chitinase genes are, alone and
in combination with resistance genes already identified in corn, in
sting A. paves and aflatoxin production. We anticipate that the
combination will be most effective and will, when incorporated into
widely used hybrids, go far toward solving the aflatoxin problem. It
will be very important to determine if a combination of chitinases
confer greater and more lasting resistance than only one. We will also
seek to enhance natural resistance to A. flavus through conventional
breeding techniques and will conduct further research aimed at
increasing the resistance of high oil corn hybrids to the pathogen.
Cooperation
We continue to have good cooperation with other institutions and
USDA-ARS. Several sources of resistance we discovered and several
resistant lines derived from them have been shown to be resistant in
field studies conducted by cooperators in Mississippi and south Texas.
We are also cooperating with Professor Dennis McGee at Iowa State
University, who found that the silks on our resistant lines inhibit
growth of A. paves. Professor Gary Payne of North Carolina State
University continues to make valuable contributions to the project.
summary and request
We believe this project is making excellent progress toward the
desired outcome of reducing or eliminating aflatoxin as a serious
problem in corn production and use. To summarize project results to
date, we identified several corn lines that are resistant to the
organism (Aspergillus paves) that produces ear rot and produces
aflatoxin. We also discovered lines that inhibit aflatoxin production
without inhibiting fungal growth. This increases the possibility of
inducing aflatoxin resistance that does not decrease with time.
We derived new lines that have both types of resistance. We learned
how aflatoxin resistance is inherited when crosses are made. We have
sources of resistance that are effective when used in either the
northern or southern corn belt. We developed practical tissue culture
tests and DNA analysis techniques to identify resistant germplasm. We
found that high oil corn hybrids are more susceptible to aflatoxin-
producing organisms than normal hybrids, but that resistance sources
developed in this project can be used to produce resistant high oil
corn. We showed that fungicides decrease A. pavus growth in stored
grain. Procedures for this are still awaiting approval by EPA. The
project continues to generate important papers in scientific journals.
The papers provide valuable information on both practical and basic
science issues associated with aflatoxin.
In a landmark achievement, we introduced antifungal genes bean
chitinase and B-1,3-gluconase from other organisms into corn cells and
successfully regenerated plants that have these genes. We found that
the introduced genes are stable, passed to progeny during normal
reproduction, and expressed in seeds. We still need to screen more
germplasm for resistance sources. Natural resistance genes tend to work
for a while and then become less effective as the pests evolve new
virulence mechanisms. We still have to broaden the base of inbred lines
that will be used to introduce aflatoxin resistance into commercial
varieties grown in the major corn growing regions of the nation. Our
goal is to insert new resistance genes that can be moved rapidly into
commercially used inbreds and that are effective in reducing and
eliminating other mycotoxins as well.
We respectfully request an allocation of $180,000 in federal funds
for fiscal year 2000 to continue this Important project. This amount
will allow us to maintain the momentum and productivity of this
innovative aflatoxin research program and capitalize on the progress
made to date.
______
Prepared Statement of the University of Miami
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the University of Miami.
The University is seeking your support for a vital initiative within
your purview, the Florida Center for Climate Prediction. It is our
belief, Mr. Chairman, that technological advances in climate prediction
can save the nation's downtrodden farmers from financial crises.
On March 16, 1999, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan reported
that the nation's farm downturn can be traced to an important degree to
the recessions that began in East Asia in 1997 and have since spread to
Latin America and elsewhere. However, Mr. Greenspan cited technological
improvements as vitally important for insulating U.S. agriculture from
the worse effects of world-wide economic turmoil.
The Florida Consortium for Climate Prediction, a joint project of
the University of Miami, the University of Florida, Florida State
University brings to bear the latest climate prediction technology,
which can provide the nation's farmers with predictive information to
help maintain stable agricultural production.
This major collaborative program focuses on climate variability in
Florida, the southeast region and beyond. Objectives include developing
scientific applications for climate data. The Florida Consortium draws
upon the expertise of scientists at Florida State University (climate
analyses and coupled ocean-atmosphere prediction models), Miami
(climate analyses and economic value forecasts) and the University of
Florida (agriculture) to quantify climate variability (e.g. El Nino)
for the southeast and to explore the potential value and practical
application (with strong emphasis on agricultural issues) of climate
forecasts.
The importance of El Nino South Oscillation (ENSO) events as a
major source of climate fluctuations, together with advances in ENSO
predictability, suggest that forecasts have significant potential for
benefiting agricultural productivity and economic decision-making.
The geographic focus of this project will include the southeastern
United States, a large food producer whose productivity is
significantly impacted by weather conditions generated by the ENSO
phenomenon. Decisions made by well-informed participants from farm to
policy level, made several months or seasons in advance, can
significantly benefit productivity.
This project presents an end-on-end approach that will provide the
bridge between climate and forecast producers, such as the
International Research Institute for Climate Prediction (IRICP) and
agricultural decision-makers. Specific objectives of the project are
to: (1) adapt, develop, and evaluate a generic, flexible set of tools
and methodologies for assessing regional agricultural consequences of
El Nino events and for applying forecasts to improve agricultural
decision-making; (2) demonstrate by successful applications of
forecasts to agriculture and other sectors that would benefit best in
the southeastern United States that began in 1996; and assess the value
of climate predictions to different agricultural sectors in those
southeastern regions.
As an example, during the initial phases of this effort, the team
focused on temperature and precipitation patterns across the southeast.
At Florida State, for example, researchers found a geographic shift in
tornadic activity associated with El Nino events. A new climate
forecast system to provide predictions of seasonal temperatures and
precipitation with longer lead times and improved skill is in the
testing phase. Improvements are due party to the coupled nature (i.e.,
linking the ocean and atmosphere so they respond to one another
dynamically) of the forecast system. Our colleagues at the University
of Florida identified several crops in Florida that are vulnerable to
shifts in weather patterns associated with El Nino and La Nina, but
noted further that the impact is not uniform across the state
In continuing this collaboration, we plan to estimate the economic
advantages that could be achieved by incorporating climate forecast
information into farming management systems and eventually work with
sector representatives in developing guidance products for the
agricultural community. NOAA and NASA have provided initial funding.
Mr. Chairman, for fiscal year 2000, we seek $4 million from the
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee through the Department of
Agriculture to continue and expand this critical work for the
agricultural community.
Mr. Chairman, we understand how difficult year this will be for you
and the Subcommittee. However, we respectfully request that you give
serious consideration to this vital initiative. It has great
implications and will provide exceptional benefits to the well-being of
the nation.
______
Prepared Statement of the U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming Program
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide the
Committee with an overview of the activities of the U.S. Marine Shrimp
Farming Program.
This integrated multi-state research program continues to develop
and transfer technologies, products and services necessary for domestic
shrimp farming to become competitive in the world market. The long-term
goals are to partially offset the annual $2.5 billion trade deficit,
significantly expand the domestic shrimp industry, create new
opportunities for U.S. agriculture, and forge new markets for U.S.
grain products and technology services.
Success in the United States requires high rate, high yield, and
high product quality production systems that are both environmentally
and economically sustainable. The United States is a world leader and
highly competitive in terrestrial animal production systems. However,
because no such integrated production system exists for marine shrimp,
this program undertook the task of developing a world competitive
shrimp production system, technology-by-technology and product-by-
product. The U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming Program, supported by this
Committee since 1985, undertook the development of high tech processes,
products, and services designed to make U.S. shrimp farmers competitive
in the world market.
The Consortium enlisted the participation of top scientists, their
institutions and states, the cooperation of the fledgling industry, and
participation of government scientists and administrators, to undertake
narrowly-focused and results-oriented projects, and to provide a sound
scientific basis for industry expansion. Its approach is based on
financial accountability and minimal bureaucratic constraint. The
Program has been administered by CSREES/USDA, which provides oversight
and conducts periodic review by independent scientific panels.
The obstacles to be overcome by new technologies and products, in
order to underpin a competitive advantage for U.S. farmers, were
formidable. Worldwide, shrimp farming practices are primitive as
compared to modern animal husbandry standards. They depend on catching
wild shrimp stocks, have little regard for the environmental
consequences of their actions, use drugs and chemicals
indiscriminately, and contribute to the spread of shrimp diseases with
their products; this approach has often been referred to as ``rape and
run.'' These practices, while low-cost in the short-run, are not
sustainable environmentally or economically in the long-run. Currently,
world wide producers are experiencing increasing shrimp mortalities,
lower quality product, and lower profits. These world wide problems
open a substantial opportunity for U.S. exploitation of the
technologies and products developed by the Consortium.
To date, the program has:
--established the world's first captive populations of high health
shrimp stocks and the world's first breeding and genetic
selection program for marine shrimp
--completed pioneering research and development in advanced molecular
diagnostic tools for disease screening and control;
--described the etiology of shrimp diseases associated with viral
pathogens;
--supported members of the U.S. American Processors Association in
protecting receiving waters from the introduction of viral
pathogens;
--played a lead role in the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture's
efforts to assess the threat of foreign viral pathogens;
--supplied the U.S. industry with genetically improved and disease
resistant shrimp stocks;
--developed small-scale high technology biosecure shrimp production
systems to protect both cultured and wild stocks from disease
--developed new feed formulations to minimize waste generation.
These accomplishments are encouraging. The advances in these
fundamental areas have provided the foundation for achieving the
overall goal. The Consortium is in the process of integrating these
advances into practical shrimp farming systems. USMSFP supports both
industry and research. We are in the process of integrating these
advances into working shrimp farming systems for demonstration
purposes. The industry does not yet have the technology package and
remains dependent upon the Consortium for critical products and
services.
Abrupt loss of Consortium support would cut the existing industry
off at the knees and preclude completion of this important work. In
anticipation of near-term technology transfer, we are encouraging the
industry to establish its own breeding program and disease control
operations. The risks, however, are as yet too high to encourage the
movement of investment capital. We are making substantial progress
toward increasing profitability and reducing risk.
Mr. Chairman, it is envisioned that the United States, with the
best animal feed grains in the world, will become a non-polluting
producer and major competitor in the shrimp farming world. Superior
technologies, products, and services will deliver higher quality and
lower cost shrimp products to the nation and to the world.
The Consortium receives substantial support and encouragement from
CSREES/USDA. They have suggested that this is a model program for
resolving important problems and capturing opportunities in both
agriculture and aquaculture. Such sentiments have been repeatedly
expressed by independent scientific review teams in 1988, 1991, and
1995.
Exceptional research and development progress in the last several
years, coupled with severe difficulties experienced by domestic shrimp
farmers, form the basis of a request for an increase in funding from
$3.354 million to $5 million. The additional resources would be
directed to accelerate the transfer of high technology biosecure
systems to the commercial industry, to assist the industry in retro-
fitting existing production systems, and to strengthen research in
biosecurity and disease control technologies.
______
Prepared Statement of the University of Southern Mississippi
Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I would
like to thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony describing
ongoing research and commercializing efforts of The University of
Southern Mississippi (USM) and the Mississippi Polymer Institute. I am
very grateful to the Subcommittee for its leadership and the support of
the Institute and its work. This testimony will include an update on
the progress of the Institute since my testimony of approximately one
year ago. During the past year, our efforts have primarily focused on
two commercialization thrusts; one arising from novel inventions of our
emulsion polymerization team and the other to produce a commercially
viable, formaldehyde free, soybean derived adhesive for a variety of
composite board materials, i.e., particle board or oriented strand
board (OSB). During the past year, we have continued to exploit the
opportunities offered by these novel materials and continue to be
optimistic about their commercial fate. I will discuss the two
inventions separately in order to offer more clarity. In the case of
castor or soya oil we have designed and synthesized novel monomers or
polymer building blocks that offer state-of-the-art technology. The
attributes of the technology includes odor free, solvent free, non-
polluting latex coatings. The technology offers for the first time,
solventless emulsion technology based on an agricultural material. By
contrast, contemporary latex coatings contain upwards of 1500 grams of
VOC/gallon. Moreover, it is a technology that if practiced would allow
the governmental regulatory agencies to tighten the restrictions on
volatile organic content (VOC) emissions of applied coatings. I intend
to share details of this novel and patented technology with the
Environmental Protection Agency so that they can, if they wish, make an
independent evaluation to confirm its suitability and efficacy. Much of
the fundamental scientific principles regarding its mode of action have
been confirmed, yet additional data must be collected. In particular,
we believe this technology can be employed in light industrial and
original equipment manufacture (OEM) industrial coatings as well as
architectural coatings, and confirmation of these concepts is a
priority in future work. The second and critically important objective
is to secure manufacturing facilities for commercial production of the
new material(s). We are currently in negotiations with parties who have
expressed interest in manufacturing the novel emulsion monomers. We
must secure a manufacturer during the 1999-2000 period if this
technology is to be successful. For instance, we have provided samples
to our industrial partners from samples prepared in our laboratory.
However, requests for the novel material are far too great to continue
this practice, and one industrial client has expressed interest in
purchasing this monomer in the third or fourth quarter of 1999.
Furthermore, the uniqueness of this technology has been confirmed
in industry, and at least one participating polymer manufacturing firm
is sampling materials they have produced utilizing our novel
technology. Therefore, we believe that the time when industrial firms
will seek production quantities of the novel monomer is drawing closer,
and we must be prepared to meet their needs. This is indeed an exciting
time as we see the fruition of our efforts and your support coming to
the conclusion we desire; i.e., the commercial production and sale of
novel ag based materials to the polymer industry.
In yet another of our novel ag based technologies, we have
developed formaldehyde-free adhesives for use in the composites
industry, specifically for particle board and oriented strand board.
The new adhesives are composed of more than 98 percent agricultural
products and are comparable in properties with traditional formaldehyde
adhesives. Formaldehyde emissions are regulated as formaldehyde is
considered a potential cancer producing agent. Consequently, there is a
move afoot to remove formaldehyde from articles of commerce.
In 1983, the Mississippi Legislature authorized the Polymer
Institute at USM to work closely with emerging industries and other
existing polymer-related industries to assist with research, problem-
solving, and commercializing efforts. During the past year, seventeen
new polymer-related industries have located in Mississippi. In
particular, during the past four years Sunbeam-Oster, Dickten and
Masch, Wellman, and Kohler have constructed facilities approaching a
cost of 1.4 billion dollars and each has commented on polymer science
and engineering as a significant factor in their decision to locate
near to The University of Southern Mississippi and the Mississippi
Polymer Institute.
The Institute provides industry and government with applied or
focused research, development support, and other commercializing
assistance. This effort complements existing strong ties with industry
and government involving exchange of information and improved
employment opportunities for USE graduates. Most importantly, through
basic and applied research coupled with developmental and
commercializing efforts of the Institute, the Department of Polymer
Science continues to address national needs of high priority.
The focus of my work is commercialization of alternative
agricultural crops in the polymer industry. This approach offers an
array of opportunities for agriculture as the polymer industry is the
largest segment of the chemical products industry in the world, and
heretofore has been highly dependent upon petroleum utilization.
However, my efforts are directed to the development of agricultural
derived materials that will improve our nation's environment and reduce
our dependence on imported petroleum. As farm products meet the
industrial needs of the American society, rural America is the
benefactor. Heretofore, this movement to utilize alternative
agricultural products as industrial raw materials has received some
attention but much less than opportunities warrant. Your decisions are
crucial to the accomplishment of these goals as funding from this
Subcommittee has enabled us to implement and maintain an active group
of university-based polymer scientists whose energies are devoted to
commercializing alternative crops. We are most grateful to you for this
support and ask for your continued commitment.
The faculty, the University, and the State of Mississippi are
strongly supportive of the Mississippi Polymer Institute and its close
ties with industry. Most faculty maintain at least one industrial
contract as an important part of extramural research efforts.
Polymers, which include fibers, plastics, composites, coatings,
adhesives, inks, and elastomers, play a key role in the materials
industry. They are used in a wide range of industries including
textiles, aerospace, automotive, packaging, construction, medical
prosthesis, and health care. In the aerospace and automotive
applications, reduced weight and high strength make them increasingly
important as fuel savers. Their non-metallic character and design
potentials support their use for many national defense purposes.
Moreover, select polymers are possible substitutes for so-called
strategic materials, some of which come from potentially unreliable
sources.
As a polymer scientist, I am intrigued by the vast opportunities
offered by American agriculture. As a professor, however, I continue to
be disappointed that few of our science and business students receive
training in the polymer-agricultural discipline as it offers enormous
potential. The University of Southern Mississippi and the Mississippi
Polymer Institute are attempting to make a difference by showing others
what can be accomplished if appropriate time, energy, and resources are
devoted to the understanding of ag based products.
I became involved in the polymer field 33 years ago and since that
time, have watched its evolution where almost each new product
utilization offered the opportunity for many more. Although polymer
science as a discipline has experienced expansion and a degree of
public acceptance, alternative agricultural materials are an under-
utilized national treasure for the polymer industry. Moreover, there is
less acceptance of petroleum derived materials today than ever before
and consequently the timing is ideal for agricultural materials to make
significant inroads as environmentally friendly, biodegradable, and
renewable raw materials. These agricultural materials have always been
available for our use, yet society for many reasons, has not recognized
their potential. The following examples are included and represent
opportunities other than those already described which supports this
tenet:
--A waterborne, waterproofer has been designed and formulated with
the help of several natural products. The material functions as
a waterproofer yet is carried in water. However, after
application to the intended substrate, typically wood or
cementous products, the material becomes hydrophobic and highly
water resistant. We have collected two and one-half years of
exposure data on this product with excellent success. It is
currently being marketed via Southern Chemical Formulators of
Mobile, AL. The distribution of this material has been slowed
as the result of a fire at Southern Chemical Formulators that
destroyed production facilities.
--A new, multi-functional polymer additive was designed, synthesized,
tested, and submitted to the patent office. The patent office
has approved the issuance of a patent entitled, ``Novel Multi-
Functional Surface Active Agents, Syntheses and Applications
Thereof,'' U.S. patent No. 5,807,922; the patent was issued on
Sept. 15, 1998. The product is currently being evaluated by the
Hanson Company as a potential commercial product. It is a
highly efficient, multi-faceted additive that functions as a
dispersant, a defoamer, an adhesion promoter, a gloss enhancer,
and corrosion inhibiting species. It is derived from an
agricultural raw material and is very novel in its performance
and applications. If the Hanson Company is unsuccessful in its
utility, we will continue commercialization efforts from these
laboratories.
--We have exploited the potential of lesquerella, a crop that
produces a triglyceride similar to castor oil. Several high
performance products have been prepared and include polyesters,
stains, foams, pressure sensitive adhesives, and 100 percent
solid ultraviolet (W) coatings. This technology was highlighted
at the AARC/NASDA meeting in Washington, DC.
--Novel open cell foams have been designed and prepared from
lesquerella and/or castor oil. They are of high quality and can
substitute for foams used extensively in industrial settings.
Lesquerella derived foams possess commercial viability yet the
supply of lesquerella is currently not of the size that can support a
high volume use. For instance, if lesquerella were accepted as a raw
material for foam manufacture alone, huge quantities of oil would be
consumed. The decision is now with the farm community as to whether or
not to include lesquerella in their farm land rotation sequence. Our
work has shown it to be a viable commercial crop with several
significant potential uses and that was our goal. Consequently, we will
concentrate our work in other areas with other ag crops.
U.S. agriculture has made the transition from the farm fields to
the kitchen tables, but America's industrial community continues to be
frightfully slow in adopting ag based industrial materials. Let us
aggressively pursue this opportunity and in doing so:
--Intensify U.S. efforts to commercialize alternative crops.
--Reduce U.S. reliance on imported petroleum.
--Maintain a healthy and prosperous farm economy.
--Foster new cooperative opportunities between American farmers and
American industry.
Mr. Chairman, your leadership and support are deeply appreciated by
the entire University of Southern Mississippi community. While I can
greatly appreciate the financial restraints facing your Subcommittee, I
feel confident that further support of the Mississippi Polymer
Institute will continue dividends of increasing commercialization
opportunities of agricultural materials in American industry. Advances
in polymer research are crucial to food, transportation, housing, and
defense industries. Our work has clearly established the value of ag
products as industrial raw materials; however, while these are but a
limited number of applications, our success confirms that it is time to
move to yet another level of effort. Thus, we respectfully request $1.2
million in federal funding to exploit the potentials of commercializing
alternative agricultural materials and to continue our initiatives.
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee for your support
and consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the
organization created 18 years ago by the Governors of Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to serve as a forum for coordinating
the five states' river-related programs and policies and for
collaborating with federal agencies on regional water resource issues.
As such, the UMRBA has an interest in the budget for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's conservation programs and technical
assistance.
Of particular concern to the UMRBA is funding for the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP), Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), and
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). Taken together, these
three Commodity Credit Corporation-funded programs provide an
invaluable means for the USDA to work with landowners, local
conservation districts, and the states to ensure that agricultural
productivity is maintained while protecting the nation's soil and water
resources. As stewards of some of the nation's most productive
agricultural lands and important water resources, the five states of
the Upper Mississippi River Basin believe these programs are vital.
Strong farmer interest and state support demonstrate the region's
commitment to the objectives of these programs. In 1998, state, local,
and private entities matched every dollar of NRCS investment in the
five states with an additional $0.80. Illinois and Minnesota are among
the first states nationwide to commit to significantly increased state
funding of conservation measures through the Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program (CREP). These CREP initiatives will be focused on
the watersheds of the Illinois and Minnesota Rivers, both of which are
important tributaries to the Upper Mississippi.
The President's fiscal year 2000 budget proposal includes
essentially flat funding of $1.596 billion for the CRP, which the
Administration estimates would be sufficient for the program to reach
its full authorized acreage of 36.4 million acres by 2002. The Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) estimates that the President's
$209 million proposal for the WRP would bring that program to its
975,000-acre enrollment cap by the end of 2000. The Administration's
proposed $126 million increase for EQIP, which would bring the
program's total in fiscal year 2000 to $300 million, includes important
funding to increase financial assistance available to the operators of
animal feeding operations. The CRP, WRP, and EQIP have demonstrated
their effectiveness and garnered strong support from state, local, and
landowner partners. Thus, the UMRBA believes it is essential to place
priority on providing adequate resources to these three important
programs.
The UMRBA is also concerned with the adequacy of funding and
staffing levels in the NRCS' conservation operations account. The
technical assistance funded through conservation operations provides
the foundation for the USDA's voluntary conservation planning. The
President has proposed increasing conservation technical assistance by
$37 million to $585 million in fiscal year 2000. This funding increase
is certainly a move in the right direction. However, it would be
coupled with an estimated net reduction of 1,055 staff people, most of
whom would come from field offices. These are the very employees that
NRCS relies upon to deliver vital technical assistance to landowners.
With this reduction, the overall cut in NRCS staff since 1993 would
reach almost 19 percent. Reports from the field indicate that these
reductions are beginning to take a toll, with the NRCS increasingly
unable to provide the timely, comprehensive technical assistance that
farmers need if they are to participate effectively in the USDA's
conservation programs. A 1998 National Workload Analysis indicated that
the NRCS may need as many as 4,000 employees at the field level in the
Midwest. At the time, actual field staff in the Midwest numbered fewer
than 2,500. The UMRBA urges Congress to ensure that the NRCS has both
the staff and funding necessary to deliver its conservation programs
effectively.
The five states of the UMRBA acknowledge that our region faces
enormous soil and water conservation needs and limited public and
private resources to address the problem. In this context, it is
imperative that NRCS work with the states, conservation districts, and
farmers to identify and target the most pressing problems. Coordination
and communication with the states is particularly critical to success
in addressing the interstate resource challenges faced by the Upper
Mississippi River. Success in addressing such complex, large-scale
issues will not come quickly. It will require long-range thinking and
commitment over time from all levels of government and from farmers.
The states look to both Congress and the Administration to join them in
providing such leadership.
______
Prepared Statement of the USA Rice Federation
The USA Rice Federation wishes to submit the following comments
regarding the fiscal year 2000 appropriation bill for the Department of
Agriculture. The USA Rice Federation represents producers of
approximately 80 percent of the rice grown in the United States and
practically all U.S. millers of rice as well as allied industries.
Background.--The national farm economy is in a period of financial
stress with low prices, record supplies, and weak exports. The rice
economy is no exception. Production currently is estimated to increase
this year to 188 million cwt., up 3 percent from last year and will be
the second largest crop on record. Exports are not expected to keep
pace with production, leading USDA to estimate that ending stocks will
be 44 percent higher than a year ago resulting in the highest stocks to
use ratio since 1994/95. Rough rice sales to Latin America, one of our
principal markets, are likely to be adversely affected by economic
problems there, and the global long grain milled market will be very
competitive, particularly with lower priced rice from Thailand and
Vietnam. Prices have been falling steadily, and are expected to
continue. It may well be that for the first time in many years payments
under the marketing loan program will be triggered.
Export Programs.--(a) Public Law 480. With this as a background,
the rice industry calls upon the appropriations committee to ensure
that the export programs are fully funded for fiscal year 2000. To this
end, we earnestly request that the appropriation for the Public Law 480
program be maintained at not less than the appropriation of $220
million for the current year, and not be allowed to drop as has been
recommended by the Administration. In the current fiscal year the title
I, Public Law 480 program was funded at a level of $220 million and was
supplemented by the Secretary making an emergency transfer of $850
million from Commodity Credit Corporation to fund a title I agreement
with Russia. The Secretary found this necessary despite the
Administration having earlier recommended a 50 percent cut in the
fiscal year 1999 appropriation. It is hard to understand why in the
light of the distressed farm economy, the Administration would wish to
reduce the appropriation for title I to $150 million and eliminate
entirely the appropriation for title III of $25 million. The outlook
for agriculture in fiscal year 2000 is no better than current
conditions, and if anything, would justify an increase from the
currently appropriated amount.
As you know, in programming sales under title I, priority is given
to those developing countries which have demonstrated the potential to
become commercial markets and are undertaking measures to improve their
food security and demonstrate the greatest need for food. Title I has
had a brilliant history in opening the doors for commercial sales as
the recipient countries improve their economies. It should not be
short-changed.
(b) Market Access and Foreign Market Development Programs. There
are other important programs that assist in opening markets for U.S.
agricultural products including rice. These include the market access
program which is funded at a level of $90 million and the foreign
market development program (FMD) program, often called the cooperator
program, in which the rice industry and other cooperators provide cost
sharing of at least an equal amount in carrying out market promotion
activities overseas. These have been successful programs and should be
fully funded. Accordingly, we ask that the MAP program not be cut back
and the FMD program continue to be funded at the prior year's level of
$30 million.
Research.--Another area of great interest to the rice industry lies
with the research activities of USDA. We support the increased funding
that is recommended by USDA for the Agricultural Research Service and
the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service. We
request that the appropriation for research at the Dale Bumpers
National Rice Research Center at Stuttgart, Arkansas, be increased from
last year's level by $500,000. This would enable the Center to hire the
researchers needed to carry out the important work of developing
germplasm which would be made available to plant breeders in the United
States. The germplasm would be used to develop plant varieties to meet
the demands of consumers of all kinds both here in the United States
and elsewhere in the world, thereby improving markets for U.S. rice.
In addition, in the funding of the Cooperative State Research and
Education and Extension Service (CSREES), the Administration has
proposed an increase for competitive projects that would be offset by
decreases in formula funds under the Hatch Act and related legislation
and by decreases in non-competitive projects. We object to any
reduction in the formula funds as this would adversely impact the land
grant universities and state experiment stations where so much
significant agricultural research including research of benefit to the
rice industry, is being conducted. We would not object to an increase
in funding of competitive grants, but not at the expense of the formula
funds.
Animal Damage Control.--The USA Rice Federation also requests that
the appropriation for wildlife service operations and research be
continued at the same level as in the current year. This appropriation
helps fund new and improved methods for reducing damage to the southern
rice crop from the depredations of blackbirds that engulf the area each
spring. Among other things, the appropriation for the APHIS National
Wildlife Research Center is used for research on new non-lethal bird
repellents for preventing blackbird damage to sprouting and ripening
rice and for a more effective formulation for an EPA registered
chemical. A reduction in either this appropriation or the appropriation
for wildlife service operations would adversely affect these efforts.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments for the
consideration of the Subcommittee. If you should have any questions or
would like us to amplify our remarks in any way, please let us know.
______
Prepared Statement of the U.S. Agricultural Export Development Council
Strong support for exports must be part of the ``safety net'' for
the American farmer. Increasing exports is a significant tool to
improve the lives of America's farmers and producers of USA
agricultural products while improving our balance of trade and
increasing receipts to the Treasury. Well-funded export programs must
become a top priority for this Congress. Therefore, the U.S.
Agricultural Export Development Council (USAEDC) respectfully but
emphatically urges this subcommittee and Congress to strongly support
export promotion programs in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) fiscal year 2000 budget. Specifically, this shall include: a
Foreign Market Development Cooperator program at a level which would
allow FAS to approve marketing plans at historic levels, and within the
FAS authorization; a Market Access Program at $200 million; and a
strong USDA Foreign Agricultural Service at least at no less than last
year's budget level.
A few years ago USA agricultural exports reached record levels.
Unfortunately, the current downturn in many foreign economies has made
it very difficult today to simply maintain markets for USA agricultural
exports let alone expand them. Since the downturn, there are additional
and significant hurdles to the pre-existing import tariffs and often-
unjustifiable sanitary and phytosanitary barriers. These additional
hurdles include the rise of the U.S. dollar against foreign currencies,
foreign consumers' bias toward ``buying domestic'' to help their own
producers, and increased production from our major competitors (e.g.,
the European Union, Canada, Australia). USA agricultural products are
facing more competition than ever, especially in markets where there
are fewer foreign consumers willing to consider buying USA agricultural
products. Given these factors, it behooves Congress to fund an
aggressive export promotion package for America's USA agricultural
products to have a fighting chance to maintain and grow foreign markets
for our agricultural products.
Chief within this export promotion package should be substantial
and adequate funding for the Foreign Market Development Cooperator
program (FMD), the Market Access Program (MAP), and USDA's Foreign
Agricultural Service (FAS) which administers these programs. As you may
know, the FMD program is most often focused on maintaining foreign
markets while working on long-term changes to a market's infrastructure
to allow for increased USA agricultural exports. The MAP program is
most often focused on increasing export levels in the near term,
especially for USA agricultural exports that are purchased directly by
consumers. Funding for both programs is awarded annually on a
competitive basis to (1) not-for-profit USA trade organizations that
represent specific sectors of American agriculture, (2) farmer
cooperatives, and (3) small businesses within the USA agriculture and
food industries. The vast majority of marketing is generic in nature
with any branded programs being run by small businesses (less than
1,000 employees) that are most often new to the export market.
there are 5 important points to remember about fmd and map
First, the FMD and MAP programs are cost effective.--Funds are
awarded on a competitive basis via a meaningful formula developed by
FAS which takes into consideration export potential, experience with
managing export programs, as well as industry contributions. This
process helps ensure that U.S. taxpayers' money is being invested in
the agricultural sector and organization with the highest chance of
success. Second, every organization that participates in either the FMD
or MAP program must contribute its own resources to these programs.
Thus, U.S. Government expenditures actually leverage more resources for
foreign market promotion than American agriculture would be able to
accomplish with only private sector funds. In addition, many of the
small companies helped by the MAP branded program note that they often
would not be able to have gained entry into the export market were it
not for this program. The tables below show that for the last completed
program year, American agriculture contributed the highest amount of
their own money relative to the amount made available by FAS.
FOREIGN MARKET DEVELOPMENT/COOPERATOR PROGRAM ONLY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Private-sector Public-sector MAP private to
Program Year MAP annual annual public MAP
expenditure expenditure dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994......................................................... $38,275,000 $30,051,000 127.4
1995......................................................... 40,675,000 31,199,000 130.4
1996......................................................... 37,544,000 28,807,000 130.3
1997......................................................... 47,203,000 28,986,000 162.8
1998......................................................... 43,972,000 26,505,000 165.9
5 yr. average................................................ 41,534,000 29,110,000 142.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARKET ACCESS PROGRAM ONLY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Private-sector Public-sector FMD private to
Program Year FMD annual annual public FMD
expenditure expenditure dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993......................................................... $146,994,000 $154,372,000 95.2
1994......................................................... 112,756,000 115,756,000 97.4
1995......................................................... 89,179,000 106,353,000 83.9
1996......................................................... 80,190,000 93,585,000 85.7
1997......................................................... 101,208,000 97,549,000 103.8
5 yr. average................................................ 106,065,000 113,523,000 93.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service, Marketing Operations Staff.
Second, the FMD and MAP programs increase exports of USA
agricultural products.--USAEDC posts on the Internet (www.usaedc.org/
exports/industries.html) examples of the progress these programs make
in increasing sales of USA agricultural products. A few examples
follow:
A. Texas Grapefruit Exports to Canada--Texas Produce Export Association
(TPEA)
Key Strategies
Meetings held on a continuous basis with the trade (importers,
distributors and retailers) by TPEA's in-country representative have
resulted in acceptance of the fruit. Promoting Texas red grapefruit
with selected retail store groups interested in a niche market product
that stands apart from other grapefruit and stressing the unique color
and sweet taste has convinced consumers to purchase.
MAP activities assisted the Texas grapefruit industry to increase
exports to Canada by 32.5 percent over the 1996/97 season and the
outlook for 1998/99 shipments is very favorable for continued
increases. A major success has been achieved in the province of
Ontario, which historically has not been considered a Texas market--
exports in 1997/98 grew by 37.7 percent over the prior year. TPEA
shipped 430,099 cartons (7,819.9 MT) of grapefruit to Canada in 1997/
98.
Texas Grapefruit Exports' Impact on Local Economy
Increasing the export of Texas grapefruit definitely helps to
provide a better profit level to growers. Faced with a world wide
oversupply situation, many growers are going out of business, or just
barely hanging on, because of continuing depressed prices. Exports help
to stabilize the Texas citrus industry, which directly employs about
3,000 workers. Without the MAP program, the industry would have
difficulty expanding the market base and many of these jobs would be in
jeopardy. There are approximately 750 commercial citrus growers and 16
registered shippers. Total citrus production is approximately 36,313
acres.
In season year 1997, more than 13,235 metric tons of Texas red
grapefruit were shipped overseas to MAP targeted countries of which
7,819.9 metric tons were exported to Canada for a value of $3 million,
up 69.4 percent from 1994/95 when TPEA first started promoting in
Canada.
B. U.S. Farm-Raised Catfish Exports to Germany--The Catfish Institute
(TCI)
Key Strategies
Using MAP funds, TCI joined forces with Aramark, the leading food
service supplier in Germany and the world, to promote U.S. farm-raised
catfish. In a promotion held at the beginning of September 1998, U.S.
catfish took center stage in 340 Aramark corporate canteens. From north
to south and east to west, this one-week promotion transported diners
to the U.S. South for a variety of imaginative dishes. In preparation
for the event, TCI held seminars for Aramark's canteen managers on the
correct preparation of the fish. Over three thousand diners tasted
``Mark Twain'' catfish sandwiches and American Garlic Catfish with
Tomatoes and Courgettes as well as several other recipes. The results
speak for themselves. Aramark sold over 15 tons of catfish, double the
amount originally planned. TCI promotional materials decorated all of
the canteens with chefs and servers wearing caps and t-shirts featuring
the TCI logo, ``Der Amerikanische Wels.''
U.S. farm-raised catfish faces an 8 percent import tariff, high
transportation costs, a constantly strengthening dollar which puts its
fish in the same price category as turbot, considered the premium fish
by German consumers and trade, plus exacting calibration standards of
every filet weighing exactly the same. Germany's fish trade continues
to consolidate which also affects the overall market. Notwithstanding
this situation, the German trade remains convinced of the quality of
U.S. farm-raised catfish and repeat orders continue to be made.
Impact on U.S. Economy
Return to the U.S. economy from this industry is significant. The
catfish industry provides 12,000 jobs in the Delta area of the mighty
Mississippi, encompassing the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana
and Mississippi. In a part of the U.S. where unemployment is high and
income low, this industry employs over 8,000 individuals on a direct
basis.
--Related industries such as feed mills, trucking equipment
suppliers, packaging companies, steamship and airlines, etc.,
account for an additional 4,000 jobs.
--Not only does the catfish industry provide employment, it also
leads the way in providing education for low-income workers by
participating in the Welfare to Work program, which assists
individuals graduate from welfare.
C. California Pistachio Exports to the United Kingdom--California
Pistachio Commission
Key Strategies
The Commission's immediate move to provide the media and trade with
positive messages about California pistachios following the September
1997 European Union ban on Iranian pistachios due to aflatoxin problems
won praise and support from the British trade. This move turned the
tide for the California industry and resulted in six of the major
grocery chains now stocking pistachios from the Golden State up from
only two the year before.
Exports are showing upward growth with 327 metric tons shipped in
the first seven months of 1998 over 212 metric tons in 1997.
The Iranian government provides preferential treatment in exchange
rates for pistachio exporters. That government also provides its
pistachio producers with preferential treatment for imported goods
purchased with funds maintained out of the country from pistachio
sales. Producers are also subsidized for the purchase of chemical
fertilizers and pesticides. Using MAP funds, the California pistachio
industry has now succeeded in displacing Iranian product in a number of
key retail stores in the United Kingdom.
Impact on U.S. Economy
In 1986, U.S. pistachio exports were minuscule. Twelve years later,
more than 40 percent of the industry's annual shipments are exported to
countries around the world. Production is continually increasing with
174 million pounds harvested in 1997 and 195 million projected for
1998. This represents a phenomenal increase over the one and a one-half
million pounds produced in 1986.
Exports translate into additional U.S. jobs and increased revenue
for the economy and the U.S. Government. Benefits accrue not only to
the industry itself, but pass through to the producers of packaging
materials, equipment, fertilizers, transportation and nursery stock.
Third, the FMD and MAP programs help American agriculture overcome
the effects of foreign unfair trade practices.--As noted in the
pistachio example, USA agricultural exports often face subsidized or
otherwise unfair competition from foreign products. It is simply
impossible for American agriculture to combat the multitude of problems
in the international marketplace on its own. For example, the European
Union alone spent approximately $365 million in 1997 on export
programs, far more than the total amount of USA private and public
funding spent in support of the FMD and MAP programs. FAS is
instrumental in monitoring such activities in foreign markets. (They
make available their annual report via the Internet at
www.fas.usda.gov/cmp/com-study/1997/comp97.html.)
Fourth, the FMD and MAP programs help keep USA agricultural exports
strong. which in fiscal year 1997 supported almost 1 million American
jobs.--These jobs were on the farm, ranch, in the forest, and on the
water, as well as in transportation, processing, and other related
industries. Every state and local economy in the Union has jobs that
are dependent on healthy exports of USA agricultural products. (For a
state-by-state listing of jobs supported by USA agricultural exports,
as well as a listing of the top five agricultural commodities which
generated these jobs, visit USAEDC's web site at www.usaedc.org/
exports/states/indexall html.) The top ten states in fiscal year 1997
for jobs supported by USA agricultural exports, including wood products
and fish, were:
1. California--122,500 jobs--$8.059 billion in ag exports
2. Iowa--63,000 jobs--$4.147 billion in ag exports
3. Illinois--57,600 jobs--$3.788 billion in ag exports
4. Nebraska--50,300 jobs--$3.308 billion in ag exports
5. Texas--49,900 jobs--$3.283 billion in ag exports
6. Washington--48,700 jobs--$3.201 billion in ag exports
7. Minnesota--42,300 jobs--$2.781 billion in ag exports
8. Kansas--40,300 jobs--$2.650 billion in ag exports
9. Arkansas--29,600 jobs--$1.948 billion in ag exports
10. Oregon--29,300 jobs--$1.926 billion in ag exports
Fifth, the FMD and MAP export effort is supported by American
voters.--A 1996 national Election Day poll by Penn & Schoen found 75
percent of Americans surveyed support programs such as FMD and MAP to
promote U.S. agricultural exports, counter subsidized foreign
competition, strengthen farm income, and protect American jobs.
In conclusion, USA agricultural exports are vitally important to
our local, regional, and national economies. At this time of dire need
for America's farmers, ranchers, lumbermen, and fishermen, and all the
jobs their work supports, we need to make sure programs like the
Foreign Market Development Cooperator (FMD) program and the Market
Access Program (MAP) are aggressively funded to increase foreign
consumption of USA agricultural products. Given the state of the global
economy, now is the time for an extra push in export promotion to
ensure that whatever foreign money is available for imported food and
agriculture is spent on the bounty of the United States of America.
______
Prepared Statement of the Western Rural Telephone Association
summary of requests
Program of Interest
Telecommunications lending programs administered by the Rural
Utilities Service (RUS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Recommendation
WRTA supports loan levels for fiscal year 2000 at such amounts as
they have been designated in the Agriculture Appropriations Act for
fiscal year 1999 (Public Law 105-277, Sec. 101(a)) for hardship,
treasury-cost, and guaranteed loan programs and the associated subsidy
to support these loan programs. We also support the Rural Telephone
Bank (RTB) loans in the amount proposed in the President's budget and
the associated subsidy to fund this level. WRTA also supports the
President's budget request for funding of the RUS's Distance Learning
and Telemedicine (DLT) programs at $20 million in grants and $200
million in loan authority. WRTA supports a continuation of the current
fiscal year's policy of language removing the 7 percent interest rate
ceiling on Treasury-cost loans for fiscal year 1998. WRTA supports the
continued provisions contained in Public Law 105-277 restricting
retirement of RTB class A stock in fiscal year 2000 and prohibiting the
transfer of RTB funds to the general fund. Finally, we are opposed to
the President's budget proposal to transfer funds from the unobligated
balances of the liquidating account of the RTB for the bank's
administrative expenses and loan subsidy costs.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: It is an honor and
privilege to have the opportunity to discuss the unique infrastructure
financing needs of the rural local exchange carrier (LEC) industry. My
name is Sam J. Maselli, and I am the Executive Vice President of the
Western Rural Telephone Association (WRTA). WRTA is a regional trade
association representing nearly 150 small rural commercial and
cooperative telephone systems throughout the western United States and
the Pacific Rim territories.
Background
WRTA's member systems, like most of this nation's independent LECs,
evolved to serve the high cost, low density areas in the rural western
United States. Congress recognized this unique dilemma confronting
America's rural LECs as early as 1949 when it amended the Rural
Electrification Act (RE Act) to create the REA telephone loan program.
With the future of rural America in mind, Congress charged the REA with
the responsibility for making low interest rate loans to both ``. . .
furnish and improve . . .'' rural telephone service at the local
exchange level.
In subsequent years, Congress has periodically acted to amend the
RE Act to insure that the original mission of the program is fully met.
In 1971, the Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) was created as a supplemental
source of direct loan financing. In 1973, the REA was provided with the
ability to guarantee Federal Financing Bank (FFB) and private lender
notes. And in 1993, the Congress established a fourth lending
component, the Treasury-cost program, and Congress eliminated most of
the subsidy costs associated with the administration of the program.
The formal consolidation of the Department's utility programs through
transferring the telecommunications loan and technical assistance
programs of the REA to the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) in 1994
further served to enhance and update the effectiveness of the agency in
promoting rural infrastructure development.
Due to the difficulty of providing service in high cost, low
density areas, Congress provided for long-term, fixed rate loans
available at reasonable rates to borrowers to assure that rural
citizens benefited from the highest quality of telephone service and
affordable subscriber rates. Through this ongoing commitment to capital
financing, Congress affirmed the goal of comparable and affordable
telephone service for rural Americans as their urban counterparts.
As a result of this commitment to rural telecommunications, rural
America has greatly benefited from the highest quality of information
technology. Through its effort, Congress has played a critical role in
developing a rural telecommunications infrastructure financing program
which best responds to the needs of rural America.
The Obligations of the Industry Continue The RUS telecommunications
loan program represents a remarkable public/private partnership success
story which continues to produce tangible results in the lives of rural
citizens. With the assistance of RUS capital and technical standards,
rural telephone systems are providing modern telecommunications
services of a highly sophisticated quality. However, with the rapid
pace of change in the development of information technology, the need
for RUS telecommunications lending is greater than ever.
Due to the nature of rural areas, particularly in the rural West,
the challenge of providing modern telecommunications services is
formidable. Compared to their urban counterparts, rural communities are
faced with higher poverty rates, lower income levels, physical
isolation and higher costs associated with deploying modern
infrastructure. Economic development is often frustrated by these
unique rural conditions. With the United States in the midst of the
``information revolution,'' rural areas are confronted with the dilemma
of being left behind.
The implementation of the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996 has
also added to the uncertainty and collective uneasiness of the rural
telecommunications industry. Despite the Act's solid rural safeguard
provisions, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has embarked in
a regulatory direction which explicitly threatens rural ratepayers,
services, and infrastructure investment.
Congress must keep a vigilant watch over the FCC to ensure that
implementation of the Act is consistent with congressional intent. This
is particularly true of RUS program borrowers where the federal
government has a significant loan security interest at stake. Whatever
the outcome of the regulatory process, the RUS telecommunications loan
program will be as important as ever to rural systems attempting to
modernize their networks and improve service to rural residents.
The Promise of the RUS Program
Despite the obstacles to rural economic revitalization, information
technology holds significant promise for our rural areas. As we have
seen in recent years, information services can directly benefit our
schools, libraries, hospitals and clinics. In addition,
telecommunications services facilitate commercial opportunities such as
telemarketing, insurance, and manufacturing not possible in previous
years.
While the explosive nature of technological change offers our rural
communities genuine opportunities for economic and social progress,
special attention must be placed on providing rural areas with the
appropriate tools to address their unique set of needs. In this
context, the RUS telecommunications loan program is playing a critical
front-line role in ensuring that rural America is linked to the
Information Superhighway.
Today, RUS borrowers average only 6 subscribers per mile compared
to 37 per mile for the larger, urban-oriented telephone systems. This
results in an average plant investment per subscriber that is 38
percent higher for RUS borrower systems. Without the availability of
affordable capital financing, enhancing telecommunications networks for
rural communities would be untenable.
The RUS is providing affordable capital financing to allow its
borrowers to upgrade their plant and facilities for digital switching,
fiber optic cabling, emergency 911, and other enhanced features such as
ISDN, SS7, and CLASS. Due to the dependability of the RUS program,
borrowers provide their rural subscribers with cutting edge services.
RUS telecommunications lending also performs a pivotal function of
stimulating substantial private investment. In fact, RUS borrowers
invest in telecommunications plant at a rate of $4.80 for every RUS
dollar spent.
In addition, the RUS telecommunications program boasts a proud
financial record probably unprecedented for federal loan programs. To
date, the program has never experienced a borrower-related default in
its history. At the end of 1997, $4.5 billion in principal and over $5
billion in interest had been paid by RUS borrowers. For nearly 49
years, this successful public/private partnership has worked.
In 1993, this partnership agreed to a $31 million cut in the name
of debt reduction, and it agreed to a twelve year freeze in program
loan levels while other programs grew by at least the rate of
inflation. This partnership is committed to providing service to areas
long neglected by others. Ultimately, this partnership will foster the
rural information network of the 21st century.
Specific Recommendations for the Subcommittee's Consideration
RUS Telecommunications Loan Program
Increasing demands for expanded telecommunications services and
infrastructure upgrades suggests that the level of need continues.
Congressional mandates as a result of the Rural Electrification
Restructuring Act (RELRA) of 1993 (Public Law 103-129) have placed
additional obligations on RUS borrowers to upgrade their technology in
order to maintain their loan eligibility. To address the persisting
need, WRTA recommends that the Committee consider the following RUS
Telecommunications Program loan levels for fiscal year 2000:
5 percent Hardship Loans................................ $75,000,000
Treasury-cost Loans..................................... 300,000,000
FFB Loan Guarantees..................................... 120,000,000
Rural Telephone Bank Loans.............................. 175,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 670,000,000
These loan levels are the same as the current fiscal year's funding
provided by Congress and represent a genuine commitment to rural
telecommunications.
Removal of Interest Rate Ceiling on Treasury-cost Loans
WRTA supports language removing the 7 percent interest rate cap on
the program's Treasury-cost loans. This provision was originally
included in the Agriculture Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996 and
continued for the current fiscal year. The inclusion of this provision
for fiscal year 2000 will prevent a potential disruption of the program
in the case where interest rates exceed 7 percent and insufficient
subsidy cannot support authorized loan levels. Stated simply, it is a
continuation of current policy, and it promotes the viability of the
program at zero cost.
Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) Issues
During the course of fiscal year 1996, the Rural Telephone Bank
began the statutory retirement of class A, government-owned stock. WRTA
supports the restriction on accelerating the privatization process as
conceived beginning in fiscal year 1996 of no more than 5 percent of
total class A stock retired in one year. We believe that a continuation
of this policy best addresses the orderly and systematic privatization
of the RTB. WRTA also urges the Committee to continue the prohibition
against the transfer of bank funds to the general fund of the Treasury
along with the requirement that the bank receive interest on those
funds. The private B and C stockholders of the RTB have an interest in
the assets of the bank and the protection of all funds.
For these reasons, WRTA is also opposed to the proposal contained
in the President's budget that the costs of RTB administration and loan
subsidy be funded by a transfer from the unobligated balances of the
bank's liquidating account rather than by appropriations consistent
with the federal credit reform act. WRTA believes that this proposal
would impinge upon the ownership interests of the bank's stockholders.
In addition, we believe that funding the administrative costs of
the bank through a transfer of unobligated balances of the bank's
liquidating account rather than through appropriation is contrary to
the RTB enabling act (Public Law 92-12). Budget language suggests that
these recommendations would not result in budgetary savings, and no
justification for this proposal is contained in the budget.
Furthermore, this proposal would require new authorizing legislation
prior to an appropriation.
Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) Loans and Grants
The RUS Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) program has proven
to be a remarkable tool for promoting rural development. The DLT loan
and grant program administered by the RUS significant promise for the
deployment of modern technology for scores of our rural communities.
WRTA supports the President's request for $200 million in loans
delivered at the government's cost-of-money and $20 million in grants
for DLT purposes. We believe that the proposed level adequately
responds to the overwhelming demand for DLT resources since the
implementation of the program by the RUS in 1993.
conclusion
Access to advanced information services is a critical condition for
future rural economic and social development. The RUS
telecommunications program has proven to be an indispensable tool for
rural America, and it continues to improve the nature of rural life in
our nation, particularly in our isolated Western communities. Thank
you.
______
Prepared Statement of the State of Wyoming
This testimony supports fiscal year 2000 expenditures for the
Department of Agriculture's Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP) in the amount of $300,000,000 and requests that $12,000,000 be
designated for the Colorado River Salinity Control Program.
This testimony supports fiscal year 2000 appropriations for the
Department of Agriculture's Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP) to carry out Colorado River salinity control activities.
Testimony was recently submitted by the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Forum (Forum), a seven-state organization created by the
Governors of the Colorado River Basin States, by the Forum's Executive
Director, Jack Barnett. The State of Wyoming, a member state of the
Forum, concurs in the Forum=s testimony.
Wyoming is represented on both the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Forum and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory
Council. The 1974 Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (Public Law
93-320) created the Advisory Council. Like the Forum, the Advisory
Council is composed of gubernatorial representatives of the seven
Colorado River Basin states and serves as a liaison between the seven
States and the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It advises
these Federal officials and the involved agencies on the progress of
efforts to control the salinity of the Colorado River and annually
makes funding recommendations, including the amount believed necessary
to be expended by the USDA for its on-farm Colorado River Salinity
Control (CRSC) Program. The Forum's testimony is in accordance with the
Advisory Council's written recommendations.
The Plan of Implementation and the numeric water quality criteria
set for three Lower Colorado River stations constitute the State-
adopted, EPA-approved, water quality standards for salinity the
Colorado River. Jointly developed and revised each three years by the
States and involved Federal agencies, the Plan of Implementation is
being carried out to ensure continuing compliance with the numeric
water quality criteria for salinity.
During its most recent October 1998 meeting, the Advisory Council
recommended that at least $12,000,000 be expended by the Department of
Agriculture for cost-sharing to implement salinity reduction practices
(funds that are matched with individual contractor's cost-share funds)
in fiscal year 2000, plus sufficient funds for administration,
technical information and education, to assure that the Program's
progress of removing salt and preventing additional salt loading into
the Colorado River system stays on the schedule set forth within the
Plan of Implementation. Should a lesser funding level be provided for
this important basin-wide water quality program, the progress (as
measured in tons of salt prevented from entering the Colorado River
system) achieved by the USDA component of the multi-agency, state and
federal Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program will fall far
short of meeting the rate of salinity control determined to be
determined necessary to assure compliance with the basin-wide standards
for salinity in the Colorado River. Failure to maintain the standards'
numeric criteria could result in the imposition of state-line water
quality standards (as opposed to the successful basin-wide approach
that has been in place since 1975) and impair the Colorado River Basin
States' ability to develop their Compact-apportioned water supplies.
The present basin-wide salinity control program and its funding
arrangements appropriately reflect that the primary beneficiaries of
the basin-wide salinity control program are in the Lower Basin while
the most cost-effective opportunities to reduce salt loading are
upstream in the Upper Basin. Further, it is unmistakable that funding
shortfalls will result in significantly higher costs to implement the
same level of salinity control through the CRSC Program in future
years.
The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public
Law 104-127) provided for the CRSC Program to continue in the future--
as a component part of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP). We view the inclusion of the Salinity Control Program in EQIP
as a direct recognition on the part of Congress of the Federal
commitment to maintenance of the water quality standards for salinity
in the Colorado River. The Secretary of Agriculture has a vital role in
meeting that commitment. We urge the Subcommittee to remind the
Secretary of Agriculture of his obligations under that Federal
commitment as he makes decisions about national conservation priority
areas and priority resource concerns. The intention of Public Law 104-
127 is that the nation's agricultural programs be ``locally led and
driven'' and we agree with that approach. Since the enactment of that
law, however, the Salinity Control Program has not been funded at a
level adequate to ensure that the water quality standards for salinity
in the Colorado River can be maintained at or below the numeric
criteria levels specified in the standard.
The Colorado River Basin States have urged the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to designate the Colorado River Salinity Control Program as
a national conservation priority area as provided for in the USDA's
promulgated regulations for the EQIP. Although numerous requests have
been made for this designation, the response has been that there is not
adequate EQIP funding. An authorization for EQIP funding in the amount
of an additional $100,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 above the
$200,000,000-level minimum specified in Public Law 104-127 is both
appropriate and needed.
I accordingly request that this committee support the borrowing of
$300,000,000 from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) in fiscal year
2000 for the EQIP Program, and that the Congress advise the
Administration to designate $12,000,000 of the EQIP funding for the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. I thank you for the
opportunity to submit this testimony and would request, in addition to
your consideration of its contents, that you make it a part of the
formal hearing record concerning fiscal year 2000 appropriations for
the Department of Agriculture. In accordance with the Subcommittee's
direction, I have submitted five copies of this statement.
______
Prepared Statement of the Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association
Requesting $1,000,000 to support marketing of Yukon River salmon to
compete against foreign production of farmed and hatchery salmon.
abstract
The Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association (YRDFA) seeks
$1,000,000 in funding for development, marketing and promotion of Yukon
River salmon products to compete against foreign production of farmed
and hatchery salmon. Funds would be utilized by the Association over a
multi-year period to market and promote Yukon River chinook, chum and
coho salmon as well as value-added products and caviar. This funding
would enable Yukon River salmon products to regain foreign and domestic
market share lost to farmed and hatchery salmon produced and subsidized
by such countries as Norway, Chile, Japan, Canada, and the U.K. Funds
could be authorized through the Agricultural Marketing Service or the
Trade Adjustment Assistance Act.
introduction
The Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association was formed in
December 1990 and unites diverse groups of commercial, subsistence and
sport users of salmon amongst the 42 communities along the river and
its tributaries in Alaska. The YRDFA has a 16 member Board of Directors
with seats apportioned amongst the various areas of the drainage. The
Board operates on a consensus basis and works to craft workable
cooperative solutions on a variety of regulatory, management and
allocation issues.
The YRDFA'S YUKON RIVER SALMON Marketing Program began in January
1996 and has been funded through a variety of small grants (less than
$40K each) administered by agencies of the State of Alaska. These
include the Department of Community & Regional Affairs, the Department
of Commerce & Economic Development and the Alaska Science & Technology
Foundation. From its beginning through fiscal year 1999, YRDFA will
have received only $121,534 over these last four years for its
marketing program.
With these minimal funds YRDFA designed and implemented the basics
of marketing program. Just as YRDFA unites the diverse commercial,
subsistence and sport fishermen of the Yukon, its YUKON RIVER SALMON
Marketing Program unifies all Yukon processors and all Yukon salmon
product forms under one umbrella organization. YRDFA has made
significant progress in developing name recognition for Yukon River
salmon products and in developing market niches that demand Yukon River
salmon. Specifically, YRDFA has: generated significant market demand
amongst Seattle-area white tablecloth restaurants for Yukon River king
salmon; generated market demand for Yukon River chum salmon in Pacific
Northwest retail market; increased public and media familiarity with
Yukon River salmon and its key attributes; high oil content and
excellent meat color.
Unfortunately, neither YRDFA nor Yukon River processors have enough
marketing funds to compete against the flood of foreign farmed and
hatchery salmon in both the domestic and foreign marketplace. Major
market share has already been lost especially in Europe, Japan and in
the United States.
impacts of foreign production of farmed and hatchery salmon on u.s.
harvests and production of yukon river salmon
Foreign farmed salmon
As Congress may be aware, the salmon market has changed
dramatically over the last decade. Prior to 1990, Alaska produced the
bulk of salmon harvested throughout the world and the farmed salmon
industry was only just beginning. In just a few short years, however,
farmed salmon began to dominate not only in terms of total production
but also in manufacturing high-quality salmon products such as boneless
fillets and portions. By 1997, farmed salmon had climbed to more than
50 percent of total world salmon production.
Major farmed salmon producers include Norway, Chile, Canada and the
United Kingdom. In contrast to wild salmon which is harvested and
produced by thousands of individual fishermen and processors acting as
small businesses, farmed salmon is produced by vertically-integrated
conglomerates that produce, harvest and process the salmon into final
consumer ready product forms. In many cases, these farmed salmon
producers are also supported by generous government subsidies, both
direct and indirect.
The specific effects of this boom in foreign farmed salmon
production on harvests and sales of Yukon River salmon products are as
follows:
--complete displacement of frozen Yukon salmon sales to European
smoked salmon producers. These smokers used to buy numerous
40,000-lb. van loads of frozen Yukon salmon, particularly chum
salmon but now they buy fresh lots of farmed salmon on a weekly
basis especially from Norway and the U.K.
--substantial displacement of frozen Yukon chum and coho salmon sales
to Japan. Traditionally, Japan was the main importer of Yukon
River salmon. Indeed, Japan continues to purchase most of the
Yukon king salmon harvest quota. However, due to imports of
Norwegian and Chilean farmed salmon, Japan no longer purchases
any Yukon summer chum salmon and buys only small lots of fall
chum salmon.
--substantial displacement of fresh and frozen Yukon salmon sales to
U.S. domestic distributor, retail and smoker operations,
particularly on the U.S. east coast. Although retail grocery
chains still purchase small lots of fresh Yukon chum salmon,
they no longer purchase hardly any frozen Yukon salmon and
their fresh purchases are much smaller than they were in the
1980s. Now these retailers carry fresh, farmed salmon year
round and smoked operations, particularly on the U.S. east
coast, have switched to farmed salmon almost exclusively.
Foreign hatchery salmon
Although the growth of foreign hatchery production is not as
dramatic as that of farmed salmon, the impacts on Yukon River salmon
fisheries have been almost as devastating. Since its citizens consume
large amounts of salmon and salmon roe Japan has always had a large
hatchery salmon program and from the early 1970s through 1982 annual
chum salmon returns (catch + hatchery broodstock for escapement) ranged
from 10 million to 30 million fish. However, in the last two decades
Japan has more than doubled its production with harvests in 1988
reaching 51 million chum salmon, reaching 69 million fish in 1994, 78
million fish in 1995, 87 million fish in 1996 and 85 million fish in
1997. Production of chum salmon in government-supported hatcheries in
British Columbia has also grown dramatically.
Due to this high production, particularly in the 1990s Japan now
buys few Yukon chum salmon even though as recently as the late 1980s it
would buy in excess of 3 million pounds annually. In the United States
in recent years processors have been reluctant to buy and freeze any
Yukon chum salmon, in part due to the glut of hatchery chum salmon from
B.C.
The specific effects of this steady expansion in foreign hatchery
salmon production on harvests and sales of Yukon River salmon products
are as follows:
--substantial displacement of frozen Yukon chum salmon sales to
Japan. As described above, farmed salmon from Norway and Chile
have helped to displace Yukon salmon from the Japanese market.
Japan's own massive hatchery chum salmon production has since
1990 completely glutted even Japan's own large salmon market
and now Yukon summer chum are now no longer imported at all.
--new competition from imports of Japanese hatchery chum salmon and
British Columbia hatchery chum salmon. In 1997 Japan's
production of hatchery chum salmon was so large that Japanese
companies began exporting their chum salmon direct to the U.S.
at extremely low wholesale prices, in some cases below $0.70/
lb., FOB-Seattle compared to Yukon chum at $1.10/lb., FOB-
Seattle. In 1998, due to booming chum production in B.C., these
chums were being sold in Seattle at only $0.20/lb. compared to
Yukon chums at $1.25/lb.
--substantial displacement of Yukon chum salmon roe (caviar) to
Japan. Since all of Japan's chum salmon production is of
hatchery origin, many of the fish are harvested in terminal
bays. This means that the fish are sexually mature and the roe
is harvested for processing into ikura caviar. In the middle
and upper Yukon, harvests of summer chum and fall chum have
dwindled as the wholesale price for chum salmon roe has fallen
due to the dramatic growth in Japan's hatchery chum salmon
returns. Ex-vessel prices to Yukon fishermen have fallen from a
normal price (ca. 1990) of $4/lb. down to $1/lb. in 1998.
Production of British Columbia chums also act to drag down the
wholesale price of salmon roe.
federal support for yukon river salmon marketing can help the u.s.
regain domestic and foreign market share.
It is clear that foreign competition has dramatically hurt harvests
and sales of Yukon River salmon. This competition has caused severe
economic losses to the 940 commercial salmon permit holders and the 12-
15 companies that buy and process salmon annually on the Yukon. Annual
incomes have declined steeply and in some fishing areas processors have
not bought any salmon from the fishermen due to the low wholesale
prices caused by the glut of foreign salmon.
However, as the results of YRDFA's own marketing efforts in the
Pacific Northwest show, it is very possible for Yukon River salmon to
develop additional market niches in areas such as Europe and in select
high-end markets in the United States.
European market potential
After many years of market domination by Norwegian and U.K. farmed
salmon, European salmon consumers are beginning to look for something
different. Concerns over the ecological effects of farmed salmon
production as well general consumer trends towards more ``natural'' and
``organic'' foods have led to renewed interest in wild salmon. German
consumers in particular are fascinated with things Alaskan as the high
percentage of German tourists visiting Alaska indicate.
Concentrated efforts in the high-end, gourmet market could create a
market niche for fresh and flash-frozen Yukon River salmon fillets,
smoked Yukon River salmon and Yukon River salmon caviar. Marketing and
promotional efforts would emphasize the health and nutrition benefits
of Yukon River salmon which is all-natural and organic wild salmon
compared to farmed salmon which live in pens, are fed pellets and are
occasionally given antibiotics.
Japanese market potential
Japanese consumers have a long familiarity with Yukon River salmon.
Yukon River king salmon already have a unique market niche in Japan due
to their high oil content and Japanese corporations continue to buy the
majority of the annual Yukon king salmon harvest. However, as described
above, imports of Yukon chum salmon and Yukon caviar have slipped due
to the glut of hatchery chum salmon on the market. YRDFA's promotional
efforts will therefore concentrate on developing a market niche for
these underutilized chum by building on the customer loyalty already
shown for Yukon king salmon.
Regaining Yukon salmon market share in the domestic marketplace
As YRDFA's success in the Seattle market shows, once customers are
educated as to the unique attributes of Yukon River salmon they are
willing to pay the higher costs rather than purchase a generic, farmed
salmon. Although U.S. retail and foodservice operations have come to
rely on steady deliveries of farmed salmon, they recognize that they
need wild salmon to generate customer foottraffic and market excitement
and hence overall increased sales of salmon and non-salmon items. YRDFA
will seek to expand its domestic marketing outside the Pacific
Northwest to high-end restaurant and gourmet shops that are seeking to
diversify their menu and product offerings.
Budget Estimate (October 2000-September 2003):
Marketing Personnel & Office Expenses..................... $300,000
Travel & Tradeshows....................................... 150,000
Advertising & Educational Materials....................... 100,000
Quality Improvements & Inspections........................ 210,000
Customer Development & Promotions......................... 200,000
Legal counsel & Trademarking.............................. 40,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 1,000,000
If this appropriation is funded, YRDFA's intent would be to
implement a four-year program to regain market share lost to foreign
competition. In addition to tradeshows, advertising and promotional
expenses to secure and support customer use of Yukon River salmon,
YRDFA will also institute a rigorous quality assurance program amongst
Yukon River salmon fishermen and processors to ensure that the customer
gets only top-quality salmon product.
We hope that the Congress can fund this request. The livelihoods of
1,000 Yukon River commercial fishermen and crew and their families are
in the balance, and if we cannot compete against this foreign salmon
production our industry will die.
Thank you for this opportunity to submit written testimony.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Ad Hoc Coalition, prepared statement............................. 1223
Altenkirch, Dr. Robert A., Vice President for Research,
Mississippi State University, prepared statement............... 1254
American:
Farm Bureau Federation, prepared statement................... 1225
Honey Producers Association, Inc., prepared statement........ 1228
Indian Higher Education Consortium, prepared statement....... 1229
Seed Trade Association, prepared statement................... 1232
Sheep Industry Association, Inc., prepared statement......... 1235
Society for Nutritional Sciences, prepared statement......... 1238
Amontree, Tom, Director of Communications, Office of
Communications, Department of Agriculture, prepared statement.. 739
Anand, Dr. Rajen, Executive Director, Center for Nutrition Policy
and Promotion, Department of Agriculture....................... 553
Armstrong, Robert E., Executive Director, Alternative
Agricultural Research and Commercialization Corporation
(AARCC), Department of Agriculture, prepared statement......... 707
Association of Research Directors 1890 Land-Grant Universities,
prepared statement............................................. 1242
ASTA Corn & Sorghum Basic Research Committee, prepared statement. 1244
Beyer, Wally, Administrator, Rural Utilities Service, Department
of Agriculture, prepared statement............................. 779
Billy, Tom, Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection Service,
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, Department of
Agriculture.................................................... 517
Questions submitted to....................................... 460
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from Missouri............ 3
Questions submitted to:
Food and Drug Administration............................. 668
Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services............................................... 282
Burns, Hon. Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana.................... 4
Prepared statements.....................................5, 139, 316
Questions submitted to:
Agricultural Marketing Service........................... 852
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service............... 848
Department of Agriculture................................ 832
Food and Drug Administration............................. 673
Food Safety and Inspection Service....................... 463
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyard Administration.. 855
National Agricultural Statistics Service................. 821
Research Activities...................................... 979
Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Services............................................... 284
Under Secretary for Food Safety.......................... 455
Byrd, Hon. Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia, questions
submitted to:
Department of Agriculture.................................... 599
Food and Drug Administration................................. 704
Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services... 286
Byrd, Robert J., Deputy Commissioner for Management and Systems,
Chief Financial Officer, Food and Drug Administration,
Department of Health and Human Services........................ 617
California Industry and Government Coalition on PM-10/PM-2.5,
prepared statement............................................. 1248
Catfish Farmers of America, prepared statement................... 1371
Chambers, Samuel, Administrator for the Food and Nutrition
Service, Department of Agriculture............................. 553
Coalition for Affordable Pharmaceuticals, prepared statement..... 1251
Coalition of Agricultural Mediation Programs, prepared statement. 1253
Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports, prepared
statement...................................................... 1255
Cochran, Hon. Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi, questions
submitted to:
Agricultural Marketing Service............................... 848
Agricultural Research Service................................ 860
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service................... 837
Department of Agriculture.............................573, 827, 855
Departmental Administration.................................. 784
Economic Research Service.................................... 821
Farm Credit Administration................................... 980
Federal Administration and Special Research Grants........... 991
Food and Drug Administration...............................333, 642
Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyard Administration...... 852
National Agricultural Statistics Service..................... 820
Office of Chief Information Officer.......................... 789
Office of the Secretary...................................... 48
Research Activities.......................................... 947
Research, Education and Economics............................ 983
Questions on Government Performance and Results Act:
Agricultural Marketing Service........................... 1182
Agricultural Research Service............................ 1183
Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization
Corporation............................................ 1181
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service............... 1185
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service................................................ 1187
Departmental Administration.............................. 1189
Economic Research Service................................ 1190
Farm Service Agency...................................... 1194
Food Safety and Inspection Service....................... 1197
Foreign Agricultural Service............................. 1192
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.. 1200
National Agricultural Statistics Service................. 1201
National Appeals Division................................ 1203
Natural Resources Conservation Service................... 1204
Office of Budget and Program Analysis.................... 1207
Office of Chief Information Officer...................... 1213
Office of Communications................................. 1208
Office of the Chief Economist............................ 1210
Office of the Chief Financial Officer.................... 1211
Office of the General Counsel............................ 1214
Office of the Inspector General.......................... 1215
Risk Management Agency................................... 1219
Rural Development........................................ 1217
Collins, Keith, Chief Economist, Department of Agriculture.......1, 123
Prepared statements........................................128, 719
Statement of................................................. 124
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, prepared statement.. 1257
Colorado River Board of California, prepared statement........... 1259
Columbia University, prepared statement.......................... 1262
Cooper, Norman G., Director, National Appeals Division,
Department of Agriculture, prepared statement.................. 718
Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association, prepared statement 1268
Council for Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching,
prepared statement............................................. 1269
Council for Responsible Nutrition, prepared statement............ 1271
Council on Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics (CFARE) and
the Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA), prepared
statement...................................................... 1264
Dewhurst, Stephen B., Budget Officer, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 1
Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota, questions
submitted to:
Department of Agriculture.................................... 591
Food and Drug Administration................................. 686
Office of the Secretary...................................... 114
Under Secretary for Food Safety.............................. 484
Durbin, Hon. Richard J., U.S. Senator from Illinois.............. 7
Prepared statement........................................... 534
Questions submitted to:
Food and Drug Administration............................. 702
Office of the Secretary.................................. 119
Under Secretary for Food Safety.......................... 495
Easter Seals, prepared statement................................. 1274
Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst, prepared statement...................... 1276
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
(FASEB), prepared statement.................................... 1280
Feinstein, Hon. Diane, U.S. Senator from California.............. 9
Prepared statement........................................... 140
Questions submitted to:
Department of Agriculture................................ 604
Food and Drug Administration............................. 695
Office of the Secretary.................................. 117
Under Secretary for Food Safety.......................... 492
Figueroa, Dr. Enrique, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service, Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 517
Florida State University, prepared statement..................... 1283
Friedman, Michael A., M.D., Deputy Commissioner for Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human
Services....................................................... 617
Friends of Agricultural Research--Beltsville, prepared statement. 1285
Friends of the National Arboretum, prepared statement............ 1288
Glickman, Dan, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Department of
Agriculture.................................................... 1, 10
Letter from.................................................. 496
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Gonzalez, Dr. I. Miley, Under Secretary, Office of the Under
Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics, Department of
Agriculture, prepared statement................................ 760
Gorton, Hon. Slade, U.S. Senator from Washington................. 138
Questions submitted to Food and Drug Administration.......... 447
Gray, Rosalind D., Director, Office of Civil Rights, Department
of Agriculture, prepared statement............................. 737
Grocery Manufacturers of America, prepared statement............. 1289
Harkin, Hon. Tom. U.S. Senator from Iowa:
Prepared statement........................................... 538
Questions submitted to:
Food and Drug Administration............................. 684
Under Secretary for Food Safety.......................... 478
Health Industry Manufacturers Association, prepared statement.... 1290
Hefferan, Dr. Colien, Acting Administrator, Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service, Department of
Agriculture, prepared statement................................ 709
Henney, Dr. Jane, Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration,
Department of Health and Human Services......................325, 617
Memorandum from.............................................. 631
Prepared statements........................................327, 620
Humane Society of the United States, prepared statement.......... 1294
Illinois Institute of Technology, prepared statement............. 1295
Illinois Soybean Association, prepared statement................. 1297
Illinois-Missouri Alliance for Agricultural Biotechnology,
prepared state-
ment........................................................... 1303
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, prepared
statement...................................................... 1306
Iowa Senate Agriculture Committee, letter from................... 1312
Joslin Diabetes Center, prepared statement....................... 1312
Kaplan, Dennis, Deputy Director of Budget, Legislative and
Regulatory Systems, Office of Budget and Program Analysis,
Department of Agriculture...............................123, 517, 553
Kennedy, Dr. Eileen, Deputy Under Secretary for Research,
Education and Economics, Office of the Under Secretary for Food
Safety, Department of Agriculture.............................. 517
Kohl, Hon. Herb, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin:
Prepared statements........................................136, 554
Questions submitted to:
Department of Agriculture................................ 607
Under Secretary for Food Safety.......................... 472
Food and Drug Administration............................. 679
Office of the Secretary.................................. 100
Under Secretary for Farm and foreign Agricultural
Services............................................... 291
Statements of................................................2, 316
Koplan, Jeffrey P., M.D., Director, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services......315, 318
Prepared statement........................................... 320
Kruse, Charles E., letter from................................... 1316
Kyle, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from Arizona, questions submitted to
the Department of Agriculture.................................. 311
Lyons, James R., Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment, prepared statement................................ 152
McConnell, Hon. Mitch, U.S. Senator from Kentucky, questions
submitted to:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention................... 451
Food and Drug Administration................................. 672
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, prepared
statement...................................................... 1313
National Association of:
Conservation Districts, prepared statement................... 1317
Home Builders, prepared statement............................ 1320
Professional Forestry Schools and Colleges, prepared
statement.................................................. 1322
State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, prepared
statements.............................................1324, 1328
University Fisheries and Wildlife Programs, prepared
statement.................................................. 1330
National:
Center for Resource Innovations, prepared statement.......... 1332
Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), prepared
statement.................................................. 1335
Conservation Buffer Council, prepared statement.............. 1338
Cooperative Business Association, prepared statement......... 1338
Corn Growers Association, prepared statement................. 1340
Cotton Council of America, prepared statement................ 1343
Council of Farmer Cooperatives, prepared statement........... 1344
Food Processors Association, prepared statement.............. 1347
Potato Council, prepared statement........................... 1349
Rural Telecom Association, prepared statement................ 1350
Telephone Cooperative Association Regarding, prepared
statement.................................................. 1354
Utility Contractors Association, prepared statement.......... 1357
Watershed Coalition, prepared statement...................... 1359
Nature Conservancy, prepared statement........................... 1362
Offutt, Susan E., Administrator, Economic Research Service,
Department of Agriculture, prepared statement.................. 714
Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small
Telecommunications Companies, prepared statement............... 1363
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, prepared
state-
ment........................................................... 1366
Rawls, Charles R., General Counsel, Office of the General
Counsel, prepared statement.................................... 740
Red River Valley Association, prepared statement................. 1368
Reed, Anne F. Thomson, Chief Information Officer, Office of the
Chief Information Officer, Department of Agriculture, prepared
statement...................................................... 728
Reed, Pearlie S., Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
prepared statement of.......................................... 151
Rominger, Richard, Deputy Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 1
Schumacher, August, Jr., Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign
Agricultural Services, Department of Agriculture...............
Letters from...............................................123, 141
Prepared statement........................................... 145
Second Harvest National Network of Food Banks, prepared statement 1372
Seminole Tribe of Florida, prepared statement.................... 1375
Shadburn, Jan E., Administrator, Rural Housing Service, prepared
statement...................................................... 774
Society for Animal Protective Legislation, prepared statement.... 1377
Southern Legislative Conference (SLC) Agriculture and Rural
Development Committee and of the SLC Fire Ant Task Force,
prepared statement............................................. 1381
State of Illinois, prepared statement............................ 1299
State of Wyoming, prepared statement............................. 1406
Suffolk County, NY, prepared statement........................... 1380
Texas A&M University System, prepared statement.................. 1383
Thompson, Jill Long, Under Secretary, Office of the Secretary for
Rural Economics and Community Development, Department of
Agriculture, prepared statement................................ 768
Thompson, Sally, Acting Assistant Secretary, Administration,
Departmental Administration, Department of Agriculture,
prepared statement............................................. 712
Thompson, Sally, Chief Financial Officer, Office of the Chief
Financial Officer, Department of Agriculture, prepared
statement...................................................... 725
U.S. Agricultural Export Development Council, prepared statement. 1400
U.S. Apple Association, prepared statement....................... 1386
U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming Program, prepared statement........... 1394
United States Telephone Association, prepared statement.......... 1387
University of Illinois, prepared statement....................... 1390
University of Miami, prepared statement.......................... 1393
University of Southern Mississippi, prepared statement........... 1395
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statement.... 1398
USA Rice Federation, prepared statement.......................... 1399
USDA UVB Radiation Monitoring Program, Natural Resource Ecology
Laboratory, Colorado State University, prepared statement...... 1260
Viadero, Roger C., Inspector General, Office of Inspector
General, Department of Agriculture, prepared statement......... 750
Watkins, Dayton J., Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative
Service, prepared statement.................................... 766
Watkins, Shirley R., Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and
Consumer Services, Department of Agriculture................... 553
Prepared statement........................................... 558
Western Rural Telephone Association, prepared statement.......... 1404
Williams, Dennis P., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget,
Department of Health and Human Services........................ 617
Woteki, Catherine E., Under Secretary for Food Safety, Office of
the Under Secretary for Food Safety, Department of Agriculture. 517
Prepared statement........................................... 522
Questions submitted to Food and Drug Administration.......... 455
Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association, prepared statement... 1408
719
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Page
Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization
Corporation.................................................... 833
Appalachia, small family farmers in.............................. 600
Business and industry loans...................................... 829
Child and Adult Care Food Program................................ 604
Welfare changes.............................................. 608
Child Nutrition Program...................................556, 576, 592
Child nutrition--soda in schools................................. 607
Children's food guide pyramid.................................... 570
Commodity Assistance Program...................................557, 575
Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program............... 578
Cooperative development grants................................... 829
Cooperative research agreements.................................. 830
Early warning systems............................................ 828
Elderly feeding.................................................. 575
Electric and telecommunication programs.......................... 832
Electronic benefit transfer...................................... 564
EZ/EC grants..................................................... 832
Fiscal year 2000 request......................................... 561
Food and Nutrition Service:
Fiscal year:.................................................
1999 research plan....................................... 582
2000 budget request...................................... 555
Food Banks and the Food Stamp Program............................ 566
Food Program:
Account...................................................... 557
Administration............................................... 579
Studies and evaluations...................................... 581
Food stamp caseload reductions................................... 606
Food Stamp Program...................................555, 564, 573, 591
Effects of welfare reform.................................... 611
Integrity studies............................................ 596
Restoration for legal immigrants............................. 606
FSP trafficking.................................................. 597
Government Performance and Results Act........................... 579
Meals in after school centers.................................... 609
Nutrition:
Assistance Program........................................... 594
Education and training....................................... 569
Education and Training Program (NET).......................593, 614
Partnership technical assistance grants.......................... 829
Program:
And financial integrity...................................... 596
Highlights................................................... 559
Integrity.................................................... 562
RCAP unobligated balances........................................ 831
Rural:
Business-Cooperative Service................................. 833
Economic development grants.................................. 832
Electric and telephone programs.............................. 832
Electrification and telephone programs....................... 828
Housing...................................................... 827
Housing Service.............................................. 833
Telephone bank............................................... 829
Salaries and expenses............................................ 831
School Breakfast Program......................................... 567
Pilot........................................................ 575
School Lunch Program--country-of-origin labeling................. 596
School Lunch/School Breakfast Programs........................... 599
Secretary's farmworker initiative................................ 856
Soft drinks...................................................... 566
Studies and evaluations.......................................... 613
Support Services Bureau.......................................... 831
Water and waste.................................................. 831
WIC:
Budget cuts.................................................. 572
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program............................ 590
Immunization................................................. 609
Program....................................................557, 571
Integrity studies........................................ 598
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for................... 607
Working families, promoting the long-term health and productivity
of............................................................. 561
Y2K emergency food response...................................... 583
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Agricultural quarantine inspection user fees..................... 844
Animal welfare................................................... 841
APHIS:
Personnel, safety of......................................... 843
Y2K systems.................................................. 843
Asian long-horned beetle......................................... 844
Biotechnology.................................................... 846
Brucellosis...............................................840, 846, 848
Contingency fund................................................. 844
Fruit fly exclusion and detection--Suredye....................... 838
Horse protection................................................. 842
Invasive alien plants............................................ 844
Johne's disease.................................................. 844
Karnal bunt...................................................... 839
Malathion aerial spraying........................................ 837
Management and overhead expenses................................. 847
National animal health emergency management system............... 844
National farm animal identification and records project.......... 840
National monitoring and residue analysis laboratory.............. 843
National poultry improvement program............................. 846
Pink bollworm.................................................... 847
Pseudorabies eradication plan, accelerated....................... 839
Sterile fruit fly release program................................ 837
Swim with the dolphins........................................... 842
U.S.-Panama Screwworm Commission................................. 839
Wildlife services..............................................840, 848
Agricultural Marketing Service
Export funding and producer education............................ 852
Fees, summary of by activity..................................... 850
Microbiological Data Program..................................... 850
Organic Certification Program.................................... 852
Pesticide Data Program........................................... 848
Agricultural Research Service
Aflatoxin........................................................ 895
Agricultural Research Service fiscal year 2000 proposed increases 873
Appalachia initiative, pasture-based beef systems for............ 906
Appropriations, fiscal year 1999................................. 860
Aquaculture...................................................... 891
Budget request, fiscal year 2000................................. 872
Buildings and facilities......................................... 932
Centers of excellence............................................ 929
Cotton nematode.................................................. 897
Counter-narcotics/anti-bioterrorism research, ARS role in........ 884
Environmental initiatives......................................927, 929
Eurasian avian influenza......................................... 909
Food safety...................................................... 919
Fruit flies, biology and management of temperate................. 905
Fusarium head blight (wheat/barley scab) research................ 906
Genome research.................................................. 910
Ginning research................................................. 893
Human nutrition research......................................... 911
Integrated pest management....................................... 915
Lower Mississippi Delta nutrition intervention research
initiative..................................................... 893
Management....................................................... 886
Methyl bromide, alternatives to.................................. 924
National Agricultural Library.................................... 930
National plant germplasm system (NPGS)........................... 900
National sedimentation laboratory................................ 909
Pay costs........................................................ 883
Postharvest...................................................... 924
Potato research.................................................. 905
Preharvest....................................................... 923
Red imported fire ant............................................ 898
Turkey research.................................................. 908
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Budget highlights, fiscal year 2000.............................. 710
Departmental Administration
Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments......... 713
BRAVO:
Initiative................................................... 784
Obligations.................................................. 785
Bringing rural America venture opportunities--BRAVO.............. 712
Departmental Administration budget request....................... 713
Farmers, outreach for socially disadvantaged..................... 713
Funding and staffing levels for.................................. 785
Government ethics................................................ 712
Hazardous waste management.....................................714, 788
Operations planning, continuity of............................... 713
Target center.................................................... 785
USDA strategic space plan........................................ 713
Welfare to work.................................................. 712
Workplace conflict management.................................... 712
Economic Research Service
Budget........................................................... 714
Climate change and variability, national assessment of........... 827
Customers, partners, and stakeholders............................ 718
Electric utility deregulation.................................... 825
Food:
Assistance program studies and evaluations................... 821
Safety....................................................... 824
Mission.......................................................... 714
Area goals, ERS contributions to............................. 715
Office of Energy Policy and New Uses............................. 825
Outlook reports.................................................. 827
Farm Credit Administration
Competition...................................................... 980
Equity-based lending............................................. 980
Government Performance and Results Act........................... 982
Interest rates, competitive...................................... 981
Federal Administration and Special Research Grants
Aflatoxin research, Illinois..................................... 991
AG in the Classroom.............................................. 1161
AG-based industrial lubricants research program, Iowa............ 992
Agricultural:
Development in the American Pacific.......................... 1144
Diversification and specialty crops, Hawaii.................. 994
Diversity/Red River, MN and ND............................... 995
Waste utilization, West Virginia............................. 1145
Agriculture water usage, GA...................................... 996
Alliance for Food Protection, NE, GA............................. 997
Alternative crops:
For arid lands, Texas........................................ 1000
North Dakota................................................. 998
Alternative marine and freshwater species, Mississippi........... 1001
Alternative salmon products, AK.................................. 1002
Animal science food safety consortium............................ 1002
Animal waste management, Oklahoma................................ 1146
Apple fire blight, Michigan and New York......................... 1004
Aquaculture:
Product and marketing development, West Virginia............. 1006
Louisiana.................................................... 1005
Research, Stoneville, Mississippi............................ 1007
Virginia..................................................... 1008
Babcock Institute for International Dairy Research and
Development.................................................... 1009
Beef improvement--Arkansas....................................... 1163
Binational agricultural research and development program......... 1010
Biodiesel research, Missouri..................................... 1012
Brucellosis vaccine, Montana..................................... 1013
Center for:
Agriculture and Rural Development............................ 1147
For Animal Health and Productivity, Pennsylvania............. 1014
Innovative Food Technology, Ohio............................. 1015
North American Studies, Texas................................ 1148
Rural Studies, Vermont....................................... 1016
Chesapeake Bay:
Aquaculture, Maryland........................................ 1018
Groecology, MD............................................... 1017
Citrus tristeza.................................................. 1019
Competitiveness of agriculture products, Washington.............. 1020
Contagious equine metritis, Kentucky............................. 1021
Cool season legume research...................................... 1022
Cotton research, Texas........................................... 1023
Cranberry and blueberry, Massachusetts........................... 1024
Cranberry-blueberry disease and breeding, New Jersey............. 1023
Critical issues.................................................. 1025
Dairy and meat goat research, Prairie View A&M, Texas............ 1027
Data information system.......................................... 1149
Delta rural revitalization, Mississippi.......................... 1027
Delta Teachers Academy........................................... 1164
Designing foods for health, Texas................................ 1028
Diabetes detection and prevention, Washington and Hawaii......... 1166
Drought mitigation, Nebraska..................................... 1029
Ecosystems, Alabama.............................................. 1030
Environmental:
Research, New York........................................... 1031
Risk factors/cancer, New York................................ 1033
Expanded wheat pasture, Oklahoma................................. 1034
Expert IPM decision support system............................... 1035
Extension specialist:
Arkansas (small farm management and marketing education
project)................................................... 1167
Mississippi.................................................. 1168
Farm and rural business finance: Illinois and Arkansas........... 1037
Feed barley for rangeland cattle, Montana........................ 1039
Floriculture, Hawaii............................................. 1039
Food:
And Agriculture Policy Institute, Iowa and Missouri.......... 1040
Irradiation, Iowa............................................ 1042
Marketing Policy Center, Connecticut......................... 1043
Processing Center, Nebraska.................................. 1044
Quality, AK.................................................. 1045
Safety....................................................... 1046
Alabama.................................................. 1047
Systems Research Group, Wisconsin............................ 1048
Forestry research, Arkansas...................................... 1049
Fruit and vegetable market analysis, Arizona and Missouri........ 1051
Generic commodity promotion, New York............................ 1051
Geographic information system.................................... 1152
Global:
Change....................................................... 1052
Marketing support services, Arkansas......................... 1054
Grain sorghum.................................................... 1055
Grass seed cropping systems for sustainable agriculture.......... 1056
Gulf coast shrimp aquaculture.................................... 1154
Human nutrition:
Iowa......................................................... 1057
Louisiana.................................................... 1058
New York..................................................... 1059
Hydroponic tomato production, OH................................. 1061
Illinois-Missouri Alliance for Biotechnology..................... 1061
Improved dairy management practices, Pennsylvania................ 1062
Improved fruit practices, Michigan............................... 1063
Income enhancement demonstration, Ohio........................... 1169
Infectious disease research, Colorado............................ 1064
Institute for Food Science and Engineering, Arkansas............. 1065
Integrated:
Cow-calf management--Iowa.................................... 1170
Pest management.............................................. 1066
Production systems, Oklahoma................................. 1067
International agricultural market structures and institutions,
Kentucky....................................................... 1068
International Arid Lands Consortium.............................. 1069
Iowa Biotechnology Consortium.................................... 1070
IR-4 minor crop pest management.................................. 1072
Jointed goatgrass................................................ 1074
Livestock and dairy policy, New York and Texas................... 1076
Lowbush blueberry research, Maine................................ 1077
Maple research, Vermont.......................................... 1078
Mariculture, North Carolina...................................... 1155
Meadowfoam, Oregon............................................... 1078
Michigan Biotechnology Consortium................................ 1079
Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance, Nebraska........... 1081
Midwest agricultural products, Iowa.............................. 1082
Milk safety, Pennsylvania........................................ 1083
Minor use animal drugs........................................... 1084
Mississippi Valley State University.............................. 1156
Molluscan shellfish, Oregon...................................... 1086
Multi-commodity research, Oregon................................. 1087
Multi-cropping strategies for aquaculture, Hawaii................ 1088
National:
Alternative Fuels Laboratory................................. 1158
Biological impact assessment program......................... 1089
Center for Peanut Competitiveness............................ 1159
Education Center for Agricultural Safety..................... 1172
Nematode resistance genetic engineering, New Mexico.............. 1091
Nonfood agricultural products program, Nebraska.................. 1091
Oil resources from desert plants, New Mexico..................... 1093
Organic waste utilization, New Mexico............................ 1093
Pasture & forage research, Utah.................................. 1095
Peach tree short life in South Carolina.......................... 1095
Pest control alternatives, South Carolina........................ 1096
Pest management alternatives..................................... 1099
Pesticide impact assessment program.............................. 1097
Phytophthora root rot, New Mexico................................ 1100
Pilot technology project, Wisconsin.............................. 1173
Plant, drought, and disease resistance gene cataloging........... 1101
PM-10 study, California and Washington........................... 1160
Postharvest rice straw, California............................... 1102
Potato research.................................................. 1103
Pre-harvest food safety, Kansas.................................. 1105
Precision agriculture:
Kentucky..................................................... 1104
Mississippi.................................................. 1104
Preservation and processing research, Oklahoma................... 1106
Range policy development, New Mexico............................. 1174
Rangeland ecosystems, NM......................................... 1107
Regional barley gene mapping project............................. 1108
Regionalized implications of farm programs....................... 1109
Research and extension project, basic weather service for........ 1168
Rice modeling.................................................... 1110
Rural:
Development:
Centers.................................................. 1111
Oklahoma................................................. 1175
Through tourism, New Mexico.............................. 1176
Policies Institute........................................... 1113
Rehabilitation, Georgia...................................... 1177
Russian wheat aphid, Colorado.................................... 1114
Seafood harvesting, processing, and marketing, Mississippi....... 1116
Small fruit research............................................. 1117
Southwest Consortium for Plant Genetics and Water Resources...... 1118
Soybean cyst nematode, Missouri.................................. 1120
STEEP III-water quality in the Pacific Northwest................. 1121
Sustainable:
Agriculture systems for Nebraska............................. 1123
Agriculture, Michigan........................................ 1122
And natural resources, Pennsylvania.......................... 1124
Beef supply, MT.............................................. 1125
Pest management for dryland wheat, Montana................... 1126
Swine waste management, North Carolina........................... 1127
Technology transfer projects, Oklahoma and Mississippi........... 1178
Tillage, silviculture, and waste management, Louisiana........... 1128
Tomato wilt virus, Georgia....................................... 1129
Tropical and subtropical research................................ 1130
Turkey coronavirus, Indiana...................................... 1131
Urban pests, Georgia............................................. 1132
Vidalia onions................................................... 1133
Viticulture Consortium, New York & California.................... 1134
Water:
Conservation, Kansas......................................... 1134
Quality...................................................... 1136
Weed control, North Dakota....................................... 1138
Wetland plants, LA............................................... 1139
Wheat genetics................................................... 1140
Wood:
Biomass, New York............................................ 1180
Utilization research......................................... 1141
Wool research.................................................... 1142
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Crop insurance programs, data for................................ 821
Food safety and pesticide use surveys............................ 820
Puerto Rico...................................................... 820
National Appeals Division
Budget request, fiscal year 2000................................. 719
Mission.......................................................... 718
Office of Civil Rights
Accomplishments, other specific.................................. 738
Budget request................................................... 739
Complaints resolved, most backlog................................ 738
Programs and services, assure all have full access to all........ 737
Staff reflect the diversity of the community..................... 737
Treat all fairly and equitably with dignity and respect.......... 737
Office of Communications
Budget request, fiscal year 2000................................. 740
Office of Inspector General
Accounting, financial, and information management................ 759
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)............................. 753
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)............... 753
Audit and investigations activities.............................. 753
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
(CSREES)....................................................... 758
Employee integrity............................................... 760
Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services........................... 755
Farm Service Agency (FSA)........................................ 755
Investigations............................................... 757
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)................................. 754
Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services........................... 754
Introduction and overview........................................ 750
Marketing and regulatory programs................................ 753
Research, education, and economics............................... 758
Risk Management Agency (RMA)..................................... 757
Rural development................................................ 757
Rural Housing Service (RHS)...................................... 757
Insurance.................................................... 757
Office of the Chief Economist
Budget request, fiscal year 2000................................. 725
Immediate Office of the Chief Economist.......................... 719
Office of Energy Policy and New Uses--OEPNU...................... 723
Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analyses.............. 724
World Agricultural Outlook Board--WAOB........................... 721
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Working capital fund............................................. 727
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Budget request, fiscal year 2000................................. 729
Capital planning and investment control.......................... 732
Clinger-Cohen:
Act.......................................................... 802
Compliance................................................... 731
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) funding cap................... 812
Independent verification and validation.......................... 733
Information technology (IT):
Acquisition moratorium....................................... 733
Budget, overall USDA......................................... 789
Contractor assistance........................................ 796
Security..................................................... 735
Workforce planning and development........................... 733
Interagency food safety initiative............................... 813
Pay costs........................................................ 730
Presidential decision directive 63--PDD-63....................... 818
Project management............................................... 733
Support Services Bureau.......................................... 806
Telecommunications............................................... 734
USDA:
Agency business continuity and contingency plans............. 817
Capital planning and information systems technology
architecture............................................... 802
Critical infrastructure protection plan, time frames for
implementing............................................... 818
Fiscal year 2000:
Budget increase.......................................... 803
Information technology budget summary.................... 729
Information systems technology architecture.................. 731
Information technology:
And telecommunications expenditures for PDD-63........... 819
Budget................................................... 819
Moratorium............................................... 805
Programs, services, and benefits via the Internet, delivery
of......................................................... 811
Response to GAO telecommunications management recommendations 814
Service Center implementation................................ 730
Service centers.............................................. 807
Telecommunications savings in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal
year 2000.................................................. 815
Y2K:
Emergency funding--approved and expected in fiscal year
2000................................................... 818
Remediation, testing, and implementation, fiscal year
2000 expenditures for.................................. 816
Work on vulnerable processes and systems, fiscal year
2000 expenditures for.................................. 816
Preparation.............................................. 815
Year 2000 strategy............................................... 735
Office of the General Counsel
Activities and issues, current................................... 741
Budget request, fiscal year 2000................................. 749
Mission.......................................................... 740
Organization..................................................... 741
Office of the Secretary
Cochran Fellowship Program....................................... 47
Conservation:
Farm option.................................................. 39
Programs..................................................... 16
Cotton loan deficiency payments.................................. 40
County office workload........................................... 12
Crop insurance reform............................................ 35
Customers service and program delivery........................... 16
Emergency funding................................................ 38
Exports, U.S..................................................... 13
Farm:
Assistance................................................... 11
Credit....................................................... 13
Economy...................................................... 11
Safety net................................................... 12
Food Aid Initiative.............................................. 11
Food Quality Protection Act...................................... 40
Foreign market development cooperator program.................... 46
Gleaning and food recovery....................................... 15
Long-term dairy prices........................................... 37
Market concentration.............................................38, 43
Marketing and domestic programs.................................. 14
Nutrition........................................................ 15
Office of Inspector General...................................... 35
Pseudorabies program............................................. 43
Research and food safety......................................... 15
Rural development................................................14, 45
SBA rural assistance............................................. 44
Supplemental:
Appropriations...............................................36, 42
Request...................................................... 40
Office of the Secretary for Rural Economics and Community Development
Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization
Corporation.................................................... 773
Rural:
Business-Cooperative Services................................ 772
Development budget request................................... 769
Rural Housing Service............................................ 769
Community facilities......................................... 771
Farm labor housing........................................... 771
Multi-family housing......................................... 770
Mutual and self-help housing................................. 770
Rental assistance............................................ 770
Single family housing........................................ 770
Rural Utilities Service.......................................... 771
Distance learning/telemedicine................................... 772
Water and waste disposal......................................... 772
Salaries and expenses............................................ 773
Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety
Consumer Safety Offices.......................................... 529
Egg safety inspections........................................... 538
Fight BAC........................................................ 550
Fiscal year 2000:
Budget request............................................... 519
FSIS budget request.......................................... 521
USDA food safety budget request.............................. 528
Food:
Distribution system, changes in.............................. 539
Irradiation.................................................. 544
Safety:......................................................
Education................................................ 549
Initiatives, coordination of............................. 531
Programs................................................. 535
Progress................................................. 539
Foodborne:
Disease outbreak............................................. 532
Illness, incidence of........................................ 533
Fruits and vegetables:
Inspection of imported....................................... 544
Outbreaks from............................................... 543
Regulatory standards for..................................... 541
FSIS activities.................................................. 526
HACCP:
Compliance................................................... 536
Implementation............................................... 520
Frequency of inspection under................................ 536
Imported:
Foods, inspection of......................................... 530
Product, inspection of....................................... 537
Inspections...................................................... 536
Inter-agency Cooperation......................................... 518
Interagency Food Safety Initiative............................... 547
Meat and Poultry Act, safe and fair enforcement and recall of.... 519
NAS report, USDA response to..................................... 525
President's Council on Food Safety............................... 519
President's Food Safety Initiative............................... 517
Recall authority................................................. 540
Red meat, proposed rulemaking on irradiation of.................. 548
Regulatory standards............................................. 542
U.S. Customs--FDA cooperation.................................... 545
USDA Food Safety Overview........................................ 523
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics
Agency fiscal year 2000 budgets.................................. 764
Initiatives, fiscal year 2000.................................... 762
Research Activities
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of
1998, implementation of the.................................... 947
Agriculture, sustainable......................................... 949
Budget, fiscal year 2000......................................... 979
Competitive grants............................................... 960
1890 facilities.................................................. 966
Extension activities............................................. 965
Extension Indian reservation..................................... 973
Farm safety and AgrAbility....................................... 965
FARM*A*SYST....................................................974, 977
Farms, small..................................................... 978
Food:
Quality Protection Act risk mitigation and crops at risk..... 974
Recovery and gleaning........................................ 975
Safety initiative............................................ 964
Formula funds.................................................... 958
Integrated activities............................................ 973
Management....................................................... 959
Methyl bromide................................................... 977
National research initiative..................................... 964
1994 institutions funding........................................ 973
Rural health..................................................... 965
Thomas Jefferson initiative...................................... 948
U.S. global change............................................... 948
Research, Education, and Economics
Agricultural problems............................................ 989
Biobased Coordinating Council.................................... 984
Farmers and producers, information to............................ 990
Integrated pest management....................................... 989
Research portfolio............................................... 988
Stakeholder, response to concerns................................ 987
Stakeholders..................................................... 985
Strategic planning task force.................................... 983
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Business and industry guaranteed and direct loan programs........ 766
Cooperative research agreements.................................. 768
Intermediary Relending Program................................... 767
Rural:
Areas, appropriate technology transfer for................... 768
Business enterprise grants................................... 767
Business opportunity grants.................................. 767
Cooperative development grants............................... 767
Economic development loans and grants........................ 767
Rural Housing Service
And its partners leverage their resources to build communities... 778
Programs help level the playing field for rural children......... 774
Programs provide rural America's elderly poor with safe and
affordable housing............................................. 777
Rural Utilities Service
Distance learning and telemedicine............................... 781
Electric:
Program...................................................... 781
Restructuring legislation.................................... 783
Financially stressed borrowers................................... 782
Native American outreach......................................... 784
New telecommunications & electric competitive environments....... 783
Reform, reinvention and responsibilities......................... 779
Rural America, Federal partnership with.......................... 780
Telecommunications--50 years of progress......................... 780
Water 2000 Presidential initiative............................... 782
Water and environmental programs................................. 782
Weather radio.................................................... 784
Y2K outreach and readiness....................................... 783
Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services
Agricultural trade............................................... 168
Commodity Credit Corporation programs............................ 159
Commodity Program Assistance..................................... 145
Conservation programs............................................ 179
Conservation Reserve Program...................................148, 177
Cotton Program.................................................163, 182
Crop insurance.................................................170, 182
Program...................................................... 176
Crops, outlook for major......................................... 130
Dairy Assistance Program......................................... 164
Dairy:
Exports, opportunities and obstacles to...................... 166
Policy....................................................... 165
Prices, impact of trade agreements on........................ 166
Disaster payments, timing of..................................... 161
Economic stress, conservation program assistance to producers
during times of................................................ 180
Emergency programs............................................... 146
Export Program Authorities, use of............................... 164
Export:
Programs..................................................... 149
Tactics...................................................... 169
Farm income and finance perspective, an overall assessment from
the............................................................ 129
Farm:
Loan programs................................................ 147
Policy choices............................................... 173
Support...................................................... 171
Farmers, number of............................................... 172
FSA staffing, fiscal year 2000................................... 185
Honey loans...................................................... 181
Livestock Assistance Program..................................... 163
Livestock, outlook for........................................... 133
Macroeconomic Overview........................................... 128
NAFTA trade increases............................................ 169
Natural Resources Conservation Service:
Staff year reduction......................................... 178
Technical assistance......................................... 153
Outlook, key uncertainties in the................................ 136
Production agriculture........................................... 174
Resources Conservation Service................................... 151
Retail food prices, outlook for.................................. 135
Risk management.................................................. 148
Russia, monitoring food aid to................................... 184
Trade negotiations............................................... 150
U.S. Agricultural exports, outlook for........................... 128
Watershed facilities............................................. 178
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food Safety, the challenges of................................... 321
Foodborne Diseases and Food Safety, CDC's Role in................ 320
FoodNet.......................................................... 322
National Food Safety Initiative at CDC in fiscal year 2000....... 324
PulseNet......................................................... 322
Food and Drug Administration
Antimicrobial use in food animals, the issue of.................. 406
Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate, report to..... 496
Aquaculture...................................................... 633
Drug submissions, review of.................................. 663
Bioterrorism...................................................642, 681
Initiative................................................... 681
Budget........................................................... 628
Buildings and facilities......................................... 660
CFCS, rule on.................................................... 663
Clinical Pharmacology Program.................................... 662
Codex Alimentarius............................................... 673
Activities................................................... 379
Standards.................................................... 455
Collaboration and FDAMA.......................................... 675
Commerce Seafood Inspection Program to FDA, transfer of the...... 644
Cooperative activities........................................... 511
Current issues................................................... 409
Detection methods, accomplishments in the area of................ 455
Domestic inspections............................................. 248
High risk areas.............................................. 649
Drug testing..................................................... 702
Education........................................................ 512
Electronic submissions........................................... 696
Enriched foods................................................... 671
FDAMA............................................................ 679
Field consolidation.............................................. 683
Fiscal year:
1998 achievements............................................ 329
1999 plans................................................... 331
2000 budget request.......................................... 332
Food and Drug Administration:
Education activities......................................... 394
National Center for Food Safety and Technology
accomplishments............................................ 515
Food safety:
Initiative, the President's.................................. 328
Problem...................................................... 327
Research..................................................... 392
By the Agricultural Research Service..................... 404
System on science, base the.................................. 498
FSI funding...................................................... 688
Generic drugs.................................................... 655
Applications backlog......................................... 704
Government Performance and Results Act........................... 665
Guidance/information collection.................................. 510
Hazards, early detection and containment of...................... 330
Injury reporting................................................. 642
Inspection:
Domestic..................................................... 648
International................................................ 640
Seafood...................................................... 639
Medguides........................................................ 703
Medical devices:
Re-use of single use..................................670, 697, 703
Single use................................................... 634
Statutory review times....................................... 673
Memorandum of Understanding...................................... 359
Microbial resistance............................................. 695
Monograph, over-the-counter sunscreen............................ 664
NAS Report Recommendations....................................... 508
National center.................................................. 515
National Research Initiative awards fiscal year:
1997......................................................... 418
1998......................................................... 424
New user fees.................................................... 653
Off-label promotions............................................. 636
Office of Cosmetics and Color and Related Field activities....... 662
Office of Seafood Inspection..................................... 664
Office of the Commissioner, reorganization of the................ 630
On-line druggists................................................ 701
Orphan drug:
Funding...................................................... 702
Product development.......................................... 638
Orphan Drug Research Grant Program............................... 664
OTC sunscreen monograph........................................664, 684
PDUFA fee collections............................................ 659
PDUFA, fiscal year 2000 appropriation base for................... 659
Physicians pay compensation...................................... 641
Premarket application review..................................... 651
Prescription Drug User Fee Act................................... 658
Prescription drugs............................................... 686
Advertising.................................................. 638
Cost of....................................................633, 679
Importation.................................................. 687
President's Council on Food Safety Assessment of the NAS Report:
Ensuring Safe Food from Production to Consumption............366, 497
Priorities....................................................... 621
Product safety assurance.......................................646, 647
Public meetings.................................................. 513
Recommendation I--Base the food safety system on science......... 366
Regulatory/enforcement........................................... 509
Regulatory review................................................ 668
Relocation costs................................................. 656
Research......................................................... 513
And actions.................................................. 406
Resources, training of........................................... 697
Science base..................................................... 632
Scientific disputes, resolving................................... 678
Spending priorities.............................................. 650
Special food safety research grants fiscal year 1998............. 431
Special research grants.......................................... 459
Special site specific food safety research grants fiscal year
1998........................................................... 432
Supreme Court and tobacco,....................................... 685
Tamoxifen........................................................ 699
Tobacco........................................................629, 657
Activities.................................................699, 701
Funding...................................................... 684
Rule......................................................... 672
USDA/FSIS activities...........................................509, 511
USDA's 1997 Agricultural Resource Management Study, data from.... 601
User fee legislation............................................. 674
-