[Senate Hearing 111-252]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-252
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 2997/S. 1406
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2010, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Agriculture
Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Nondepartmental witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
48-284 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
PATTY MURRAY, Washington ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
JACK REED, Rhode Island LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
BEN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
JON TESTER, Montana
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Charles J. Houy, Staff Director
Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin, Chairman
TOM HARKIN, Iowa SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BEN NELSON, Nebraska SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
JACK REED, Rhode Island
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
(ex officio)
Professional Staff
Galen Fountain
Jessica Arden Frederick
Dianne Nellor
Fitzhugh Elder IV (Minority)
Stacy McBride (Minority)
Administrative Support
Molly Barackman
C O N T E N T S
----------
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Page
Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug
Administration................................................. 1
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary............... 47
Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................ 113
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 2:14 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Herb Kohl (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Kohl, Pryor, Brownback, and Bennett.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
STATEMENT OF DR. JOSHUA M. SHARFSTEIN, ACTING
COMMISSIONER
ACCOMPANIED BY:
PATRICK McGAREY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET FORMULATION AND
PRESENTATION, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
NORRIS COCHRAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE OF BUDGET,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
DR. DAVID ACHESON, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR FOODS, FOOD AND
DRUG ADMINISTRATION
opening statement of senator herb kohl
Senator Kohl. Good afternoon. We welcome you to hearing.
Thank you all for coming, and we begin by welcoming Dr.
Sharfstein back, this time to represent the administration's
fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Food and Drug
Administration.
We also are very happy to welcome Mr. Patrick McGarey from
FDA and Mr. Norris Cochran from DHHS.
We're also pleased to note that Dr. Hamburg, the new
Commissioner, was confirmed by the Senate on Monday. I met with
Dr. Hamburg a few weeks ago and I'm certain that she will do a
great job.
Dr. Sharfstein, I know that you don't need to be reminded
of the importance of the agency that you represent. More than
20 percent of all consumer spending is on products regulated by
the FDA. It's imperative that this agency is successful in its
mission because literally people's lives depend on it.
Even though you haven't been on the job that long, you
don't need to be reminded of the increased workload FDA has
faced over the past decade or that the budget increases
historically have not kept pace with this workload. The effects
of this have been widespread.
For example, you've inherited an agency where staff morale
is low. There have been widely publicized drug safety and food
safety problems resulting in low consumer confidence. Deserved
or not, the FDA has earned a reputation for reacting to
problems instead of preventing them, and there remains a
perception the FDA is much too cozy with the industries that it
regulates.
However, we have hopefully turned the corner, at least when
it comes to the FDA's funding. The numbers speak for
themselves. As chairman I've pushed to help FDA's budget keep
pace with the challenges.
Of all the items funded by this subcommittee, FDA's
increases are among the very highest. We recognize that the
agency cannot continue to receive additional responsibilities
without the proper resources to do the job.
For 2010, I'm pleased to see a more realistic budget
request from this administration. It shows me that you are as
serious about fixing the FDA as we on this subcommittee are. I
will let you go over the details, of course, but here's the big
picture.
The budget is $2.4 billion. This is an increase of nearly
$300 million. These increases include more than $150 million
for food safety and nearly $100 million for safer drugs and
medical products.
I think everyone in this room can agree that these are
substantial numbers. Whether or not they are the right numbers
remains to be seen. I have said before and will continue to say
that the answers to all of FDA's problems do not lie simply in
more money.
We do not write blank checks. This money has to be spent
intelligently and we must continue to question each step taken.
No one expects a complete overhaul of the FDA to be done
overnight, but we do expect results and, of course, we expect
results soon.
Dr. Sharfstein, you are new. Dr. Hamburg is new. This
entire administration is new. You've inherited an FDA with lots
of problems but also ample opportunity and full support for
your efforts from this subcommittee.
I'm committed to working with you during your tenure and I
look forward to hearing, along with everyone else, your
statement today, but before we get to that, we will be pleased
to hear from Mr. Brownback.
statement of senator sam brownback
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, panel.
Appreciate you being here.
I think the chairman's outlined some of the concerns that I
have, as well. That is, you've had a substantial increase in
the budget portfolio, and I want to know what you've done with
it.
I was looking here at the figures. The increase in FDA's
appropriation is 39 percent since fiscal year 2006, and if the
budget is enacted into law as requested, this year FDA will
have grown by over 59 percent in 4 years in your budget. Well,
we sure want to know what you're doing with that, when we'll
see the results of that. So that's going to be at the core of
what I'm interested in seeing that you do.
Another piece that I think is important that we've done in
differing degrees in the past is making drug availability and
new drug development for patients who are terminally ill who
don't have other options.
Dianne Feinstein and I co-chair the Cancer Caucus in the
Senate and, as many people, I have had cancer and I look at
some of these things and the length of time that we're putting
in studies on items for patients that don't have other options
and it doesn't seem like we're getting the accessibility to a
number of these when you're a terminally ill patient.
In times past, we've worked with certain groups or
individuals and certainly physicians to try to make earlier
stage drugs available for terminally ill patients where they
and their physician agree to the use of that, and I'm told and
the research that I've seen--some of the early AIDS testing and
the successes we had were because FDA worked with the community
and said, look, we don't know what we're really dealing with
here. We've got a Tier 1 trial that's going on that looks
promising. We're going to let more people try this earlier.
That was one of the ways that some of these treatments were
discovered.
I would love to see us try to figure a way that you could
maintain safety but also get access to people who are
terminally ill. It just seems almost cruel to me that in some
cases you have cures that are waiting there but people die
waiting for that to get approved. So I hope you can address
some of that, as well.
It's a very important agency and I look forward to working
with you on my tenure on this subcommittee.
Senator Kohl. Thanks a lot, Senator Brownback. We're
pleased and honored to have with us today the former chairman
and ranking member of this committee, Senator Bennett.
statement of senator robert f. bennett
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm
always delighted to be able to be here and particularly with
respect to FDA, which is an agency that you and I worked
together so well on to try to make sure that they got properly
funded and properly taken care of.
Dr. Sharfstein, as you and I have talked, you know that I'm
a strong supporter of the Critical Path Initiative and it was
started to address the concern about the rising failure rate of
new medical products during development and the declining
number of approvals and so on, and I think perhaps Senator
Brownback was talking in that same area when I came in.
This subcommittee has provided funding for the Critical
Path Initiative over the past few years and in fiscal year 2008
it was $7.5 million, of which $2.5 million was for Critical
Path Partnership Grants. Fiscal year 2009 it's $16 million for
Critical Path and $4 million for the Partnership Grants.
Are you--have you been there enough to be able to give us
some kind of evaluation of the Critical Path and where it's
going and how you feel about it and what you might have in mind
for it with respect to its future?
Senator Kohl. This is the opening statement.
Senator Bennett. Oh, I apologize. That's my opening
statement and I'll ask that question.
Senator Kohl. We're going to leave that question for you
and think about it for awhile.
Senator Bennett. Right.
Senator Kohl. All right. Thank you so much, Senator
Bennett, and Dr. Sharfstein, we'll take your statement at this
time.
statement of dr. joshua m. sharfstein
Dr. Sharfstein. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you,
Chairman Kohl, Senator Brownback, Senator Bennett.
I'm very happy to be here. I am Josh Sharfstein. I'm the
Principal Deputy Commissioner and the Acting Commissioner but
not for very long at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
I am pleased to present the President's fiscal year 2010
budget request for FDA.
For today's hearing, I'm joined by Patrick McGarey, the
Director of the Office of Budget Formulation at FDA, and Norris
Cochran, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget at the
Department of HHS.
In my testimony, I'm going to outline the budget request
and some of the key policy initiatives. I will also just bring
you a little bit up to date on what's going on on the flu
situation, knowing that we had that discussion before but a
sort of quick update there.
Let me start by thanking the subcommittee for exactly what
you spoke to, the fact that this subcommittee has been
extraordinary in its support of FDA over the past several
years.
When I arrived at FDA, one of the first things I did is I
asked each center to provide examples of how it's using the
recent funding increases to promote public health. A key goal
for FDA, and I've only been at FDA for several weeks really,
but I think a key management goal is for us to be able to
connect the investment of Federal dollars and taxpayer dollars
to actual public health outcomes at the agency, and I got quite
a lot back from different parts of FDA, and we have a document
that we can share with the subcommittee that summarizes some of
the things that we were able to pull together.
public health outcomes
But as some examples, FDA, in the blood area, is developing
a test to identify rare strains of HIV that aren't picked up on
standard HIV testing and then deploy that test around the
country. FDA is working around the world to train regulators to
be able to do better device inspections so that the safety of
imported medical devices is improved.
FDA is developing the first hepatitis A test in food so you
can actually identify hepatitis A in food which would allow for
quicker identification of a problem, as well as develop rapid
tests for food safety problems so we're not waiting for days
with, you know, messages out to the public about particular
foods. We can really identify the particular contaminant.
FDA's developing, with the funding increases, a major
national network on pet food problems that involves the states
and localities and veterinarians so that we don't have a
situation like with melamine where so much time goes by and so
many animals die if there is a problem.
And FDA is working with its research component at NCTR to
improve the safety of pediatric anesthesia by developing new
ways to measure the use of pediatric anesthesia and the impact
on children.
And then, of course, there's the flu which we talked about
before, that the increase is directly related to our
preparedness for flu, and, I think, right before I testified
the last time, FDA had approved a facility that doubled and
will eventually triple the domestic manufacturing capacity for
the injectable flu vaccine and will have an immediate impact on
our ability to prepare for the Fall, and that would not have
been possible without the investments.
budget request
So let me take a step back and talk about the budget
request overall for this year. It includes $3.2 billion to
protect and promote the public health through advancing FDA's
work. That includes an increase of $510 million for FDA
programs which is a 19 percent increase over last year. It's a
historic increase and demonstrates this administration's
commitment to food safety, medical product safety and the
health of the American public.
It includes $295 million in budget authority and $215
million in industry user fees, and this budget organizes these
increases into two initiatives, in addition to its statutory
increases and increases for infrastructure. The two initiatives
are Safer Food Supply and Safer Medical Products.
The budget also recommends for new user fees, including a
user fee to facilitate the review of generic drugs, one to
enhance FDA's ability to register and inspect feed and food
manufacturing and processing facilities, one to allow FDA to
reinspect facilities that fail to meet good manufacturing
practice and other safety requirements, and one to allow FDA to
collect fees when it issues export certifications for food and
feed.
The budget also recommends new authority for FDA to approve
follow-on biologics for the regulatory pathway that protects
patient safety and promotes innovation.
Finally, the budget includes $5 million for FDA to develop
policies to allow Americans to buy safe and effective drugs
that are approved in other countries.
safe foods
Let me just briefly give some of the highlights of the two
initiatives. For Safe Foods, it's a $259 million increase which
includes a $164 million in budget authority and $94 million in
the user fees. This will ultimately increase the number of
employees by about 600, and the funding will go to various
efforts.
One of them is to expand and strengthen the inspection,
domestically and foreign, of facilities based on risk. More
than 220 of the people to be hired will be additional
inspectors.
Another will be to, and in some ways more important, to
implement a new strategic framework for an integrated national
food safety system, so the Federal, State and local systems are
not operating kind of just in their own world, so that it's
truly one integrated system, and that's going to require an
upfront investment but will have many different benefits
because what we're able to do, if we can accomplish this, is
leverage the existing investment in food safety at the State
and local level and increase the quality of that work to the
point where we can--the Federal Government and the States are
really working as partners. I'm happy to talk more about that.
FDA is planning to improve its understanding of food
vulnerabilities and risks which will be the basis of a risk-
based system of inspection and to develop standards and
regulations that build food protection into the complete life
cycle from food production to food consumption.
In addition, in terms of outbreaks, FDA is investing in
actions to allow it to more quickly identify food outbreaks and
trace the contamination to its source, to better communicate
risks with the public and to expand the capacity of
laboratories.
And finally, FDA is making a major investment in
information technology which will help us provide a much
stronger base for all of FDA's efforts in food safety, identify
key suppliers into the United States and be able to identify
risks of the products that are coming in, so we don't feel like
we have to do inspections on every single product. We can be
more strategic about how we're using resources.
safer medical products
As far as safer medical products, this effort both relates
to the manufacture and the use of the products. It's $166
million. It includes a $120 million in increased budget
authority and about $50 million in generic drug user fees and
reinspection user fees.
It would have FDA hire about 300 more people and expand
programs related to medical product safety and included in this
are, again, increased numbers of inspections, both foreign and
domestic.
The Center for Biologics would hire additional safety
experts for blood, tissue and vaccine safety teams and develop
additional screening tests for emerging bloodborne diseases.
The Center for Devices would implement the safety
requirements that were called for in the Food and Drug
Administration Amendments Act of 2007 which include analyzing
adverse event information in children and inspiring more
pediatric trials for medical devices.
It also has a focus on eye medical devices which have been
a cause of a number of outbreaks recently.
safe drugs use
The Center for Drugs would have funding to support how to
best use risk evaluation mitigation strategies to minimize drug
risks and promote safe drug use and would also conduct research
on bioequivalent standards for generic forms of new products,
such as metered dose inhalers, topical drugs and other
different kinds of products.
animal biotech products
The Center for Veterinary Medicine would conduct scientific
and risk evaluation of animal biotech products, regulate
approvals for new animal biotech products, and coordinate
United States and foreign regulation on animal health issues;
and there'd be additional research funded through the National
Center for Toxicological Research in Arkansas to analyze the
consequences of human exposure to nano-scale materials, which
is very important for this field moving forward.
And again, there's a significant investment in information
technology, including systems to help facilitate and streamline
the approval process.
legislative initiatives
I'd just briefly mention that there are legislative
initiatives that are implied by the budget. They include the
Generic Drug User Fee Program and the Follow-On Biologic
Pathway which would have to be approved by Congress.
Let me just very, very briefly give you an update on the
one area where I think--and this speaks to, I think, Senator
Brownback's point, which is that I think you could look at this
budget and say you've got a safer food supply as a goal and a
safer medical supply as a goal and it's hard to argue with
those things, but what about the fact that there are people who
are dying who need new treatments which does not exactly fit
under--you know, obviously fit under the safer part, and I
think that's something that Dr. Hamburg and I take very
seriously in this job.
I think there is some connection insofar if we can develop
the safety systems that give us more assurance that we have
understanding of the products that gives more confidence for
earlier approval of products because we can watch what's
happening to them closer and not feel that everything rests on
the approval decision.
So I do think there's a connection, that you can have an
approval with a plan to monitor it and have confidence in that
and then that allows you to feel more comfortable about early
approvals, but I also think that one of the things that's very
important is for FDA not to think of itself as purely an agency
that just sits back and waits for things to come through the
door.
When there are opportunities or challenges to public
health, there are opportunities for science, we want to make
sure that the agency is reaching out to the researchers and the
companies that have particular breakthrough products that are
available and facilitating the pathway to approval, talking to
them early about what would be necessary to demonstrate safety
and efficacy, and I think one of those--the example of that in
the short time that I've been at FDA relates to the flu.
h1n1 flu virus
And we've talked a little bit about what the agency has
done with the flu, but we're still operating in an incident
command management structure where we have dedicated teams and
we're really focused on what would it take to best protect the
public if the flu were to become a major problem, and even
though, since we last spoke, I think maybe concern for this
particular wave of the flu may have diminished somewhat, I
think there's still considerable concern that when the regular
flu season hits, that it could come back pretty strongly and
that we have to be thinking a step ahead and all the teams that
I discussed before are still working and I'll just give you a
very brief update.
antiviral team
The antiviral team is out knocking on the doors of
companies that have potential products that could be used to
treat severely old people with flu, and they're trying to
identify pathways, some of which are experimental pathways, to
make those products available in case there are a lot of people
who are sick.
shortage team
The shortage team is already reaching out to the IV
suppliers, the makers of antibiotics as well as the makers of
antivirals, to make sure that there's an adequate supply if
there were to be a major stress on the medical system this
fall.
vaccine team
The vaccine team has really been doing a tremendous amount
of work pulling together the basic protocols with other
regulatory agencies and the companies to study vaccines. They
are also continuing to work with the various strains of the
virus so it can be produced into a vaccine strain.
blood team
The blood team is working to monitor the blood supply.
There have not been any concerns there.
diagnostic team
The diagnostic team is working aggressively with companies
and the CDC to identify more diagnostics. That test that FDA
approved in the first like 72 hours of its work has now been
distributed to, I think, more than 40 States and over a 100
countries and has really made a big difference to the world's
ability to identify this and has really reduced the level of, I
think, anxiety which is one reason why the World Health
Organization has not gone all the way up to a Level Six
pandemic designation.
consumer protective team
And finally, the consumer protection team has been working
and has issued more than 30 warning letters, and I'll just tell
you one of the most recent ones cited a company that was
selling a formula that said will kill the virus within a few
hours and automatically eliminate all your symptoms, and there
was another one that said scientifically proven only to kill
swine flu and bird flu but also MRSA, SARS, malaria, anthrax,
TB, Bubonic plaque and sexually-transmitted diseases. So those
products are getting some enforcement action and are coming off
the Internet.
prepared statement
So I think that, in conclusion, this is a time of
opportunity, of incredible challenge for the agency, but also a
time of opportunity. This budget really does support the
agency's ability to move forward and protect the public, but I
think we realize that we're going to have to deliver. We're the
new team at FDA and that we're going to have to come back and
demonstrate what these increased resources are doing for the
health of the American people and look forward to working with
you to accomplish that.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Joshua M. Sharfstein
introduction
Chairman Kohl, Ranking Member Brownback and members of the
Subcommittee, I am Dr. Joshua M. Sharfstein, Principal Deputy
Commissioner and Acting Commissioner at the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration. I am pleased to present the President's fiscal year
2010 budget request for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). For
today's hearing, I am joined by Patrick McGarey, FDA's Director of the
Office of Budget Formulation and Presentation and Norris Cochran,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget at the Department of Health and
Human Services.
In my testimony today, I will outline FDA's fiscal year 2010 budget
request and the policy initiatives that we are advancing in our budget.
I will also summarize recent developments related to the 2009-H1N1 Flu
Virus outbreak and describe how FDA's budget for pandemic preparedness
allowed us to prepare for and respond to the 2009-H1N1 Flu Virus.
recent funding increases
The funding that this subcommittee appropriated to FDA for fiscal
year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 demonstrates your strong commitment to
the public health mission of FDA and the health of the American public.
Thank you for your support.
When I arrived at FDA, I asked each FDA center to provide examples
of how they are using the recent funding increases to promote public
health and achieve mission priorities. A key goal for FDA is to
directly connect the investment of Federal dollars to public health
outcomes.
fda 2010 budget request
Overview
The President's fiscal year 2010 budget request for FDA includes
$3.2 billion to protect and promote the public health. The budget
contains an increase of $510.6 million for FDA programs, which is a 19
percent increase compared to the fiscal year 2009 budget. This is an
historic increase in the FDA budget and demonstrates the
administration's commitment to food safety, medical product safety, and
the health of the American public.
The fiscal year 2010 increase of $510.6 million includes increases
of $295.2 million in budget authority and $215.4 million in industry
user fees. The FDA budget organizes these increases into initiatives
for fiscal year 2010. Our two major initiatives are Protecting
America's Food Supply and Safer Medical Products. The budget also
includes $74.4 million for statutory increases for user fee programs in
current law and increases for infrastructure to support FDA's mission.
The FDA fiscal year 2010 budget recommends four new user fees. The
new user fees will facilitate the review of generic drugs, enhance
FDA's ability to register and inspect food and feed manufacturing and
processing facilities, allow FDA to reinspect facilities that fail to
meet good manufacturing practices and other safety requirements, and
allow FDA to collect fees when it issues export certifications for food
and feed.
The fiscal year 2010 budget also recommends new authority for FDA
to approve generic biologics through a regulatory pathway that protects
patient safety and promotes innovation. Finally, the budget also
includes $5 million for FDA to develop policies to allow Americans to
buy safe and effective drugs from other countries.
details of the fiscal year 2010 budget
Supply Chain Safety and Security
The globalization of the manufacturing and supply of foods and
medical products that FDA regulates and Americans consume poses unique
and demanding challenges for FDA. In the complex and rapidly changing
environment driven by globalization, FDA cannot rely solely on
traditional approaches--inspection and sampling at the U.S. border--to
protect Americans and ensure the safety of foods. Rapid globalization
requires that FDA implement new approaches and conduct a broader range
of activities to effectively regulate the supply chain for foods and
medical products.
Supply Chain Safety and Security is an overarching principle that
applies to both food and medical products. Supply Chain Safety and
Security holds all segments of industry accountable for ensuring that
their products meet U.S. safety standards.
Key components of this initiative include: identifying products and
processes at high risk for earlier and more comprehensive attention;
establishing reasonable and effective regulations and other standards;
increasing FDA inspections; increasing effective third-party
inspections; and collaborating with local, state and international
partners.
Protecting America's Food Supply
For fiscal year 2010, FDA proposes an increase of $259.3 million
for food safety activities. This increase includes $164.8 million in
budget authority and $94.4 million in three new user fees: Food
Inspection and Registration User Fees, Reinspection User Fees related
to food facilities, and Export Certification User Fees for food and
feed products.
To outline the key investments with the new fiscal year 2010
resources:
--FDA will hire 678 additional full-time equivalent staff to expand
programs and activities that protect America's food supply.
--FDA will fund the cost of living pay adjustment for FDA
professionals that conduct food product program activities.
(+$12.9 million)
--FDA will increase domestic and foreign risk-based inspections,
conduct more audits of controls designed to prevent
contamination, establish three additional high volume
laboratories, and conduct more food safety intervention,
sampling and surveillance through our Office of Regulatory
Affairs. The fiscal year 2010 budget increase will allow FDA to
hire more than 220 additional investigators. When fully trained
and deployed, the new investigators will enable FDA to conduct
the following additional field activities, based on the fiscal
year 2010 increases in budget authority and user fees proposed
in this initiative:
--4,000 additional domestic food safety inspections
--100 additional foreign food and feed inspections
--20,000 additional import food and feed field exams
--3,000 additional samples for analysis in FDA laboratories.
(+$101.7 million)
--FDA will begin to implement a new strategic framework for an
integrated national food safety system. Under this framework,
FDA will build and expand existing programs and relationships
with its regulatory partners: our Federal, State, local, tribal
and territorial partners. This will allow FDA to increase
information sharing and improve the quantity and quality of
food safety data that FDA receives from its food safety
partners. (+$14.6 million)
--FDA will work with all stakeholders to better ensure that food
protection is built into the complete lifecycle, from food
production to food consumption. (+$6.0 million)
--FDA will improve its understanding of food and feed vulnerabilities
and risks. This will include improving FDA's ability to use
baseline data to measure the impact of food safety efforts and
to track the status of foodborne illnesses in the United
States. Achieving a better understanding of vulnerabilities and
risks will allow FDA to adjust food and feed safety priorities
and ensure that food programs achieve the best health benefit
for the American public. (+$4.0 million)
--FDA will improve its ability to detect signals of contamination and
also improve its ability to collect and analyze adverse events
for food and feed. (+$9.8 million)
--FDA will respond more quickly to foodborne outbreaks and will
improve its ability to quickly trace contamination to its
source. (+$12.2 million)
--FDA will improve risk communication during a food safety event so
that the public can respond promptly to FDA alerts and protect
themselves from harm. (+$1.6 million)
--FDA will increase the capacity of the Food Emergency Response
Network by establishing three new laboratories for chemical
analysis. (+$3.3 million)
--FDA will further develop an integrated genomic data base for
Salmonella and conduct research to reduce knowledge gaps.
(+$0.8 million)
--FDA will charge fees to cover the cost of reinspecting FDA-
regulated facilities that fail to meet good manufacturing
practices or other FDA requirements. (+$15.3 million)
--FDA will charge fees to cover the cost of issuing export
certificates for food and feed. (+$4.2 million)
--FDA will upgrade and integrate information technology systems,
including systems that we use to screen, sample, detain and
take enforcement actions against imported food and feed
products that violate FDA safety standards. (+$49.9 million)
Safer Medical Products
There are three components of FDA's Safer Medical Products
initiative. Like the food safety initiative, the first component relies
on the principle of supply chain safety and security. The goal is to
protect American patients from contamination or other manufacturing
flaws that could harm patients. The second component will address
patient-product interactions that generally do not relate to
manufacturing flaws. FDA will improve the safety of human drugs,
vaccines, blood and other biological products, medical devices, and
animal drugs and medicated feed by hiring additional safety experts to
analyze adverse events associated with these products. FDA will also
identify safety problems through active surveillance of third party
healthcare data. The third component focuses on increasing access to
affordable generic drugs, granting FDA new authority to approve generic
biologics, and allowing Americans to buy safe and effective drugs from
other countries.
For fiscal year 2010, FDA proposes an increase of $166.4 million
for medical product safety. This increase includes $119.9 million in
budget authority and $46.6 million for Generic Drug User Fees and
Reinspection User Fees related to medical product facilities.
To outline the key investments with the new fiscal year 2010
resources:
--FDA will hire 346 additional full time equivalent staff and expand
programs and activities related to medical product safety.
--FDA will fund the cost of living pay adjustment for FDA
professionals that conduct medical product program activities.
(+$16.7 million)
--FDA will improve the safety and security of foreign and domestic
sources of ingredients, components, and finished products
throughout the supply chain--including their eventual use by
patients in America--through increased inspections and through
activities conducted by the Office of Regulatory Affairs.
(+$12.2 million)
--FDA's Center for Biological Research and Evaluation (CBER) will
hire additional safety experts for its blood, tissue and
vaccine safety teams. This will strengthen the ability of
safety teams to analyze emerging safety threats. CBER will
modernize blood, tissue and vaccine standards to improve
product safety and quality. CBER will also provide increased
training to support product development and improve product
safety. (+$5.7 million)
--CBER will develop new screening tests for emerging blood-borne
diseases. CBER will review vaccine and tissue data to identify
safety signals. CBER will also develop quality systems for
product testing and lot release of biological products and will
provide additional support for safe development and
manufacturing of cell, gene and tissue therapies. (+$2.3
million)
--CBER will provide increased technical support to FDA field
operations as they conduct foreign and domestic inspections of
biologic products. (+$1.3 million)
--FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Heath (CDRH) will
implement safety requirements related to the FDA Amendments Act
(FDAAA). To support FDAAA safety activities, CDRH will collect
and analyze adverse event information related to medical
devices from pediatric hospitals. CDRH will conduct a pediatric
medical trials workshop to address unmet pediatric device
needs. CDRH will improve device safety by hiring experts to
evaluate software used in medical devices. CDRH will hire staff
to provide technical support to FDA foreign offices and to
support FDA field operations as they conduct foreign and
domestic device manufacturing inspections. (+$9.5 million)
--CDRH will develop new safety tests and strengthen postmarket safety
reviews of ophthalmic medical devices. CDRH will also develop
and validate new clinical trial methods for imaging devices.
(+$1.7 million)
--FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) will evaluate
how best to use Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies to
minimize drug risks and promote safe drug use. (+$3.4 million)
--CDER will also conduct research on bioequivalence standards for
generic forms of novel products such as metered dose inhalers,
topical drugs and complex dosage forms such as liposome
products. (+$2.5 million)
--CDER will identify and improve enforcement against Internet sites
that expose consumers to unapproved products and fraud. (+$2.0
million)
--FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine will conduct scientific and
risk evaluation of animal biotechnology products, regulate
approvals for new animal biotechnology products, and coordinate
United States and foreign regulation on animal health issues
within FDA's jurisdiction. (+$0.5 million)
--FDA's National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR) will
conduct studies to analyze the consequences of human exposure
to nanoscale materials. These studies will provide the
scientific basis for issuing FDA guidance on the safe and
effective use of nanoscale particles in the products that FDA
regulates. ($1.0 million)
--NCTR will develop noninvasive techniques to better understand the
risks of anesthetic use in children. (+$0.2 million)
--FDA will develop policies to allow Americans to buy safe and
effective drugs from other countries. (+$5.0 million)
--FDA will provide greater access to affordable generic drugs and
improve the productivity of generic drug review through a new
user fee program. (+$36.0 million)
--FDA will strengthen the safety of the supply chain through a new
user fee program to charge fees to cover the cost of
reinspecting FDA-regulated facilities that fail to meet good
manufacturing practices or other FDA requirements. (+$10.6
million)
--FDA will modernize and enhance information technology, including
systems that we rely on to collect, store and analyze the large
volume of regulatory, scientific, and risk based information
necessary to assure the safety and effectiveness of medical
products. (+$40.1 million)
Legislative Initiatives for Safe, Affordable Drugs
The budget request supports greater access to affordable generic
drugs, recommends new authority to approve generic biologics, and
allows Americans to buy safe and effective drugs from other countries.
In the coming years, patents will expire on more than a dozen
blockbuster brand-name drugs that account for tens of billions of
dollars in prescription spending annually. Generic competition for
these drugs will likely be very strong. It is imperative that FDA have
the resources to ensure the safety, quality, and therapeutic
equivalence of generic drugs and allow Americans to benefit from the
savings from lower cost generic drugs. To meet this priority, FDA's
fiscal year 2010 budget includes $36 million in new user fees to
support drug review for new generic products.
The administration will also accelerate access to affordable
generic biologics by working with Congress to establish a workable and
scientifically sound regulatory pathway for approval of generic
versions of biologic drugs.
Current Law User Fees
FDA user fee programs facilitate enhanced premarket review
performance and the timely availability of safe and effective medical
devices, human and animal drugs, biological products, and other FDA-
regulated products. The fiscal year 2010 budget request includes
increases of $74.4 million for existing user fee programs, as
authorized by law. The increases expand the available options for
treating and curing diseases and other health problems.
Annual Cost of Living Adjustment
FDA can only achieve its mission and fulfill its responsibilities
if it has sufficient resources to pay the scientific, professional, and
technical staff required to conduct food safety and medical product
safety programs. The ongoing experience with the outbreak of 2009-H1N1
Flu Virus demonstrates the importance of maintaining pay rates to
attract and retain top-notch scientists and professionals. The fiscal
year 2010 budget includes $29.5 million for the annual cost of living
adjustment for employees in FDA's food and medical product programs.
Delivering the FDA mission is a personnel-intensive effort. FDA
performs its public health mission through a highly trained
professional workforce. Personnel and related costs account for 78
percent of FDA's annual expenditures. To maintain its strong science
and regulatory capability, FDA must employ, train, develop, and retain
highly trained professionals to perform the mission critical work of
protecting public health.
Infrastructure to Support FDA Operations
Like the annual cost of living adjustment, the fiscal year 2010
budget increase to pay higher rental costs and other costs for the
buildings that FDA occupies will allow FDA to perform its public health
mission. FDA's fiscal year 2010 budget contains $14.0 million in budget
authority for increased GSA rent and related costs of the space that we
occupy.
fda 2009-h1n1 flu virus response
FDA plays a vital role in preparing for, and responding to, public
health challenges such as the one presented by the 2009-H1N1 Flu Virus.
FDA is part of the team led by the Department of Health and Human
Services.
Since the beginning of the 2009-H1N1 Flu Virus outbreak on
Thursday, April 23, FDA has worked closely with HHS, our sister HHS
agencies, other U.S. government agencies, the World Health Organization
(WHO), and foreign governments.
As soon as we became aware of the 2009-H1N1 Flu Virus outbreak, I
asked Dr. Jesse Goodman, FDA's Acting Chief Scientist and Deputy
Commissioner for Scientific and Medical Programs, to coordinate and
lead FDA's efforts on the 2009-H1N1 Flu Virus. Dr. Goodman leads an
incident management approach that includes seven substantive teams. The
teams are cross-cutting and include staff from across FDA as needed.
The teams include: Vaccine Team, Antiviral Team, In Vitro Diagnostics
Team, Personal Protection Team, Blood Team, Shortage Team, and the
Consumer Protection Team. These teams work with the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), other HHS agencies, and
national and international partners.
FDA's management approach to respond to the outbreak is flexible
and likely to change over time. It has already changed in response to
evolving events.
Emergency Use Authorizations
Under the Project Bioshield Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-276),
Congress added section 564 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
Section 564 establishes criteria that permit the FDA Commissioner to
issue an Emergency Use Authorization, following a determination and
declaration of a public health emergency. An Emergency Use
Authorization allows the use of an unapproved product or of an approved
product for an unapproved use.
On Sunday, April 26, 2009, the Acting HHS Secretary issued a
determination that a public health emergency exists involving 2009-H1N1
Flu Virus. In the days that followed, the Acting Secretary issued
declarations under section 564 justifying emergency use of certain
antivirals, in vitro diagnostics, and personal respiratory protection
devices.
Based on the Acting Secretary's actions, and using our authority
under the Project BioShield Act, on April 27, 2009, FDA issued four
Emergency Use Authorizations in response to requests from the CDC. Two
of these Emergency Use Authorizations extend the circumstances in which
two FDA-approved drugs, Relenza and Tamiflu, can be used to treat and
prevent the 2009-H1N1 Flu Virus. A third Emergency Use Authorization
makes available a test for diagnosing infection with the virus. The
fourth authorizes the emergency use of certain personal respiratory
protection devices, specifically certain disposable respirators
certified by CDC's National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, known as N95 respirators. The emergency use authorization for
N95 respirators only relates to requirements under the Federal Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act, not other requirements such as the standards for
safety in the workplace administered by the Department of Labor. On May
2, FDA issued a fifth Emergency Use Authorization for a first tier test
for patient specimens with suspected 2009-H1N1 infection. Taken
together, these authorizations allow CDC and State and local responders
to take actions that help meet the medical and public health threat.
All seven of the FDA teams are working to ensure a comprehensive
response to the 2009- H1N1 Flu Virus. I would like to highlight FDA's
work in two areas, developing a vaccine and protecting consumers.
Developing an H1N1 Vaccine
FDA's Vaccine Team is working to facilitate the availability of a
safe and effective vaccine to protect the public from the 2009-H1N1 Flu
Virus as soon as possible, in the event that a vaccine is needed to
protect the American public. Members of the team are working
collaboratively with CDC and other partners in efforts to grow and
genetically engineer the 2009-H1N1 Flu Virus in the laboratory for
possible use in a vaccine. FDA is also beginning to prepare reagents
that will be essential to help manufacturers produce and test the
vaccine.
In a related development, on May 6, FDA announced that it approved
a new manufacturing facility to produce influenza virus vaccines. The
facility, located in Swiftwater, Pennsylvania, is owned and operated by
Sanofi Pasteur and will greatly increase vaccine production capability.
The facility is approved for seasonal influenza vaccine production, and
the facility could also be used to produce vaccine against the new
2009-H1N1 influenza strain.
As we work to develop a safe and effective vaccine, FDA is also
participating in the analysis of whether an H1N1 Flu Virus vaccine
should be deployed later this year to protect the American public.
Decisions about whether to deploy an H1N1 vaccine will be independent
of the decision to produce a vaccine.
Protecting Consumers
FDA's H1N1 Flu Virus consumer protection team works to safeguard
consumers from fraudulent and potentially dangerous FDA-regulated
products or other promotions for products that claim to diagnose,
prevent, mitigate, treat, or cure the 2009-H1N1 Flu Virus. Deceptive
products are being sold over the Internet take advantage of the
public's concerns about H1N1 influenza and their desire to protect
themselves and their families. The fraudulent products come in all
varieties and could include dietary supplements or other food products,
or products purporting to be drugs, devices or vaccines.
FDA has an aggressive strategy to identify, investigate, and take
action against individuals or businesses that wrongfully promote
products in an attempt to take advantage of this current public health
emergency. FDA issued warning notices to more than 30 Internet sites
that we believe are wrongfully promoting products to consumers. We have
also invited the public to voluntarily report suspected criminal
activity, Websites and other promotions for products that claim to
diagnose, prevent, mitigate, treat or cure the 2009-H1N1 influenza
virus.
Fiscal Year 2006 Influenza Pandemic Funding
As I mentioned in my May 7, 2009 testimony, during fiscal year 2006
this subcommittee had the foresight to appropriate $20 million to FDA
for pandemic influenza preparedness in an emergency supplemental
appropriation. FDA invested pandemic influenza supplemental funding in
three key areas that are critical to America's preparedness for an
influenza pandemic: strengthening our capacity to expedite the
development of flu vaccines, conducting essential monitoring and
inspection of flu vaccine manufacturers, and conducting FDA-wide
pandemic planning and preparedness activities. This $20 million
supplemental became part of FDA's base resources and allowed FDA to
achieve a higher state of preparedness for events like 2009-H1N1 Flu
Virus outbreak. Because of the work begun in 2006, FDA is better
prepared for today's response to the 2009-H1N1 Flu Virus.
conclusion
Our fiscal year 2010 budget of $3.2 billion will allow FDA to
strengthen the safety of the food supply and to anticipate and address
safety signals that emerge from the use of the drugs, biologics and
medical devices that FDA regulates. Our fiscal year 2010 increase will
allow the dedicated professionals at FDA to help ensure that Americans
benefit from a safe and wholesome food supply and from medical products
that sustain and improve their lives. Achieving our mission is possible
because of your support for the work of the Food and Drug
Administration.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. I welcome your
ideas and your questions.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Dr. Sharfstein. You've
been the Acting Director now for some 6 or 8 weeks. Very soon
Dr. Hamburg will come become the Director and you will be
bumped down to Number 2. Are you looking forward to that, Dr.
Sharfstein?
Dr. Sharfstein. I think, with the possible exception of Dr.
Hamburg herself, I may have been the most happy person to see
her confirmed by the Senate.
Senator Kohl. You mean you don't like having to respond to
us directly?
Dr. Sharfstein. You know, I was very, very pleased to be
able to represent the agency at this hearing, I'll tell you
that, but it is--and it has been a tremendous honor and I think
I have had the incredible opportunity to get to know Dr.
Hamburg over the last couple months and I'm just really excited
to work for her.
Senator Kohl. Good. If asked for your judgment on the
adequacy of this budget request, what would you say? Is it
enough?
Dr. Sharfstein. I think it's enough for major progress for
FDA.
SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS
Senator Kohl. All right. Last year FDA was provided with a
$150 million in supplemental funds. As of March 31 only $30
million has been obligated. These funds expire now in just 4
months.
Can you expect to responsibly spend this additional money
in that brief period of time and how?
Dr. Sharfstein. Sure. I do believe we can expect to
responsibly spend that, and I'm going to ask Patrick McGarey to
talk about some of the details, but before I do that, I think
it's important to note that there are a couple major efforts
that are going forward to spend that money, one of which has
been the hiring.
HIRING AND IT
FDA has hired quite a number of new staff and that is
continuing pretty briskly, but the other major one is
information technology investments and what is going on now is
that the agency has been working to best define those
investments and then it will make those investments and it will
lock up the money, but the thinking, the thought behind those
investments is what's the reason that it wasn't spent yet, but
it will be spent and it will be put into, you know, kind of the
contracts and other vehicles that will bring those investments
about, and those are things that seem pretty basic in some
cases.
People can file their submissions electronically and then
people can file for adverse events reports electronically and
the agency can have a better opportunity to investigate things
or things that are really essential to kind of have FDA in a
modern regulatory agency's position, and I think that the
agency's been doing the right thing to think carefully about
those investments and I know Dr. Hamburg is going to want to
take a look at them and then when we're really sure that's when
we'll pull the trigger on tying up those funds.
Patrick, is there anything else you want to mention?
Mr. McGarey. You covered it very well. We expect, with our
IT investments, which are the heaviest piece, to launch in the
coming quarter--excuse me--that the IT investments will launch
in the coming quarter and there will be a large amount that
will move into priority IT areas. I think that just buttresses
what Dr. Sharfstein said.
STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK
Senator Kohl. All right. Dr. Sharfstein, does the $14.6
million ``strategic framework'' for food safety include
implementation of FDA's Food Protection Plan? Can you provide
some detail on this? In particular, will the FDA need to change
its structure or its current activities?
Dr. Sharfstein. $14.6 million, I think, relates to what
we'd like to do with States and localities, and this is a
multiyear investment. It's really to transform FDA's
relationship with States and localities on food safety so that
when the State--I recently met with a company that said on
Monday they get a Federal inspection, sometimes Tuesday they
get a State inspection, on Wednesday they get a local
inspection and sometimes they're done by the same person, you
know, who just pulls out a different clipboard and is, you
know, checking stuff down.
We hear all this about there not being enough inspectors
but what's going on, and it's a fair question, and I think it's
very clearly understood that there's not the kind of
coordination. By coordination, I don't mean just the FDA hiring
the State contractors which is what goes on now, to a certain
extent, but really it's an integrated system where if the State
goes out, FDA has confidence that that inspection is good.
And there was really a report that was funded by the Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation that really set out a vision for that
kind of system and this is really a big step, this $14.6
million, to start to move to that. It's going to require FDA to
develop a significant training capacity. It's going to require
States to want to engage. There's some money in there for the
States to be able to spend money, to hire people, to upgrade
their level of food inspections, and I think that is going to
pay off a lot.
There's something like $700 million of States and
localities spending on food inspections now, but if FDA doesn't
have the confidence and if there are gaps in those inspections
or they're not at the right, you know, level, then that money
is not being spent as well as it should be.
If we can invest some in increasing the training and we can
give some money to States to be able to do it, then we're
leveraging that $700 million to really strengthen the overall
food safety system.
Now to your point on the FDA's organization, I think that's
something that I know Dr. Hamburg and I are going to look at
very seriously. I think it's clear that the responsibilities
for food are stretched over different areas of FDA.
One thing that I've done since I began is every morning at
7:45 I bring everyone related to food, that's the Office of
Regulatory Affairs, the Associate Commissioner for Food, the
SIFSAN, the Center for Veterinary Medicine, together and we
have met on different food safety issues and that includes
active outbreaks as well as policy issues.
On Thursdays we do a call with USDA and on Friday we do a
call with CDC, I think since day three on the job. So I think
that we've started the process of pulling the food together,
and I think we're going to be looking with Dr. Hamburg's
confirmation at structural issues that could facilitate that.
Senator Kohl. Good. Senator Brownback.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
that.
ACCESS ACT
On the new drug--this Access Act, I put this bill forward
with various co-sponsors, bipartisan bill, over a number of
years.
Why can't the agency do this? It just seems almost inhumane
what we're doing to some people that don't have another option,
and I want you to have safe drugs out there. There's no
question about it, but if somebody's in a terminal situation
with cancer or another disease and there is something here that
they could try that's showing some promise early, they're in
many cases not able to get into clinical trials because they're
not healthy enough to get into clinical trials, why can't we do
this? Why can't you do that?
Dr. Sharfstein. Thank you. I think that's an absolutely
reasonable question to ask, and I have, you know, met with
patients who have faced incredible challenges and sometimes
it's been experimental therapies that have been the things that
have saved their lives.
EXPERMENTAL DRUGS
I think that there are three different issues that I want
to tease out. The first is communication. There are--FDA has
the responsibility to make the pathways that are available to
get experimental drugs as widely available as possible. So
FDA--it's very important that there are different mechanisms
that doctors and companies can use to access drugs in the pre-
approval stage and it's important and one of the things we'll
be focusing on is making sure that those mechanisms are as
widely available as possible. That's just one of three points I
want to make.
The second one is data, and I've been impressed and I've
talked to people on all sides of this issue, had extensive
conversations with people who are very strong supporters of
your legislation, and I've also met with people who have
different views on it, and the one thing that struck me is how
little data we have on what the barriers are, what the point of
the barrier is, and what I mean by that is I'd like to know,
walking into this discussion, of 500 patients with severe, you
know, life-threatening illness who want experimental drugs who
can't--you know, what percent get them either by enrolling in a
trial or, you know getting them through one of the existing
pathways at FDA?
What percent is it that the company is not willing to apply
for an IND or some mechanism or they are applying and FDA is
not granting it, and so, I mean, to me having some basic data
to understand this, and what I've found is that people around
this issue on all sides all agree that there is need for more
data there, and some of that, I believe, exists within FDA, and
we should be able to get that.
We should--I would like to know when people do apply for
these INDs what the rate of approval is and when we're
approving them and when not and why. So I think that that's got
to be part of what informs policy.
Senator Brownback. And you're going to start shaping that
database?
Dr. Sharfstein. Yes, I do want--one of the goals is to get
data that allow us to identify the point, the rate-determining
step. I'm not sure exactly what that is.
And the third thing is flexibility and I think both Dr.
Hamburg and I are going to go into this with an open mind about
it. I do understand the issue that it's very important for
there to be data about the effectiveness of new drugs because
without that data, you----
Senator Brownback. It's the Wild West on the Internet
without that data.
Dr. Sharfstein. Right.
Senator Brownback. I mean, it's just people putting all
sorts of things out there and when you're in that type of
situation you're willing to listen to about anything.
Dr. Sharfstein. Well, there's a very, you know, disturbing
report in the Chicago Tribune about an approach that people are
using for autism that a lot of people feel like is potentially
dangerous to kids and, you know, you have to--FDA has a
responsibility on both sides, a responsibility that people
aren't exposing themselves to, you know, risk without benefit
but also where there is benefit and people can make a
reasonable decision to help them do that, at the same time
understanding the need for, you know, real evidence about the
products.
Senator Brownback. I hope we can work with you and the
incoming Director of the FDA to maybe get some of these
specific steps taken care of so we can make it more accessible.
Dr. Sharfstein. I'll tell you, I talked to David Kessler
before I took this job and what he said to me was when he looks
back on his time at FDA, the thing that he's most proud of is
getting the medications for HIV patients.
Senator Brownback. Yeah. It was a fabulous move and they
really sped it up and thankfully because they did people lived
and now we're slowing it down for a lot of others and people
die.
I can get you the studies from the groups and I'm sure
you've seen these numbers of tens of thousands of people dying
waiting for a drug to get on the market and in many cases that
is eventually approved and then they die waiting and that's
what just--you look at it and you think that's just cruel.
But I hope you can work with us on this because I thought
what Kessler did was spot on when he looked at this real crisis
that was existing and we've got a cancer crisis now. I hope you
can work with this on that.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Senator Brownback.
Senator Pryor is here from Arkansas. Senator Pryor, you
have a full 5 minutes.
NCTR
Senator Pryor. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for your leadership on this.
Let me ask, if I may, Dr. Sharfstein, about an FDA facility
that's actually located in my State, the NCTR, National Center
for Toxicological Research. Are you familiar with that center?
Dr. Sharfstein. Yes, not only that, I think its director is
behind me here.
Senator Pryor. Great. And----
Dr. Sharfstein. I'm looking forward to visiting.
Senator Pryor. Good. Well, I know that the administration's
asked for $1 million to do some nano research there, to
research the effects of nano technology which I think is
important research, and I think it needs to be done because
obviously nano technology offers a lot of promise in the
future, but we need to be very clear about the health risks
before we go forward.
And my question for you is, if you know, is $1 million
enough to do an adequate job or at least get an adequate start
on that research?
Dr. Sharfstein. Let me just check. I think that the money
actually pays for some pretty important equipment. I think it
is going to pay for if not an electron microscope then the
actual materials to support the electron microscope and an
electron microscopy technician.
So it allows the--it's sort of an investment in the ability
of NCTR to do critical research on nano technology, and I think
your point is extremely important and this is, I think, a point
that is very important for FDA generally. This is a new field
and if there's an unforeseen safety problem, it could really
hurt the field, but by having good data and doing sensible
regulation, then we provide confidence to that field. It can
grow. It can become a big, you know, improve--you know, could
create all sorts of products that are beneficial to public
health.
So this is not a situation where regulation and the, you
know, interests of industry are at odds. In fact, if we can do
sensible regulation, we establish safety, then you could
imagine that, you know, 20 years from now people would be
looking back and seeing it as just the birth of a whole
movement in nano technology.
Senator Pryor. Right. And the other part is not just nano
products generally but I know there's some real potential for
medical breakthroughs using nano technology.
Recently, I saw that there was an announcement that you can
somehow get carbon nano tubes and they think that they can be a
very accurate treatment for cancer that doesn't harm the rest
of the body but then again, I think the other health research
needs to be done on that.
You have a very promising technology, you know, very
promising development with nano technology. You just need to
make sure that it's not harming others.
Dr. Sharfstein. Well, I agree, and I think this is an area
where you have something that's so promising. Part of FDA's job
is not just to sit back and see what happens but to really
engage in the conversations and try to facilitate.
Senator Pryor. Right. That's right. You mentioned in your
testimony a few moments ago that you have a consumer team at
FDA and you're doing warning letters to companies that are
selling, I guess, sounds like maybe miracle cures on the H1N1?
Dr. Sharfstein. Correct.
Senator Pryor. And I'm just interested in that. I think you
said you sent out 31 letters, and is it possible for you to
provide the committee with copies of those letters so that we
could know who's out there doing that?
I'm chair of the Consumer Subcommittee over in the Commerce
Committee. So I'd like to get those. Is there any real update
on that or is there any status report you want to give us?
WARNING LETTERS
Dr. Sharfstein. Yes, I think the latest information I have
is that there were 36 warning letters and we'd be happy to
provide them to you, and I think there's 69 products cited in
the warning letters, and I mentioned a couple of them, one of
which says that independent tests show this product is hundreds
of times more effective at killing the flu virus than the most
potential antiviral prescription medications known. It's the
only one that actually kills the virus and automatically
eliminates all symptoms. That's one.
[The information follows:]
http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2009/
default.htm
Senator Pryor. Right.
Dr. Sharfstein. The other says it's good for swine flu,
bird flu, MRSA, SARS, malaria, anthrax, TB, Bubonic plaque and
sexually-transmitted diseases.
So I think that there's a whole list of them and, you know,
on the one hand, maybe if it's totally harmless, you know, you
think, well, you know, why waste--why spend resources in that
direction, but the truth is somebody who's sick and maybe they
don't even have swine flu, somebody who's sick may be turning
to products because of the claims that they're making and not
going to the doctor and potentially getting worse, and, you
know, it's important that people not be misled by inappropriate
information.
Senator Pryor. Right. I would encourage, if you could, you
to work with the Consumer Product Safety Commission, even
though you're talking about drugs. They have a lot of expertise
in tracking that and trying to prevent those types of scams and
rip-offs.
DRUG IMPORTATION
One last question, if I may, and that is about importing
drugs. There's been a question here in years past about how
safe imported drugs are into this country and as I understand
it, the president is trying to work with stakeholders to
develop a policy on imported drugs.
Do you know anything about?
Dr. Sharfstein. Sure. So there are two issues. I think a
lot of drugs in the United States--drug supplies are imported
now in the sense that they're manufactured abroad or they have
materials that are manufactured abroad and there's a whole
issue of safety there that's very important to deal with.
The second issue is the purchase of drugs that are approved
in other countries, so not drugs that are FDA-approved but
drugs that are approved, say, by the regulatory authority in
Canada, for example, and whether it is appropriate, safe, to
design a system that would permit importation of drugs approved
in other countries as opposed to the importation of U.S. drugs
which happens all the time.
And what the budget has is $5 million for FDA to develop a
framework and a policy that could permit that to be done
safely. So I think--so basically, we would spend some time
thinking through what the challenges to that kind of system
would be and try to design an approach to solve those
challenges and I think one of the benefits to this is that some
of the issues there are going to be relevant to the first
problem, too.
So no matter what we find, it's going to be helpful to us.
If we are trying to understand more about how to trace the
pedigree of drugs so that we can be sure we're getting true
drugs from other countries, that's going to help us understand
how to do that well in the United States, too.
So I think there's a crossover benefit of that project.
Senator Pryor. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Thanks a lot, Senator Pryor. Senator Bennett.
CRITICAL PATH
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and my
question will come as a great surprise.
Tell me about the Critical Path and what you see and what
your attitude is and what you think the ongoing attitude will
be.
Dr. Sharfstein. So I think--thank you. I think the Critical
Path has been a very important effort by FDA and it's something
that I believe Dr. Hamburg supports, and I certainly support.
I think the question is what is the Critical Path going to
mean and in talking to the people who run it and in talking to
Dr. Goodman, who's now the Acting Chief Scientist and is here,
I think that we see the Critical Path as a way to do very
important partnerships that permit breakthroughs in diagnostics
and in treatment and so there's a lot of important work.
It's not just the job of the Critical Path to think about
basic treatment. That's the job of FDA. I mean that's the job
of a lot of different people.
Senator Bennett. Sure.
Dr. Sharfstein. The role of the Critical Path is to think
of partnerships and one of the examples of that is this study
that is one of the things that was funded by the support that
we have received in increases in the last couple of years, that
FDA is facilitating working with partners that design and
conduct a large trial to compare the benefits of extended anti-
platelet therapy versus aspirin alone in patients receiving
stents, and this is a study that will really answer some pretty
important questions. It's being overseen by the Critical Path
team because of the nature of the partnership that's there.
So I think that what I also liked about the Critical Path
particularly is that it naturally is connecting its investments
to the outcome, and I think that's something that, in general,
FDA needs to do better. We're getting all this money. What are
we delivering?
And what I like about the Critical Path and I've got the
report you may have seen, Projects Receiving Critical Path
Support in Fiscal Year 2008, and what it does is say, look, you
gave us this money, here's what we're doing and if it works,
here is what we're going to get for it, and I think that that
is--it's important to--the Critical Path serves the role of
pushing that thinking all the way into FDA.
So I think that you're going to see support for that at FDA
and I think I'd like to have a very clear philosophy
articulated and then lots of clear things that we're delivering
on that benefits the public health.
TOBACCO
Senator Bennett. Thank you. An unrelated question. There is
a very strong push going on, which I expect will probably
succeed in this Congress, to give FDA jurisdiction over
tobacco.
I've always resisted that on the grounds that FDA is an
agency that has as its goal determining whether or not things
are safe and you can determine whether or not tobacco is safe
or healthy in an afternoon. But now you're going to
``regulate'' tobacco and it's a new role for FDA.
Do you have any idea as to exactly what FDA would do with
respect to regulating tobacco, and how much of a burden it will
put on FDA personnel if the bill with respect to tobacco and
FDA passes?
I clearly am one who wants to do everything I can to get
people to stop smoking because it's one of our biggest health
problems in the United States. My concern has absolutely
nothing to do with that. It has to do with FDA as the suitable
agency, but it looks like I'm going to be overruled and I
probably will end up voting for the bill anyway because I don't
want to be accused of being in favor of big tobacco simply
because no other agency presents itself as the one to deal with
it. So you're going to get stuck with it.
Now, do you have any insight for us as to how it's going to
work and what you're going to do?
Dr. Sharfstein. Thank you, and I think it's--obviously
given the circumstances and the legislation moving forward, I
totally understand the question.
To your point about the--it being a little unusual for FDA
to be regulating something that is clearly unsafe, I think that
the bigger picture is that FDA is a public health agency and
takes a lot of steps in terms of regulating products to improve
the public health, and I think that's the approach that would
have to be taken for tobacco, which is the leading cause of
preventable death and also one of the least regulated products
in the market.
I do think that the--we're going to have to read very
carefully the bill that's passed by Congress, and I think what
we would do is going to depend on the final shape of the
legislation and still hasn't gone to the Senate Floor, and I
know there may be all sorts of amendments and changes and, you
know, our job is to implement the legislation that Congress has
passed.
So I think that there is a budding science, science that I
think we can expect to grow over time, about what about tobacco
may be responsible for different adverse problems that result
from tobacco and as that science grows, FDA will be in a
position to make different types of tobacco products less
harmful, and I think that's one area that the bill definitely
contemplates as it's written now, to allow the agency to
establish performance standards in different areas, but that's
going to depend on the scientific findings and the approach the
FDA would take to this is going to be, you know, weighing the
risk and the benefit of different approaches for things, as the
FDA often has to do, in completely different contexts.
As far as the burden question, I think that's obviously a
fair question because FDA has a lot to do. Otherwise, I think
that it is--I think that the administration believes, Dr.
Hamburg believes, and I believe that the FDA is the right
agency for this task, given the experience the FDA has in
regulation and some of the expertise in particular elements.
Even if it's not, you know, cigarettes, when you have a
toxicology issue, if you have toxicologists, they can helpful.
They can help you figure out what the right team to have there
is.
I think the bill has got to provide adequate resources and
the current version does for the agency to do the work and with
that, I think what Dr. Hamburg has said is that we have to be--
you know, the agency already has to be able to do more than one
thing well at once, and this is going to be another thing but
it's a very important thing.
In the big picture, it's going to improve the health of
Americans and for that reason, I think it's important.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much. I'm encouraged.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SAFE DRUG USAGE
Senator Kohl. Thanks very much, Senator Bennett.
Dr. Sharfstein, the FDA recently acknowledged that
prescription drug information provided to consumers at the
pharmacy can be very bewildering and not easily understood.
Your budget proposes $3.4 million to promote safe drug usage.
Will these funds be used to address that problem I just
described, and what process and time table will FDA be using to
make sure that consumers get streamlined easy-to-understand
language when they buy their prescription drugs?
Dr. Sharfstein. Thank you. It's a very good question
because there's information that comes about drugs from
multiple different sources. You see the ads, the handouts which
can be like, you know, the actual package inserts which can be
very small print and difficult to understand, then there's
things that people get in the pharmacy. Sometimes they're
approved by FDA and sometimes they're not and they can be
potentially misleading sometimes. So I think the point you're
raising is important.
The Safer Drug Initiative has a goal of working
collaboratively with a lot of external partners, including
pharmacies, to get better information and instructions to
people. It relates not just to information but also things like
how to keep medicines at home, how not to let kids into
medicines and a whole bunch of other things that can have a big
impact on health if they're followed through on.
As far as the particular projects and timing, I think I
might want to ask Dr. Woodcock, who is here, the head of the
Center for Drugs, to answer that, if that's okay, or if you
prefer, we can provide more of an answer.
Dr. Woodcock. Hi. I'm Janet Woodcock. Yes, we agree, and as
you alluded to, at a recent public meeting we talked about the
survey that had been done, a scientific survey by contractors
of consumer information that is given to people when they fill
prescriptions, and it did not meet the criteria for usefulness
for patients that had been established.
MED GUIDES
So we are going to be going through the next year through a
process and we're going to look not just at that consumer
information but, as Dr. Sharfstein alluded to, to med guides
and to patient package inserts and all these different forms of
information that people can get and try to craft something that
is maximally useful to people who fill prescriptions and have
to take medicine.
Senator Kohl. That's good. Thank you.
Senator Brownback.
Senator Brownback. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
COST OF DRUG DEVELOPMENT
Dr. Sharfstein, just one final comment area. I'm very
troubled about the cost of developing a new drug nowadays and
I'm hearing now pharmacy schools, University of Kansas School
of Pharmacy is one of the top in a number of different surveys,
the top pharmacy school in the country, saying that the cost of
drugs, the cost of developing a drug is so high now that whole
categories are not even particularly being focused on because
there's not a big enough patient pool to support the research
dollars that's necessary, in the hundreds of millions, I
suppose even billions, of dollars, to bring out some new drugs.
I very much appreciate the focus on safety and we need to
have that, but now if we're shutting off to the side a
potential drug development because it only had 300,000 patients
or 1 million potential patients and you spread the costs of $1
billion drug over them and they're saying we can't do it, I
would hope that you and the new team that comes in at FDA would
look at this and say this is a major problem for us because now
we're going to have whole areas where we're not even going to
be researching what you put--how you try to treat this and if
you get it, you know, God save you.
I'm hopeful it becomes better. I really hope you look at
that and I also want to invite you out to the KU Pharmacy
School. I just toured there not long ago and I think they're
doing some really fascinating work on screening throughputs of
different compounds on a very rapid basis and I'm sure you're
familiar with the technique.
I was impressed with it, though, and the way they're
looking at these items, and I do hope you really get on top of
that cost issue because it's going to kill people if we don't
get on top of it.
Dr. Sharfstein. Thank you. I know that Dr. Hamburg has a
special interest in orphan drugs and drugs for diseases that
don't, you know, affect as many people as sort of the major
drugs.
I know in the last couple years FDA's approved a couple
drugs under the Orphan Drug Program, including a drug for
Huntington's disease and a drug for Hunter's disease, and I
remember taking care of kids with that. But it's something that
requires and will get attention from us to understand what
needs to happen.
I was just at an event for the National Organization of
Rare Diseases and, you know, I heard from everybody the concern
that you're raising and I think both Dr. Hamburg and I are
going to be very interested.
I think that when you think about FDA, the role of FDA,
it's both about benefit and risk. In other words, we want to
maximize the benefit, we want to help get drugs to people who
need them and at the same time we want to reduce the safety
concerns, and both parts of that equation are very important to
us.
Senator Brownback. I want to invite you out and we'll give
you a cholesterol-free steak,----
Dr. Sharfstein. Okay. Sounds good.
Senator Brownback [continuing]. Top quality. Thanks, Mr.
Chairman.
ADDITIONAL STAFF
Senator Kohl. Thanks a lot, Senator Brownback.
Dr. Sharfstein, will you tell us a little bit about your
plus-up in staff by quite a few hundred and what you're going
to let them or direct them to be doing?
Dr. Sharfstein. Sure. In the fiscal year 2010 budget, you
mean?
Senator Kohl. Yes.
Dr. Sharfstein. Let's see. I think that the total number--
--
Senator Kohl. It says here you have 678 additional staff to
work on food safety and some few more hundred to work on
medical product safety.
Can you confirm that and tell the American public that you
really are adding people to work on the issues of food safety
and food inspection and----
Dr. Sharfstein. Yes, the--for foods, it'll be about 220
more inspectors as well as analysts and a total of about 600 or
so of people to work on foods. For medicines, it's going to be
about, as I said, 300 more people and that includes a lot of
scientists who will be working to make sure that drugs,
vaccines, tissues, devices, are safer and we understand the
opportunities for new novel products better.
So I think that these investments, we should see and we
should be able to explain clearly to you and to anyone who asks
how we're using these investments not just to hire people and
not just to get inspections, for example, but to actually
deliver results that matter to people.
Senator Kohl. Your Rapid Response Program, how's that
working?
Dr. Sharfstein. For food safety?
Senator Kohl. Yeah. The food outbreaks.
Dr. Sharfstein. Food outbreaks?
Senator Kohl. Yes.
Dr. Sharfstein. I think that I'm familiar with how we
responded to the food outbreaks that I've been involved in, but
I might ask David Acheson to come forward and talk about that
particularly.
I'm not sure what part of that is referred to as the Rapid
Response Program.
What we have done and I've seen is that FDA has been
working very closely with the States and localities. We are
involved with CDC and with the industry when there's an issue
and it's moved very quickly so that we're able to narrow the
scope of the pistachio recall very quickly and the scope of the
alfalfa sprout very quickly. It was because of coordinated
action among those different groups.
And let me see if--it would be Dr. Acheson.
Senator Kohl. We have just a minute or so before we have to
end.
RAPID RESPONSE
Dr. Acheson. Good afternoon. I'm David Acheson, Associate
Commissioner for Foods.
I think you're probably referring to the Rapid Response
Teams that we're putting out in the States.
Senator Kohl. That's correct.
Dr. Acheson. And we've now got six of those funded with the
machinery operating to fund another three. This is all part of
the integrated FDA-State-local systems that are--this is
obviously focused on response and that's clearly at the end of
the spectrum, but that's beginning to work very well and bear
good fruit, and we're targeting working with the States much
earlier in these situations and not waiting until it's later.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Kohl. Thank you. Well, Dr. Sharfstein, we want to
thank you and your staff for being here today.
I believe the FDA is going to become increasingly
responsive to all the important needs in our society under your
direction along with Dr. Hamburg, and we are looking forward to
working with you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
fda's new plan for food safety and states' role
Question. What do you think is the appropriate role of States in
this effort? It appears that funding for State contract inspections is
increasing very slightly. Should that number go up?
Answer. For fiscal year 2010, FDA is requesting funding for a new
strategic framework for an integrated national food safety system. A
system that has adequate Nation-wide coverage will require
implementation across multiple years. For fiscal year 2010, FDA is
requesting $14.61 million to begin to build the FDA infrastructure for
the system.
The States will play a central role in the strategic framework for
an integrated national food safety system. FDA's fiscal year 2010
investment in infrastructure is essential to help establish the
standards, training, accreditation and oversight programs that are
integral to an effective system, to leverage State regulatory programs,
and to ensure consistent standards among regulatory partners.
Question. What percent of FDA food inspections are carried out by
State inspectors through a contract?
Answer. During fiscal year 2008, FDA and our State partners
conducted 16,125 domestic food inspections. Of this amount, State
inspectors under contract to FDA conducted 8,777 inspections, or 54
percent of the total. If animal feed inspections are added to the count
of food inspections, State inspectors under contract to FDA conducted
14,489 or 60 percent of the 24,037 domestic food and animal feed
inspections. FDA also has responsibility over FDA-regulated products
entering the United States. During fiscal year 2008, FDA inspected 152
foreign food establishments and completed 100,718 import field exams.
Question. What percent of FDA medical product inspections are
carried out by State inspectors through a contract?
Answer. During fiscal year 2008, FDA and our State partners
conducted 13,588 domestic medical product inspections. Of this amount,
State inspectors under contract to FDA conducted 7,652 inspections, or
56 percent of the total. The State contract inspections consist of 13
medical device inspections and 7,639 medical product mammography
facility inspections conducted as part of the Mammography Quality
Standards Act. In the case of non-mammography inspections, State
inspectors conducted less than 1 percent of non-mammography inspections
during fiscal year 2008.
Question. The budget says this new system may require new
authorities, including multi-year budget authority. I don't see this
request in the budget. Can you elaborate?
Answer. FDA is requesting $14.61 million to begin to build the FDA
infrastructure for an integrated national food safety system. These
funds will allow FDA to establish the standards, training,
accreditation and oversight programs that are integral to an effective
system. FDA cannot establish an integrated national food safety system
during a single fiscal year. We hope to continue to build this system
over time.
Question. Recent reports have highlighted FDA's failure to properly
audit State inspection programs. Is there funding in the budget to
increase these audits?
Answer. Yes, the request to increase funding to enhance our audit
program for State inspections is part of the funding request for the
Integrated National Food Safety System. Enhancing our audit program
will allow FDA to increase the audit staff conducting oversight of
State food safety inspections.
Question. Will all of the additional food inspections be carried
out by FDA inspectors, or will some of them be through State and other
contracts?
Answer. Additional food inspections will be carried out by FDA
investigators. The fiscal year 2010 budget increase will allow FDA to
hire additional investigators to increase the number of domestic and
foreign inspections that FDA conducts.
For the fiscal year 2010 budget increase, FDA estimates that it
will hire approximately 126 more investigators with Budget Authority
and approximately 96 more investigators with Food Inspection and
Facility Registration User Fees to conduct domestic and foreign food
safety inspections. Due to the time that it will take to train the new
FDA investigators, FDA will not achieve the increase in domestic
inspections until the end of 2012. FDA will achieve an increase in
foreign inspections associated with the additional investigators by the
end of fiscal year 2012. The fiscal year 2010 budget increase will
allow FDA to use Budget Authority to conduct 2,000 domestic and 50
foreign inspections. In addition, FDA will also use Food Inspection and
Facility Registration User Fees to conduct an additional 2,000 domestic
and 50 foreign inspections. This will achieve a total of 4,000
additional domestic food safety inspections in fiscal year 2012 and 100
additional foreign food safety inspections in fiscal year 2012.
rapid response teams
Question. The budget includes $12 million to accelerate responses
to food borne outbreaks. What specifically will this money be for?
Answer. The $12.1 million increase that you identify will allow FDA
to increase its laboratory capacity to support food safety activities.
These funds will not be used to increase the number of rapid response
teams. The $12.1 million will allow FDA to fund three additional
chemistry labs for the Food Emergency Response Network--FERN--and
provide additional support to State microbiology laboratories in the
FERN system.
Question. How many rapid response teams have been created
throughout the country, and where?
Answer. At this time, there are six rapid response teams. The teams
are in California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, and
North Carolina. FDA is in the process of awarding cooperative
agreements to establish three additional rapid response teams before
the end of 2009.
Question. Please provide a summary of the activities of the rapid
response teams to date.
Answer. All teams completed initial developmental activities, which
included training and an assessment of their response capacities. By
July of 2009, all teams will have participated in 2-day FDA sponsored
training sessions. By September, all teams are due to complete their
Manufactured Foods Regulatory Program Standards Assessments.
The participating States are at varying stages of their plans to
acquire additional team members, to provide training to support team
objectives and to initiate practice exercises to prepare the team.
Additional training opportunities consist of other courses provided by
FDA and relevant courses supplied through other qualified sources. All
States are meeting the milestones set out under the cooperative
agreements.
The six participating States entered into the Rapid Response Teams
pilot cooperative agreements with FDA with varying degrees of
established team experience and structure. Several States had already
invested in developing team structures while others are using the
resources available through the FDA agreements to initiate teams this
year. These different experience levels across the six State teams have
yielded some States with the capability to activate teams in this first
year of the agreement. States with developed and practiced teams have
deployed them in response to State level incidents and incidents under
FDA jurisdiction, such as the coordinated response to Salmonella in
peanut butter earlier this year. The remaining States continue to
obtain training, develop procedures, and prepare for practice
exercises.
generic drugs
Question. Even though Congress has provided increases over the last
few years for generic drug review, the backlog of applications
continues to grow. The user fee being proposed has been proposed in
previous budgets, but never authorized. Do you think this year will be
different? If the user fees aren't enacted, is the budget for generic
drugs adequate?
Answer. Although generic drug user fees have been proposed in
previous budgets, FDA plans to reengage the generic drug industry in
user fee discussions this year to make progress on this important
proposal. Our aim will be to develop a user fee program that provides
the FDA generic drug program with the resources needed to modernize and
enhance the capacity of the generic drug review process and to ensure
timely patient access to safe and effective new generic drugs. FDA
believes that the resources in the fiscal year 2010 proposed generic
drug user fee program are necessary to reduce the review backlog and
ensure patient access to safe and affordable generic drugs.
new authorities requested in the budget
Question. There are no details in the budget regarding the new
authority for generic biologics. What is the status of this, and is
there an associated cost?
Answer. The fiscal year 2010 Budget supports the creation of a new
regulatory pathway under the Public Health Service Act for FDA approval
of ``generic biologics,'' a term that refers to follow-on biological
products that are highly similar to--or biosimilar--and may be
substitutable or interchangeable for a previously approved biological
product. As I mentioned in my testimony, establishing a generic
biologics pathway will require new legislation.
FDA has approved follow-on versions of certain protein products
under the existing abbreviated approval pathways in the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act. However, the majority of protein products now
on the market have been licensed as biological products under the
Public Health Service Act, which does not contain analogous abbreviated
approval pathways.
Safe and effective generic biologics may prove to be a critical
element to lowering costs for American consumers and the healthcare
system more broadly. FDA would require additional resources to augment
our existing capabilities for regulatory activities associated with a
generic biologics program, and anticipates the need for significant
additional analytical testing capabilities. Depending on the scope and
requirements of any legislation establishing a generic biologics
pathway, we expect that there will be a large workload in the early
phase of a generic biologics program in our pre-application
activities--including meeting with industry and providing advice--as
well as developing policy and procedures, publishing guidance, and
promulgating regulations. We also anticipate receiving some
applications for review shortly after enactment of legislation, with an
increasing number of applications for review in subsequent years.
Question. What is the administration's plan to get the 4 new user
fees you mention in your statement authorized? What are the results if
that doesn't happen?
Answer. FDA plans to work with the administration, with Congress
and with stakeholders to authorize the four new user fee programs
proposed in the fiscal year 2010 budget. In the event that our efforts
are not successful, FDA will rely on existing funding in the form of
budget authority to conduct the four program activities without the
benefit of additional user fees.
additional staff requested in the budget/pay costs
Question. How many additional staff has FDA hired with the
increases provided in the supplemental and the fiscal year 2009
increases?
Answer. FDA has hired 859 additional staff from the funds provided
in the fiscal year 2008 supplemental and the fiscal year 2009 budget
authority and user fee increases. As of May 18, 2009, there were 720
hires on board with 139 staff scheduled to start soon thereafter.
Question. Although the budget includes nearly $30 million for pay
costs, it also includes a chart that says FDA will have to absorb an
additional $33 million to fully fund pay costs. How were these numbers
developed? If you are only provided the $30 million requested, where
will the rest of the money come from?
Answer. The Administration developed the estimate of the total pay
cost for FDA based on the estimate of the annual pay adjustment for
civilian and military employees and the estimate of the numbers of FDA
employees who would receive a pay increase. FDA will cover any
shortfall in the fiscal year 2010 of the annual pay adjustment through
a combination of strategies, including reducing operating costs and
adjusting when it conducts hiring.
fda regulation of tobacco
Question. As you know, Congress is currently considering a bill
that would require FDA to regulate tobacco. The bill is proposed to be
funded through user fees. However, will there be start-up costs
required before the user fees are collected? I don't see any in the
budget request.
Answer. In order to begin implementation of this important program
FDA will borrow $5 million from its fiscal year 2009 budget authority.
This modest sum is necessary to establish a process to calculate the
amount of user fees due, issue bills, and collect fees from covered
manufacturers and importers of tobacco products. We estimate that we
will need approximately four staff to establish the user fee program
and there will be associated expenses to adapt our existing IT systems
to include billing and collection of these fees. In addition to
establishing the user fee program, we would also use these borrowed
funds to hire a small number of staff, perhaps 10 or 12 individuals, to
begin the work entrusted to the new Center for Tobacco Products. FDA
will repay the borrowed funds within 6 months or as soon as sufficient
user fees are collected.
antibiotic resistance
Question. I understand that FDA has tested penicillin to see
whether or not its use in animals results in antibiotic-resistance
bacteria that can be transferred to people. Are the results of these
tests available? Does FDA intend to test other previously approved
antibiotics currently being used for non-therapeutic reasons in
livestock?
Answer. Although FDA has not conducted tests on penicillin, FDA has
conducted a review of all available information relevant to assessing
the safety of using the penicillin class of antimicrobial drugs in the
feed of food-producing animals. FDA is also reviewing information about
other classes of antimicrobial drugs as it is broadly concerned about
the use of all medically-important antimicrobial drugs for production
or nontherapeutic purposes in food-producing animals.
adulterated pomegranate juice
Question. What activities has FDA undertaken, or does FDA have
planned, in order to prevent adulterated pomegranate juice from
entering U.S. commerce?
Answer. FDA is planning to conduct testing of imported pomegranate
juice to determine if it is pure pomegranate or contains other
materials. We anticipate issuing the assignment to test pomegranate
juice in the next 3 to 6 months.
national antimicrobial monitoring system
Question. What amount is provided in the fiscal year 2010 budget
for NARMS?
Answer. The estimated fiscal year 2010 budget for NARMS will remain
at the same level it was funded in fiscal year 2009. The fiscal year
2009 amount is $6.7 million.
Question. Please describe the activities undertaken with NARMS
funding.
Answer. A key component of the FDA strategy is to assess
relationships between antimicrobial use in agriculture and subsequent
human health consequences is the National Antimicrobial Resistance
Monitoring System--NARMS. NARMS is a collaborative effort between FDA's
Center for Veterinary Medicine--CVM, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture--USDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention--CDC,
and public health laboratories in all 50 States. NARMS monitors
antimicrobial susceptibility/resistance within two categories of
enteric bacteria: zoonotic bacterial pathogens--Salmonella and
Campylobacter--and commensal--not usually pathogenic--bacteria--
Escherichia coli and Enterococcus.
NARMS uses comparable testing methods at CDC--human isolates, FDA--
retail meat isolates, and USDA--food animal slaughter isolates. Samples
are tested to determine changes in the susceptibility or resistance of
certain enteric bacteria to selected antimicrobial drugs of human and
veterinary importance in order to guide intervention efforts to
mitigate resistance dissemination. The antimicrobial drugs tested are
selected based on their importance in human and animal medicine. Annual
Executive Reports summarizing data from all three NARMS components are
posted on the FDA NARMS homepage.
NARMS Salmonella and Campylobacter isolates are subjected to
further molecular fingerprinting. This information is submitted to the
CDC PulseNet database for use in epidemiological foodborne outbreak
investigations. The information provides public health officials a
better understanding of the dynamics of foodborne illness attribution
in the United States.
FDA continues to maximize cooperation and communication between
FDA, USDA, and CDC to increase efficient use of limited resources in
database development, testing methods and sampling strategies.
In 2007, the FDA Science Board subcommittee evaluated NARMS. The
program has evolved into a mission-critical tool for FDA. New pilot
projects have proven worthwhile and merit further development, and the
on-farm data can help to better link the human and animal health
interface. NARMS scientists continue to address and implement many FDA
Science Board recommendations.
methicillin-resistance staphylococcus aereua--mrsa
Question. Please provide a summary of activities FDA is undertaking
regarding MRSA.
Answer. An important role for FDA is providing information on
clinical trial designs to study drugs for the treatment of infections
due to methicillin-resistant staphyloccus aureus, or MRSA. As part of
these efforts, on November 18, 2008, the FDA Anti-Infective Drugs
Advisory Committee convened to provide advice concerning clinical trial
designs for testing new drugs for complicated skin infections,
including those caused by MRSA. The Advisory Committee recommendations
focused on feasible non-inferiority trial designs that would provide
informative data regarding safety and efficacy. FDA also meets with
pharmaceutical industry sponsors to provide guidance concerning drug
development programs, including those for new drugs targeting MRSA.
FDA reviews investigational new drug applications, or INDs, and
reviews and approves new drug applications, or NDAs, and biological
license application or BLAs, for products for the treatment of MRSA.
FDA conducts research focused in identifying potential vaccine
components that can protect against various forms of MRSA disease and
on developing animal models that can be used to evaluate the protective
capabilities of these vaccines.
In addition, FDA has cleared more than ten diagnostic tests for
detection or screening for MRSA. We continue to actively work with
industry as they develop their devices to assure that safe and
effective devices to detect MRSA are cleared through FDA in an
expedient manner. We are also actively involved with clinicians,
laboratory experts, and governmental agencies to determine changes in
antibiotic resistance and determine what testing is necessary to detect
changes in resistance.
Question. Is funding provided in the budget for FDA to test for the
presence of MRSA in the swine herd? Is this an appropriate activity for
FDA to undertake?
Answer. Although the fiscal year 2010 budget does not include
specific funding to test for the presence of MRSA in the swine herd,
FDA agrees that MRSA needs to be studied. FDA is working closely with
USDA and CDC to address issues relating to the prevalence of MRSA.
FDA is in the midst of a pilot study that is testing retail meat
samples for MRSA and will use the results of this study to determine
the correlation, if any, to clinical cases of infection.
office of cosmetics and colors
Question. Please provide a history of the budget authority funding
amounts for the Office of Cosmetics and Colors for the past 5 years.
Answer. The 5-year budget authority funding history for the Office
of Cosmetics and Colors (OCAC) cosmetics program and the companion
program in FDA's field component, the Office of Regulatory Affairs
(ORA), appears in the following chart. OCAC current cosmetics
activities include developing regulations, guidance, and policy,
providing direction to the field program, conducting safety
assessments, administering the Voluntary Cosmetic Registration Program
(VCRP), and participating in international harmonization activities.
During fiscal year 2007, CFSAN centralized all cosmetics compliance and
research components into offices outside OCAC, with one office focused
entirely on compliance and a second office focused entirely on
research. Compliance and research staff from OCAC were realigned to
these offices and are reflected under the column titled ``Other CFSAN
Cosmetics FTEs'' in the following table. OCAC also has a color
certification program, which is exclusively supported by user fees and
not supported by appropriated funds. We estimate that the color
certification program will collect $7.7 million in fiscal year 2009.
The ORA activities in the field cosmetics program include
inspections and field exams, sample analyses for contaminants and non-
permitted ingredients, and evaluations for labeling compliance.
COSMETICS PROGRAM FIVE YEAR FUNDING HISTORY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFSAN ORA Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year OCAC Other CFSAN
Dollars in Cosmetics Cosmetics Dollars in FTE Dollars in FTE
millions FTEs FTEs millions millions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005......................................................... $3.4 28 ( \1\ ) $1.8 14 $5.1 42
2006......................................................... 3.4 27 ( \1\ ) 1.7 12 5.1 39
2007......................................................... 2.3 10 7 1.9 13 4.2 30
2008......................................................... 3.8 13 8 2.3 14 6.1 35
2009......................................................... 5.0 15 8 2.9 15 7.9 37
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not available.
Question. Is the funding level in the President's budget adequate?
Answer. The fiscal year 2010 President's Budget provides $8,204,000
for the FDA cosmetics program. As in other product areas that FDA
regulates, changes in technology and the increasingly global nature of
the industry present challenges to FDA regulation of the cosmetics
industry. FDA will continue to assess the risks to public health of
cosmetic products and [the administration will] seek additional
resources where necessary.
demonstration grants for improving pediatric device availability
Question. How much of the funding provided in fiscal year 2009 has
been obligated?
Answer. Fiscal year 2009 is the first year of the Pediatric Device
Grants Program. As of May 2009, none of the $2 million appropriated for
pediatric device consortia grants has been obligated. The due date for
grant applications is June 15. FDA plans to make grant awards by
September 30, 2009.
Question. How many applications were received for this program, and
what was the total?
Answer. We will know how many applications we received after the
June 15 closing date for program applications. Based on inquiries from
potential applicants, we expect to receive at least six applications.
Question. Of the total applications received, how many were funded?
Answer. Pediatric Device grants will be awarded on a competitive
basis. FDA will review the grant applications scored by a panel of
experts in mid-July. Shortly thereafter, we will know how many are
funded.
Question. What types of activities are these grants funding?
Answer. Once FDA makes grant awards in September, we will be happy
to provide you with more specific information on the activities funded.
The goal of this grants program is to promote pediatric device
development by providing grants to nonprofit consortia. The consortia
will facilitate the development, production, and distribution of
pediatric medical devices by encouraging innovation, mentoring and
managing pediatric device projects, and providing assistance and advice
to innovators and physicians on business development.
cost of inspections
Question. What is the average cost of a foreign and domestic food
inspection and medical product inspection?
Answer. FDA estimates the average total cost for a domestic food
inspection would be $9,700 and $24,400 for a foreign food inspection in
fiscal year 2010. We also estimate the average total cost for a
domestic medical product inspection would be $20,300 and $41,900 for a
foreign medical product inspection in fiscal year 2010. The inspection
cost figures include inspectional time, compliance review, supervisory
oversight, and general administrative costs for all applicable FDA
offices.
The numbers of hours FDA investigators spend on a food or medical
product inspection can vary from just a few hours to well over 100
hours due to the different types of products, manufacturing processes
and numbers of quality systems to cover during any one inspection. Food
inspections include, but are not limited to, food safety, low acid
canned foods, acidified foods, seafood HACCP, and interstate travel
sanitation. Medical product inspections include, but are not limited
to, pre-approval and pre-market inspections of medical devices and
human/animal drugs, bioresearch monitoring inspections for biologics,
medical devices, and human/animal drugs, blood banks, donor centers,
source plasma, human tissue processors, post-market GMP surveillance
for biologics, drugs and devices, medical gas, radiological health, and
adverse drug events.
The figures above do not include the costs to the agency to collect
and test a sample of a product or to conduct any actions that may
result from problems the agency identifies during an inspection, such
as a recall or a follow up inspection to see that appropriate actions
were taken to correct a violation.
critical path
Question. Please provide a list of all projects funded through the
Critical Path Initiative, and their amounts, in fiscal year 2009.
Answer. I am providing a complete list of all Critical Path (CP)
projects that received FDA support during fiscal year 2009. So far, 98
specific projects received approximately $34,675,000 of support,
including $16 million specifically designated to support CP projects.
The list reflects the breadth and depth of the Critical Path Initiative
and also underscores our need to continue funding this important
Initiative. In addition, almost $12 million of the 2009 total of
$34,675,000 supported the Sentinel Initiative, a long-term effort to
increase medical product safety. Sentinel will fulfill some of the
requirements of section 905 of FDAAA and enable FDA to build a system
to actively monitor the safety and efficacy of FDA-regulated products.
fern labs
Question. Please provide a list and description of all of the FERN
labs.
Answer. I would be happy to provide that for the record.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemistry Cooperative Agreement Labs:
Arizona Department of Health Services.............. AZ
Arkansas Department of Health...................... AR
California Animal Health & Food Safety--CAHFS...... CA
California Department of Public Health, Food and CA
Drug Laboratory Branch............................
Colorado Department of Public Health............... CO
Commonwealth of Virginia Division of Consolidated VA
Laboratory Services...............................
Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station........ CT
Consumer Analytical Laboratory Ohio Department of OH
Agriculture.......................................
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer FL
Services..........................................
Minnesota Department of Agriculture................ MN
Nebraska Department of Agriculture................. NE
New Hampshire Public Health Laboratories........... NH
University Hygienic Laboratory--Iowa............... IA
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture................ WI
Radiological Cooperative Agreement Labs:
Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene... MD
Health Research/NY Department of Health............ NY
Texas Department of State Health Services TX
Laboratory........................................
Washington State Public Health Laboratory.......... WA
Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene.............. WI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Are these labs utilized when there is a food safety
outbreak? How?
Answer. Yes, FDA has used FERN labs to support several recent food
safety outbreak investigations. FDA-funded FERN Chemistry labs analyzed
more than 200 samples of protein products for the presence of melamine
in 2007. These samples were supplied to the FERN labs by an FDA Protein
Surveillance assignment written specifically for the FERN chemistry
labs. In 2008, FERN chemistry laboratories tested for melamine
contamination of milk products. FERN labs tested nearly 300 samples to
clear the FDA lab backlog of samples.
FDA also collaborates with other FERN labs that are not receiving
FDA funding to respond to food safety outbreaks. In 2006, FERN
laboratories provided support to State labs for the E. coli O157:H7
Spinach outbreak. A rapid FERN method was provided to State labs, as
well as reagents to support the method. Labs were used to test suspect
foods. Last summer, FERN laboratories tested 290 samples for Salmonella
during the jalapeno peppers outbreak. These samples were provided to
the FERN labs through an FDA assignment. This year, FERN laboratories
provided test results to FDA to assist product tracking in the
Salmonella in peanut butter outbreak. This rapid reporting of State
sample results had a significant impact on the investigation of this
outbreak.
Question. FDA's belief that FERN labs are underutilized? What
additional roles could or should they play?
Answer. FDA is continuing to develop the role of FERN labs to
respond to food safety outbreaks. Throughout the year, FERN
laboratories participate in a variety of activities, including but not
limited to training to build capability, proficiency testing to assess
individual lab capability, and collaboration on current methods and
equipment use. In addition, FDA used FERN laboratories to analyze
samples during large-scale surveillance assignments or during public
health emergencies. Specifically in 2008, FERN chemistry cooperative
agreement laboratories played an important role in the FDA response to
melamine contamination by analyzing more than 300 milk-related food
samples for the presence of melamine.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
cosmetic safety
Question. I am particularly interested in your agency's ability to
ensure that personal care products and food and drink packaging do not
contain dangerous chemicals. Most Americans think the FDA regulates
cosmetics the same way it regulates food and drugs. However, the
reality is that the $50 billion cosmetics industry is one of the least
regulated industries in the country.
Under current law, cosmetics companies may use unlimited amounts of
virtually any ingredient, including chemicals linked to cancer,
reproductive and developmental harm, hormone disruption and other
adverse health impacts, with no pre-market safety assessment. The FDA
does not have the authority to require product recalls and must go to
court to remove misbranded and adulterated products from the market.
The FDA also lacks the authority to require manufacturers to register
their cosmetic establishments, file data on ingredients, or report
cosmetic-related injuries. As a result, cosmetics sold in the United
States contain ingredients and impurities with known health hazards
including lead, mercury, hydroquinone, coal tar, formaldehyde, 1,4-
dioxane, acrylamide, toluene and phthalates.
Given this situation, would you support efforts to give FDA the
authority, resources and staff it needs to ensure that cosmetics and
their ingredients are substantiated for safety before they are marketed
to consumers?
Answer. The Administration has not taken a position on giving FDA
additional authority and resources for the regulation of cosmetics.
However, we would be happy to work with you and other Members of
Congress on legislative proposals that offer additional public health
protection for consumers.
Question. Can you tell me the staff size and current fiscal year
budget of the Office of Cosmetics and Colors?
Answer. The Office of Cosmetics and Colors (OCAC) has two major
components, each responsible for a different program. The OCAC Color
Certification Program is staffed with 32 FTEs and is supported
exclusively by user fees, not by appropriated funds. We estimate that
the Color Certification Program will collect $7.7 million in fiscal
year 2009. The total fiscal year 2009 budget for the OCAC Cosmetics
Program is approximately $5.0 million. This amount supports 15 FTEs and
includes $1.6 million in operating funds. Finally, in fiscal year 2009,
FDA's ORA has been allocated a budget of $2,866,500 and approximately
15 FTEs for its activities in support of the cosmetics program.
Question. In October of 2007, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a
coalition of public health advocates, released a report showing that 61
percent of the lipsticks tested contained lead. In November of 2007, I
joined my colleagues Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer in
requesting that the FDA test a variety of lipsticks for lead, release
the testing results publically, and if lead is found, take immediate
steps to reduce the level of lead in these cosmetics. Despite numerous
requests, we have not been informed of the results of any testing. Has
that testing been completed, and if so, will you release the results in
a timely and publically accessible format?
Answer. FDA scientists developed and validated a highly sensitive
method to analyze total lead content in lipstick. FDA applied the new
method to the same selection of lipsticks evaluated by the Campaign for
Safe Cosmetics. The results of FDA's work to develop this method and
conduct initial testing have been accepted for publication in the peer-
reviewed Journal of Cosmetic Science and will be published in the July/
August 2009 issue. We will also be posting information on our website.
Although FDA found lead in all of the lipsticks tested, the levels
detected were within the range that would be expected from lipsticks
formulated with permitted color additives and other ingredients
prepared under good manufacturing practice conditions. FDA does not
believe the lead levels we have found in our testing represent a safety
concern. Nevertheless, FDA will continue to monitor the situation. We
are also planning a broad-based survey that will examine a wider range
of lipsticks than has been tested so far. When that testing is
complete, FDA will make the results publicly available. If, at any
time, FDA determines that a safety concern for lead in lipstick exists,
FDA will advise the industry and the public and will take appropriate
action under the authority of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic--
FD&C--Act to protect the health and welfare of consumers.
Question. Under current law, registering cosmetics manufacturing
facilities with the FDA is voluntary, even though this process would
allow the FDA to better understand the breadth of the industry it is
charged with regulating. A GAO study submitted to Congress in 1990
estimated that about 40 percent of facilities had in fact registered.
What is the current estimate of the number of manufacturing facilities
creating products for sale in the United States? What percentage of
those facilities has registered with the FDA? How many inspections of
cosmetics manufacturing facilities were conducted by the FDA in the
last fiscal year?
Answer. Information provided by the two primary U.S. cosmetic trade
associations indicates that there are approximately 3,500 cosmetic
manufacturing facilities in the U.S. associated with their
organizations. FDA does not have independent data to confirm that
estimate. In addition to manufacturing facilities that are members of
the two primary cosmetic trade associations, there also are facilities
that are not members of either of the associations. Consequently, it is
very difficult to say with any degree of certainty how many cosmetic
manufacturing facilities there are in operation in the United States at
any given time. There are 761 cosmetic manufacturing facilities
registered in FDA's Voluntary Cosmetic Registration Program (VCRP). If
the estimate of 3,500 cosmetic manufacturing facilities covered all
U.S. manufacturing facilities, the VCRP data would indicate a
registration rate of 22 percent. The actual registration rate is likely
lower. In fiscal year 2008, FDA conducted 88 inspections of domestic
cosmetic manufacturing facilities.
Question. The safety of chemicals used in cosmetics is not
determined by the FDA, but rather a voluntary process conducted by an
industry funded panel--the Cosmetics Ingredients Review--CIR--Program.
In over 3 decades since its creation, CIR has evaluated only 11 percent
of the 12,500 ingredients used in cosmetics; the vast majority of
ingredients have not been assessed for safety by FDA, CIR or any other
publicly accountable body. At the CIR, ``insufficient data'' to assure
safety is not considered a rationale for recommending restricted use of
a chemical. Does any other FDA program allow lack of evidence to be
construed as proof of safety? Does the FDA have a plan for generating
safety studies on unstudied chemicals used in cosmetics?
Answer. While there are approximately 15,500 cosmetic ingredients
listed in the International Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary and
Handbook, many of these are not commonly used in cosmetics in the
United States today. FDA estimates that approximately one third of the
products on the U.S. market are filed in FDA's Voluntary Cosmetic
Registration Program (VCRP) database. The VCRP data indicate
approximately 3,200 ingredients that are each listed in at least 10
products. These 3,200 ingredients represent a high percentage of the
ingredients used in marketed cosmetics. The Cosmetics Ingredients
Review (CIR) Program has reviewed the safety of more than 1,400
ingredients. Because ingredients are selected for review based in part
on their frequency of use, many of the commonly used ingredients have
been evaluated by the CIR. Many of the less common ingredients have
also been evaluated by the CIR.
Under the law, cosmetic products and ingredients--except color
additives--are not subject to FDA pre-market approval. For FDA to
prohibit use of a particular cosmetic ingredient or limit the
conditions in which it can be used because the ingredient is
adulterated requires scientific evidence establishing that the
substance is harmful under its conditions of use or evidence that it is
adulterated for other reasons. FDA cannot prohibit the use of an
ingredient based solely on a CIR conclusion that there are insufficient
data to establish its safety. The burden of proof rests with FDA to
demonstrate that an ingredient is adulterated because it is unsafe or
for other reasons before it can be prohibited.
FDA uses resources available to the cosmetics program to evaluate
the safety of cosmetic products and ingredients when a possible human
health risk is indicated. FDA evaluates data and information from a
variety of sources. The sources that FDA relies on include: adverse
event reports, FDA's laboratory research, other published scientific
literature, information considered and conclusions reached by the CIR
Expert Panel, and data and other information provided to FDA by a
variety of stakeholders. FDA's evaluations include consideration of
routes of exposure and possible vulnerable populations.
Question. In 1989, the FDA prioritized 130 chemicals for review out
of 884 chemicals that were both listed in the Registry of Toxic Effects
of Chemical Substances and could be used in cosmetics. Of those 130
highest-priority chemicals, how many has the FDA substantiated for
safety? How many has the CIR assessed? Has the FDA requested and
reviewed the safety data from CIR's safety assessments? Of those 130
chemicals, how many have been restricted or banned from use?
Answer. We were not able to locate any FDA documents that match the
description you provided of a list of 130 chemicals prioritized for
review. In the absence of such a document or a list of specific
chemicals to which your questions pertain, we cannot provide numerical
answers to the questions posed. We can only provide some general
information.
FDA does not substantiate the safety of cosmetic ingredients. It is
the responsibility of the cosmetic manufacturer or distributor that
introduces a cosmetic product into the marketplace to substantiate the
safety of the finished product and its ingredients before it markets
the cosmetic product. FDA does, however, investigate and evaluate
ingredient safety when we receive reports of adverse events, become
aware of results from scientific studies that indicate a potential for
harm to consumers, or receive other information that raises questions
about safety. FDA's safety assessments incorporate data and information
from a variety of sources and include consideration of routes of
exposure and possible vulnerable populations.
FDA participates in the CIR review process as a liaison member with
non-voting status. As a participant, we receive and review the same
information as the voting members of the Expert Panel. We also have the
opportunity to comment on the studies at the open CIR meetings.
Question. I am also very concerned about the continued use of
Bisphenol A in food and beverage packing. As you know, this chemical
has been linked to a variety of health problems, including breast
cancer, prostate cancer, and altered brain development. What is your
time table for re-reviewing the safety assessment of BPA that FDA staff
presented to the Science Advisory Board in October 2008?
Answer. In the fall of 2008, FDA scientists presented to the
Science Board a draft safety assessment of the use of Bisphenol A--
BPA--in the manufacture of food contact materials. The Science Board
raised questions about whether the FDA's review had adequately
considered the most recent available scientific literature. We have
been carefully considering the Science Board comments, as well as
reviewing newly available publications. During the summer of 2009, FDA
scientists will review the science of BPA. We intend to report on the
findings of this review in late summer or early fall of this year.
Question. On May 16, 2009, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel described
repeated contacts between Bisphenol A industry officials and FDA staff.
As the FDA reviews the science on the risks of BPA, how will you ensure
that FDA staff working on the safety assessment does not further
coordinate their research with the chemical industry? Do you plan to
take steps to provide independent scientists with equal access to FDA
officials?
Answer. Independent scientists have already met several times with
FDA officials in the last several months on BPA. The current review of
BPA will benefit from input from a variety of sources and the best
available scientific evidence.
Question. What is your assessment of the current process FDA uses
to determine the safety of food additives in packaging? How could this
process be improved prospectively? Considering the current list of
approved additives includes chemicals such as phthalates, mercury, and
formaldehyde, does the FDA have any plans to reevaluate the list?
Answer. By law, food additives in packaging must be approved for
their use prior to marketing. This requirement, which has been in
existence since 1958, has provided a very high standard of consumer
protection, and is one of the most rigorous statutory and regulatory
schemes for authorizing food packaging materials in the world.
It is true that scientific information and knowledge are constantly
evolving. We do monitor the scientific literature and undertake re-
reviews of additives based on emerging data and information. We are
committed to improving and modernizing our ability to adequately
monitor the world-wide literature on the many thousands of compounds
that are used in food contact applications, so that we can make
appropriate decisions in as timely a way as possible.
Question. A New York Times article that appeared on May 15 entitled
``For Frozen Entrees, ``eat and Eat'' ``Isn't Enough,'' explains that
frozen food, such as Pot Pies, require additional cooking and testing
on the part of the consumer before they are considered safe to eat. I
am very concerned about placing the burden of assuring food safety on
consumers, many of whom purchase these products for convenience and
with the belief that they are safe to eat. Does the Food and Drug
Administration allow frozen entrees such as Pot Pies to contain harmful
pathogens at the time of purchase by the consumer?
Answer. Ordinarily, FDA considers a frozen entree to be a ``ready-
to-eat'' food that may not contain pathogens at the time of purchase by
the consumer, irrespective of whether the product label includes
cooking instructions, because some consumers eat such foods without
thorough cooking. According to section 402(a)(1) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act 21 U.S.C. 342(a)(1), a food is deemed to be
adulterated if it contains any poisonous or deleterious substance--such
as a pathogen--that may render it injurious to health. The law
prohibits introduction of adulterated food into interstate commerce,
and FDA consider regulatory action on a case by case basis.
Question. What steps does the FDA take to make sure that producers
reduce or eliminate the presence of pathogens in frozen entrees?
Answer. FDA has established current Good Manufacturing Practice--
cGMP--in Manufacturing, Packing, or Holding Human Food regulations--21
CFR part 110, which require that food is processed under safe and
sanitary conditions. The regulation, 21 CFR 110.80(a)(2), specifically
requires that ``Raw materials and other ingredients shall either not
contain levels of microorganisms that may produce food poisoning or
other disease in humans, or they shall be pasteurized or otherwise
treated during manufacturing operations so that they no longer contain
levels that would cause the product to be adulterated within the
meaning of the act. Compliance with this requirement may be verified by
any effective means, including purchasing raw materials and other
ingredients under a supplier's guarantee or certification.'' In
addition, 21 CFR 110.80 States ``All reasonable precautions shall be
taken to ensure that production procedures do not contribute
contamination from any source. Chemical, microbial, or extraneous-
material testing procedures shall be used where necessary to identify
sanitation failures or possible food contamination.'' These two
provisions are designed to prevent, reduce, or eliminate the presence
of pathogens in food.
Question. Does the FDA currently conduct inspections of food labels
for frozen entrees that contain raw or uncooked ingredients, to ensure
that the labels clearly indicate that the foods may contain pathogens
without proper preparation?
Answer. There is currently no requirement for this type of
statement for FDA-regulated foods. FDA inspection instructions do not
address the presence of this type of statement.
Question. As you know, the Food and Drug Administration announced
in March 2009 that some patients with ALS to would be allowed to access
the drug Iplex under an Investigational Drug Application--IND. Because
this disease can progress rapidly, timely access to treatments may
potentially make a difference in a patient's outcome. Since the FDA's
announcement in March, what progress has been made on beginning a
clinical trial of the drug, or establishing a lottery system to give
patients access to a clinical trial?
Answer. FDA continues to work proactively with the sponsor, Insmed,
on the development and initiation of a well-designed clinical trial of
Iplex in ALS patients.
Question. When do you anticipate that FDA will grant final approval
for a clinical trial to begin?
Answer. When an investigational new drug application, or IND, is
submitted, FDA has a maximum of 30 days to determine if the protocol
may proceed. However, after this period of review, it is entirely up to
the sponsor when to initiate the clinical trial.
Question. How many patients will ultimately be able to enroll in
the clinical trial?
Answer. It is not known at this time how large the clinical trial
would be, because the number of patients that can be enrolled in it is
directly related to the length of the trial proposed and the existing
supply of the drug at the time the trial begins. Insmed, the sponsor,
has indicated that the supply of this drug is very limited.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
gao
Question. In January 2009, GAO released a report recommending that
FDA take further actions to improve oversight and consumer
understanding of dietary supplements. Two of GAO's recommendations
called for FDA to issue guidance: first to clarify when an ingredient
is considered a new dietary ingredient, the evidence needed to document
the safety of new dietary ingredients, and appropriate methods for
establishing ingredient identity; and second, to clarify when products
should be marketed as either dietary supplements or food. Does FDA plan
to issue guidance to address these recommendations?
Answer. FDA agrees that guidance would be helpful to clarify when
an ingredient is considered a new dietary ingredient (NDI) the evidence
needed to document the safety of NDIs, and appropriate methods for
establishing the identity of an NDI. The Agency held a public meeting
in November 2004 to seek public comment on several issues related to
the NDI requirements of Section 413(a)(2) of the Federal, Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 350b(a)(2)). FDA specifically asked for
information that would enable the Agency to identify ways to assist
submitters of NDI notifications to ensure that they contain the
information the Agency needs to evaluate the notification. FDA has
reviewed the information submitted by interested parties on this
subject and has developed draft guidance addressing NDI issues and a
draft proposed rule to amend the NDI notification requirements of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The guidance and proposed rule
are currently undergoing internal FDA review.
As we noted in our comment to the GAO July 2000 report, FDA's
Dietary Supplement Strategic Plan recognized the need to clarify the
boundaries between dietary supplements and conventional foods,
including conventional foods with added dietary ingredients. As we
noted when the Plan was released in January 2000, FDA acknowledged its
inability to set timeframes for all the activities listed in the Plan
because of resource limits. FDA will consider this recommendation and
the priority and timing to implement this recommendation in light of
all of the priorities that compete for available resources.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Sam Brownback
tuberculosis: drug resistant tb and diagnostic tests for children
Question. The subcommittee has provided more than $23 million in
the past 2 years to support the Critical Path Initiative, an FDA
initiative that has many facets including helping speed the development
of safe drugs and the development of diagnostic tests to help with the
delivery of drugs or diagnose certain conditions.
As you may know, I am concerned about global health problems,
especially the growing threat of Tuberculosis and drug resistant
Tuberculosis. The first recommendation in an Institute of Medicine
November 2008 White Paper on drug resistant TB is for in-country
diagnostic tests, including rapid genetic tests able to diagnose drug
resistant organisms.
The need for improved diagnostic tests and effective therapies is
even more critical for children with TB. The standard tests for
diagnosis of TB, sputum smears and culture, are not practical for
children who cannot reliably produce sputum. As a result they remain
undiagnosed, untreated and a source of infection for others. The
Critical Path Initiative seems like a logical fit for FDA to help with
this situation.
Does FDA currently have any critical path projects that address the
threat of Tuberculosis and drug resistant TB?
Answer. Yes, the Critical Path Initiative--CPI--is working to
advance the use of multi-drug resistant TB as a platform for
demonstrating effectiveness of new TB drugs. This is a novel approach
for tackling the scientific challenge of proving drug effectiveness
when you have a complex treatment regimen, requiring new TB drugs to be
tested in combination with older drugs.
CPI has begun exploring possible collaborations with several goals
in mind. For example, FDA is hoping to collaborate on identifying novel
scientific pathways for obtaining safety data on new TB drugs without
co-administration with other drugs. One option might be to obtain
safety data on a new TB drug during use in prevention trials.
FDA is also exploring possible collaborations with the Bill Gates
Foundation that will facilitate TB drug and diagnostic development by
creating innovative trial designs and trial logistics. The goal is to
develop shorter treatment regimens and new diagnostic tools that can be
used in all patients, including children. FDA has developed the CPI
biomarker qualification process as a mechanism for incorporating new
diagnostics in clinical trials. And to facilitate international
marketing application and approval, FDA is collaborating with the
European Medicines Agency to reach similar regulatory recommendations
on drug development in multi-drug resistant TB.
Question. Would additional funding for critical path programs make
it possible to work with the industry to accelerate the development of
new and more effective drugs or diagnostic tests for TB?
Answer. If FDA received increased resources for critical path
activities related to tuberculosis, we would consider beginning large-
scale training program that would give local public health staff in
developing countries the capabilities they need to develop and submit
sufficient, high-quality scientific data to FDA to support application
evaluation and approval. Other options include bringing together
collaborative initiatives among drug, vaccine, and diagnostic
developers and other experts in the field to speed development of new
therapies in all populations and subpopulations. This effort is
especially critical because development of new diagnostic tests is
growing at a tremendous pace now. Preliminary test results using new
genomic methods to identify drug resistant TB are very promising, and
these need to be tested in large populations so they can be
incorporated into clinical trials and clinical practice. Rapid,
reliable tests that can easily be used to diagnose tuberculosis in
adults and children are also required. The development of these
products depends on access to communities where TB is common and where
high-quality studies can be performed.
The Bill Gates Foundation and World Health Organization are heavily
involved in this area, and FDA is actively encouraging manufacturers to
participate. Additional Critical Path funding could be used to foster
collaborations with all stakeholders with the goal of moving TB
diagnostic tests to market faster.
policy proposals: drug importation and generic biologics
Question. The President plans to propose two new policy changes for
FDA. One will allow the importation of prescription drugs from foreign
countries. The second will allow FDA to approve generic biologics. The
budget requests $5 million for the development of policies associated
with prescription drug importation. Very few details have been provided
about these policy proposals or to support the funding request related
to the drug importation policy. Can you provide any additional details
on these proposals?
Answer. Regarding details related to drug importation, the fiscal
year 2010 budget includes $5 million for FDA efforts to allow Americans
to buy safe and effective drugs approved in other countries. FDA
intends to spend these funds in fiscal year 2010 to assess the
feasibility, practicability, and implementation needs of a drug
importation program.
The fiscal year 2010 Budget supports the creation of a new
regulatory pathway under the Public Health Service Act for FDA approval
of ``generic biologics,'' a term that refers to follow-on biological
products that are highly similar to--or biosimilar--and may be
substitutable or interchangeable for a previously approved biological
product. As I mentioned in my testimony, establishing a generic
biologics pathway will require new legislation.
FDA has approved follow-on versions of certain protein products
under the existing abbreviated approval pathways in the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act. However, the majority of protein products now
on the market have been licensed as biological products under the
Public Health Service Act, which does not contain analogous abbreviated
approval pathways.
Safe and effective generic biologics may prove to be a critical
element to lowering costs for American consumers and the healthcare
system more broadly. FDA would require additional resources to augment
our existing capabilities for regulatory activities associated with a
generic biologics program, and anticipates the need for significant
additional analytical testing capabilities. Depending on the scope and
requirements of any legislation establishing a generic biologics
pathway, we expect that there will be a large workload in the early
phase of a generic biologics program in our pre-application
activities--including meeting with industry and providing advice--as
well as developing policy and procedures, publishing guidance, and
promulgating regulations. We also anticipate receiving some
applications for review shortly after enactment of legislation, with an
increasing number of applications for review in subsequent years.
Question. Given that these proposals are being associated with
reduced health care costs for Americans, do you believe that these will
be included in the President's health care reform proposal? Are the
policies developed enough at this time to be considered as a part of
the health care debate?
Answer. Regarding drug importation, the fiscal year 2010 budget
request is intended to conduct assessments to determine the
feasibility, practicability, and implementation needs of a drug
importation program.
Regarding generic biologics, the fiscal year 2010 Budget supports
the creation of a new regulatory pathway under the Public Health
Service Act for approval of generic biologics. Safe and effective
generic biologics may prove to be a critical element to lowering costs
for American consumers and the healthcare system more broadly.
Question. Let's say both proposals are passed this year, does the
fiscal year 2010 request provide appropriate resources to enact the new
policies?
Answer. Regarding drug importation, the fiscal year 2010 request is
not intended to provide resources to enact any new policy. Rather, the
budget request is intended to determine whether and what programs might
be feasible, practical, and what would be needed for implementation.
Regarding generic biologics, the fiscal year 2010 request is not
intended to provide resources to enact a new policy on generic
biologics, given that creation of a generic biologics pathway would
require new legislation. Although the administration budget proposal
describes user fees as a financing structure to cover certain costs of
a new generic biologics pathway, the current proposal indicates that
precise collection levels would be negotiated for each year, including
fiscal year 2010.
performance results
Question. We have made significant investments in FDA. Since 2006,
FDA's appropriation has increased by 39 percent. If the fiscal year
2010 budget is enacted as requested, FDA's appropriation will have
increased by 59 percent in 4 years. This is a significant amount of
money and we expect FDA to be accountable for these resources and show
results. What is your plan for showing tangible outcomes for the
resources we have made available?
Answer. FDA's plan for showing tangible outcomes for the resources
Congress has made available is to track our progress toward specific
milestones and report our accomplishments to Congress on a regular
basis. FDA is reporting accomplishments on a monthly basis for its
expenditures of fiscal year 2008 Supplemental funding. For expenditures
of the funding increases FDA received in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus
bill, we report accomplishments on a quarterly basis.
Question. I expect that FDA's goals will be something to strive for
and not something that can be easily attained, do you share this
expectation?
Answer. Where our goals are specific, FDA should meet them or have
a good explanation for failing to do so. Where our goals are
aspirational, FDA should be able to demonstrate concrete progress
towards improving the health of the American people.
tobacco regulation
Question. Congress is likely to pass a bill this year that will
give FDA authority to regulate tobacco. The administration supports
this effort. We've mentioned that FDA currently regulates 20 percent of
all consumer expenditures. Adding more to this already daunting job is
not an easy task.
The authorizing committee has tried to make sure that industry user
fees, and not appropriated dollars, are used to support tobacco
regulation. However, until the fee is collected, which could be months
after enactment of the tobacco bill, FDA will be permitted to use
appropriated funding to start the process of regulating tobacco. The
Appropriations Committee has provided funding for very specific food
safety and medical product safety activities. We do not want to see
these efforts unnecessarily delayed because FDA shifts its focus to
tobacco.
What assurance can you give me that any appropriated funding
directed to tobacco will not delay critical activities we have funded?
What is the minimum amount of appropriated dollars necessary to get the
tobacco user fee program started?
Answer. In order to begin implementation of this important program
FDA will borrow $5 million from its fiscal year 2009 budget authority.
This modest sum is necessary to establish a process to calculate the
amount of user fees due, issue bills, and collect fees from covered
manufacturers and importers of tobacco products. We estimate that we
will need approximately 4 staff to establish the user fee program and
there will be associated expenses to adapt our existing IT systems to
include billing and collection of these fees. In addition to
establishing the user fee program, we would also use these borrowed
funds to hire a small number of staff, perhaps 10 or 12 individuals, to
begin the work entrusted to the new Center for Tobacco Products. The
agency would repay the borrowed funds within 6 months or as soon as
sufficient user fees are collected. We have identified sources for
these funds where borrowing and repaying the funding will not affect
other FDA activities.
After this initial start up period, 100 percent of FDA activities
related to tobacco will be funded through the collection of user fees
from the tobacco industry.
Question. FDA has a limited leadership team that's currently
struggling to keep up with the agency's current mission. How do you
intend to make sure that tobacco regulation does not hinder this
leadership team's ability to work on food safety and medical product
safety issues?
Answer. The creation of this center will not distract the agency
from its other activities and or hinder its ability to work to improve
the safety of food and medical products. The agency is working to
recruit a strong director for the Center for Tobacco Products who will
have our full support in implementing the Family Smoking Prevention and
Tobacco Control Act. After the initial start up period, 100 percent of
FDA activities related to tobacco will be funded through the collection
of user fees from the tobacco industry.
food safety, white house working group
Question. As a member of the White House Food Safety Working Group,
what priorities have you outlined regarding food borne pathogens?
Answer. From E. coli O157:H7 in spinach to Salmonella in peanut
butter, food-borne pathogens are the most significant cause of food
borne illness outbreaks. In the White House Food Safety Working Group,
or WHFSWG, FDA has advocated for requirements for wide scale adoption
of preventive controls by the food industry, in addition to supporting
specific actions to reduce food borne pathogens such as Salmonella
Enteritidis in shell eggs and E. coli O157:H7 in leafy greens.
Effective preventive controls can reduce or eliminate foodborne
pathogens. FDA has also suggested an enhanced public health
surveillance infrastructure to help determine a baseline for pathogens
of public health significance in foods, determine the source and
respond more quickly when pathogens appear to be linked to foodborne
illness, and prioritize the development and use of rapid detection
methods for foodborne pathogens. In addition, FDA has recognized the
agency's need to provide better information to consumers on the steps
they can take to minimize these hazards, including thorough cleaning
and cooking of foods and appropriate handling practices to reduce the
likelihood of cross contamination.
Question. There has been discussion that there should be on-farm
testing of livestock for food borne pathogens; is this something you
support and if so could you elaborate?
Answer. Foodborne pathogens in livestock create at least two
potential issues: contamination of the meat or other products from
livestock and contamination of crops when the pathogens are spread
through the waste of the livestock. USDA has preventive control
programs in slaughterhouses to address the first issue. The second
issue requires study of the microbial ecology of the farm environment,
and standards for the safe production of produce. It is premature to
say whether testing would be the most effective approach at this point.
use of antibiotics in animals
Question. Antibiotics have been used to treat and prevent disease
or promote growth in animals for more than 50 years. Like physicians
and their patients, veterinarians and their clients share
responsibility for the proper use of antibiotics. Antibiotics are tools
used by veterinarians and producers to quickly address clinical and
sub-clinical disease and keep animals healthy and productive.
Antibiotics used by producers are approved by the FDA after they
undergo rigorous review for safety to animals, humans and the
environment. Producers have a vested interest in using antibiotics
responsibly and view the use of antibiotics very seriously, yet there
are attempts by some to eliminate antibiotic use on the farm. Animals
get sick. Our producers and veterinarians need the tools to keep them
healthy. What do you plan to do with the animal antibiotic approval
process?
Answer. In 2003, FDA implemented new policies for evaluating
antimicrobial drug safety as part of the new animal drug approval
process. At that time, FDA issued Guidance for Industry--GFI--#152,
Evaluating the Safety of Antimicrobial New Animal Drugs with Regard to
their Microbiological Effects on Bacteria of Human Health Concern. This
guidance describes a risk-based assessment process for evaluating
antimicrobial resistance concerns associated with the use of
antimicrobial new animal drugs in food-producing animals. The guidance
also describes recommended measures for mitigating such risk. FDA
believes the assessment process described in this guidance has been a
very effective approach for addressing antimicrobial resistance
concerns for food animal products being evaluated for FDA approval. The
agency has no plans to make any significant changes to this preapproval
assessment process as this time.
FDA recognizes the importance of maintaining the availability of
effective antimicrobial drugs for treating, controlling, and preventing
disease in animals. However, the agency believes it is critically
important that antimicrobial drugs be used as judiciously as possible
in an effort to minimize resistance development. The agency is
currently considering strategies for addressing this issue.
national antimicrobial resistance monitoring system
Question. The National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System--
NARMS--is a critical tool for the entire food chain. How do you ensure
the money is used appropriately and goes towards NARMS surveillance and
not other activities? Please provide, for the record, a distribution of
NARMS funding by activity.
Answer. As you indicate in your question, the National
Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System--NARMS--is a critical tool
for the entire food chain. We take this responsibility and the use of
funds designated to this public health tool, very seriously. FDA has
established financial safeguards--for example, auditing and reporting--
in our funding allocation and expenditure financial system to ensure
that funds intended for NARMS and other critical programs are expended
on those activities only.
The following is a distribution of NARMS funding by activity for
fiscal year 2008, the last year that actual amounts for a fiscal year
are available.
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA................................................. 1.4
CDC.................................................. 1.8
FDA.................................................. 3.5
------------------
Total.......................................... 6.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
personalized medicine
Question. In your testimony, you State that FDA ``will address
patient-product interactions that generally do not relate to
manufacturing flaws.'' In the past we've called this effort
``personalized medicine''--trying to make sure certain populations that
are genetically predisposed to a bad reaction to a treatment are
screened in advance and not given the treatment.
This initiative has an alternate goal too. In some cases, certain
populations are genetically predisposed to have an overwhelmingly
positive reaction to a treatment. We also want to be able to find these
patients and make sure they get the treatment that is best for them.
What is your vision for this proposal? Will FDA engage industry
during the drug development or clinical trials process to help isolate
these unique populations? Or, will FDA work with industry to conduct
studies after approval?
Answer. Our vision and evolving practice with regard to
personalized medicine is to study genetic, molecular, and patient-
specific factors that can affect an individual's response to drugs or
medical devices. Our efforts will continue to span the continuum of a
medical product's lifecycle, which includes discovery, development, and
use by the public with a focus on both safety and efficacy.
In the pre-approval setting, we will continue to work with industry
to use pharmacogenetic principles to identify optimal doses for
patients, specific patient characteristics that would confer a better
chance of taking a medical product that works and populations with
unmet medical needs. These efforts help the industry bring products to
market and help large segments of the public.
For drugs to be targeted to the right patients, it is usually
necessary to have a diagnostic test that can accurately identify just
who the right patients are. We have discovered through ongoing
interactions in this area with industry that upfront guidance and
advice is needed, and close cooperation between FDA and industry, as
well as between FDA's product centers is essential. For these reasons,
we have established groups within the Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research and the Center for Devices and Radiological Health that have
specific expertise to focus on personalized medicine issues and work to
make sure that the personalized medicine vision moves as quickly and as
smoothly as possible within the confines of our regulations. We expect
that as new drugs are developed and are beginning clinical trials, we
will be able to provide timely advice to the drug and device
manufacturers to assure that the test and the drug are ready for
patient use at the same time, and that the combination is really
working as we expect it to.
We also have begun working with sponsors of drugs that are already
on the market to implement tests that can make the drug work better, by
determining postmarket whether there are certain identifiable
populations that can gain benefit more than others, or populations that
would be harmed by exposure to the drug. After a drug is approved, we
continue to protect the public health by including important
pharmacogenetic information in drug package inserts. Some notable
examples include drugs used by millions of people worldwide such as the
blood thinner warfarin, marketed as Coumadin, the anti-platelet drug
clopidogrel, marketed as Plavix, the HIV medication abacavir, marketed
as Ziagen, and the seizure medication carbamazepine, marketed as
Tegretol. These efforts give clinicians a better understanding of why
patients respond to medications so differently, and in some cases
prevent life-threatening events such as serious bleeding, ineffective
treatment, and fatal allergic reactions.
In addition to drug development initiatives and labeling updates,
we will continue to build our research infrastructure. We have
established relationships with universities, pharmacy benefits
managers, healthcare systems, personalized medicine coalitions, and
sister HHS agencies, AHRQ and NIH, to answer questions related to drug
response variability, and to create dialogue among many constituents to
advance the public health mission of FDA. In summary, our vision is one
where information on a drug's benefits and risks can be applied to
individual patients using new knowledge and interventions developed
through our involvement both before and after a drug are approved.
human resources/hiring issues
Question. In 2004, The Department of Health and Human Services--
HHS--consolidated all human resource functions into 5 servicing
centers. FDA, along with several other agencies, is serviced by the
Rockville Human Resources Center.
It has recently come to my attention that an internal audit
conducted by HHS found that the Rockville HR Center, which services
FDA, was failing in many areas. As a result, this center lost its
authority to hire individuals from outside the government. HHS has
implemented a process to work around this situation. However, this
process has added time to FDA's service agreement, and FDA has had to
independently contract with the Office of Personnel Management--OPM--
for some personnel actions. It may be more than a year before the
Rockville HR Center gets all of its authority back.
Given that the subcommittee has invested significantly in FDA by
increasing the agency's budget by more than 39 percent since 2006 and
that FDA is in a hiring surge right now, I take this situation very
seriously. Currently, FDA is paying HHS for a service that is not being
provided as contractually agreed, and is also outsourcing additional
human resource activities to OPM in order to fill the gap left by the
Rockville HR Center.
Can you update us on this situation? How does this affect FDA's
ability to bring qualified employees onboard?
Answer. The significant budget increases resulting in a surge of
hiring at FDA coupled with the Rockville HR Center's loss of outside
hiring authority have strained the capacity of the FDA to effectively
bring on the best qualified individuals. FDA can lose highly qualified
candidates because of a new quality review process that has increased
the time it takes before vacancies are advertised, certificates are
issued and job offers are made.
FDA is working closely with HHS to address this situation.
Question. Since FDA is independently contracting with OPM for
certain services, essentially paying two organizations for one job,
would allowing FDA to send all personnel actions through OPM or
allowing FDA to conduct human resource actions ``in house'' be a more
preferable arrangement for the agency?
Answer. Allowing the FDA to send all personnel actions through OPM
is not an idea that has been fully researched. FDA would need to
consult with OPM on its ability to provide such extensive staffing
services for the Agency as we are not aware that OPM has the capacity
to serve a large agency.
Ideally, in order for FDA to be successful and effectively manage
its human capital, FDA is in need of a HR solution that provides more a
strategic concentration and alignment with its human capital goals with
business needs, that is customer focused, that ensures effective policy
and practices are in place, that is appropriately structured, resourced
and supported and that has staff with an extensive understanding of the
client and its mission. FDA is working closely with HHS to develop such
a solution.
foreign offices
Question. In fiscal year 2008, the subcommittee provided funding
for FDA to begin the process of opening offices in foreign countries.
For the first time, FDA employees are permanently stationed in
countries like China and India that export a lot of FDA-regulated
products. Can you update us on the status of the foreign offices? Where
are they located and are they fully staffed?
Answer. I am happy to provide the status of FDA foreign offices.
The location of FDA's foreign offices and their status are listed
below. The persons who have been hired but have not yet reported to
their duty posts are training for their assignments as well as
undergoing the various Department of State clearances required of them
and their families. They are also performing various assignments
pertaining to their future deployment from their current duty stations
in the United States and through temporary duty assignments in-country.
China.--A total of 8 FDA staff will be posted in three locations,
Beijing--4, Shanghai--2 and Guangzhou--2. The locations were opened in
November 2008. At this time, only the Country Director is posted in-
country. By June 1, 2009, four additional FDA staff will be posted in-
country and the remaining three by the end of July.
India.--A total of 12 FDA staff will be posted in two locations,
New Delhi and Mumbai. The New Delhi office opened in January 2009. At
this time, only the Acting Country Director is posted in-country. By
July 1, 2009, five additional FDA staff will be posted in-country, one
by July 30, 2009, and another by November 1, 2009. Four additional
hires will be made and deployed in-country early in CY 2010.
Latin America.--A total of 7 staff will be posted in three
locations, Costa Rica, Chile and Mexico. The San Jose, Costa Rica
office opened in January 2009. At this time, only the Regional Director
is posted in-country, in Costa Rica. By August 15, 2009, 4 additional
FDA staff will be posted in-country. Two additional hires will be made
and deployed in country early in CY 2010.
Europe.--A total of 3 staff will be posted in three locations:
Brussels, Belgium; London, England--the European Medicines Agency; and
Parma, Italy--the European Food Safety Agency. The Brussels location
opened in December 2008. At this time, only the Regional Director in
Brussels is posted in-country. The staffer for the London location will
be posted in-country on June 22, 2009. The staffer for Parma will be
hired and posted in-country in early CY 2010.
Question. Do you have any specific examples of how staff located in
foreign countries has made FDA-regulated products exported to the
United States safer?
Answer. The primary purpose of posting FDA scientists and
inspectors overseas is to engage more proactively and consistently with
various communities--regulatory, industry, and third parties--in
strategic regions abroad to help FDA better accomplish its domestic
mission to promote and protect the public health of the USA. FDA staff
in foreign countries do this by helping FDA acquire more robust
information based on which the Centers and ORA can make the necessary
decisions to help assure the safety, efficacy--as appropriate--quality,
and availability of FDA-regulated products. To this end, FDA officials
abroad are involved in the activities described below.
FDA is working with counterpart agencies in countries where we have
foreign offices, gathering better knowledge about the production of
FDA-regulated products and their transport to U.S. ports. FDA is also
working with trusted counterpart agencies to leverage scientific,
inspectional, and other resources. When requested, FDA is engaging with
developing counterpart agencies to help build their regulatory
capacity. In addition, FDA is working with private and public sector
trusted third parties, and we are providing helpful information about
industry compliance with FDA regulatory standards. FDA is also working
with regulated industry to provide greater information about the
applicable standards for their products to be admitted to the USA. FDA
is engaging with U.S. agencies that are already present in foreign
countries]that have complementary missions to FDA.
An example of how FDA staff located in foreign countries has helped
make FDA-regulated products safer is the situation with contamination
of various dairy and dairy-containing products from China that were
found to contain melamine or its analogs. FDA issued an Import Alert
just prior to the FDA office's opening in Beijing. The FDA Country
Director facilitated collaboration with the Chinese Government to
address the problem in an expedited manner.
fiscal year 2009 supplemental funding
Question. In fiscal year 2009, FDA received $150 million in
supplemental funding to jump start activities that would be funded with
the regular fiscal year 2009 appropriations bill. Nine months after
this funding was provided, FDA has spent about $30 million. The agency
only has only 4 months, until September 30, 2009, to spend the
remaining $120 million. Does FDA have a plan to spend the remainder of
this money or will it go back to the Treasury at the end of the fiscal
year?
Answer. FDA has a plan in place to spend the $150 million provided
in the fiscal year 2008 Supplemental. FDA has designated $30 million of
the Supplemental for Information Technology--IT--and FDA is at various
stages of the procurement process to spend the unobligated balance of
the $30 million so that the contract awards will be made by the end of
this fiscal year. Further, FDA planned to add 324 staff with funds
provided by the fiscal year 2008 Supplemental, and FDA has achieved
approximately 83 percent of that staffing goal. The balance of the year
will see a steep acceleration of spending of the fiscal year 2008
Supplemental funds for payroll and related operational costs, and the
obligation of contracts for IT projects and purchase of equipment.
critical path initiative/modernize drug development
Question. In March of 2004, former Commissioner McClellan
referenced a need to modernize development paths and processes back in
FDA's ``Innovation or Stagnation'' document which led to the Critical
Path initiative. It's been more than 5 years now. Over the past 2 years
the subcommittee has provided more than $23 million for the critical
path initiative. Do you think that initiative has been a success and
why/why not?
Answer. The Critical Path Initiative--CPI--is an unequivocal
success. CPI is leading the Sentinel Initiative, working to develop and
implement America's first active system to enable FDA to query large
health information databases and monitor, in real time, medical product
safety and efficacy. CPI is modernizing the electronic portal
MedWatchPlus, enabling better and more complete adverse events reports.
In an FDA collaboration with the Serious Adverse Events Consortium,
a genetic link has been identified associated with acute liver injury
in some people who take the antibiotic Flucloxacillin. SAEC is making
publicly available to researchers pooled data on genetics associated
with drug-induced skin rashes like Stevens-Johnson syndrome. In 2007,
FDA approved a new genetic test to help physicians assess whether a
patient is especially sensitive to the blood-thinner warfarin and
updated the label. In 2006 and 2007, FDA's CPI launched more than 40
research projects. In 2008, CPI researchers collaborated with 84
government agencies, universities, industry leaders and patient groups
from 28 States and 5 countries on 60 research projects that are
speeding the development of innovative therapies and safety monitoring
systems to treat killers like tuberculosis, cancer, and Alzheimer's.
CPI is modernizing the clinical trials enterprise to increase the
quality and efficiency of clinical trials and ensure trial participant
safety. As part of a personalized medicine initiative, CPI research has
identified genetic biomarkers that are being explored for their value
in making medicines safer and more effective. CPI is supporting and
leading innovations needed to transform FDA into a robust, 21st-century
regulatory agency. CPI is implementing cutting-edge information systems
vital to supporting medical innovation and public health safety, like
e-management of clinical study information and an e-platform to move
FDA's largely paper-based infrastructure to a fully automated system.
office of generic drugs
Question. Dr. Sharfstein, last year the Committee expressed
interest in adequate funding for the Office of Generic Drugs--OGD--an
interest which still remains. As FDA has noted, almost 70 percent of
prescriptions are now filled with generics; it is obvious that in an
environment emphasizing greater need for cost control, one key area
that has been successful in achieving savings has been greater reliance
on quality generic drugs.
Last year, FDA advised the Committee that OGD's target was 1,900
actions for fiscal year 2009, including approvals, tentative approvals,
not approvable and approval actions on applications. FDA stated that
the agency was on track to achieve that goal and to exceed the fiscal
year 2008 number of 1,780 actions. Could you update us on the actual
progress made in each of these categories? Please outline the reasons
why you believe FDA has either been exceeding or failing to meet those
goals.
Answer. The Office of Generic Drugs--OGD--had 1,779 total actions
in fiscal year 2007 and in fiscal year 2008, a total of 1,933 actions.
The Office is expecting to meet the fiscal year 2009 goal of 2,033
actions. As of the end of May 2009, OGD had taken 399 approval or
tentative approval actions and 941 not approval actions for a total
1,340 actions. The average for the 8 months is 167. To meet the goal,
the average for the remaining months must be 173 actions per month. OGD
believes it will achieve that average because there has been an upward
trend of actions per month related to newer reviewers becoming more
productive.
Question. Last year, FDA stated that the fiscal year 2003-2005
cohort approval time was 16.6 months and that the yearly median time to
approval increased due to the escalating workload. Please update those
numbers for us. We are interested in seeing recent numbers relating to
how long oldest ANDAs which are still under review have been pending
before the FDA. In July, 2008, the agency advised the Committee that
there was one ANDA pending for 11 years, 9 pending over 9 years, and
about 100 pending for more than 4 years. Could you provide us with an
updated status report on those numbers? What emphasis is being placed
on clearing this backlog? What are the reasons for these delays?
Answer. The median time to approval currently stands at 21.6
months. This includes both the time with the Office of Generic Drugs--
OGD--and the time with the applicants as they prepare responses to
deficiencies that FDA identifies.
Approval time has been increasing due to the number of pending
applications. There are currently 137 applications that have been
pending longer than 4 years. There are a variety of reasons for certain
applications remaining as pending for a long time. Some are pending
because of the need to achieve a satisfactory inspection result. Others
are pending because the sponsor firms are subject to the application
integrity policy that precludes FDA approval. Others may be held up
because of patents, 180-day exclusivity, or other legal matters. Others
have complicated scientific matters that require additional review time
and subsequent additional review cycles. While OGD tries to be as
efficient as possible in the review process, OGD officials want to be
certain that all deficiencies and scientific issues are addressed
before approval.
The number of pending applications remains at around 1,600
applications. OGD is concerned about the number of pending applications
and the office would like to clear the backlog. However, the OGD
continues to receive more applications than it can act on each month.
Within the group of pending applications, there are applications that
cannot be approved because of patents or exclusivity on the reference
drug, and there are applications that have had at least one review
cycle. In addition to the workload of original abbreviated new drug
applications--ANDAs--OGD receives around 350 supplements per month for
post-approval manufacturing changes that also require review and
action.
Question. FDA also advised the Committee in 2008 that many of the
old, pending ANDAs ``have challenging scientific issues with respect to
determination of bioequivalence resulting in extended review periods.''
This acknowledgement of potential scientific inadequacies at OGD is of
concern. In February, OGD Director Gary Buehler stated his goal of
fully staffing two bioequivalence divisions and adding a third
division. He also indicated his priority in securing additional
microbiologists and recruiting a pharmacologist/toxicologist to enhance
the Office. What actions does OGD take to address these challenging
scientific issues? What progress has been made toward reaching Mr.
Buehler's goals? To what extent is OGD using, or could it be placing
more emphasis on using, the scientific capabilities of other offices
within CDER for the more complicated scientific reviews? We are
interested in learning whether, then, the backlogs at OGD are strictly
a matter of resources, a question of where the resources are being
placed, or a lack of collaboration within FDA agency-wide?
Answer. The Office of Generic Drugs--OGD--continues to work under a
structure of two Divisions of Bioequivalence and three functioning
Divisions of Chemistry. The addition of another division in both the
chemistry and bioequivalence review areas would enhance review
efficiency. During 2008, OGD hired 10 microbiologists, and the office
now has 17 on staff. That business unit is steadily increasing review
output as new microbiology reviewers become more productive. OGD has
developed the position description for a pharmacologist/toxicologist,
and the office will advertise that position soon.
In addition, OGD has increased its science staff over the past
year. OGD scientists assist the review divisions by addressing
challenging scientific and review issues. The Science Staff in OGD
oversees contracts for studies with outside groups.
OGD uses the scientific capabilities of other offices and
collaborates with scientists Agency-wide by routinely consulting
experts in other components of the Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, seeking opinions on clinical matters from physicians in
specialty areas, seeking concurrence on bioequivalence assessments from
the Office of Clinical Pharmacology, using statisticians from the
Office of Translational Sciences, assessing potential safety matters
through consults to the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology,
requesting input on questions of immunogenicity from the Office of
Biotechnology Products, requesting certain laboratory research from the
Office of Testing and Research, and using the services of the Advisory
Committee for Pharmaceutical Science.
Managing and reducing the backlog of applications requires ensuring
OGD has the right number of staff are on board, has the right skill
sets to address the various scientific issues, and continues
coordination and collaboration with the right staff within FDA. OGD
continues to manage and reduce the backlog using this three-pronged
strategy.
Question. The President's budget relies on substantial resources
for OGD and its field activities through a new Generic Drug User Fee.
As you know, this fee has been proposed in the past and was not
implemented. How optimistic are you that such a user fee can be enacted
this year, and what activities have you undertaken to develop a
specific proposal and when might the Committee learn more about this?
Answer. Although generic drug user fees have been proposed in
previous budgets, FDA plans to reengage the generic drug industry in
user fee discussions this year to make progress on this important
proposal. Our aim will be to develop a user fee program that provides
the FDA generic drug program with the resources needed to modernize and
enhance the capacity of the generic drug review process and to ensure
timely patient access to safe and effective new generic drugs. FDA
believes that the resources in the fiscal year 2010 proposed generic
drug user fee program are necessary to reduce the review backlog and
ensure patient access. Although there are uncertainties associated with
any new user fee discussions, FDA believes that successfully concluding
discussions with stakeholders will promote the important goals of
timely patient access to safe and effective generic drugs.
Question. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007--
Public Law 110-85--contained a new provision intended to speed the
agency's review of Citizen Petitions. Could you provide the Committee
with estimates of how many petitions you have reviewed under this new
authority and the timeframe for that review? How many petitions were
pending before enactment of Public Law 110-85 and what is their status?
Answer. Section 914 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments
Act of 2007--FDAAA--added section 505(q) to the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act--the Act. This amendment requires that FDA respond to
certain petitions regarding the approvability of certain applications
within 180 days. Specifically, new section 505(q) applied the 180 day
timeframe to citizen petitions and petitions for stay of agency action
that pertain to the approvability of a pending application submitted
under section 505(b)(2) or (j) of the act--generic drug applications.
This complex provision of FDAAA took effect upon enactment--September
27, 2007. Therefore, FDA has had to interpret the new provision and
develop implementing procedures while simultaneously addressing citizen
petitions and petitions for stay that are subject to the new
requirements.
FDA has received 40 citizen petitions as of May 20, 2009 that is
subject to section 505(q) and has responded to 29 of those petitions as
of May 20, 2009. Of the 29 responses, 28 were answered in 180 days or
less. The remaining 505(q) petitions have been pending with the agency
fewer than 180 days.
Prior to enactment of FDAAA, there were approximately 216 citizen
petitions pending, of which approximately 73 raised issues about the
approval standards for generic applications, patents or exclusivity, or
other issue that could delay approval of generic applications. Not all
of the 73 pending petitions would have been subject to section 505(q)
even if they had been submitted after it passed. We have completed
approximately 21 of these 73 petitions, and 29 of the other backlogged
petitions, since the passage of FDAAA.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Kohl. At this time, we will bring this hearing to a
close, and the subcommittee will stand in recess until June 4
when we'll be talking about the USDA budget request.
Thank you very much.
Dr. Sharfstein. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:02 p.m., Tuesday, May 19, the subcommittee
was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 1:05 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Herb Kohl (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Kohl, Harkin, Johnson, Nelson, Reed,
Pryor, Specter, Brownback, Bennett, Cochran, Bond, and Collins.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF THOMAS VILSACK, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY:
DR. KATHLEEN MERRIGAN, DEPUTY SECRETARY
DR. JOSEPH GLAUBER, CHIEF ECONOMIST, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
DR. SCOTT STEELE, BUDGET OFFICER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERB KOHL
Senator Kohl. Good afternoon to everybody. We would like to
welcome Secretary Vilsack back to this subcommittee at this
time to present the administration's fiscal year 2010 budget
request for USDA. The Secretary is accompanied by Dr. Kathleen
Merrigan, Deputy Secretary; Dr. Scott Steele, the USDA Budget
Officer; and Dr. Joseph Glauber, the USDA's Economist. We thank
you all for being here with us today.
The fiscal year 2010 budget for discretionary programs at
USDA is $21.25 billion. This is an increase of $1.9 billion
from last year, or nearly 10 percent. At first glance, this
appears to be a very robust budget and in many important ways,
it indeed is.
The WIC program, which many of us consider essential, has
been underfunded in recent executive budgets. By contrast, this
budget includes an increase of $917 million so that we can deal
with increased food costs and maintain participation.
The rental assistance program would see an increase of $189
million to prevent a large number of poor rural residents, many
of them elderly, from losing their homes.
And funding for humanitarian food aid has increased by $564
million.
These three changes alone make up nearly 90 percent of
USDA's total budget increase. Just to repeat that, these three
items alone make up nearly 90 percent of the total increase in
the budget.
The rest of the money goes quickly. Information technology
at the Department would see an increase of $117 million. These
funds are necessary to improve USDA data security and make sure
computer systems do not fail. Without them, we run a
significant risk of delayed farm payments and deferred farm
bill implementation.
USDA energy programs, which we hope will help lead our
Nation toward a renewable energy future, receive an $80 million
increase.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service budget includes an
increase of $47 million to provide more inspections and improve
information systems.
There are obviously more increases, but I will leave those
for the Secretary to discuss. I would like to point out,
however, that a portion of these increases are made possible
only by reducing mandatory farm bill spending to the tune of
$678 million. This is nearly $200 million more in cuts than we
took last year. While I appreciate the Department's mandate to
find offsets to fund the President's initiatives, I am certain
you understand the precarious situation these farm bill cuts
create in Congress.
Mr. Secretary, our Nation has significant challenges ahead,
and this budget lays out a plan to begin addressing them, but I
have feared for some time that many do not fully appreciate the
breadth of USDA's mission or why these investments are
important.
All of us enjoy greater food safety because of USDA. Nearly
one in five Americans participate in USDA nutrition programs.
USDA research is developing better crops and energy systems
whose benefits are widely spread across our society.
Rural development programs bring safe drinking water,
affordable housing, and essential community facilities to
regions that would otherwise almost certainly be overlooked.
These are all important tasks that demand thoughtful,
deliberative treatment in the appropriations process.
So, Secretary Vilsack, I--and I am sure everybody else--am
very pleased that you're here. We all believe that you will do
an outstanding job, and we look forward to working with you in
the coming years.
After other opening statements from Senators, Mr.
Secretary, the floor will be yours.
Senator Brownback.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK
Senator Brownback. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Secretary. Good to have you here and good to
have a good fellow Midwesterner in that position of Secretary
of Agriculture.
I also think it is very, very, very helpful to the Midwest
that Iowa is the first caucus. It drives a lot of Senators to
travel through Iowa and get to know our issues throughout the
Midwest. So I think that is a very good thing. They formed a
caucus in the U.S. Senate of Members of the U.S. Senate who
would never, ever, ever run for President, and there is like
two people in it. So it means 98 have got some passing interest
of going through your State. And I am delighted you are hearing
about them.
I am glad you are at USDA. USDA touches each American's
life multiple times a day, food, housing programs, research and
assistance. My State of Kansas is a great beneficiary of USDA
programs. It got the first land grant university in the country
at Kansas State University. We have got valuable USDA research.
We provide valuable USDA research. My State produces a lot of
food and agricultural products, and we are dependent upon that
research. We want to see it continue.
I want to highlight two quick areas. I really want to hear
from you today about your targets that you want to hit as
Secretary of Agriculture. You have a great position and a
period of time in which you get to drive the ship, and I want
to hear where you want to take it.
A couple that I am very concerned about, food insecurity
around the world. I think this is a big problem for us. It is a
big opportunity for us in both providing food for people, and
then I think getting back on agricultural development programs
globally.
I have been doing a fair amount of research and meeting
with experts on this. In the mid-80s, we pulled out of
agricultural development work in a lot of places around the
world, and I think it has been quite harmful to us. I think
there was a trend at that point in time, it is not really
working, we do not need to do this, so let us pull out of it
and let us just go to emergency food assistance programs. And I
think we have suffered consequences because of it. I am going
to go through that some more in questioning.
But particularly what Senator Bond has pushed in
Afghanistan on some of the ag development work to help us
stabilize Afghanistan I think is good in a fighting region, but
there is also chronic places like Malawi and others where
agricultural developments continue to decline. I think we need
to figure out ways we can use our food assistance, again, to
get us back in the agricultural development game, and I think
it is important to do it.
Another one is in bioenergy. I do not think there is an
area that the rural States are more excited about than
bioenergy. Certainly grain-based ethanol is having some
difficulty now and there is some consolidation taking place in
that business. But it is providing a key portion of our energy
equation. Our efforts in cellulosic ethanol are very intriguing
and I hope will be quite successful. Biomass. I just came from
an Energy meeting markup and we are looking more and more at
biomass for meeting renewable energy standards and needs. Wind
energy, although not in your purview, is one that generated a
lot of interest and support across many areas of the Midwest. I
cannot think of probably a better area for rural development
than in the bioenergy field, and I want to hear what you want
to try to do more in that particular area.
The final point is on rural development programs. I have
been around this for a long time. There are 90 different grant,
loan, or standalone programs in the rural development area, and
you have got to really question whether we need all 90 of those
or if you would be better off with three big, well-funded ones
or five maybe. But it just has made it so complicated that
people cannot access it or they get a little piece here and
they find another piece there. You have got to hire somebody to
find the program. I would think it would really be one you
could break into.
So I am delighted to have you at that position. Welcome
here.
I want to welcome Susan Collins, new to the subcommittee,
as well. Mr. Chairman, she is going to do a great job and
educate us about Maine agriculture and potatoes and all sorts
of other things I am sure. Lobster, a great Maine dish. So
thank you very much for the hearing. Welcome, Susan.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Senator Brownback.
Other statements from Senators? Senator Pryor, Senator
Cochran, Senator Bond, Senator Johnson, and Senator Collins.
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
my statement be printed in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing to review the
Administration's fiscal year 2010 budget request. I welcome Secretary
Vilsack and other officials from the U.S. Department of Agriculture on
the witness panel.
Mr. Secretary, I commend you for working aggressively to implement
the 2008 farm bill. The enactment of this new law followed many hours
of debate, and it should be implemented so as to reflect the intent of
Congress. I also want to highlight the fact that production agriculture
views the farm bill as a multi-year commitment from the government. In
other words, I ask you to resist the urge to re-open farm bill
provisions that impact the farm safety net.
In addition, I want to mention the importance of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service and its role in administering
conservation programs. Programs such as the Environmental Quality
Incentive Program, Wetlands Reserve Program and Wildlife Habitat
Incentive Program are important to farmers and land owners across the
United States. These conservation programs are limited by either
funding caps or acreage caps, so it is important to wisely administer
these funds to as many producers and landowners as possible.
An important aspect of the Agriculture Appropriations bill is the
annual funding provided for agricultural research. This research helps
enable U.S. producers to remain the leaders in food and fiber
production. We need to work toward providing adequate funding to
continue important research initiatives.
Mr. Secretary, I am concerned about your recent comments suggesting
that agriculture may benefit from cap-and-trade offsets. It is more
likely that crop producers will face increased input costs if Congress
enacts cap-and-trade legislation. As you review the impact of climate
change legislation on agriculture, I ask you to remember that those
producing the food we eat are important to our way of life. We should
fully consider the consequences of further increasing input costs.
Thank you again for appearing before the subcommittee. I look
forward to your testimony.
Senator Kohl. Thank you so much.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM JOHNSON
Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
my full statement be entered into the record.
I have a couple other things to comment about. I am pleased
that with the targeting of farm program payments with the
$250,000 payment limitations cap. I am pleased that Secretary
Vilsack has worked so hard at implementing country-of-origin
labeling.
I am also concerned for some parts of the budget, including
a $500,000 annual sales limit for direct payments which does
not reflect actual farm income.
PREPARED STATEMENT
And I look forward to working with you on issues important
to our ag communities and to fund priorities important to South
Dakota. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Tim Johnson
Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Brownback, thank you for holding
today's hearing to discuss the President's fiscal year 2010 proposed
agriculture budget. Thank you, Secretary Vilsack, for coming to the
Hill today. I'd also like to especially thank you for the work you've
done to implement mandatory Country of Origin Labeling properly, which
has been a priority of mine for nearly 17 years, since I introduced my
first meat labeling bill in 1992.
Agriculture has a $21.3 billion per year impact in South Dakota,
and the Federal government's agriculture spending priorities impact the
success of our rural communities and our national food security. I am
pleased to see an emphasis on many important ag priorities in the
President's proposed budget, including a targeting of farm program
payments with a $250,000 commodities payment limit cap, Commodity
Supplemental Food Program funding, and money for the implementation of
COOL.
I am also, however, concerned for some parts of the budget,
including the $500,000 annual sales revenue limit for direct payments,
which does not reflect actual farm income, and a plan to cut funding
for the Resource, Conservation and Development Councils, which generate
over five local dollars for every dollar of Federal investment.
I look forward to working with you on issues important to our
agricultural communities and to fund priorities important to South
Dakota. Thank you.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Johnson.
Senator Bond.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND
Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will pass up the
opportunity to be as brief as some of my colleagues.
I do want to mention one area that I think is of overall
concern. The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008
established the new National Institute of Food and Agriculture,
or NIFA, to provide enhanced support for research, extension,
higher education programs, dealing with all of the challenges
not only that we face but the world faces. Research under this
would encourage better land use management, provide efficient
nutrition and nutrient and pesticide application, increase
domestic energy production, increase nutrition awareness, many,
many things.
I am disheartened that the administration in this initial
budget proposal places little emphasis on ag research and,
instead of increasing our capabilities, would cut $237 million
from the research, education, and economics portion of the USDA
budget. I think that is a cause for concern. I will ask a
question on it, but I hope, Mr. Chairman and Senator Brownback,
that we will be able to have a discussion on that.
Senator Kohl. Good.
Senator Collins.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS
Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
just say that I am delighted to be a new member of this
subcommittee.
I just want to express some concern also about the
President's budget in the area of the zeroing out of the rural
empowerment zones and Enterprise Communities Grants Program.
There is no funding for resource conservation and development
programs. As my colleague has mentioned, the agricultural
research has taken a hit. Particularly, the USDA ARS Buildings
and Facilities account is zeroed out as well as the Healthy
Forest program. There are a lot of concerns that I have about
the priorities set in this budget.
I am very pleased to be a new member of this subcommittee
and to work with you, Mr. Chairman, and the ranking member,
Senator Brownback. Thank you.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Collins. It is great to
have you with us.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
Senator Kohl. Mr. Secretary, we would love to hear from
you.
STATEMENT OF SECRETARY THOMAS VILSACK
Secretary Vilsack. Thank you, Senator, and Mr. Chairman,
thank you very much for the opportunity. I appreciate the
comments.
I am going to depart from what traditionally would take
place, which is to read a statement that is a part of what we
would submit for the record, and just simply talk very briefly
about the priorities of USDA.
Let me, first and foremost, say that the budget that we are
going to discuss today was fashioned in a fairly rapid time
period, at a time when USDA was obviously not fully staffed and
manned because we were in the process of transitioning to the
new administration. So it is important, I think, for the
committee to know precisely what our priorities are and how
they might be reflected in this budget.
Let me, first and foremost, say that we believe the USDA is
an every-day, every-way Department. As Senator Brownback
indicated, this is a Department that intersects American lives
every single day in multiple ways.
In order for us to reflect that role and that
responsibility, we have a set of agenda items and priorities
that really cover the wide range of USDA's portfolio.
We are very concerned about rural development and economic
development in rural communities, and we believe that the time
has come for a wealth creation approach to rural development
that focuses on regional and coordinated investment, not only
coordinating investments within USDA, but also coordinating
those investments with other Federal investments as well as
what State and local government is investing in economic
development. We think there are synergies and opportunities for
coordination.
We think there are opportunities to create wealth and
repopulate rural America. We believe that will require us to
target our resources, to focus on building the infrastructure
for high-paying jobs, starting with an expansion of broadband
to unserved areas. This committee, this Congress, through the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, saw fit to provide
additional resources, and I will assure the committee during
the course of questions that we are intending on putting those
resources to work very quickly to expand that very important
technology to unserved areas in rural America.
We want to aggressively implement the energy title
provisions of the 2008 farm bill. We want to focus on expanding
local and regional food systems for local wealth creation. We,
obviously, want to continue a focus on value-added local
commodity agriculture, and we want to make community facility
investments that result in rural areas being great places to
live, work, and raise families.
We also want to make sure that we continue to promote
nutrition and food safety. It is the goal of the President. It
is the goal of USDA, and I suspect it is the goal of this
committee to significantly reduce childhood obesity and hunger
in this country. At the same time, we will work with our
partners at Health and Human Services to develop a modern and
coordinated food safety system.
Our forests are extraordinarily important not only in and
of themselves, but also for the significant role they play in
preserving the quantity and quality of water, particularly in
the Western United States. We want to develop an ecologically
sustainable forest and private working land system with a focus
on conserving water resources and improving water quality,
while at the same time restoring our natural forests and
linking that work with our conservation work on private working
lands.
We want USDA to be a modern workplace and a modern
workforce. That will require working with this committee to
modernize, stabilize, and securitize our technology so that we
may be able to provide services more quickly and more
conveniently to people in rural communities.
We will focus on expanded trade promotion, particularly
through a coordinated strategy for exporting biotechnology
crops.
We will work very hard to advance the notion of food
security worldwide based on the principles of expanding the
availability of food, the accessibility of food, and the
utilization of food. Our focus initially will go on Afghanistan
and Pakistan and sub-Saharan Africa.
We also want to maintain an appropriate farm safety net. We
will, obviously, have conversations about the proposal relative
to direct payments, but our commitment is to work with this
Congress to maintain a strong and adequate and appropriate farm
safety net. We think there are opportunities for reform in crop
insurance, and we do believe it is appropriate to focus on a
$250,000 hard cap, but we will be glad to work with this
committee on other ideas and other thoughts.
Finally, we want to be a Department that makes a true
commitment to civil rights, a commitment that reflects the
culture and diversity of this country that is also reflected in
rural communities. We are committed to a fair resolution of
outstanding and longstanding civil rights cases against the
Department, as well as a reduction and resolution of equal
employment opportunity complaints that are currently within the
Department.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Mr. Chairman, this is an aggressive agenda. We believe that
this budget, as presented to you, is a start. By no means will
it finish the job. We look forward to working with this
committee and responding to questions that you might have.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas Vilsack
Chairman Kohl and distinguished members of this subcommittee, it is
a pleasure to come before this subcommittee today to discuss the
details of the President's 2010 budget request for the Department of
Agriculture. I would also like to take this opportunity to provide you
an update on our efforts to eliminate wasteful and inefficient spending
and to implement the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of
2009.
I am joined today by Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan; Scott
Steele, our Budget Officer; and Joseph Glauber, our Chief Economist.
When I accepted this position, the President outlined three key
goals for the Department of Agriculture. First, he is very concerned
about the health and welfare of America's children and wants to make
sure our children have access to nutritious food. Second, he wants to
make sure we do everything we can to expand the capacity of our farms,
ranches, and rural communities to produce alternative forms of energy.
Third, he wants to make sure we aggressively pursue the research
necessary to allow agriculture to transition away from its significant
dependence on fossil fuels. Fulfilling these goals will be a great
challenge, particularly in the context of meeting challenges in the
Department's other responsibilities including food safety,
conservation, trade, and administering the farm safety net. The current
economic situation and difficulties of drought and other severe weather
faced by large areas of farm country add another level of complexity to
the work we have before us.
But, with these challenges come historic opportunities for
agriculture and rural America. I look forward to working together with
this subcommittee to fulfill the President's goals and our key
responsibilities for the long term benefit of producers and all
Americans. We intend to capitalize on these opportunities quickly
through a much more effective effort to coordinate programs within the
various parts of the Department and with other Federal, State, and
local entities.
Over the first 100 days of this administration, USDA has set out on
a new course to promote a sustainable, safe, sufficient and nutritious
food supply, to ensure that America leads the global fight against
climate change, and to revitalize rural communities by expanding
economic opportunities. We have moved quickly to respond to these
difficult economic times by creating jobs, increasing food aid to those
in need, and revitalizing rural communities. We have also made civil
rights a top priority with definitive action to improve the
Department's record and move USDA to be a model employer and premier
service provider.
I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the members
of this subcommittee as we continue our hard work to ensure that USDA
is at the forefront of change.
improving financial integrity
In order to improve financial integrity of the Department, I
directed Subcabinet officials to review their agency's financial
activities for wasteful and inefficient spending, and report on
``savings'' each week. This has been a productive effort, which has
resulted in the implementation of more efficient procedures and cost
avoidance measures. The Terminations, Reductions and Savings volume of
the fiscal year 2010 budget identifies annual savings of $19.5 million
from a sample of the actions USDA agencies have taken. In addition, we
will achieve a cost avoidance of $62 million in lease costs over 15
years as a result of consolidating seven leased facilities located
throughout the DC metropolitan area into one location.
As we move forward in implementing the President's agenda, we will
continue to root out inefficient management practices and improve our
use of funds.
recovery act
Before I delve into the specifics of the 2010 budget, I would like
to provide an update on our efforts to implement the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009.
USDA received $28 billion of ARRA funding. Of this amount, almost
$20 billion, or approximately 70 percent, is for increasing the monthly
amount of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits
currently assisting over 32 million low-income people and increasing
the block grants to Puerto Rico and American Samoa.
The remaining funds are for: supporting nutrition assistance
programs that primarily target low-income women, infants, and children;
expanding opportunities for broadband service in rural areas; improving
community facilities, such as firehouses, libraries, schools, and rural
medical clinics; improving drinking water and wastewater treatment;
increasing farm assistance; promoting rural economic development; and
supporting conservation projects to protect our Nation's forests and
farm land.
Since Enactment of the Recovery Act, we Have
--Worked with State partners to increase maximum SNAP benefits by
13.6 percent, which translates to an additional $80 each month
for a family of four. We also allocated $100 million in
emergency food assistance through TEFAP, and $25 million in
administrative funds for the Nation's emergency food assistance
network;
--Distributed all of the $173 million in Recovery Act funding for
direct farm operating loans that has provided assistance to
2,636 farmers, of which approximately half were to beginning
farmers and 22.8 percent were to socially disadvantaged
farmers;
--Announced a national signup for up to $145 million in floodplain
easements and extended the deadline to ensure landowners
impacted by flooding in States like North Dakota and Minnesota
are given an opportunity to apply. This will restore and
protect an estimated 60,000 acres of flood-prone lands;
--Provided $45 million for the rehabilitation of watersheds, many of
these projects are nearing the end of their 50-year design
life. Recovery funds will be used to upgrade structures to
current safety standards, thereby protecting life, property and
infrastructure downstream for more than 90 years. USDA has also
provided $85 million for 53 new flood prevention project
efforts in 21 States and territories;
--Made available about $760 million in funding to provide safe
drinking water and improved wastewater treatment systems for
rural towns in 38 States. USDA also received $2.5 billion for
expanding rural broadband into communities that otherwise might
not have access. USDA has begun implementation in concert with
the U.S. Department of Commerce and is determining the best
targeted utilization of the funding. These efforts will create
jobs and revitalize rural communities;
--Provided approximately $60 million in essential community
facilities and emergency responder projects to help communities
in 39 States; and
--Made approximately $4.4 billion in guaranteed and direct single
family housing loans for over 37,000 loans.
I want to assure this subcommittee that the Subcabinet, agencies
and the Department will be held accountable for not just swift
implementation, but also for ensuring the funds are used efficiently
and effectively. You should be confident that we are working hard to
achieve the President's goals to revitalize the economy.
2010 Budget
The President's 2010 budget, released on May 7, 2009, proposes
$21.3 billion for discretionary programs under the jurisdiction of this
subcommittee, an increase of nearly $2 billion over the 2009 levels
provided in the Omnibus Appropriations Act. This increase is primarily
associated with the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC), international food assistance, rural
development and other priority programs.
The 2010 budget reflects the President's commitment to be
transparent to the American people. Our budget accounts fully for the
costs to operate the government. In addition, as I had mentioned, we
have reviewed all of our operations for wasteful and inefficient
spending. Therefore, the 2010 budget reflects a reduction of over $450
million for the elimination of earmarks and funding for programs that
are not as high a priority as others, or programs that provide services
that can be supported by other means.
I would now like to focus on some specific program highlights.
Nutrition
Consistent with the President's commitment to present an honest,
transparent budget, we are including sufficient resources to support
estimated participation in the nutrition assistance programs.
For WIC, the budget proposes $7.8 billion in budget authority to
support an average monthly participation of 9.8 million in 2010. This
is a total increase of over $900 million in USDA's largest
discretionary program. The budget provides $225 million in WIC
contingency funds, for a total contingency fund of $350 million with
carryover from fiscal year 2009, should costs increase beyond current
estimates. Additionally, the budget includes $30 million to assist
States in modernizing and upgrading their management information
systems.
On the mandatory side, the budget includes over $1.8 billion in
increases for Child Nutrition Programs, to support the increased level
of school lunch participation and food cost inflation. School lunch
participation is estimated to grow to about 32.1 million children each
school day, with free meal participation increasing from about half of
the total meals in fiscal year 2008 to almost 53 percent in fiscal year
2010. The budget includes $5 million for Hunger-Free Community Grants
authorized by Section 4405 of the 2008 farm bill and $0.7 million to
expand the HealthierUS School Challenge program. In addition, the
administration is proposing an increase of $10 billion over 10 years
for reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Programs. These increases
will support the President's efforts to reduce childhood hunger and
obesity by improving access to nutritious meals, to encourage children
to make healthy food choices, and to enhance services for participants
by improving program performance and integrity.
For the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the
budget includes $67 billion, including $5.9 billion in Recovery Act
funds, to fully fund estimated monthly participation and provides $3
billion in contingency funds, for a total contingency fund of $6.0
billion with carryover from fiscal year 2009, should actual costs
exceed the estimated level. Participation in SNAP is estimated to be
about 32.6 million per month in 2009, and is projected to increase to
35.0 million in 2010. The Recovery Act benefit increase will remain in
place until the normal cost of living adjustment catches up to the
higher benefit levels.
The budget proposes discretionary funding for the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) at a level needed to maintain the
current participation and continues funding for The Emergency Food
Assistance Program (TEFAP).
In order to improve the administration of nutrition programs, the
budget includes increases in the Nutrition Programs Administration
account to improve payment accuracy, advance the use of technology in
benefit delivery, and enhance nutrition education.
In 2010, we look forward to issuing the revised Dietary Guidelines
for Americans, which are the cornerstone of Federal nutrition policy
and the foundation on which all Federal nutrition education, diet and
physical activity guidance, and nutrition assistance programs are
built. The process of establishing the Dietary Guidelines requires an
investment in assessing the most current and credible scientific
evidence on which to base them, a function that USDA created and
employs through its Nutrition Evidence Analysis Library. USDA will be
working to update the nutrition assistance programs to reflect the
latest science found in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines. Further, the
Department will build upon its enormous success in promoting healthy
eating habits and active lifestyles with MyPyramid, including
enhancements of the interactive and personalized tools, such as the
recent MyPyramid for Pregnant and Breastfeeding Women, and MyPyramid
for Preschoolers. MyPyramid is an important investment in the fight on
obesity and much more needs to be done in this area, and to increase
the level of physical activity that Americans engage in on a daily
basis.
Food Safety
A key responsibility I have is to make sure Americans have safe and
sufficient and nutritious food. Although we have a strong food safety
system, we need to continue to work to do a better job. We must focus
on eliminating hazards before they have an opportunity to make anyone
sick, developing technologies that will help us discover risks and
allocate resources to reduce this risk, and during outbreaks rapidly
identify and respond to incidents of foodborne illness. I am committed
to modernizing the food system, focusing on preventing rather than
mitigating the consequences of food-borne illness.
For 2010, the budget requests over $1 billion for the Food Safety
and Inspection Service. Not only will this funding will ensure that the
demand for inspection is met as it provides for increased investments
that will improve prevention, early detection, and mitigation that will
reduce the adverse health impacts related to foodborne illness.
The budget includes an increase of $23 million to improve the food
safety Public Health Infrastructure. These improvements will strengthen
and secure FSIS' ability to target food safety inspections and
investigate food safety outbreaks. In addition, the budget includes an
increase of $4 million for additional food safety assessments. These
assessments are conducted by a team of investigators with a broad array
of skills necessary to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of an
establishment's food safety control system and potential public health
risks associated with meat, poultry, and egg products.
The budget estimates that $153 million in existing user fees for
voluntary inspection will be collected. For 2010, we will submit
legislation to Congress that would authorize the collection of fees to
cover the cost of additional inspection activities necessary for
establishments with performance failures such as retesting, recalls, or
inspection activities linked to an outbreak.
As a member of the President's Food Safety Working Group, I look
forward to working with Secretary Sebelius and others to develop a
strategy that will achieve the President's goals to upgrade our food
safety laws for the 21st century and ensure that we are not just
designing laws that will keep the American people safe, but enforcing
them. The working group will improve coordination between USDA and the
Department of Health and Human Services and other Federal food safety
agencies. These activities will strengthen our capacity to reduce
foodborne illnesses and deaths resulting from foodborne illness.
Trade
USDA has an important role in expanding exports for our
agricultural products. It is significant that, while the country as a
whole has a trade deficit, agriculture has a trade surplus. USDA
estimates that the trade surplus for agricultural products will be $13
billion in fiscal year 2009. To encourage further export expansion for
our products, we need to work hard both in Washington and in our
offices overseas to ensure continued access to overseas markets. I
appreciate the subcommittee's support in providing additional resources
in 2009. Our 2010 budget builds on this foundation with $16.4 million
in additional funds to meet critical needs in the Foreign Agricultural
Service. The budget places particular emphasis on maintaining FAS's
overseas presence so that its representation and advocacy activities on
behalf of U.S. agriculture can continue and on upgrading FAS'
information technology infrastructure. These funds are critical to
continue our efforts to break down trade barriers that limit our
capacity to export, such as the imposition of sanitary and
phytosanitary barriers that are not in accord with international
standards or science-based. As world market conditions deteriorate
under the current financial crisis, we must be especially vigilant to
ensure that we keep markets open as we move forward.
Expanding our access to world markets and developing long-term
trade relationships continue to be vital components of our strategy to
improve the vitality of the farm sector and quality of life in rural
areas. Due to the global credit crisis, we have seen a significant
increase in demand for export credit guarantees provided through the
GSM-102 program. To help meet this demand, the budget provides a
program level of $5.5 billion for CCC export credit guarantees for 2009
and 2010. This is a noteworthy increase in programming from as recently
as 2007, when the program registered sales of $1.4 billion.
International Food Assistance
An important focus of the Department's international work is
providing foreign food assistance and promoting agricultural
development overseas. The administration has established the goal of
renewing the U.S. leadership role in global development and diplomacy,
and fostering world food security. The international food aid programs,
such as the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child
Nutrition and Public Law 480 Title II programs, contribute to that goal
by addressing food insecurity throughout the world and supporting
development, health, and nutrition.
In support of those objectives, the 2010 budget increases
appropriated funding for the McGovern-Dole program to nearly $200
million, a doubling of the 2009 enacted level. We estimate the program
will assist over 4.5 million women and children during 2010 at that
funding level. This is a valuable program that promotes education,
child development, and food security for some of the world's poorest
children.
For the Public Law 480 Title II program, the budget provides a
program level of nearly $1.7 billion, an increase of $464 million above
the 2009 enacted level. The increase will reduce our reliance on the
need for future emergency supplemental funding. Supplemental
appropriations for the Title II program have been requested repeatedly
in recent years in response to a substantial growth in emergency food
assistance needs. In that regard, we appreciate the Committee's
favorable action on the supplemental request submitted by the President
on April 9.
Environmental Services Markets
The President has made clear his priorities in addressing climate
change and expanding our capacity to produce renewable energy. These
priorities create significant new opportunities for farmers and
ranchers to succeed. The agriculture and forestry sectors hold the
potential to deliver substantial emissions reductions, including carbon
sequestration, under a national climate change policy and the
establishment of environmental services markets. The budget reflects
the new course the administration has set to ensure that America leads
the global fight against climate change, and to revitalize rural
communities by expanding economic opportunities, while maintaining a
sustainable, safe, sufficient and nutritious food supply. To create
additional economic opportunities for America's farmers and ranchers,
the administration is pursuing new initiatives that reward producers
for sequestering carbon and limiting greenhouse gas emissions by
providing mechanisms for producers to generate income through
environmental services markets. By seizing the opportunities presented
by environmental services markets, producers will be able to transition
away from a dependence on traditional farm programs.
To this end, the budget includes an increase of $15.8 million to
develop markets that reward producers for sequestering carbon and
limiting greenhouse gas emissions. This includes $1.8 million to
develop the metrics and certifications associated with the
environmental services related to conservation and certain land
management activities. We are also requesting an increase of $9 million
to enhance the research and analytical capabilities of the Department
related to global climate change and $5 million to conduct Government-
wide coordination activities that will serve as the foundation for the
establishment of markets for these ecosystem services.
We need to ensure that farmers and ranchers capitalize on emerging
markets for clean renewable fuels and help America reduce its
dependency on foreign oil by helping establish the demand necessary to
support increased production of biofuels.
Renewable Energy
The 2008 farm bill provided significant mandatory funding to
support the commercialization of renewable energy. The 2010 budget
builds on this investment in renewable energy and biobased activities
by requesting discretionary funding to support almost $780 million in
investments, approximately a net increase of about $275 million from
2009. This includes increases of $218 million for loan guarantees and
$32 million in grants to support renewable energy and energy efficiency
projects under the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). This
request would more than double the amount of funding made available for
REAP under the farm bill for 2010. In addition, the budget supports an
increase of $49 million in loan guarantees for the Biorefinery
Assistance Program.
The emphasis on renewable energy research will be on production of
energy crops. The 2010 budget proposes an increase of $11 million for
the development of new varieties and hybrids of feedstocks with traits
for optimal production and conversion to biofuels. The funding will
also be used to develop a new data series on the supply and location of
commodity production for renewable fuels.
Rural Development
USDA's Rural Development (RD) programs provide essential support to
rural America by providing financial assistance for broadband access,
housing, water and waste disposal and other essential community
facilities, electric and telecommunication facilities, and business and
industry.
The 2010 budget includes funding to support over $21 billion for
loans, loan guarantees, and grants for the Rural Development on-going
discretionary programs, an increase of $825 million over 2009. This
makes Rural Development one of the largest lenders in the country.
The budget will support over $7.3 billion in direct and guaranteed
single family housing loans that will provide more than 59,000 rural
homeownership opportunities. In addition, the budget includes $1.1
billion, an increase of $188 million over 2009, to provide for rental
assistance payments for 248,000 low-income households that reside in
USDA financed multi-family housing and receive such assistance. This is
sufficient for the renewal of all expiring rental assistance payment
contracts. Rental assistance payments protect the rents of low-income
rural residents who live in USDA financed multi-family housing
projects. By maintaining these payments, we not only provide support to
recipients, but also provide financial stability for multi-family
projects that provide affordable housing to 460,000 families who live
in these projects.
The 2010 budget maintains significant support for infrastructure
programs, such as the Water and Waste Disposal program and the Electric
program. The budget funds approximately $1.6 billion in on-going direct
loans and grants, an increase of $80 million over 2009, for essential
water and waste disposal services. This program received an additional
$3.7 billion under the Recovery Act and $300 million under the 2008
farm bill to reduce the backlog of applications. These investments will
help bring increased economic benefits to rural America by providing
needed water and waste disposal systems and by creating jobs. For the
Electric program, the budget provides $6.6 billion in funding for loans
for the construction of electric distribution and transmission systems
and to maintain existing generation facilities. This level of funding
is sufficient to meet the expected demand for these loans.
Increasing access to broadband service is a critical factor in
improving the quality of life in rural America and in providing the
foundation needed for creating jobs. The 2010 budget includes funding
to support $1.3 billion for telecommunications loans and grants,
including broadband. This funding level, coupled with the additional
funding provided for USDA's broadband programs in the Recovery Act,
will significantly accelerate the deployment of broadband access in
rural America. These investments will increase access to quality
broadband service, which is essential to keeping pace in a world that
relies on rapid telecommunications.
The 2010 budget also supports $546 million in direct loans, loan
guarantees and grants for essential community facilities, such as
health care and public safety facilities; as well as $993 million in
business and industry loan guarantees and $34 million in zero-interest
direct loans for intermediary relending.
To spur the development of small business and value-added
agriculture in rural America, the 2010 budget provides a $63 million
increase for rural small business development in the Rural
Microentrepreneur Assistance Program (RMAP), which is in addition to
the $4 million in mandatory funding provided by the 2008 farm bill. An
increase of $18 million is requested for Value-Added Producer Grants
and nearly an $8 million increase for Rural Cooperative Development
Grants.
In keeping with the President's direction to eliminate spending
that is no longer needed, the 2010 budget does not provide any funding
for the EZ/EC grants for which the statutory authority expires, high
energy cost grants which serve a narrow interest that can qualify for
USDA assistance under several Rural Development programs, and grants
for public broadcasting digital conversion, which is due to be
completed in June 2009.
Diversity of Agricultural Production
Consistent with President Obama's desire to invest in the full
diversity of agricultural production, the budget focuses greater
attention on assisting the organic sector, providing greater assistance
to producers of specialty crops, and supporting independent livestock
producers.
The budget includes an additional $2.9 million, a 74-percent
increase, in funding for the National Organic Program, which will
support enhanced outreach and education and ensure program compliance
to maintain labeling credibility.
The budget also includes additional funding for USDA to work with
the fruit and vegetable industry to develop, establish, and operate
Federal marketing agreements or orders that will involve quality
factors affecting food safety for U.S. leafy greens or other fruits and
vegetables.
In an era of market consolidation, the administration will support
policies to ensure that family and independent farmers have access to
markets, control over their production decisions, and transparency in
prices. This includes implementation of farm bill-related regulations
to enhance enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act, which
prohibits unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent practices. For 2010,
additional funding is included to strengthen enforcement of the Packers
and Stockyards Act. Proper enforcement will ensure a level playing
field that fosters fair competition, provides payment protection, and
guards against deceptive and fraudulent trade practices in the
livestock and meat sectors.
Research
USDA's science agencies have been successful in developing
innovative research technologies and solutions to deal with the highest
priority issues facing American agriculture. Today we are confronted
with national and global challenges that will require both an educated
workforce and pioneering scientific research to effectively address.
The 2010 budget includes proposals to revitalize rural education and
confront the challenges of global climate change, bioenergy production
and childhood obesity.
Consistent with the President's pledge to make math and science
education a national priority at all grade levels and revitalize rural
economies, the 2010 budget for the National Institute of Food and
Agriculture includes an increase of $70 million for research, education
and extension activities. These funds will be used to provide
incentives for educators in rural areas to enhance their teaching
skills by establishing Rural America Teaching Fellowships, which will
encourage qualified teachers to pursue professional development
activities. The additional funding will allow secondary, 2-year
postsecondary, and higher education institutions serving rural areas to
update and revise their curricula and coordinate research and extension
activities in the food and agricultural sciences. This initiative will
also help strengthen the teaching, research, and extension programs in
the food and agricultural sciences at 1890 and 1994 Land Grant Colleges
and Hispanic-Serving Institutions. Finally, a new competitive grant
program, utilizing the existing infrastructure of 1862 and 1890 land-
grant institutions, will be implemented to support rural
entrepreneurship and sustain jobs in rural communities through training
and the creation of web-based tools.
The budget for the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) includes $37
million in increases for high priority research in areas such as
childhood obesity, bioenergy, world hunger, and global climate change.
This includes an increase of $13 million for a major ARS initiative to
develop effective sustainable practices to help reduce childhood
obesity through preventative measures. As past attempts at treating
obesity have proven unsuccessful, research will seek to determine the
barriers to individuals in following the healthful eating and physical
activity recommendations set forth in the Dietary Guidelines as well as
study family centered interventions to determine their ability in
preventing obesity in children. In conjunction with this effort, ARS
will work to develop new healthier foods which increase satiety,
decrease caloric density, and increase dietary fiber.
The 2010 budget for ARS also includes an increase of $11 million to
conduct research on the development of new hybrids and varieties of
bioenergy feedstocks that have the traits necessary for the optimal
production and conversion to biofuels. ARS is uniquely suited to lead
this research, because it maintains the National Plant Germplasm
Collection, the world's largest seed collection, and administers
important genetic improvement and breeding programs. Research will also
focus on developing strategies and technologies that will result in the
sustainable, efficient and economic production practices of energy from
forestry and agricultural products in ways that maintain the quality of
the natural resource base.
As I mentioned earlier, the budget supports research for global
climate change aimed at developing mitigation and adaptation strategies
through science. The budget proposes increases of $9 million within ARS
to assess and manage the risks of global climate change to agricultural
production and $1.8 million within the Economic Research Service budget
to support research on the economics and policies for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions.
For the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the budget
includes an increase of $1.8 million to establish a data series on key
elements of bioenergy production and utilization which will be
instrumental in developing a renewable energy infrastructure. The
budget also includes an increase of $5.75 million to restore the
chemical use data series which will allow the collection of data on
major row crops on an alternating year basis. This data series will
enable USDA, EPA and others to respond adequately to questions about
agricultural chemical use and its possible effects on the environment.
These program increases are offset by reductions in research and
extension earmarks and lower priority projects that total about $260
million.
Farm Safety Net
The President's Budget includes proposals to improve fiscal
responsibility, while supporting a robust safety net for producers that
provide protection from market disruptions, weather disasters, and
pests and diseases that threaten the viability of American agriculture.
I want to reassure you that the President's Budget maintains the three-
legged stool of farm payments, crop insurance, and disaster assistance.
However, in keeping with the President's pledge to target farm payments
to those who need them the most, the budget proposes a hard cap on all
program payments of $250,000 and to reduce crop insurance subsidies to
producers and companies in the delivery of crop insurance. Crop
insurance costs have ballooned in recent years from $2.4 billion in
2001 to a projected $7 billion in 2009. The President's 2010 budget
would rein in these costs by saving over $5.1 billion over the next 10
years. While the budget includes a proposal to phase out direct
payments to the largest producers, the Department is prepared to work
with Congress and stakeholders as these proposals are considered.
Farm Programs
To better respond to the Nation's economic troubles, USDA took
swift action to implement the farm bill, and we will continue to move
rapidly to implement the remaining portions of the farm bill. To that
end, the 2010 budget requests an increase of $67.3 million to continue
the Farm Service Agency's IT modernization effort and activities
necessary to stabilize its legacy computing environment. This funding
will supplement the $50 million provided in the Recovery Act for FSA's
IT needs. The combined funds from the Recovery Act and the 2010 budget
will allow us to continue to make progress in improving the delivery of
farm program benefits, the security of producer information, and the
integrity of taxpayer dollars by reducing the potential for erroneous
payments. However, additional funding will be required in subsequent
years to complete the stabilization and modernization efforts.
Farm Credit
USDA's farm credit programs provide an important safety net for
farmers by providing a source of credit when they are temporarily
unable to obtain credit from commercial sources. ARRA provided
substantial assistance to address the tightening of credit in rural
areas as a ripple effect of the Nation's overall credit crisis. Because
the demand for credit is still high, the 2010 budget requests funding
to support $4.1 billion in direct and guaranteed farm loans, an
increase of $0.7 billion over the 2009 on-going level.
Crop Insurance
For the Risk Management Agency (RMA), the budget requests $80
million, an increase of $3 million over 2009. RMA manages the Federal
crop insurance program in partnership with private sector insurance
companies. This partnership has been very successful in increasing
participation; however, potential instances of fraud and abuse within
the crop insurance program continue to be identified. The President's
budget includes an increase of $1.8 million to provide RMA the
resources necessary to address critical compliance needs identified by
the Government Accountability Office, the Office of Inspector General,
and others. This funding will help to improve the transparency of the
crop insurance program and identify those producers, agents, and other
program participants who would knowingly defraud the Government.
Conservation
The administration fully supports partnering with landowners to
conserve land, protect wetlands, improve wildlife habitat, expand
hunting and fishing opportunities, and promote other conservation
initiatives. In this vein, the proposed budget includes several vital
conservation programs, including the Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP), Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and the Wetlands Reserve Program
(WRP) that were authorized in the 2008 farm bill.
These programs provide a special opportunity to address not only
the Nation's most serious natural resource needs but also to facilitate
the administration's goals of increasing energy conservation, improving
renewable energy production, and reducing carbon emissions. These
programs have also been instrumental in establishing and maintaining
USDA's unique partnership with land owners and operators that will be
vital to our success in solving or mitigating these serious
environmental and energy concerns through voluntary actions.
The 2010 budget reflects a continued commitment to conservation by
including nearly $4.7 billion in mandatory funding for those
conservation programs authorized in the 2008 farm bill. This will
support cumulative enrollment of more than 281 million acres in these
programs, a 10 percent increase over 2009. CRP, which accounts for more
than 41 percent of total funding for conservation programs, is funded
at just under $2 billion in 2010. This level of funding will support a
cumulative enrollment level of 30.4 million acres. The budget proposes
spending $1.2 billion for EQIP, which will support enrollment of an
additional 16.8 million acres through cost-share contracts.
Further, the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) and the
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) are funded in the 2010 budget. This
includes $447 million for CSP that will be used to enroll 12.8 million
additional acres, and $391 million for WRP to enroll a projected
152,600 acres. While the projected WRP enrollment in 2010 is slightly
below the 2009 level, it is considerably higher than enrollment levels
in recent years including more than double the level enrolled in 2008.
The 2010 budget also includes $907 million in discretionary funding
for on-going conservation work that provides high quality technical
assistance to farmers and ranchers and addresses the most serious
natural resource concerns. This includes discretionary savings of $75
million from the elimination of duplicative programs and programs that
are not as high a priority of other programs, including the Resource
Conservation and Development Program and the Watershed and Flood
Prevention Operations Program.
Civil Rights
Ensuring equitable treatment of all of our employees and clients is
a top priority for me. The 2010 budget includes increased resources to
improve our efforts to ensure that all USDA employees and constituents
are treated fairly. For too long, the Department has been known for
prejudice and discrimination in its employment practices and program
delivery. Such practices will not be tolerated while I am Secretary of
Agriculture. By holding each USDA employee accountable for their
actions and through the implementation of my recently announced civil
rights plan, we will strive to make the Department a model agency for
respecting civil rights. In support of these efforts, the 2010 budget
includes funding to address program and employment complaints of
discrimination and to increase the participation of small, beginning,
and socially disadvantaged producers in USDA programs.
Outreach to Underserved Constituents
Another key initiative is expansion of outreach to underserved
constituents. The 2010 budget includes funding to support establishment
of the Office of Advocacy and Outreach authorized in the 2008 farm
bill. This office will increase the accessibility of programs to
socially disadvantaged producers, small-scale producers, and beginning
farmers and ranchers and will provide them an avenue for input into the
programmatic and policy decisions to improve their viability and
profitability.
The budget also provides the funding necessary to support enhanced
government-to-government relations and improve Tribal consultation and
outreach activities related to USDA programs. This will enhance USDA's
understanding of the diverse needs of Indian Tribes and the impacts of
programs on Tribal organizations and communities.
Department Management
In addition, the budget also supports efforts to improve the
management and oversight of Departmental programs. Increased funding is
being sought for management priorities, including:
--Instituting a Department-wide cyber security initiative to
eliminate critical vulnerabilities that threaten the integrity
of the USDA network and the security and privacy of
Departmental systems and information. The budget includes an
increase of $45.8 million to ensure that USDA can reliably
deliver its broad portfolio of programs in a secure IT
environment.
--Providing oversight of program delivery by conducting audits and
investigations and limiting fraud, waste, and abuse throughout
USDA.
--To make USDA more open and its processes more transparent, the
budget includes funding for enhanced communications
capabilities; tools for improved public access to the appeals
process; and additional oversight to improve USDA reporting to
the public on programmatic spending.
Conclusion
We have begun the process of making tough decisions about where our
priorities lie and have made some tough choices about where we spend
our resources. These choices reflect the new direction the President
wants to take the country at this historic time--a track that takes the
Nation on the path to recovery and provides the foundation and diverse
opportunities for farmers and ranchers to succeed.
That concludes my statement. I will be glad to answer questions you
may have on our budget proposals.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
We will start our round of questioning with 5-minute
events.
AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT FUNDS
Mr. Secretary, the Economic Recovery Act included
substantial resources for USDA, including $11 billion for
housing loans, $3 billion for business loans and grants, $3.75
billion for water and wastewater loans and grants, as well as
other funds. We know this placed a huge burden on the
Department to quickly identify and fund the good projects.
Do you foresee impediments to effectively utilizing all of
the Recovery Act funds in a timely manner, and does this effort
complicate the effective use of your annual appropriations?
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the
opportunity that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has
given us to invest in appropriate investments across the wide
spectrum that you have identified with your question.
Let me simply report to you and to the committee that we
have been very aggressive in our efforts to implement the
Recovery and Reinvestment Act. To date, USDA has provided
37,057 home loans, single family housing loans, which has
allowed us to reduce a significant backlog. To date, with the
recovery and reinvestment resources, we have provided 2,636
direct operating loans to farmers and ranchers in need.
At the same time, we have begun the implementation of the
expanded Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits
which has on average provided an additional $80 a month for a
family of four. For the benefit of the committee, these
resources are expended by those families, 97 percent of them,
within 30 days, and the reality is that for every $5 we invest
in that specific program, we get $9.20 of economic activity. It
is, indeed, a direct stimulus.
We have provided over $615 million for safe drinking water
and improved wastewater treatment facilities in rural
communities in 34 States.
We have announced $357 million in funding for Forest
Service projects.
We have fully obligated the $100 million that you all
provided for the National School Lunch Program.
We have also obligated $100 million for The Emergency Food
Assistance Program. I was recently in Kentucky at a food bank.
I cannot tell you how appreciative the food banks of this
country are for the commitment that you have made. In that one
facility alone, an additional 172,000 meals will be served as a
result of the commitments and resources they received, and I am
pleased to say that many of those meals will be high-protein
meals with pork and poultry being two particular commodities
that they were able to purchase.
We have awarded $85 million--I think we have committed $145
million for available watershed operations projects. We have
awarded $45 million for watershed rehabilitation programs to
rehabilitate dams and critical public health and water quality
issues.
And we have provided over $60 million in funding for
community facilities in 39 States, including a number of fire,
police, and medical vehicles.
So we have rapidly implemented, as best we can, a
substantial portion of the recovery and reinvestment proceeds.
To your question in terms of its impact, this has,
obviously, placed some stress on our staff, but I would suggest
it has probably placed a greater stress on the staff of OMB,
which sometimes makes it difficult for us working with those
hard-working folks at OMB to get all of the rules and
regulations out for the many programs that the USDA has
responsibility for. I am sure we will touch on a few of those
by the time the questions are finished today.
Senator Kohl. Very good.
Senator Brownback.
Senator Brownback. Thank you, Chairman.
NATIONAL BIO AND AGRO-DEFENSE FACILITY
A couple questions in some broad areas. One, I want to
start off with, though, narrowly is the NBAF facility was
recently announced in Manhattan, Kansas, the National Bio and
Agro-Defense Facility. The physical plant is owned by Homeland
Security. It is operated by USDA.
Do you know USDA's plans to transition it from Plum Island,
as far as when the actual personnel will be moved to expand
this expanded mission at NBAF?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, I am not sure that we have a
specific time table for transition. We are aware of the fact
that this is an important step for us to take in terms of our
homeland security and biosecurity.
This new facility will provide us expanded space. It will
also provide us BSL-4 capabilities which we currently do not
have.
We are working with the Department of Homeland Security,
and we have identified with the Department of Homeland Security
a variety of research opportunities at that facility once it
gets in place. We are concerned, obviously, as I am sure you
are, about foot and mouth disease, classical swine fever,
African swine fever, Rift Valley fever, and a variety of other
diseases. We will be working very closely with Homeland
Security to get this transition done as quickly as we can
because it is an important facility.
Senator Brownback. Good.
HUMANITARIAN FOOD AID DOLLARS
I want to show a quick chart we had done up on food aid.
The big area that I have got concern with in food aid--I have
worked in this region for some period of time, worked with a
number of experts on it, a very important program that we have.
I think it is a critical diplomatic program. I think it is a
critical humanitarian program. I think it is critical for us in
making our new efforts on HIV/AIDS in Africa and malaria work
because if we are going to treat people and they have got a
poor diet, they do not do very well. They need a good diet to
go along with it.
The troubling aspect of this chart is that we have
increased funding substantially over the past 8 years and our
tonnage has gone down dramatically in that same period of time.
We are at a point now where roughly 65 percent of our food aid
dollars go for two areas, administration and transportation. I
am hopeful we start looking at ways that we can get people well
fed and try to get that piece of it in a more controlled
fashion, if possible.
I do not know if you are aware of this. These are GAO
studies. This chart is from the GAO. They are very engaged on
this. I know the chairman cares deeply about food aid. It has
got to be done right, but a 65 percent number just seems way
high to me on those two areas.
Do you have any comments?
Secretary Vilsack. Several. First and foremost, we
recognize the important role that food aid plays in terms of
America's role internationally, which is one of the reasons why
we have suggested and proposed, as you know, an increase in the
McGovern-Dole program. That has been a very successful program.
Senator Brownback. It has broad bipartisan support. People
like that one. It is good.
Secretary Vilsack. Broad bipartisan support and for good
reason. We can assist over 4 million children in 19 countries.
In fact, it has been so successful that some countries have
actually taken that model and adopted it for themselves and
have actually moved away from a reliance on our program.
As you well know, there are certain restrictions and
limitations in terms of how resources that we do provide in
food aid are transported to countries. I would say that we are
focused on a----
Senator Brownback. Can I get right at that? My time has run
out. I am not going at that. That is an old fight around these
places, and I do not think we ought to engage that fight. I
just think we have got to somehow get our pencils sharper on
the amount that we are going at the administration and
transportation number. But to go at that fight, I have been
around this one too long, and it will not get us anywhere.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I am not disagreeing with you. I
am just pointing out that that is one of the explanations for
the chart that you have placed up there.
Let me suggest a different way, Senator, if I might.
Senator Brownback. Please.
Secretary Vilsack. Let me suggest that one way that we
could perhaps move this process forward is to focus on how we
might be able to use not just the food resources of this
country but the knowledge and the technical assistance that
this country can provide. I think that there is enormous
opportunity, as I mentioned earlier in my opening statement, in
Afghanistan and Pakistan to model an effort on the part of
America to empower people to be more self-sufficient.
One of the problems is that most of the world farms on
relatively small farms, and most of what we do in this country
and most of the research that we do is focused on larger farms.
I believe that we can provide technical assistance. I believe
that we can focus our efforts on 1 to 2 hectare-sized farms and
create an even more effective international effort to
supplement what we are currently providing in the way of
emergency food.
In order for there to be food security, not only do folks
have to be able to grow the food, not only do they have to be
able to trade and have an economy that will allow them to
trade, but there is, obviously, a role for emergency food
assistance.
So it is all three of those aspects. If you focus simply on
one or two of the three, then you are not going to make the
food available. Even if it is available, you also have to focus
on creating the infrastructure, the roads, the transportation
systems that allow it to get to people. And even if it is
accessible to people, you also have to make sure that there is
adequate information about how to properly utilize food.
So all three of these components have to be part of what
USDA does and what the United States does relative to food
security. It is, in my view, not just one. I think you have to
do all three, and I think you have to focus on all aspects of
this.
Senator Brownback. Thank you.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Senator Brownback.
Senator Pryor.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
DIRECT FARM PAYMENTS LIMITATION CAP
Let me start, if I may, with another issue. As Senator
Brownback alluded to on his issue, you know, we fight this
fight sometimes around here. But I do want to get your thoughts
on it, and that is the administration's proposal to phase out
direct payments to farms that, I guess, have sales revenues
above $500,000. Could you talk a little bit about that please?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, I think, first of all, I want
to make it very clear that the administration, the President,
myself, USDA understands and appreciates the important role
that the safety net provides in rural America. That is the
reason why we moved rapidly with the preceding administration
and our administration to implement the farm bill rules as it
relates to direct payments and counter-cyclical payments, why
we have proposed the rules relating to ACRE and extended the
sign-up for the ACRE program, and why we are currently working
very hard and hopefully in the next 30 days to be able to put
some of the livestock disaster payment rules out and to be in a
position to have SURE, the disaster program, available in the
fall.
It is also one of the reasons why we do support reform but
understand the important role that crop insurance plays in
creating that safety net. So there is a commitment to the
safety net.
The proposal relates to a relatively small percent, 3
percent, of the farmers who essentially receive 30 percent of
the benefits. There may be and there probably are better ways
to do this, Senator, and we are happy to work with you.
We were challenged to focus on the priorities of increasing
funding for child nutrition so we could end childhood hunger in
this country and address the obesity issue at the same time. We
were compelled, and I think appropriately so, to also take a
look at the bottom line. We tried to respond to the priorities,
made a proposal, but are certainly willing to work with you. If
there is a better way to do this, we are certainly open to it.
Senator Pryor. Well, I look forward to that. I think one of
the things we should look at is the cost involved in producing
the product and getting it out to the market because that
varies widely depending on the product you are growing and also
what region of the country you happen to be farming in. So I
look forward to working with you on that. If we can do that
fairly soon, that would be great.
POULTRY IMPORTS FROM CHINA
My second question deals with trade, specifically trade
with China and even more specifically with poultry. There is an
amendment that was attached to the fiscal year omnibus
appropriation bill section 727. Are you familiar with that?
Secretary Vilsack. Yes, sir.
Senator Pryor. What is your opinion on section 727? And I
guess more specifically, it seems to me that--well, anyway, I
would like to hear your opinion on that.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, I think it is fair to say that the
opinion of USDA is that we are, obviously, very interested in a
science-based and rule-based trading system. That is one of the
reasons why we have expressed concern recently on the H1N1
circumstance and some of the decisions that countries have made
to ban pork products.
Having said that, we understand and appreciate the
importance of concerns that are expressed in Congress and
throughout the country about food safety relative to imported
food. So what we are doing now is we are working with Members
of Congress and a number of other folks to try to figure out
precisely what the concerns are and see ways in which USDA can
specifically respond to those concerns as quickly as possible
so that whatever barriers exist can be removed and we can open
up as much trade in all products as quickly as we possibly can.
The commitment to you and to this Congress and to this
committee is to work as quickly as we can to figure out
precisely what we can do better than we are currently doing,
and I think, hopefully, we will, within the next several
months, have a better, clearer understanding of precisely what
we can do better. Once we know that, we are committed to making
that happen.
Senator Pryor. Great. That is music to my ears. I would
love to be part of those discussions with you and try to figure
out how we can proceed from here. My impression of section 727
is it ends up hurting American agriculture, specifically the
poultry part of that. But we can talk about that more offline
and have more discussions.
RESEARCH FUNDING AT LAND GRANT UNIVERSITIES
The last question I have for you is about the traditional
land grant colleges and the research that is being done there.
I believe it was Senator Brownback--I am sorry--Senator Bond--
one of those two referred to that. Could you tell us about the
funding there? There is a core element of that research. Then
there are a lot of other things that get done. Could you tell
us about your vision for how we should prioritize those
research dollars?
Secretary Vilsack. Thank you for that question. And I
certainly appreciated Senator Bond's comments, and I understand
his concerns.
Let me simply say, alluding to the fact that we had a
relatively short period of time to put this budget together,
that I did not feel comfortable knowing fully and completely
all aspects of the Department's activities. So what I decided
to do was in hiring the Under Secretary for Research,
Education, and Economics to challenge and to charge Dr. Shah,
recently confirmed by the Senate, to take a look at all of our
research activities to make sure that we properly prioritize,
we properly fund, we properly understand the intersection of
those research opportunities at USDA and at the land grant
universities and the private sector so that we can make sure
that we are spending and investing our resources as wisely as
possible. Only then would I feel comfortable in terms of
committing to a budget of additional resources or different
resources directed in a different way.
I understand the importance of research. I clearly
understand the importance of land grant universities. I worked
at one before I came here. I worked on the Seed Center at Iowa
State University, and I understand precisely the work that it
does and that land grant universities throughout the country
do.
I will tell you that in discussions with the Afghan and
Pakistani minister, the one topic that came up repeatedly was
the Extension Service, the important role that extension plays.
They would like to be able to replicate that in their
countries.
So I do understand it. I would just like to have the
opportunity to better understand the details and the specifics
and to be able to prioritize appropriately so that I could then
be able to justify precisely what we are doing and why we are
doing it.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Senator Pryor.
Senator Cochran.
2008 FARM BILL PROVISIONS
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I find myself in
agreement with the distinguished Senator from Arkansas about
the possible implications with changes in the farm bill or
administration actions with respect to implementing the farm
bill that might make it more and more difficult for southern
agriculture producers along the Mississippi River where
traditionally the crops have been cotton and rice and, to some
extent, soybeans and others, that they will likely suffer more
than any other segment of agriculture if this administration's
proposals are actually codified by the Congress.
So I just mention that. You know it already, but it is a
serious concern. It could likely lead to support for cap and
trade legislation. I never have understood exactly why we have
that language to describe that legislation, but it is going to
reduce prices paid to farmers. It is likely to increase input
costs as well. I do not know who benefits from that except
those who want major changes made in the farm bill.
We spent a year in hearings and working to try to develop a
consensus for writing a new farm bill, and now to have this
administration come in and immediately start attacking major
provisions that were the objects of a lot of debate and a lot
of difficulties in getting included in the bill set aside, I am
concerned about that.
I hope that we will support the administration's efforts in
developing more aggressive trade policies. We think that is a
very important step in the right direction, and we encourage
you to use the tools that Congress has placed in the farm bills
in the past that have worked, and we hope you can be successful
in increasing our share of world markets with the use of those
provisions.
DIRECT FARM PAYMENTS LIMITATION CAP
Let me ask you if you could give us an update on the
Department's farm bill implementation activities with respect
to payment limitations.
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, the direct payment and counter-
cyclical rules are out. The ACRE rules are out. The time period
for sign-up is extended to August 14 to give folks the capacity
to determine what is in their best interest. So those rules are
out, and we are waiting for farmers across the country to make
decisions which are important to their operations. Once those
decisions are made, we will certainly honor them.
We are also in the process, this month, of working
diligently with OMB to try to complete work on a number of the
disaster provisions, particularly as it relates to livestock.
We know the circumstances particularly in the upper Midwest and
other parts of the country with reference to livestock and
storms and the impact of floods. So we are working very hard to
get those rules out so people understand how they can sign up.
SUPPLEMENTAL REVENUE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
We also appreciate the SURE program, which was part of the
2008 farm bill, a new disaster program. It is a complex program
to develop, made more so by the changes that were made to it as
a result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It is
also highly tied to the technology challenges that we have
within the USDA. Operating with very antiquated technology and
software, it sometimes becomes very cumbersome and time-
consuming to write the software to implement these programs.
But we believe we are on track to have SURE rules out, at least
in some form, in the fall. Then we will have to collect data
concerning losses and hopefully we will be in a position to
respond with payments in the following year.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
Senator Johnson.
NATIONAL ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Secretary Vilsack, for
conducting an animal ID listening session in South Dakota. Are
there any parts of the current plan you are absolutely
committed to moving forward?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, this is, among many issues, a
very contentious and difficult one. It not only creates
different attitudes in different parts of the country, it
creates different attitudes within the livestock family
generally, poultry and pork having different views about it
than cattle, and within the cattle industry, different views
depending upon whether you graze on public lands or private
lands or a combination.
We have not completed the listening sessions, and so the
candid answer to your question is I have not made any specific
decisions relative to the program and improvements to the
program because I want to give everyone an opportunity to have
input.
I will say that the reason why we are doing these listening
sessions is because there has been concern expressed by some
Members of Congress about whether or not the investment that is
being made today by the Federal Government, now in excess of
$130 million, is money well spent. That concerns me from a
market standpoint. A recent study suggested that one incident
could cause the livestock industry as much as $13 billion in
losses. We know one head of cattle coming across the border
from Canada caused us significant problems in our cattle which
we still yet have to recover from in terms of our trading
partners, and we also know that our trading partners are
looking very closely at the safety and security systems that we
have.
There have been a number of concerns that have been raised,
which I am sensitive to. One is the cost. Two is the
technology, whether or not the Government is going to address a
specific technology or a range of technologies that could be
used. Three, obviously, whether it is voluntary or mandatory.
Four, who bears the cost? There is a significant difference
between cattle, pork, and poultry in terms of the overall cost
to the industry. And there are deep concerns about who gets the
information, who uses it, how is it accessed, and whether the
public through the media would have the capacity through the
Freedom of Information Act to access information. All of those
issues and I suspect a whole lot more have been identified, as
we look for improvements, we are going to have to think
creatively and innovatively about.
Senator Johnson. Could you provide me with a timeline on
all this to take place and when your decisions will be made?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, we expect and anticipate that it
will take another month to two to complete the listening
sessions, and then, hopefully, not very long after that, we
would be in a position to make some recommendations and
suggestions to see what reaction we get.
The one thing I do not want to have happen is I do not want
this Congress to lose confidence in the system, not provide
funding, and then send I think what would be a very poor
message to our trading partners and would, I think, negatively
potentially affect our trading opportunities.
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING
Senator Johnson. Given your excellent dedication to the
COOL program, how have you been working with the USTR to ensure
COOL is implemented properly?
Secretary Vilsack. We have had very good conversations with
Ambassador Kirk and his staff. We have had two face-to-face
meetings between USDA staff and the Trade Representative's
staff. I appreciate the working relationship that we have
developed. Ambassador Kirk and I were friends before we had
this opportunity in the administration, and we have built on
that friendship.
We continue to provide information and resources concerning
COOL to the Trade Representative so that there is a clear
understanding and appreciation that we are committed to COOL.
We are committed to following the intent of Congress, as you
all have outlined it, that we do not think that what we have
proposed or suggested or that what you all have passed is
necessarily trade-distorting. We think it is within the
guidelines provided by the WTO. We know that our trading
partners may have disagreements about that.
Just one observation. A recent report suggested that
livestock activities in Canada have been a bit more robust than
they have been in this country, which would suggest that
perhaps COOL is not having the impact or effect that some might
believe.
We will continue to work with USTR, continue to work with
our Canadian and Mexican friends to make sure that they fully
understand what this is and more importantly what it is not.
DIRECT FARM PAYMENTS LIMITATION CAP
Senator Johnson. I have been an enthusiastic supporter of a
cap on $250,000 for a payment limitations cap. But I am
concerned about the $500,000 gross sales limit approach for
direct payments also included in the budget. I want to point
out that I am in favor of the $250,000 cap, unlike some of my
colleagues, but I am opposed to the sales revenue cap because
it is a gross number and not net.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Senator, in one respect I guess
the USDA can be congratulated for developing such a strong
bipartisan reaction to this idea. When I was Governor of Iowa,
I often said that I would propose but the legislature would
perfect, and I suspect that that strategy is in play here.
Senator Johnson. Where do you propose to have an offset for
the change if we make it?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Senator, we are pledged to working
with you, with this committee, and with your counterparts in
the House to make sure that this budget squares itself. We are
committed to working with you. We were sure of one thing when
we proposed this budget that you all would not just say, well,
this is great, all in favor, say aye. You would have a lot to
say about this budget. We are committed to working with you.
I think it is important for me to reemphasize the
priorities that the President has and that I share. We think it
is important for a multitude of reasons that we address
aggressively child nutrition. We think it is important for a
variety of reasons, not to mention national security and
economic security, that we continue to invest in bioenergy and
rural development. And we do believe that there are ways in
which we can have a strong, adequate safety net, as perhaps you
have suggested with the cap, that do not necessarily make it
more difficult for people to survive. And we are committed to
that set of priorities.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson.
Senator Bond.
Senator Bond. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, being a fellow former Governor, we have had
a lot of experience on the legislative branch disposing of what
we have proposed.
I appreciate your answers to my colleague from Arkansas on
research. We want to work with you on that.
When you were speaking about Afghanistan, agriculture
there, we have talked about the National Guard ag development
teams, and we want to work it to the point where USDA is
participating as security advances on that area because there
is a tremendous opportunity.
CHILDHOOD OBESITY
I want to move into another area. In one of the answers to
one of the questions, you mentioned the priority of dealing
with obesity, and you also testified initially about serving
very nutritious food. As you know, the SNAP program is getting
a $7.3 billion increase to over $61 billion, and we are all
aware that this extra investment in taxpayer money can legally
be used to buy sugar-sweetened drinks and empty-calorie food.
Now, I am concerned. Are we doing well by taxpayers but,
most importantly, by the recipients of assistance and their
families when we subsidize poor and unhealthy diets? It seems
to me that there is an opportunity with the electronic benefits
card and point-of-sale displays or information to make sure
that more of the assistance that is received is used in the
healthy pyramid food type purchases. What are your views on
that?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Senator, first of all, I want to
acknowledge that you feel very strongly about this, and I
appreciate the passion that you have about this. We have talked
about it in your office and I know that you are committed to
it.
Let me, first and foremost, say that food is an
extraordinarily complicated set of issues. Until I got this
job, I did not realize that there were over 300,000 food
products sold in grocery stores around this country, and that
over 12,000 new products were introduced in the last 10 or 15
years.
We have made a concerted effort to, one, work diligently to
try to improve the food pyramid so that it reflects modern
science; two, that we do a much better job of promoting through
educational tools the need for more nutritious food. We have
begun a process of working particularly focusing on young
children and young families to assure that moms and dads are
aware of the important responsibility they have in making
choices for their children. We are committed to working with
our schools to make sure that not only are the school lunches
and school breakfasts more nutritious, but what is in our
vending machines at schools reflects that same attitude. So we
think we are aggressively pursuing an education effort, and we
think that over time it will make a difference.
Senator Bond. But you are not willing to go down the road
with me and cause a little bit of firestorm. I understand that.
AGROFORESTRY RESEARCH
In the time I have remaining, we have had an opportunity to
discuss agroforestry which is done--I am sorry my colleague
from Arkansas has left. The University of Missouri School of
Agroforestry works with the Booneville Agroforestry. It is a
regional approach to assisting agriculture and particularly
small farmers in using plants and trees for environmental
benefits, providing better income. We are developing new crops
like, I might just mention, chestnuts for example, as a second
source of income. I had a minimum amount of happiness when I
understand that the money for Booneville had been proposed for
rescission. I hope that you all will consider that.
But most importantly, I hope that we will have an
opportunity to work with you and your staff with people who are
interested here in Washington about the opportunities we have
to do so many of the things you are talking about through
agroforestry research.
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, we are excited about the
opportunities that forests present. As I explained earlier in
my opening statement, we see a new opportunity for us to link
our forests with our private working lands with our urban
centers so that there is a full appreciation across the country
of what trees and forests mean.
I know that there are concerns about specific proposals
relative to things that you all designate and specify. Again, I
think it is a reflection of the budget process. We will
certainly work with folks, but please do not take from whatever
we propose the belief that we do not understand and appreciate
the importance of forests because we do. We are very excited
about what we see as a new day for the U.S. Forest Service and
NRCS and linking those two important components of USDA to all
of America.
Senator Bond. Well, I thank you for that. We will look
forward to working with you. I also appreciate your work and
the discussions we have had on biotechnology, a complicated
area. We will discuss that later.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Secretary, thank you. We
have got a lot of exciting and interesting things to work on.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Senator Bond.
Senator Nelson.
Senator Nelson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you for holding this hearing.
RECOVERY ACT BROADBAND PROGRAM
Mr. Secretary, welcome. Let me first say as both former
Governors from rural States, neighboring States, we learned
about the importance of communication extending out to the
rural areas into farmsteads and to small schools, as well as to
the major metropolitan areas.
As we set forth in the stimulus package for broadband
deployment, it is my understanding that there may have been
some slowdown, not necessarily intentionally, but as a result
of trying to establish rules to move forward with the
distribution of money to expand that broadband deployment.
Knowing that the construction season is a little bit earlier
for our States than it may be for some of the other States that
do not enjoy the cold weather, is there anything that can be
done to move the development of some of those rules along maybe
a little bit more quickly?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, we have been working very
closely with Secretary Locke and his team at Commerce. We are
confident that by the end of this month we will have an outline
of rules and regulations relative to how folks might be able to
qualify for the grants and loans under the broadband program
that you all have put into the Recovery and Reinvestment Act,
and we anticipate that the first set of resources will go out
in probably one of three different deliveries in the fall of
this year. So we are aggressively working to get that done. We
appreciate the importance of distance learning, of
telemedicine.
But I would also suggest to you that it is an extremely
important strategy for rural development in terms of economic
development. Small businesses currently that have a unique
service or product are able to perhaps sell locally, but with
broadband, they may be able to expand their market globally.
This is part of the wealth creation strategy that we are trying
to implement at USDA. So we are very cognizant. We are moving
forward.
And I would say we are also moving in a streamlined way. We
will not have separate applications. We will have a single
application, single process. We will make it as easy as
possible for folks to apply for these resources.
Senator Nelson. That is very encouraging because I was
concerned where you have a couple of agencies trying to work
together, that there might be some bifurcation as opposed to
unification of the process. So that is extremely encouraging.
DIRECT FARM PAYMENTS LIMITATION CAP
The discussion earlier from my colleague from Arkansas,
Senator Pryor, regarding the payment limitations issue--I am
concerned that what has been proposed by the administration on
two occasions, the $500,000 direct payment limitation is not
appropriate. I look forward to being able to work with you to
design something more in line with what Senator Johnson and
Senator Grassley and others have done in the past to try to
limit the direct payments to large farm and ranching operations
that just simply do not require the same kind of assistance
from time to time or the same kind of a safety net that you
would expect for smaller farms to be able to protect and keep
agriculture from becoming all mega-farms. So I hope that we can
look forward to working together on that.
Secretary Vilsack. You have my commitment to do that,
Senator.
NATIONAL DROUGHT MITIGATION CENTER
Senator Nelson. The final question I have deals with water.
The University of Nebraska in Lincoln has been established as
the base for watching water management but also in predicting
drought. The National Drought Mitigation Center provides a lot
of background and data on drought, including what is now
referred to as and cited as the drought monitor. One of the
reasons that we focused on that and perhaps one of the reasons
why it is housed in Nebraska is that now, according to the Ag
Census of 2007 by your agency, Nebraska is the number one
irrigating State based on acreage.
What we have determined is that you cannot, obviously,
prevent drought. You cannot necessarily always predict drought.
But the more data that you have on drought, the better you are
able to predict and prevent against some of the most adverse
consequences of drought, in other words, changing the mix of
crops that are used or changing the approach to agriculture
during a period of dryness.
I hope that the USDA sees this as a valuable tool for
agriculture in those areas that are most directly affected by
continuing dry periods. The old saying I think is true. When
you are in the middle of a drought and it rains, the question
is whether that is the end of the drought or the beginning of
the next drought. So I am hopeful that there will be a lot of
support for the efforts in the National Drought Mitigation
Center.
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Senator, thank you for those
comments. We are acutely aware of the growing concern about
water generally and see that there are a number of different
strategies that we need to focus on in addition to those that
you have identified.
Just yesterday I had the opportunity to visit with the CEO
of a seed company. They are, obviously, working very diligently
on seed technology that might result in drought-resistant
crops. That would certainly be helpful.
Interestingly enough, I would expect that we will learn,
even more than we already know, about these issues in terms of
our work overseas. In meeting with the Afghan and Pakistani ag
ministers, one of the big concerns they have is water and
proper irrigation techniques. So I think there are a wide
variety of ways in which we need to address this holistically
and comprehensively.
Senator Nelson. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Thank you so much, Senator Nelson.
Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome and thank you for your service, your
willingness to put up with all of this, having been in charge
for a while. Now you are discovering that nobody is in charge.
Secretary Vilsack. I thought you were, Senator.
Senator Bennett. Sometimes we think we are.
RECOVERY ACT BROADBAND PROGRAM
Senator Nelson has covered most of the items that I wanted
to cover with respect to broadband, and I am delighted that you
are as committed as you are to pushing this forward. Let us
just drill a little deeper into your methodology of trying to
get the money out to the rural areas.
I understand that you are hiring 40 new people with respect
to the expanded RUS program. Is this to replace a contractor?
Is this in addition to the contractor? Will this help get money
out faster? Just share with us the particulars of how that is
all going to work.
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, as you know, USDA has been
criticized in the past for the way in which it has handled some
of these resources in rural communities. We are sensitive to
those criticisms and want to respond to those criticisms and
want to make sure when you all invest in us one more
opportunity to promote broadband access in unserved rural areas
that we actually deliver. So this is a decision on our part to
try to make sure that we have sufficient outreach and
sufficient information and sufficient evaluation to actually
get the job done properly.
I would also say that you have given us parameters,
suggesting that at least 75 percent of what we have available
from the Recovery and Reinvestment Act needs to be focused on
these unserved rural areas.
Senator Bennett. Right.
Secretary Vilsack. And that is the intent. I come from a
State, when I was Governor, where we made a really concerted
effort to advance this technology without identifying which
specific technology we would use. There are many options and it
depends on what part of the country you are in. It depends on
what has already been done. It depends on whether or not you
are talking about funding the last mile, the middle mile,
precisely what you are going to do. I think what you will see
from us is a comprehensive approach. In some parts of the
country, a middle mile is more important for us to finance than
the last mile. In some parts of the country, it may be that the
last mile is most important. It may be that we work with
private contractors. It may be that we work with cities and
communities. It may be that we are working with an individual
locality or a group of localities.
So there is no one-size-fits-all, and so you really have to
have a lot of people working diligently to make sure that you
are making the right set of decisions. We are going to work
very hard to make that happen. We do not want to be subject to
the same criticisms, appropriately so, that we have been in the
past.
Senator Bennett. Thank you.
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING
Let me switch to another issue that was raised by Senator
Johnson, and that is COOL. I do not know of any one issue that
has been more contentious in this subcommittee over the years
than COOL. All right, you are moving forward. You are
complying, et cetera. Do you have any ideas--or any data is a
better way of putting it--as to whether or not the consumer is
paying any attention? Is it really making any difference in the
supermarket?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, I do not know that we have
specific data that I would be comfortable suggesting a specific
response to your question. I do know that we are monitoring. We
will probably likely monitor during the fiscal year
approximately 5,000 locations to make a determination of
compliance.
From a general proposition--this is not data-driven, but
from a general proposition I think there is a growing
appreciation in this country for wanting to know your farmer,
wanting to know where your food is coming from, wanting to know
more about your food. I think we are going to continue to see
more of that. Especially as we focus on nutrition, especially
as there is a health care debate in this country and prevention
and wellness become critical components of that, I think you
are going to see a rising awareness.
Senator Bennett. I agree, but I do not think personally
that location is going to make any difference to a customer as
to what he or she will buy in the supermarket.
Secretary Vilsack. My only caveat to what would normally, I
think, be an accurate observation on your part, I think price
is obviously pretty significant.
Senator Bennett. Yes.
Secretary Vilsack. We had a program called Taste of Iowa
when I was Governor, and people kind of liked the idea of
purchasing food that was produced in Iowa. I will tell you I
found it interesting that Lay's potato chips has decided to
specifically identify the State in which the potato is coming
from so that you can actually buy Georgia Lay's potato chips if
you are of a mind to buy Georgia Lay's potato chips or Idaho.
So they are giving consumer choice. They must be doing it
because their marketing advice----
Senator Bennett. That I agree with. I have always been in
favor of voluntary COOL. It is the required Federal label that
I have always doubted. If I can just share this with you, the
one experience we have had before in this country has been the
drive by the United Auto Workers to make sure that North
American content would be listed on every car, and there was a
great fight about that in the Congress for a long time.
Finally, the union won, and then a few years later, people went
back and started asking customers if they paid any attention to
it. The vast majority of customers said, no, we didn't notice.
But there was a small group who said, yes, we read the label
very carefully, and if there is a high Japanese or German
content, we are more likely to buy the car. So that did not
necessarily work in the way that the sponsors of the
legislation had in mind.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Bennett.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
RECOVERY ACT WATERSHED PROJECTS IN RHODE ISLAND
Mr. Secretary, thank you not only for being here, but this
week you approved a commitment under the Recovery Act for four
flood plain projects in Rhode Island, and we really appreciate
it. It will not only get people to work, but it is critical to
the homes along the Pawcatuck River, part of this watershed. At
this moment, the Natural Resources Conservation Service is
completing their overall watershed plan, and it should be
before you very quickly. I would ask for your expeditious and,
in the same spirit that you used this week, approval of the
plan. Thank you very much.
Secretary Vilsack. Yes, Senator.
Senator Reed. It is more of a thank you than anything else.
Secretary Vilsack. I made a note of that.
Senator Reed. If it's the first one today, then----
Secretary Vilsack. I am sure it is not. It better not be.
Senator Reed. It better not be.
WILDLIFE HABITAT INCENTIVES PROGRAM
There is one program that has been very useful to my State.
It is the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, the WHIP
program, and it has been significantly reduced in the budget.
It is about a 50 percent cut. I recognize you have to make very
difficult decisions.
But the other aspect of this is that through changes in the
last agricultural bill and through limited funding, it has
posed real practical problems to use in Rhode Island. We have
been very successful in removing old dams that are part of our
industrial history. The whole Industrial Revolution began up in
Rhode Island with the Slater Mill. But taking those dams out
allows the fish to begin to propagate again. We have done it
generally through partnerships with the State and not-for-
profits. Also, it has been made possible because the NRCS has
been able to put up-front cost in place.
The changes in the legislation, the cap on annual contract
payments, that limit their ability to put money up front and
also restricting sort of who can participate with them is a
problem. I understand this is an issue that is both an
authorization and appropriations issue. But I wondered if you
could give some thought to ways in which other programs might
be available, other methods might be used to continue to help
us in Rhode Island to restore these riverways and restore fish
to the riverways.
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, that is a challenge that we
will take up. If I might, I think it is necessary for me to
respond to where we are headed in terms of conservation.
The overall budget relative to conservation, at least from
our perspective, will result in a total of $4.7 billion being
committed in a variety of programs, both in technical and
financial assistance. This is a $374 million increase over the
2009 level and a $744 million increase over 2008.
What we attempted to do--and we have asked, I guess, some
understanding on the part of this committee and the Congress--
was to try to match up as best we could the resources in
individual programs with what we see as the historical need and
desire for those programs, together with the fact that with the
new program, the Conservation Stewardship Program, we have some
things to learn about how best to implement, how complicated or
easy it will become. So we made our best-guess estimate on a
relatively short time frame about how best to do this.
But there is no question there is a commitment to private
working lands. There is no question there is a commitment to
trying to figure out how to help landowners, property owners
protect their land. There is no question that we understand the
significant role that these programs can play in providing that
protection, and we are committed to it. As I said earlier, what
we hope to be able to do is to integrate it with what we are
doing with the Forest Service in other parts of the country to
preserve water, both quality and quantity of water. So we are
committed.
Let me also say that I have not had an opportunity yet to
institute this, but we have just begun starting a process of
taking a look at how we make decisions and whether or not there
are ways in which we can streamline, reduce the steps necessary
in making decisions without reducing the appropriateness or the
correctness of the decision we make. I cannot tell you that
that is going to be done tomorrow, but I can tell you that it
will be done, and hopefully some of these programs will be
easier to administer and easier to understand than they have
been.
Senator Reed. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. Just a quick
point. You have a national mandate, and some of these programs
are particularly useful in some parts of the country and we
found this with the WHIP program because we are trying to
really reverse hundreds of years of industrial use along our
rivers, and that is not the same challenge in many parts of the
country. So any help you could give along these lines, we would
appreciate. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Reed.
Senator Harkin.
Senator Harkin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and,
Ranking Member Brownback, thank you for your great stewardship
of this committee and also for having this hearing today.
I am sorry I am late, Mr. Secretary, but I was chairing a
hearing on the authorizing committee on derivatives. And we had
Mr. Gensler, the new head of the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, and it went on for a long time. So I apologize for
being a little bit late.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM HARKIN
Mr. Chairman I hope, that you and other members of the
committee are now getting to know the Tom Vilsack that those of
us in Iowa have known for a long time, a very dynamic, smart,
and progressive leader who is not afraid of change. As
government and a State Senator he has shown that he has the
requisite managerial expertise to guide and direct change for
very positive ends and I am certain he will continue that as
secretary of agriculture.
Three areas in which I note that you have been such a great
leader on just since you have taken over down there, Mr.
Secretary, are your great leadership, on renewable energy,
which trails what you did as Governor of Iowa; your leadership,
of course, on nutrition and looking ahead on that. We have to
reauthorize our child nutrition bill this year, and we look for
your and Deputy Secretary Merrigan's help and input on getting
that through.
I do want to commend you and the President for putting that
extra billion dollars a year in the President's budget request
for child nutrition programs. This funding is vitally
important. It is my belief that we need to get better food for
our kids in schools, such as fresh fruits and vegetables, and
meats. Well, those may cost a little more money, but if we
really want our kids to eat well, we are going to have to
provide the needed funding. So I am really glad that you have
put in your budget an extra billion dollars a year for child
nutrition programs.
Secretary Vilsack, I would also like to mention your
leadership in conservation and I civil rights since being
confirmed you have taken the bull by the horns on civil rights,
and I congratulate you for that and ask that you do not let up
in addressing civil rights concerns at the department.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I want to thank you and Deputy Secretary Merrigan both for
your great leadership at the Department.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that my full statement be made a part
of the record.
Senator Kohl. We will do that.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Tom Harkin
Thank you, Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Brownback, for holding
this timely hearing on the President's fiscal year 2010 budget proposal
for the U.S Department of Agriculture.
I welcome Secretary Vilsack back to the subcommittee. I have always
known that he is deeply committed to farm families, rural economic
development, and strong Federal nutrition programs. But, in his first
months in office, he has really been a breath of fresh air here in
Washington. Secretary Vilsack has charted an ambitious, reform agenda
for the Department. And I look forward to continuing to support him in
every way I can.
As we all know, our economy continues to face extraordinary
challenges. The downturn has taken its toll on farm country, and it is
also placing an enormous strain on our Federal nutrition programs. But
farmers and ranchers are a great strength of this economy. And I am
confident that they will help lead the way to recovery.
The President's fiscal year 2010 budget proposal for USDA builds on
investments made by the 2008 farm bill, the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus
Appropriations bill, and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009. Together, these bills are putting people to work, supporting our
agricultural producers, and spurring rural economic development. I
appreciate that the President's budget proposal is the product of tough
choices during difficult times.
Mr. Secretary, you and I share President Obama's vision of
transforming America's energy future by vastly expanding our reliance
on domestically produced, renewable energy. I was pleased to see that
the President's budget builds strongly on investments made USDA energy
programs in the 2008 farm bill. The President's budget request, along
with mandatory funding provided in the farm bill, will accelerate the
development and commercialization of advanced biofuels and other forms
of alternative energy.
In addition, I enthusiastically welcome the President's request for
$1 billion annually in new funding for Federal child nutrition
programs, including the School Lunch and Breakfast Programs, the Summer
Food Service Program, and the Child and Adult Care Food Program. These
are enormously effective programs, but they are under great strain,
right now, because of the recession.
We need more aggressive efforts to ensure that that all eligible
children are receiving the benefits to which they are entitled under
the law. This is especially important as we seek to make good on
President Obama's commitment to end childhood hunger in America by
2015.
I commend the administration for giving strong priority to child
nutrition programs in the proposed budget. As a member of this
subcommittee and as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry, I look forward to working with the Secretary
to pass a strong, reform-minded reauthorization of our child nutrition
programs.
On a less positive note, I am very disappointed with the amount
allocated in the President's budget for conservation programs. The 2008
farm bill--which passsed by overwhelming bipartisan margins in Congress
less than a year ago--authorized significant new investments to promote
conservation and sustainable use of our natural resources.
I worked hard to include a robust conservation title. In my view,
these programs are now more important than ever, especially as we work
to address significant environmental concerns like climate change,
nutrient runoff, loss of wildlife habitat and biodiversity, and loss of
critical wetlands.
I hope that the Chairman and Ranking Member, along with other
members of this subcommittee, will work with me to maintain the
investments provided in the farm bill for conservation programs.
Again, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for holding this
hearing. And I look forward to the Secretary's testimony. Thank you.
Senator Harkin. I have a few questions I will submit in
writing, but do have a question I would like to ask you.
WRP 2008 FARM BILL PROGRAM
During the last farm bill we fought very hard for
conservation funding. This was a long, drawn-out negotiation
both in the Senate and then in conference. We reached
compromises. As I have often said, the farm bill was not
exactly the bill that I would have written, and I think
everybody on the Senate and House Agriculture Committee's would
say the same thing. Everybody had to make compromises.
But, in the end we were able to keep a very strong
conservation title in the 2008 farm bill. I am a little
concerned, I must note for the record, about the proposed
cutbacks in the WRP program and the EQIP program in the budget
proposal. As far as I have been able to discern, there has been
no reduction in the requests for assistance under programs like
WRP or EQIP. Again, with increasing demand for food, feed and
now moving more toward renewable energy and using land for that
purpose, it may well entail more intensive cropping and demands
on resources and we are going to need more conservation
practices on the land.
I am glad to see that you have kept the mandatory funding
levels for other programs like the CRP and CSP. But, I am
concerned about the WRP. Can you just give me some idea of why
that funding was cut back?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, first of all, I am keenly aware
of your personal commitment to conservation and the work that
you did not just on the 2008 farm bill, but also the 2002 farm
bill to really introduce this topic of conservation in a
meaningful way and creating private working lands conservation
concepts in the farm bill. We are certainly supportive.
This may not be an acceptable response to your question,
but it is the response that I must give, and that is, we have
overall increased the spending levels over what we spent last
year and the year before in conservation generally.
Senator Harkin. That is true.
Secretary Vilsack. And we have tried in many of the
programs to match the amount of money that we are asking for
with the amount of work that we, in fact, have been able to do.
In other words, even though you may have authorized a
substantially greater amount, the capacity of USDA in some of
these programs is limited by the number of people we have that
are processing these applications, making sure that they are
processed accurately.
In response to Senator Reed's question, I have not had an
opportunity yet to really focus in on the process that we are
using to determine whether or not it can be streamlined and
maybe as a result, we can actually process more with the same
number of people and maybe do a better job in the future of
meeting those authorized limits as opposed to what we are
currently proposing.
But the reason we are proposing what we are proposing is we
think it is a realistic in many cases--in some cases it is
actually an increase over what we spent last year. We think it
is a realistic target in terms of our capacity to actually
process the work.
Senator Harkin. Thank you.
Secretary Vilsack. I do know this. I know that folks are
working hard over there at NRCS and all the other agencies of
USDA, but my guess is that there are probably some things we
could do from a streamlined process. Senator Brownback
suggested in rural development the need to integrate programs,
and I think he may have a good point. There may be process
integration that could take place as well. I just have not had
a chance to get to that yet.
Senator Harkin. I appreciate that. I support streamlining
that could be done over there.
Mr. Chairman is my time expired?
Senator Kohl. Go ahead.
Senator Harkin. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
RECOVERY ACT BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY LOANS
The Recovery Act money for the business and industry loans
program. Would you tell me the status of obligating this
funding? It has to be obligated by September of next year.
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, I think we have done a
reasonably good job of getting a significant amount of the
Recovery and Reinvestment Act money out. We were fortunate
because in most cases you were funding existing programs and we
could work through the existing structure.
There is a funnel that is created, as you well know,
between the vast number of people at USDA that are working on
proposals that ultimately have to be approved by OMB, and that
funnels into a relatively small hardworking outfit over at OMB.
We have put a priority on some of these programs because we
think it would create the biggest bang for the buck and the
quickest bang for the buck. The B&I piece of this we are
working on. We have proposals at OMB I believe, that will allow
us to proceed forward with those programs in the very near
future, but the vast majority of the rest of the money has
actually been obligated or is out the door or is in the process
of very quickly being obligated.
I am pleased with what we have done in terms of 37,000 home
loans. I am pleased with what we have done in terms of all of
the direct operating loans that have been obligated. I am
pleased that most of the watershed rehabilitation money has
been allocated and the watershed easements have been allocated.
I am pleased that we were able to get the SNAP money out and
the administrative money to the States and the emergency
funding and the school lunch monies out to the States. So we
have been working pretty hard. B&I comes next, and I am
anticipating that will be very, very soon.
Senator Harkin. Very good.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Thanks a lot, Senator Harkin.
Senator Specter.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, I join my colleagues in welcoming you here,
and thank you for taking on this tough job.
PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM
A couple of subjects that I would like to discuss with you
in the short time allotted here. Milk prices.
I begin with the Philadelphia school lunch program, which I
see you nodding in the affirmative on familiarity because there
has been a very strong push by many Members on both the House
and Senate side on this very important program which feeds
children at 204 schools. In a big city like Philadelphia, that
is a very difficult situation, a lot of single-parent families,
a lot of working mothers, in the economic crunch we are in at
the present time, very little income to buy the necessities of
life. Where we have seen so many situations where children go
to school hungry, no breakfast and no lunch, the educational
opportunities are very limited.
That kind of a district has been the recipient of a lot of
attention over the years, attention on a program called Gear
Up, especially attuned to at-risk young people, extensive job
training programs, a very, very difficult situation, mentoring,
where you find a tremendous movement from truancy to juvenile
delinquency to crime, extraordinarily difficult. And this lunch
program is really an indispensable building block on what I
have seen as a city official and as a Senator.
There is concern about at least waiting until the nutrition
authorization bill comes up, consideration on adding an
amendment to the Agriculture appropriations bill. But is there
not some way to extend this program to relieve a lot of angst
that is gripping now parents and children in this very large,
very difficult city population?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, Senator, first of all, I certainly
appreciate your advocacy for this program. It has been
steadfast and it has been passionate. I know that it is a very
important program to the city of Philadelphia.
As you know, the Bush administration made the decision
before I came into office, before President Obama came into
office----
Senator Specter. We corrected all that. We thought we did.
Or somebody did if not I personally. In fact, now that I think
about it, I think I had something to do with it.
Secretary Vilsack. This program has been extended a couple
of times. But in December 2008, the school district was
notified of the intention to discontinue the program. We
recognized that an abrupt discontinuation of the program was
not an appropriate way for us to respond to the moral challenge
that you have outlined to these families. And we have been
searching for a way in which we can not only continue to do
what needs to be done in Philadelphia, but make sure that every
inner city, every major city, the children of every working
family or poor family that has the same kinds of circumstances
get an opportunity to be well fed. I want to assure you that
that is an absolute commitment of this USDA, of this President.
He wants to end childhood hunger by 2015. He is committed to
it. We are committed to it. I know you are.
We are anxious to work with you to figure out ways in which
that program can be a model, a pathway to a national effort
that enables all of the children similarly situated to have the
benefit of decent meals. So whether it is in the
Reauthorization Act or after the Reauthorization Act, we are
happy to work with you on that. We make that commitment today
to work with you.
Senator Specter. Are you saying, in effect, that there is
some real optimism about our ability to have this program
continued?
Secretary Vilsack. I think what I would like to be able to
say, Senator, is that I would like to see it rolled into a
program that essentially extends those kinds of opportunities
all over the country, including Philadelphia, not necessarily
only Philadelphia, but including Philadelphia. We think that we
have learned a lot from this program, and the question is can
we figure out how to take what we have learned in Philadelphia
and make sure that it is available to cities all across the
country.
Senator Specter. Well, if you are talking about rolling the
Philadelphia program into a broader program, that is terrific.
I think there ought to be a broader program, and my focus,
obviously, necessarily is on Philadelphia. But if you think it
can be rolled into a broader program, that would satisfactory.
Secretary Vilsack. That is what we hope. I mean, I am from
Pittsburgh, Senator, so we want to make sure the rest----
Senator Specter. I am equally concerned about Pittsburgh.
And also, Secretary/Governor, about Iowa, and about
children all across the country.
Secretary Vilsack. As I am as well, Senator.
LOW MILK PRICES
Senator Specter. My time has expired and I will not ask
another question to take more time of the subcommittee, but we
will submit in writing the concerns I have about the reduction
in milk prices, some 36 percent lower from January to April of
this year compared to last year. We will ask you about what
might be done under the MILC program or under the Dairy Export
Incentive Program because the farmers of my State and I think
the farmers across the country are in very bad shape.
Secretary Vilsack. If the chairman would allow me 30
seconds to respond to----
Senator Specter. You are not restricted on time. It is only
Senators who are restricted on time. The red light does not go
on for you.
Secretary Vilsack. I just simply want to reassure you that
we are very concerned about the dairy situation, which is why
we have got the MILC payments out. We anticipate that by the
time it is all said and done--I want to make sure I get this
number right--almost $900 million will be paid, we suspect,
through the MILC program.
We have also given instructions to our farm service
agencies to work with our dairy producers to enable them to
restructure, refinance, reexamine their lending so that they
are not put in a difficult situation because of these low milk
prices. We know that they are looking very carefully and
closely at how they can help.
We also recently utilized the DEIP program making sure that
it was WTO-compliant but that we exercised support for exports
as well.
So we have taken a number of steps in the last couple of
months, Senator, to respond because of your advocacy and
Senator Casey's advocacy and, Senator Kohl, your advocacy in
particular and those from California. We have been listening
and we have been trying to respond as best we can.
Senator Specter. That is very encouraging. Thank you very
much, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Senator Specter.
GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY
Mr. Secretary, as you know, global food security is one of
the most important issues in this subcommittee, and we
discussed a number of ways to improve agricultural systems in
developing countries in order to improve stability and to also
fight world hunger. How is USDA involved in this effort, and
what more can you do to improve food security around the world?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, I would say a couple of things.
First of all, we think this is an opportunity for us to
expand the McGovern-Dole program. As I said earlier, this is a
program that has been enormously successful. We have suggested
an increase to $200 million. That will allow us to expand the
program to four African nations, helping about 400,000
additional children. We are pleased with the fact, again as I
said, a number of countries have been so impressed with the
appropriateness of helping feed children and the connection
that that has had with youngsters' ability to be educated, that
they themselves have taken up that responsibility.
We also believe that we need to integrate our efforts with
the State Department, with USAID, and to develop an overarching
philosophy that is focused on the three principles of food
security, which is availability, providing technical assistance
and help so that countries can raise what they can raise and do
it in the most productive way possible, assisting those
countries in utilizing trade to supplement what they cannot
raise and providing appropriate emergency food assistance when
that becomes necessary. That is one component.
The second component is accessibility, the ability to get
food from where it is being grown to where it is needed. That
involves infrastructure, and we are specifically, as it relates
to Afghanistan and Pakistan, hopeful that we can work with
those two countries to substantially increase the
infrastructure, to substantially increase productivity, to deal
with water issues, to create assistance with regulatory
structures and frameworks so that they can enhance their trade
opportunities as a model, and then finally utilization, the
capacity to properly refrigerate, properly handle, properly
utilize the food that is available and is accessible. All of
those components have to be part of our overall program.
USDA is prepared from technical assistance from the
research component, from APHIS, from the regulatory assistance
that we can provide and from the fellowships that are funded
through USDA, the Borlaug Fellowships, the Cochran Fellowships,
and the land grant university exchanges that take place. All of
that is part of an overarching program that we are instituting
with Afghanistan and Pakistan and we hope to be able to extend
it to sub-Saharan Africa. We think if we can do this and we
have the resources to do it, we can, I think, profoundly impact
this food insecurity issue that challenges the world.
And then finally, we discussed earlier today water. That is
a very critical issue, and I think we can help provide
resources in terms of technical assistance of how to utilize
water.
The research that is being done today for the most part is
focused in this country on large farms, but the reality is that
the vast majority of farms worldwide are very small farms. So
it may not take a lot of technical assistance. It may be fairly
rudimentary to provide drip irrigation systems that might be
very inexpensive.
We just need to figure out strategies to help these farmers
be more productive, to help them to be able to access trade
opportunities, and help them to be able to be self-sufficient,
and when and if it becomes necessary, we need to be prepared to
provide emergency assistance and maybe in a more efficient,
more effective way as was outlined earlier today.
Senator Kohl. Very good.
RURAL COMMUNITY FORUMS
You have held several rural community forums across the
country. I understand you may be holding more. What kinds of
things have you been discovering? What kind of information have
you been gathering?
Secretary Vilsack. Well, it somewhat depends on the area of
the country, but I think that there is a real strong desire on
the part of rural America to participate in helping reduce our
dependence and our addiction to foreign oil. I think there is a
belief that whether it is biomass or whether it is corn-based
ethanol or whether it is new alternative feedstocks, there is a
real desire for America to be producing its own energy.
And there is concern, as you well know--and Senator
Brownback, I am sure you know as well--about the existing
infrastructure for the ethanol industry and the biofuel
industry. So we are working with our credit friends, Farm
Credit and others, to try to figure out strategies and ways in
which we can make resources available or restructure the
resources we have so that we maintain that infrastructure.
Then the President has provided a directive to us to
accelerate the implementation of the energy provisions of the
farm bill. We intend to meet the deadline he has set for us. So
very, very shortly you will see proposals relative to second-
and third-generation feedstocks, resources for new
biorefineries, resources to convert existing biorefineries, to
use these new feedstocks, and assistance for producers to
produce these new feedstocks. That is one thing that we are
hearing.
Then the dairy issue we have discussed is a serious issue,
and we have tried to outline the fact that we have taken steps.
Pork producers are feeling stress. Part of our challenge is
that we have tools to respond to situations like this, but to a
certain extent, because of decisions that are made to direct
section 32 resources, sometimes our capacity to respond in as
large a way as necessary is a bit compromised. So we are trying
to figure out ways in which we can encourage, for example,
institutional buyers to focus on purchasing pork to take some
of the pressure off that industry, and we are obviously working
hard on trying to reduce trade barriers.
I think there is a genuine concern in rural communities.
They are anxious to know that the Recovery and Reinvestment Act
relates to them. When they hear a water treatment facility
being funded in their town or they hear a health care facility
being expanded or equipped because of resources or they hear
that the river that has flooded every year is not going to
flood or that they are going to receive some relief from that
because of what USDA has done, they are appreciative.
And then we have made an effort to make sure that they not
only know the resources that are provided from USDA, but they
have a sense of all the other resources that are being provided
from other departments of Government. I think that is a
reassuring message.
Senator Kohl. Very good.
Senator Brownback.
Senator Brownback. Thank you very much.
THE NEW HOMESTEAD ACT
Mr. Secretary, a couple things. You started off talking
about wealth creation on a regional approach which perked my
ears up that we need to do that in rural areas, and we
certainly do. We are losing a lot of population in rural areas.
May I suggest you or your staff take a look at a bill
several of us put together and have for a series of years
called the New Homestead Act? Senator Dorgan, previously
Senator--well, several from the Midwest, myself have put this
forward as a way to try to get more investment and growth
taking place in rural areas. We worked at it a long time. We
modeled it after what was done in this country in the 1970s to
get the urban areas to go again. And we put in a series of tax
incentives in particular that just applied to rural areas in
counties that had lost population over the last 20 years. So
you are trying to target just those areas that have lost
population. I think Iowa had half of its State, as half of
mine, qualify in that. Then you have got a whole swath. We took
things that had worked previously in the urban areas to get
regeneration taking place that we think would work in the rural
ones. I would hope you would take a look at that. We put a fair
amount of time in it.
I want to show you a bag, if I could. We did not fill it,
but I am sure, if you have not seen one of these, you are going
to see a bunch of these.
Secretary Vilsack. I have one in my office.
Senator Brownback. Good. So you are well aware of this. I
love these. I see them around the world. I love the American
flag on it. I love the partnership on it. So that piece of it I
like.
CORN-SOY BLEND
The point I wanted to make is it is a corn-soy blend.
Great. All for corn-soy. But this formulation has not been
changed in 30 years. That was when we developed the corn-soy
blend for food aid, 30 years ago, and we have not changed what
we are shipping in 30 years.
Now, the reason I make that point is that they polled a
series of Nobel laureates and said, if you were going to put
money anywhere in the world to improve the status of humanity,
what would you do? And the top one and third thing were both
micronutrients that they said. Cheap, effective. If you took
that corn-soy blend and you added proper levels of iodine,
zinc, vitamin A, and iron into it for children at the right
age, you would have dramatic impact. It is not heavy to do
that, but it does require some reformulation of it to do.
Tufts University is doing a study right now--maybe you know
about this--on its reformulation. And I am looking at this and
going, this is cheap for us to be able to do. We dramatically
improve lives and we use that adjacent to what we are doing on
AIDS and malaria in Africa particularly, and our outcomes get
dramatically better. It is simple and it is cheap. So I would
hope you could look at this Tufts study in this area just of
micronutrients.
Now, you have got to fund it all. That is the trick for
everybody. One of the things we are looking at is to say, okay,
if we are spending 65 percent right now on administration and
transportation for our food aid, what if we could put a hard
level that we cannot spend anymore than 45 percent for
administration and transportation? That is pretty generous
right there. You are going to spend nearly half your budget
just to administer and get it there. And then use your delta
difference to get the micronutrients in this and to target it
so you do not have new funds having to go into it, but you
dramatically improve your outcomes with it.
We are researching that. I would love to work with you on
it. You have far more resources to do this than we would. I
think the resources are there if we sharpen our pencil on those
two areas and then look at what we can do in this field.
I wish you godspeed there at Ag, Secretary. That is a great
spot, and I am sure you will do a great job at it.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Brownback.
WIC FUNDING
Mr. Secretary, would you talk about WIC? Do you think we
are adequately funded for this year? Are you worried about
having to come back for more? What do you see for WIC?
Secretary Vilsack. Senator, we have made our best estimates
in terms of what we have proposed, and I believe we also have
some contingency language in the WIC program. We believe 9.8
million participants is a very good, healthy estimate of what
the program will be, and I believe we have provided resources
and funding for that level. This is, obviously, a very
important program and one that we are fully supportive of and
one that is consistent with the President's desire to assist in
ending childhood hunger. So we are committed to it, as we are
with the SNAP program and as we are with the Child Nutrition
Reauthorization efforts that will be undertaken this year.
Senator Kohl. Very good.
RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAM DIRECTION
Would you amplify a little bit your vision of USDA's role
in terms of the administration's renewable energy program in
years to come?
Secretary Vilsack. I would be happy to, and it really
dovetails a little bit with what Senator Brownback was talking
about earlier in terms of rural development and regional
development.
The administration, first and foremost, is committed to an
expansion of the biofuels industry. The President established a
working group recently directing myself, Secretary Chu and
Administrator Jackson to figure out strategies for expanded
marketing of biofuels. We are in the process of having staff
meet to try to figure out ways in which that can be done.
As I said earlier, first and foremost, we have to maintain
the infrastructure that we have. That is a challenge with the
current credit circumstances of some of those entities.
Second, I think we have to continue to--and we will
continue--invest in research that allows us to be more
efficient with ethanol and soy diesel and biodiesel and
biofuels that we are currently producing both in terms of the
energy that is used and in terms of the natural resources that
are required, specifically water. There is a lot of
interesting, exciting research and activity being done to
reduce the amount of energy and to reduce the natural resources
in producing those fuels.
The third thing is to continue to promote--and we will, as
I indicated earlier--with the energy title of the farm bill,
all aspects of the energy title of the farm bill identifying
second- and third-generation feedstocks. There are interesting
efforts and demonstration projects underway using corn stover,
the corn cob, the husks of corn. There are interesting
opportunities potentially with grasses.
There clearly is an effort in woody biomass. We are trying
to link that effort up with opportunities with the Department
of the Interior and Agriculture as we try to maintain our
forests in an appropriate way and reduce the hazardous fuel
that currently exists in our forests, to reduce the intensity
of fires. All of that can create an opportunity for us, and
there are some resources, you well know, to create
demonstration projects in that area. We will aggressively
pursue that.
We are working hard, once the rules are out, to put
resources to work creating new biorefineries. We have already
at least announced one grant, a joint grant between ourselves
and the Department of Energy, to accelerate research, but we
are also providing resources to build new biorefineries. We are
trying to identify biorefineries that want to convert their
production process. We are able, because of the money that you
all put in the farm bill, to be able to assist them in making
that conversion.
We are looking for farmers who are obviously interested in
helping us produce the feedstocks of the future and provide
resources and assistance for them to do so.
We are also working with communities trying to identify
communities that will want to convert to using woody biomass to
produce some of their power.
That is part of the strategy that wraps around the whole
notion of renewable fuel and energy which we think is a growth
opportunity for rural America. Whether it is wind or solar,
hydro, geothermal, we think that there are enormous
opportunities in rural communities if we are strategic and if
we are smart about the transmission challenges that renewable
energy presents.
We are currently thinking about and working on how you
would distribute biofuels, whether it is through the current
system or through a pipeline system. I know that there are some
Members of Congress who are interested in looking at the
possibility of a pipeline that would make it easier to
transport biofuels that are produced from, say, the Midwest to
other parts of the country or from other parts of the country
to the Midwest.
We are working on strategies to make sure that once we
produce the biofuel, that it can be adequately marketed. So
many stations today do not have adequate pumping or tank
infrastructure. So there are opportunities, I think, for us to
respond. We are looking at ways in which we can use our rural
development resources to enhance gas stations, convenience
stores to be better equipped to handle ethanol.
We are also continuing to, obviously, articulate the desire
and hope that we look at the blend rate that is currently at
E10. We are hopeful that it will be expanded from E10 to
somewhere between E10 and E15. That, obviously, will expand
opportunity and send a clear, strong message particularly to
the market and to lenders that we are in this for the long
haul.
So it is a wide variety of those things, and we are,
obviously, expecting our car industry to respond by producing
cars that are more amenable to flexible fuels.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Kohl. Very good.
Well, we thank you for being with us, Secretary Vilsack. I
am most encouraged with you as a person in terms of your
knowledge, your enterprise, your energy, your ambition, and I
am convinced you are and will be a great Secretary of
Agriculture. Thank you for being with us today.
We will hold the record open for a week for any additional
questions.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
broadband
Question. Mr. Secretary, for some years this Committee has
supported extending high speed broadband service to the most remote,
unserved areas of rural America. Substantial funds have been made
available in annual appropriations bills, and $2.5 billion was provided
to USDA for this purpose in the Recovery Act.
Please describe the progress that has been made in expanding
broadband access to unserved rural areas.
How is USDA working with the Commerce Department to utilize funds
provided in the Recovery Act?
When do you expect to start spending Recovery Act funds?
In addition to the Recovery Act funds and substantial carryover
from fiscal year 2008, you are requesting a large increase in the 2010
appropriation. Please explain why you think this increase is needed.
Answer. The Rural Utilities Service has made substantial progress
in providing assistance to unserved and underserved rural areas. Since
1995, we have required all new telecommunications capacity that we
finance to be broadband capable. We have had great success with our
Community Connect and Distance Learning and Telemedicine programs,
providing more than $425 million in funding for these programs. Our
broadband loan program, created by the 2002 Farm bill, has provided
over $1.1 billion in loans to more than 90 broadband projects in rural
communities spanning 42 States.
The Recovery Act marks a major new chapter in this effort. Since
its enactment, we have worked side by side with our partners at
Commerce, the FCC and the White House to fulfill the President's vision
for promoting broadband access across the Nation. This was an
unprecedented collaborative process between these two Cabinet level
agencies.
Since the Recovery Act was enacted in February, USDA and Commerce
held six joint public meetings and published and Request for
Information in the Federal Register to solicit input from the public.
We determined early on that the two Departments need to join forces and
make the process as seamless as possible. One application, one Notice
of Funding Availability (NOFA), and one web portal (broadbandusa.gov)
were developed.
Our first joint NOFA is expected to be published in the Federal
Register in July. This NOFA will be making $4 billion available for
broadband infrastructure loans, grants, and loan grant combinations
targeted to underserved and underserved areas.
Immediately thereafter, USDA and Commerce will hold 10 joint
Outreach and Training Workshops in 10 States on how to apply for the
program.
At the end of the application window, USDA and Commerce is
expecting to receive applications seeking funding from the $4 billion
made available under this first NOFA. We expect to begin making awards
in November.
With regard to the fiscal year 2010 budget, USDA is seeking the
same deliverable broadband program level as fiscal year 2009. The
increase in the appropriation request stems from an increase in the
budget authority cost.
civil rights
Question. We are pleased, Mr. Vilsack, that you are aggressively
addressing long-standing civil rights issues at the Department. Because
the Pigford case remains in litigation, we understand you cannot freely
discuss it. However, please tell us what you can about progress toward
resolving those claims. Has the Administration submitted to Congress a
legislative proposal requesting the $1.25 billion to fund settlements?
If not, when do you expect that proposal to be submitted?
Answer. USDA has been working with the Department of Justice, which
has the lead in negotiating the settlement for the Government. Once
more details are known, legislation will be submitted to carry out the
settlement. I have asked that additional information be provided for
the record.
[The information follows:]
On August 28, 1997, a group of African American farmers filed a
class-action lawsuit against USDA in Federal district court, alleging
discrimination in USDA farm loan and farm programs (originally Pigford
et al., v. Ann Veneman, now Pigford et al., v. Tom Vilsack). The court
certified the class, and entered a Consent Decree on April 14, 1999.
The certified class was described as all African American farmers
who: (1) farmed, or attempted to farm, between January 1, 1981, and
December 31, 1996; (2) applied to USDA during that time period for
participation in a Federal farm credit or benefit program and who
believed that they were discriminated against on the basis of race in
USDA's response to that application; and (3) filed a discrimination
complaint on or before July 1, 1997, regarding USDA's treatment of such
farm credit or benefit application. USDA has been implementing the
Consent Decree since 1999, and the last of the claims were recently
routed for processing.
In June of 2008, Congress enacted legislation, Section 14012 of the
Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (Act), which affords
individuals who did not file timely claims under the Consent Decree,
judicial recourse in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, for any Pigford claimant who has not previously obtained a
determination on the merits of a Pigford claim.
Consequently, as of September 18, 2009, 17 civil action complaints
have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, by 29,938 plaintiffs. The U.S. District Court Judge entered
an order suspending the requirements about USDA providing loan data,
while the Court considers the class certification issue. The parties
have been negotiating a resolution of the cases since last year.
President Obama proposed in his fiscal year 2010 budget $1.15 billion
for the sole purpose of settling the cases.
national institute of food and agriculture (nifa)
Question. What is the status of hiring a NIFA director? The budget
request includes an increase of $23 million to help rural producers and
citizens learn to use new technologies. Can you expand on what this
will do? How many people will receive assistance with this?
Answer. Dr. Roger N. Beachy, the founding president of the Donald
Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis, MO, has been appointed the
first director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)
by President Barack Obama. Beachy will join the agency on October 5,
2009.
NIFA is requesting $23,000,000 to improve rural quality of life to
support a competitive Smith-Lever 3(d) program focused on developing
technology based system competencies for agricultural producers and
food processors, and rural citizens. Mounting this program through
Smith-Lever 3(d) will take advantage of the powerful existing
infrastructure of both 1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions. This
program will enhance the adoption and diffusion of broadband, as well
as other information access technologies, and other new technologies
(sensor systems, monitoring and tracking systems, nanotechnology, and
decision systems). These information and other technologies can support
rural entrepreneurship, sustain jobs in rural and isolated areas, and
address a wide range of agricultural and food production and processing
issues.
A cornerstone of this program would be the establishment of an
Extension Rural Technology Corps which would build on the national
infrastructure of Cooperative Extension which serves every location in
the country through county and regional offices supported by a Federal/
State/local partnership, and through the nationwide Extension system.
The Corps could work in collaboration to educate rural citizens to
fully utilize broadband and other information technology access to
support entrepreneurship, remote jobs, decision assistance, and
community linkages. The Corps would complement the expansion of
broadband to rural areas and support rapid, creative, and effective use
of the technology.
Second, the program would expedite the adoption and diffusion of
new technologies to address rural and agricultural issues, to support
the vitality of rural areas. For example, sensing, monitoring and
tracking weather borne crop diseases can both improve production
efficiency and reduce environmental impacts by minimizing expensive
pesticide purchases and application. New technologies, properly applied
and interpreted can help rural communities cost effectively monitor
environmental conditions, such as water quality. In addition, new
technologies across a broad spectrum, including energy systems, provide
opportunities for rural entrepreneurship.
The Extension system serves citizens in every county in the United
States. This effort, however, would focus on the needs of citizens in
rural and isolated areas, helping at least 500,000 households and
businesses improve utilization of new information technologies.
mc govern-dole international food for education program
Question. Mr. Secretary, the McGovern-Dole program is an important
tool for fighting world hunger. For many children in poor countries,
the McGovern-Dole meal they get at school is the only one they'll
receive that day. This program has received around $100 million
annually in discretionary funds. I am pleased to see a significant
increase in your budget request. Can you discuss the impact such a
large increase will have on this program?
Answer. The 2010 budget request doubles the level of discretionary
funding for the McGovern-Dole program. The increase will allow USDA to
augment significantly the number of beneficiaries served as well as
increase the benefits for those already participating in the program.
The World Food Program estimates there are 75 million children who do
not attend school and, for those who do attend, 60 million are hungry.
The increase will help USDA to reduce these numbers, while at the same
time support activities that encourage school enrollment and
attendance, improve health and nutrition, and enhance future economic
development of the country.
Question. How many additional children will be served?
Answer. It is estimated that the number of beneficiaries will
increase from approximately 3 million in fiscal year 2009 to 4.5
million in fiscal year 2010.
Question. Do you envision the program entering new countries with
this increase? If so, which ones?
Answer. It is possible that USDA could enter new countries in
fiscal year 2010 with this increase. However, it is difficult to say
how many and which countries. That will depend upon the proposals that
USDA receives in terms of country selection and the level of funding
requested and approved for the proposed country programs.
nifa education request
Question. The budget includes an increase of $41 million for Higher
Education Programs, including teacher incentives, curriculum
development, and other activities. Will USDA be working with the
Department of Education in this endeavor? Are there overlapping
activities within USDA and the Department of Education here? This
request has a significant outcomes associated with it, with a wide
variety of activities to be undertaken with this money. If you really
want to meet these outcomes, is this request enough?
Answer. Yes, opportunities exist for USDA and the Department of
Education to coordinate resources on this initiative and we will pursue
those opportunities. Specifically, staff within the Department of
Education's Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE)
competitive grants program have the expertise to assist USDA. FIPSE
grants, like several of USDA's Higher Education grants identified for
this funding increase, support innovative teaching improvement projects
that promote revitalizing rural American communities. These grant
programs already effectively fund academic advancements in education,
and support new ideas and practices to improve how students learn.
However, at current funding levels, these grant programs primarily fund
projects at individual academic institutions. Significant outcomes are
expected with this additional funding increase. We envision additional
funding will enable establishment of new, regional Centers of
Excellence where partnerships between educators and employers establish
best practices in curriculum content and delivery through a local
academic collaborative. These regional collaborative models will reduce
duplication of effort while increasing instructional efficiency.
dairy
Question. Mr. Secretary and Mr. Glauber, the dairy sector is facing
enormous challenges and this concerns me a great deal. Economic turmoil
has diminished demand and prices paid to farmers have plummeted. We
worked to strengthen the MILC safety net in the Farm bill, and you've
taken steps by purchasing surpluses and utilizing the Dairy Export
Incentives Program. What trends do you see ahead for the dairy sector?
Answer. Prices and farm income are expected to recover to more
sustainable levels as demand increases with economic recovery over the
next 2 years. The size of the dairy herd is projected to return to the
long-term trend of decline that was interrupted from 2005 through 2008
by rapid worldwide economic growth that brought increased dairy product
demand.
Question. When might we begin to see positive outcomes from the
steps that have already been taken?
Answer. Milk prices have begun to increase. [Clerk's note: The
following response is based on information available after the date of
the hearing.] The all-milk price hit the lowest level in 6 years during
June and July 2009. Product shipments through the Dairy Export
Incentive Program and actions taken through the Dairy Product Price
Support Program brought price increases in August with the all-milk
price increasing $0.50 per hundredweight. This increase will be
reflected in the Milk Income Loss Contract Program checks that
producers receive during September for their August milk production.
Further increases in the milk price are projected through next year.
resource conservation and development councils (rc&ds)
Question. Mr. Secretary, for the past several years, the budget
request for RC&Ds has been zero. This subcommittee continues to fund
this program each year. Can you explain what the practical effect would
be of not funding RC&Ds?
Answer. As nonprofit organizations, RC&D councils will still exist
in the short term. However, while some councils may have the financial
and staff capacity to continue operating, we expect that most councils
would cease to function effectively without the support of professional
NRCS coordinators. As a result, the strategic planning and delivery of
many conservation, renewable energy, and economic development projects
in local communities would halt.
Question. There are approximately 451 staff years associated with
RC&Ds. What will happen to these staff should this subcommittee not
provide funding? Will anyone lose their job?
Answer. RC&D staffing adjustments are being considered as part of
NRCS' human capital analysis and plan. Since NRCS is facing significant
retirements in the future, all appropriate staffing incentives and
adjustments are being considered. However, specific plans have not been
finalized. Implementation of any plan for fiscal year 2010 would not be
initiated until Congressional action on the President's Budget is known
and necessary decisions have been made. NRCS intends to retain as many
RC&D staff as the overall NRCS budget will support. Skills learned as a
RC&D coordinator serve employees well in many other NRCS positions. The
ability to foster partnerships, collaborate, and plan projects is
essential to all NRCS field and State level technical positions. These
employees can be placed in other NRCS field and State office positions
such as district conservationist and other natural resource positions.
Question. Would the current functions of RC&Ds be absorbed within
NRCS? If so, how?
Answer. As nonprofit organizations, RC&D Councils will still exist.
The current functions of the Federal RC&D Program would not be provided
to assist the Councils. Those functions would not be absorbed within
NRCS. While NRCS would continue to deliver conservation projects on
individual agricultural operations through Conservation Technical
Assistance and the Farm bill conservation programs, NRCS would not
absorb the valuable strategic natural resource conservation and
economic development planning and project delivery function of the RC&D
Program. Likewise, NRCS's remaining conservation planning and delivery
programs would not support the leveraging of significant State, local,
and private funding as provided by the RC&D Program. In fiscal year
2008 alone, the RC&D councils leveraged a total of $189 million from
non-Federal sources to support 4,500 projects around the country.
wic
Question. I am pleased to see in your budget a more robust request
for WIC. As you know, this subcommittee has had to provide significant
increases for WIC, often times at the expense of other important
programs. Do you expect to release any contingency funds from fiscal
year 2009? Taking into consideration the 2009 stimulus and the fiscal
year 2010 request, what will the total amount available for WIC
contingency be in fiscal year 2010? Do you anticipate having to use any
of that contingency to maintain participation in fiscal year 2010?
Taking into account the current state of the economy, do you see food
prices and participation increasing over the next few months?
[Clerks Note: The following response is based on information
available after the date of the hearing.]
Answer. The total available in the WIC contingency reserve in
fiscal year 2009 is $525 million, including $400 million provided in
the Recovery Act. Of the total available, $38 million will be used in
fiscal year 2009, leaving $487 million to be carried over into fiscal
year 2010. Together with the $225 million in the budget request, the
total contingency reserve available for fiscal year 2010 is $712
million. Based on current estimates for program participation and food
costs, the funding levels proposed by the President's 2010 budget
appear sufficient to ensure that all eligible individuals seeking
benefits can receive them in fiscal year 2010 without using any of the
$486.8 million in available contingency funds.
WIC food package cost estimates are based on monthly food inflation
forecasts provided to FNS by the Economic Research Service (ERS). Food
prices over the next few months may begin to increase slightly. FNS
estimates that the WIC food package cost will increase 3.1 percent
during fiscal year 2010 from $42.82 to $44.18.
FNS has typically based its participation projections on trends
over the past 7 years. However, given the current state of the economy,
FNS believes that participation is likely to grow at a stronger rate
through fiscal year 2010, closer to the rate realized in fiscal year
2008 than to the 7-year average. FNS projects that average monthly
participation will be 5.6 percent higher in fiscal year 2010 than in
fiscal year 2009 from 9.1 million to 9.6 million participants.
renewable energy
Question. Mr. Secretary, we are aware that expansion of renewable
energy production and energy efficiency improvements are high
priorities of you and this Administration. Those priorities are well
represented in the increases you are requesting in this budget.
Over the last several years USDA has provided substantial support
for the expansion of corn-based ethanol facilities. With the current
recession and reduced oil prices, what are the short-term prospects for
these facilities?
Answer. As the economy begins to stabilize and emerge from its deep
recession, our hope is that demand for renewable fuels will continue to
grow along with other sectors of the economy. Our reports show that
those corn-based facilities that weathered the financial crisis are
beginning to show profitability.
Question. Do you think additional support will be needed from the
Department to sustain these projects?
Answer. USDA is undertaking an unprecedented effort to provide
relief to businesses in struggling agricultural industries through the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding received under the
Business and Industry Loan Guarantee Program. This program has been put
to work to partner with lenders in helping to assist processors and
other businesses connected with the agricultural sector meet their
current financial needs for capital.
Question. Is the demand for the Biorefinery Assistance Program and
the Rural Energy for America Program as strong as you had anticipated?
Answer. The future of the biofuels industry partially lies in the
commercialization of second and third generation feedstocks. The
Section 9003 Biorefinery Assistance Program is a critically important
investment in that evolution.
Numerous potential applicants for the Biorefinery Assistance
Program have expressed their inability to obtain a lending partner in
order to apply for a loan guarantee to assist with the construction of
a viable commercial biorefinery under the Section 9003 Program. Based
on discussions with the lending community and the current economic
climate, they are reluctant to consider this loan guarantee program
without the government taking more of the risk than currently is being
taken under the program. We will not know for certain the true level of
demand for the Section 9003 Program until regulations are promulgated
and a new solicitation of applications is conducted. That is expected
to occur toward the end of fiscal year 2010.
The 2008 Farm bill authorized the Rural Energy for America Program
in Section 9007 which expands and renames the program formerly called
the Section 9006: Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency
Improvements Program. Since the enactment of the first-ever Energy
Title in a Farm bill in 2002, this program has provided grants and loan
guarantees to rural residents, agricultural producers, and rural
businesses for more than 1,800 energy efficiency and renewable energy
projects ranging from biofuels to wind, solar, geothermal, methane gas
recovery, and other biomass.
Question. The President's budget requests substantial increases of
discretionary funding over and above the mandatory funds in the Farm
bill for these programs. Are these increases still needed?
Answer. As noted in the answer to the prior question, we will not
know for certain the true level of demand for the Section 9003 Program
until the end of fiscal year 2010 when we begin to accept applications
under new regulations and a new notice of solicitation.
Preliminary results show that the Rural Energy for America Program
received 1,887 applications requesting in excess of $120 million. The
demand for this program far exceeded the funding for fiscal year 2009.
We anticipate the demand for this program to continue to grow
significantly in fiscal year 2010.
micro-enterprise program
Question. Mr. Secretary, this Committee is very interested in
implementation of the new micro-enterprise program authorized in the
2008 Farm bill. This program will provide loans and technical
assistance to support job creation and income generation through
entrepreneurial development in rural areas. The Farm bill makes
available mandatory funding for this program from 2009 through 2012.
Please describe the current status of this new program, and your
vision of its potential to increase economic wellbeing in rural areas.
Answer. We expect the proposed rule to be transmitted to the Office
of Management and Budget by September 30, 2009, for review and the
agency is seeking an expedited review. We anticipate publishing a final
rule by the end of June 2010, and will then be able to articulate our
vision of the program's potential to increase economic wellbeing in
rural areas.
Question. This budget request includes an increase of $22 million
over the $4 million of mandatory money provided by the Farm bill. Is
this large increase merited at this early stage of development of the
program?
Answer. The Agency seeks to utilize the funding to help jump start
rural economies through self employment. We believe there will be
considerable demand for the increase in funding. The program includes a
lending component as well as a training and technical assistance
component which will contribute to the long term success of the
affected businesses.
animal identification
Question. I understand that in the rural community forums there was
a lot of talk about the National Animal ID Program. What did you learn
from those listening sessions? Do you believe this should be a
mandatory or voluntary program? If it's made mandatory, what would be
the cost to producers?
Answer. USDA hosted public listening sessions so that I could hear
from producers and stakeholders throughout the country--not only their
concerns but also potential or feasible solutions to those concerns.
The transcripts of the listening sessions are available on APHIS'
webpage: http://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/feedback.shtml. USDA also
invited the public to submit written comments via the website, which we
received thousands of before the comment period closed on August 3,
2009. While the analysis continues, several clear themes have emerged
from the call for feedback.
One such theme is confidentiality of the business information. Some
believe that business information must remain confidential to allow for
fair competition in the marketplace. Another theme is liability, and
the potential for lawsuits, should something enter the food supply and
cause harm. We also heard concerns about cost. Some believe the costs
of identifying and tracing animals are prohibitive. Finally, privacy
was another significant theme. Some see animal identification as an
unwelcome intrusion by the Federal Government. USDA is continuing to
review the transcripts from each session as well as the written
comments that were submitted by the public.
Given the public's concerns, USDA must find a way to achieve the
original and true purpose of the National Animal Identification
System--animal traceability. The goal is to enhance traceability
efforts in ways that respond to these concerns, recognizing and seeking
to overcome the shortcomings of our efforts to implement NAIS in the
last 5 years. The feedback we received from the public, along with the
lessons learned over the past several years, will assist in making
informed decisions about the future direction of animal identification
and traceability in the United States.
USDA has not specifically estimated the costs to producers of a
mandatory system, as the previous Administration had not pursued such a
system and the Administration is still determining a comprehensive
approach to traceability.
watershed flood prevention operations program status
Question. Mr. Secretary, this subcommittee provided $290 million
for the Watershed Flood Prevention Operations Program through the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Can you please provide an update on the status of these funds?
Answer. Of the $290 million appropriated, NRCS has allocated over
$256 million--$133 million for 80 approved Watershed and Flood
Prevention Projects, $118 million for 270 approved Flood Plain
Easements and $5 million for agency-wide support. As of September 18,
2009, over $103 million has been obligated.
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total
State allocations obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watershed and Flood Prevention
OperationsAlabama................................. $430,000 $18,411
Arkansas................................ 134,000 69,666
California.............................. 19,275,000 2,293,104
Colorado................................ 3,841,900 1,350,835
Idaho................................... 430,000 9,717
Indiana................................. 3,300,000 28,038
Iowa.................................... 2,231,750 732,079
Kansas.................................. 1,661,000 50,873
Kentucky................................ 4,817,880 217,840
Louisiana............................... 4,470,000 1,044,304
Minnesota............................... 544,000 436,552
Mississippi............................. 7,630,000 2,268,643
Missouri................................ 4,900,000 945,818
Montana................................. 822,700 271,458
Nebraska................................ 4,209,000 1,524,840
New Mexico.............................. 1,440,000 25,555
New York................................ 1,000,000 147,438
North Carolina.......................... 5,280,858 134,749
Oklahoma................................ 3,619,000 1,826,996
Pacific Islands......................... 4,150,000 80,369
Pennsylvania............................ 11,900,000 10,379,210
South Carolina.......................... 1,040,000 19,912
Tennessee............................... 12,400,000 1,111,862
Texas................................... 21,786,111 8,105,239
Virginia................................ 973,000 284,144
Washington.............................. 625,000 533,940
West Virginia........................... 10,085,000 150,958
Agency wide............................. 3,684,200 1,117,776
-------------------------------
Total............................. 136,680,399 35,180,326
===============================
Flood Plain EasementsAlabama................................. 2,788,488 1,640,774
Alaska.................................. 740,112 151,033
Arkansas................................ 1,890,000 1,356,112
California.............................. 5,366,400 4,335,977
Colorado................................ 111,293 10,834
Connecticut............................. 31,000 31,000
Georgia................................. 3,100,218 31,880
Idaho................................... 19,800 19,739
Illinois................................ 3,325,800 2,692,893
Indiana................................. 7,898,693 6,671,586
Iowa.................................... 20,855,846 12,586,216
Kansas.................................. 2,007,432 1,680,570
Kentucky................................ 3,245,582 2,548,135
Louisiana............................... 2,221,769 982,070
Maine................................... 88,294 85,046
Maryland................................ 19,963 19,862
Michigan................................ 497,100 435,407
Minnesota............................... 1,524,776 1,028,453
Mississippi............................. 2,125,116 1,620,622
Missouri................................ 4,171,582 1,189,791
Montana................................. 10,468 10,468
Nebraska................................ 350,820 289,646
New Hampshire........................... 407,822 140,025
New Jersey.............................. 745,164 578,882
New York................................ 782,466 56,078
North Carolina.......................... 443,400 322,562
North Dakota............................ 10,210,554 3,804,286
Ohio.................................... 9,624,170 452,705
Oklahoma................................ 2,911,620 35,146
Oregon.................................. 2,275,770 1,182,059
Pennsylvania............................ 243,383 103,657
Rhode Island............................ 757,200 44,182
South Carolina.......................... 87,700 87,643
South Dakota............................ 1,843,327 1,557,318
Tennessee............................... 1,589,154 182,227
Texas................................... 5,516 5,516
Virginia................................ 35,754 36,344
Washington.............................. 934,332 461,820
West Virginia........................... 749,426 448,497
Wisconsin............................... 22,057,287 18,619,779
Agency wide............................. 1,583,726 550,048
-------------------------------
Total............................. 119,678,323 68,086,889
------------------------------------------------------------------------
food safety assessments
Question. The budget proposes an increase of $4 million for
additional food safety assessments. How is a ``food safety assessment''
different from the regular inspections done by FSIS on a daily basis?
How many food safety assessments does USDA currently perform, and how
many additional assessments will be completed with this money? How will
you determine which establishments will receive these additional
assessments?
Answer. A Food Safety Assessment (FSA) is a comprehensive look at
the design and implementation of an establishment's food safety system.
FSAs cover the HACCP plan and supporting documentation, sanitation
standard operating procedures (SSOPs), prerequisite programs,
microbiological testing procedures, sanitation performance standards
(SPS), establishment documentation, and other information that relates
to the establishment's products and processes. These assessments are in
addition to the regular inspection verification activities performed by
inspection program personnel daily at operating establishments. FSAs
are performed by specially trained Enforcement Investigation and
Analysis Officers (EIAOs). According to the USDA Office of Inspector
General's 2007 audit report, FSAs yield the Department's best evidence
about the design and implementation of an establishment's food safety
system.
There are two types of FSAs, routine and for cause. The Department
has committed to complete at least one routine FSA in each of the 5,400
establishments subject to the HACCP regulation every 4 years. In
addition, the Department conducts for cause FSAs in establishments that
have a higher probability of causing human illness. These are
determined by assessing whether the establishments have produced
product that tested positive for pathogens known to cause human
illness, are found not to be in compliance with specific Federal
regulations, or are performing worse than their peers with respect to
FSIS verification activities. FSIS initiates approximately 300-400 for
cause FSAs every year to address enforcement activities resulting from
findings of E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes (Lm)
sampling and product recalls.
The complexity of an establishment's food safety system and the
need for urgent reporting may result in more than one EIAO being
involved in an individual food safety assessment. In the future, once
the Public Health Information System is fully implemented,
establishments meeting the criteria for a cause FSA will be more
quickly identified through an automated process.
In fiscal year 2008, the most recent year for which complete data
is available, approximately 1,352 FSAs were conducted, both routine and
for cause. The FSAs, primarily those conducted for cause resulted in 28
suspensions of operations and 135 notices of intended enforcement
action. With the Department committed to conducting a routine FSA in
each establishment every 4 years, the annual number of total number of
FSAs, including routine and for cause, will increase to approximately
2,000. The $4 million budget increase includes hiring 20 additional
EIAO full time staff and the laboratory costs associated with these
additional FSAs.
food safety infrastructure
Question. Mr. Secretary, in your statement, you mention the
proposed FSIS increase of $23 million to improve food safety ``Public
Health Infrastructure'', noting that it will strengthen FSIS' ability
to target inspections and investigate outbreaks. Those goals are
impressive, but what exactly will this funding be used for?
Answer. The Public Health Information System (PHIS) will protect
public health through food safety and food defense inspection of the
production and distribution of domestic and imported meat, poultry and
processed egg products; ongoing and real time assessment, analysis and
surveillance of public health data; and implementation of incident
command procedures to address outbreaks of foodborne illness or
contamination of food products.
Specifically, the $23 million increase to the public health
infrastructure is divided into two categories as described below.
First, $13.5 million will be used for the scheduling of food safety
and food defense inspection verification and sampling in 5,400 Federal
domestic establishments, 134 ports of entry and 1,900 State-inspected
facilities; nationwide reporting of inspection verification and
sampling results; integration of inspection and sampling data as well
as other public health data into a data warehouse for real time
assessment and analysis; and operation of an emergency response systems
(particularly, the FSIS Incident Management System, Consumer Complaint
Monitoring System and Recall Management System) on a 24/7 operational
basis with full failsafe/redundancy capability at the USDA Data
Centers.
Second, the remaining $9.5 million will provide for systems,
technical and telecommunication implementation and support for 9,500
FSIS and 1,400 State employees and enactment of Cyber Security controls
to meet mandated authentication procedures and security policies,
encrypt data and systems, perform vulnerability assessments and
remediation to block and prevent evolving national and international
threats and intrusions, and maintain system certification and
accreditation necessary for the enablement and function of public
health inspection and emergency response systems.
research
Question. Mr. Secretary, although you have stated several times
that a top goal of the Administration is to pursue research regarding
renewable fuels, the overall research accounts actually receive a net
decrease in this budget. Although there are requested increases in the
research accounts regarding renewable fuels, are you concerned that
overall this is coming at a cost to more traditional agricultural
research, important for increasing yields and expanding agricultural
production?
Answer. The Administration is committed to developing homegrown
energy to end our dependence on foreign oil and revitalizing rural
America. Therefore the President's 2010 Budget continues to
aggressively provide the resources needed to help bring greater energy
independence to America and includes $88.63 million for bioenergy/
renewable energy research and development. This is an increase of $9.68
million over the Department's 2009 budget and also eliminates $8.09
million in bioenergy earmarks.
Much of the research related to bioenergy, such as functional
genomics, resource management, productivity, and sustainability issues
also address problems faced by traditional agriculture and will
directly and indirectly promote the goals of increasing yields and
expanding agricultural production.
animal antibiotics
Question. Some experts estimate that as much as 70 percent of all
antibiotics sold in this country are used in food animals for purposes
other than treating diseases and that this contributes to the rise in
antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
What research has USDA undertaken or funded to evaluate this
threat? What work is being done to support development of alternatives
for producers in the event that sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics is
restricted in animal agriculture?
Answer. Collaboration in animal health and food safety epidemiology
(CAHFSE) is a joint effort among three agencies of the U.S. Department
of Agriculture: the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS),
the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and the Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS). The mission of this important surveillance
effort is (1) to enhance overall understanding of bacteria that pose a
food-safety risk by monitoring these bacteria on-farm and in-plant over
time, and (2) to provide a means to routinely monitor critical diseases
in food-animal production. A particular emphasis of CAHFSE is to
address issues related to bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics.
In March 2009, ARS contributed to the development of the Public
Health Action Plan to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance, developed
jointly by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), and National Institutes of Health. ARS,
in collaboration with the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine and the
(CDC), is an integral member of the National Antimicrobial Resistance
Monitoring System (NARMS). This system was implemented in 1996 with a
goal of monitoring trends in antimicrobial resistance in humans,
animals, and retail meats. ARS is responsible for the animal sampling
arm of NARMS and collects samples from slaughter plants, diagnostic
laboratories, and healthy animals. As part of this effort, ARS is also
conducting research to develop more sensitive detection methods to
identify resistance-associated genes. NARMS has provided preliminary
data on antimicrobial use, although this information is not yet linked
to data on resistance. ARS has also conducted some pilot studies to
monitor resistance in potentially emerging pathogens, such as
methicilin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), enterococci, and C.
difficile. I will provide additional information for the record.
[The information follows:]
ARS is evaluating processing technologies that minimize foodborne
pathogen contamination and determining what effect contamination levels
have on the development of antimicrobial resistant pathogens. ARS also
models the gene flow of certain antibiotic resistance factors and is
developing strategies to extend the useful life of antibiotics in both
animal and human medicine.
ARS is currently using metagenomic (and also cultural) approaches
to evaluate the effects of feeding subtherapeutic (growth promoting)
and therapeutic antibiotics on swine intestinal microbiota. The goal of
this effort is to identify changes in microbial composition associated
with performance enhancement, and to define how growth promotants work
to support the identification of alternatives with similar growth-
promoting effects. Specifically, researchers are looking for changes in
the gene content of swine exposed to one or more antibiotics. Also
underway are plans to conduct field trials to test whether or not
growth promoting antibiotics (such as carbadox) still work in swine and
to investigate the utility of metagenomics for detecting changes in
intestinal microbiota caused by marketed probiotics.
ARS develops and evaluates non-traditional products or alternatives
to antibiotics (e.g., probiotics, other natural products) and assesses
what effect they may have in decreasing resistance. ARS is evaluating
the role of antibiotic resistance in creating enhanced virulence or
pathogenicity in bacteria (Salmonella in cattle). Researchers are also
developing microarrays for the detection of antimicrobial resistance
genes in bacteria and as a method to track the different genes
responsible for virulence in bacteria.
dairy price support program
Question. Economic turmoil and plummeting prices have hit the dairy
sector very hard. This administration has taken several welcome steps
in an effort to mitigate the impact, but the strain on American dairy
farmers is enormous. One further administrative step which I'd ask you
to review involves the Dairy Product Price Support Program (DPPSP).
In the past, USDA has purchased pasteurized processed cheese
product, and paid a premium for it because it comes in consumer-ready
packages. Cheese manufacturers in my area of the country typically sold
pasteurized processed cheese as the first line of defense against
rapidly falling milk prices. Unfortunately, that option is no longer
available.
What flexibility does the Department have to adjust the directive
issued by the previous administration which eliminated pasteurized
processed cheese purchases under the dairy support program?
Answer. The Department has no flexibility to adjust the directive
because the elimination of pasteurized process cheese was based on
changes to the milk price support program in the Food, Conservation,
and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm bill). The Secretary is now directed
to specifically purchase cheddar cheese under this program, rather than
previous legislation directing the Secretary to purchase cheese.
animal improvement laboratory
Question. The Animal Improvement Program Laboratory (AIPL) in
Beltsville, MD, conducts research to discover, test, and implement
improved genetic evaluation techniques for economically important
traits in dairy cattle. Due in part to their work, the United States is
a world leader in dairy genetics and last year exported more than $105
million in bovine genetic material. Please describe current Federal
support for bovine genetic and genomic work at AIPL and elaborate on
steps being taken to ensure that the United States maintains its
leadership role in dairy genetics.
Answer. Genetic evaluation techniques for economically important
traits have undergone a revolution in the past 2 years and the Animal
Improvement Program Laboratory (AIPL) has led the way with increasing
involvement of the Bovine Functional Genomics Laboratory (BFGL), a
sister Agricultural Research Service (ARS) laboratory in Beltsville,
MD. I have asked ARS to provide a progress report for the record.
[The information follows:]
USDA-ARS and its collaborators have developed a process to
incorporate genomic information into the traditional genetic merit
information based upon trait measurement (i.e. lbs. of milk, fertility,
health) which dramatically improves the genetic merit evaluation. This
current genetic evaluation scheme depends critically on incorporation
of genomic data to predict genetic merit in dairy bulls. The
effectiveness of these new techniques, and thus the rate of adoption of
this technology in the U.S. dairy industry, has been astounding. In
January of this year, less than 1 year from the delivery of the first
preliminary research results using this technology, USDA-ARS scientists
have incorporated this completely new information derived from DNA
testing into the official national dairy cattle genetic evaluation.
This technology transfer success was the result of a highly
collaborative effort led by USDA-ARS scientists with collaboration
among academic groups, artificial insemination organizations, and breed
associations. Financial support was provided through competitive
grants, collaborative agreements, and USDA base funds. To date, over
35,000 animals have been genotyped, and that number continues to grow
rapidly. Collection and use of performance data, improved record
keeping and enhanced capability to associate performance with genomic
markers continue to be cornerstones of the USDA-ARS efforts.
The aggressive adoption of this technology in the U.S. dairy
industry has outpaced implementation around the world, and as a result
the ability to predict genetic merit in the U.S. dairy industry is more
accurate than in any other country. A corresponding increase in the
genetic level of U.S. dairy germplasm is a direct result of this
technology adoption. The cost of progeny testing to determine a bull's
value could be as high as $50,000 per bull, whereas the genomic
evaluation gives comparable accuracy at a cost of approximately $300
per bull. Using this DNA information, we are now able to generate
genetic predictions for males much earlier in life with high accuracy
and a dramatically lower cost. This technology is expected to increase
the rate of genetic improvement by at least 50 percent. Some estimates
suggest a doubling of the genetic gain to be more realistic. Because of
this dramatic increase and the implementation lead gained by this rapid
deployment in the United States, export opportunities for U.S. dairy
germplasm are expected to increase substantially over time.
Work to expand this technology is continuing in AIPL and BFGL.
Scientists there are leading efforts to develop even more sophisticated
DNA tools that will enable this technology to be implemented in beef
cattle populations. In addition, these tools are being developed to
help serve the needs of the developing world by incorporating
information specific to cattle in tropical and sub-Saharan
environments.
To maintain its lead in dairy genetics and extend these tremendous
results into other cattle populations, close collaboration with
academic groups, artificial insemination organizations, and breed
associations will continue. Innovation continues to be spurred by the
exciting discoveries of implementing genome enhanced genetic
improvement. Growth in the areas of bioinformatics, quantitative
genetics and computational biology are needed to maintain and extend
this lead.
ARS funding support through AIPL is estimated at $2,893,200 and
support through BFGL is estimated at $2,294,100.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin
advanced biofuels
Question. As you know, Secretary Vilsack, the 2008 Farm bill placed
a heavy emphasis on providing support for advanced biofuels, including
support for biomass feedstock development, support for harvesting
transport and storage, and support for both pilot plant and commercial
scale biorefineries for advanced biofuels. However, since the Farm bill
was passed, credit markets have tightened significantly, so that even
with assistance provided by the Farm bill programs, I am hearing that
advanced biorefinery developers are having major difficulties is
securing financing for start-up plants. This, in turn, is leading to
the real possibility that the biofuels industry may not be ready to
meet the requirements of our national renewable fuels standards (RFS)
for advanced biofuels.
Do you have a recommendation for how USDA might assist with this
problem?
Answer. Numerous potential applicants for the Biorefinery
Assistance Program have expressed their inability to obtain a lending
partner in order to apply for a loan guarantee to assist with the
construction of a viable commercial biorefinery under the Section 9003
Program. Based on discussions with the lending community and the
current economic climate, they are reluctant to consider this loan
guarantee program without the government taking more of the risk than
currently is being taken under the program. We will not know for
certain the true level of demand for the Section 9003 Program until
regulations are promulgated and a new solicitation of applications is
conducted. That is expected to occur toward the end of fiscal year
2010.
Question. Is more funding for the biorefinery support program
advisable or essential for that?
Answer. Mandatory funding received under the 2008 Farm bill is
limited to loan guarantees. The 2010 Budget also requests funding to
support loan guarantees.
local foods--business and industry loan and grant program
Question. The recently passed fiscal year 2009 Omnibus
appropriations bill and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided
significant funding for the Business and Industry loan program at USDA.
The 2008 Farm bill modified the Business and Industry Program to allow
local and regional food enterprises to be eligible for assistance under
this program and requires that 5 percent of the annual funding under
this program be reserved for these enterprises.
Can you tell me what the department is doing in terms of outreach
to encourage local and regional food enterprises to participate in this
program?
Answer. The department has a Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food
Initiative and will be establishing a website where this program will
be featured among all of the department's resources to assist this
effort.
acre program implementation and training
Question. Secretary Vilsack, the 2008 Farm bill includes a new
counter-cyclical option called the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE)
that uses average State-level crop revenue to establish a threshold for
coverage. Farmers will have to actively elect to participate in this
new program and agree to forgo a portion of their direct payments and
to accept lower loan rates. I appreciate that you extended the time for
farm program signup to give producers additional time to weigh the
benefits of the program options. I am concerned, however, that local
county FSA personnel may not have adequate training to help producers
consider their program options.
What training has the Farm Service Agency provided on the ACRE
program and what plans are in place for additional training over the
next few months?
Answer. The Farm Service Agency has distributed fact sheets and
extensive background information to the field staff and has conducted
training meetings and webinars along with other efforts to ensure staff
is adequately trained. However, we agree with you that further efforts
to improve our employees' and producers' understanding of ACRE would be
beneficial. The agency has set up a special website for DCP/ACRE which
includes extensive detailed information, and a new program payment
calculator to help producers evaluate their options. Plans call for
additional State and county data files to be made available to further
assist our employees and producers. Further, we are considering
launching additional efforts to educate producers as well.
Question. Would you consider targeting training in those States
where producers are expected to be more interested in the ACRE program?
Answer. We will attempt to ensure that FSA staff in all States are
adequately trained and equipped. However, States with higher numbers of
eligible producers will likely receive priority for our special
educational meetings.
Question. Do you anticipate any computer-related problems as
producers enroll in ACRE?
Answer. While the FSA computer system remains a concern, we believe
that the agency will be able to manage the signup process adequately
with the current system.
usda and doe collaboration
Question. The Department of Energy provides significant support for
the development of biofuels, as well as USDA. Both agencies are
supposed to work together in this arena. However, I believe that USDA
is has a much better track record for supporting commercialization
efforts, and that suggests that USDA and DOE should be collaborating on
bioenergy program planning and execution.
What is your perception regarding USDA and DOE collaboration in the
area of bioenergy? Do you think it is adequate or optimal?
Answer. USDA is satisfied with the level of collaboration with DOE
in the area of Bioenergy, including the Biomass Research and
Development Board. DOE presently provides USDA technical expertise in
the review of Section 9003 Biorefinery Assistance and Section 9007
Rural Energy for America Programs (REAP) applications.
Question. Do you have suggestions for improvements?
Answer. One way to augment both programs would be to increase
partnerships, in the combined issue of grants and loan guarantees to
second and third generation biorefineries. This would allow both
departments to leverage commercialization efforts of second generation
biofuels.
Question. And do your recommendations have budget implications?
Answer. In the May 5, 2009, President's Directive on Biofuels and
Rural Economic Development, the President created a Biofuels
Interagency Working Group co-chaired by Secretaries of Agriculture and
Energy and Administrator of EPA to develop the Nation's first
comprehensive biofuel market development program.
The two Departments have identified the leadership to co-chair the
Biomass Board that is authorized under Section 9008, Biomass Research
and Development, of the Farm bill. This Board will not only coordinate
bioenergy activities in the two Departments, but will coordinate
Federal Government wide activities and collaborate with the newly
created Biofuels Interagency Working Group mentioned above.
fsa computers
Question. The President's budget includes $67.3 million to continue
modernization and stabilization of the Farm Service Agency's aging
computer system. In your testimony you state that, ``additional funding
will be required in subsequent years to complete this process.''
Can you discuss what the remaining needs will be to complete this
process?
Answer. The goal of modernization is to transform the Farm Service
Agency's (FSA's) computer system to one that delivers information for
the delivery of program benefits and information at an appropriate
standard of quality and performance. When all the components of
modernization have been fit together, FSA will have a streamlined
information technology (IT) architecture built on business processes
that are supported by newer, faster, more secure and more reliable web-
based technologies. Given sufficient funding this goal will be achieved
in fiscal year 2013.
We greatly appreciate the $50 million made available in the
Recovery Act as a down-payment for modernization. The primary
objectives required to achieve that goal include finishing up
stabilization efforts and completing MIDAS so that all the Farm Program
Delivery business processes and applications may be moved off of the
legacy system.
Additional information is provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
The original estimate of total costs planned for the stabilization
and MIDAS portion of modernization has not changed from the numbers we
shared with Congress last year. Stabilization is the restoration of
critical elements of FSA's IT system after it began to crumble in late
2006. MIDAS is the core of the modernization effort. It is designed to
streamline FSA's farm program delivery business processes. The costs of
these initiatives are the same as found in the ``Description of Annual
and Lifecycle Costs'' table of the MIDAS Report transmitted on July 15,
2008. This report was a response to a directive in House Report 110-258
which accompanied H.R. 3161. These costs are $305 million for MIDAS and
$149 million for stabilization, which sum to a cost of $454 million.
Most of the expenses of stabilization have been met. The remaining
$20.4 million needed will come from a portion of the $67.3 million
request. At this point, the stabilization initiative will be complete.
However, while stabilization will have mitigated many of the critical
weaknesses in the legacy Farm Program Delivery system, the system will
not be modernized.
The MIDAS initiative has received $19 million of the $50 million in
Recovery Act funds in fiscal year 2009, so about $286 million more will
be required. If the $67.3 million request is funded, FSA will apply
$46.9 million of it to MIDAS, reducing the remaining costs to about
$239 million.
Furthermore, we note that substantial investments will be required
for additional modernization that is above and beyond the MIDAS effort.
These additional investments would be directed toward the modernization
of FSA's commodity operation processes, their legacy farm loan system,
and several Department-wide ``Enterprise Systems'' FSA shares with
other agencies. These investments will also include a portion of the
``refreshment'' of hardware in the Common Computing Environment that
supports the modernized web-based FSA system being developed under
MIDAS. This refreshment involves the long needed replacement of older
desktop PCs, telecommunications and computer network equipment at FSA's
field offices.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
asian citrus psyllid
Question. For the past year, the State of California, the
California County Agriculture Commissioners, and citrus industry--in
collaboration with APHIS--have been working together to curb an
infestation of the Asian Citrus Psyllid, taking a proactive approach to
prevent the spread of Huanglongbing disease.
Will you commit the Department to working with the industry and
citrus States to develop a California-type approach nationally?
Answer. USDA is committed to working with industry and citrus-
producing States to implement the most practical and effective approach
to control the pest based on the best available science and farm
practices. The initial infestations of the Asian citrus psyllid (ACP)
in California were in areas of San Diego and Imperial Counties adjacent
to infested areas in Mexico. These first infestations were relatively
sparse and confined to small residential areas. This made it possible
for the State to conduct an ACP suppression program, focusing on
treatment of individual properties. More recent ACP infestations, in
areas such as Los Angeles County, are much more extensive and are
likely to pose a challenge in responding with the type of suppression
program carried out in San Diego County. APHIS continues to work with
the State, county, and the industry in California to contain and
suppress the ACP populations in Los Angeles County in the most logical
manner. In addition, APHIS continues to coordinate with the Government
of Mexico to implement a similar program in the adjacent border region
of Baja California to reduce the likelihood of ACP incursion into the
United States from Mexico. At present we are pursuing a model similar
to that used for Glassy Wing Sharp Shooter which has been successful in
protecting the grape and wine industries of California from Pierce's
disease.
In other States where ACP and Huanglongbing disease (HLB) have
become established, the strategy is designed to provide safeguarding
measures as part of the regulatory framework to prevent further spread
of ACP and HLB. Meanwhile, USDA is dedicated to working with the
scientific community around the world in the search for long-term
practical solutions for citrus greening in the United States.
Question. What support does the Department need from the industry,
citrus States, and Congress?
Answer. The citrus industry recognizes that they have a significant
role in conducting inspections of their groves for ACP and citrus
greening, and quickly reporting suspected detections to appropriate
State and Federal officials. In addition, education activities
conducted by the industry have emphasized the importance of complying
with State and Federal regulations designed to prevent the spread of
ACP and citrus greening. States with citrus have been cooperative in
conducting surveys for ACP and citrus greening, and in establishing
parallel quarantines in support of Federal regulatory actions. Industry
and State and Federal governments are making significant investments in
research.
Question. What steps is the USDA taking to stop the spread of the
Psyllid across the border from Mexico? How is USDA working with the
Mexican government to move the ACP infestation away from the border?
Answer. USDA is working closely with Mexico, including providing
technical support and funding to Mexico to conduct survey, regulatory,
and suppression activities, in particular in areas adjacent to citrus
growing areas in the United States. We believe that this has been
effective in reducing the extent of the ACP infestations on the Mexican
side of the border, and thus reduced the number of infestations in
adjacent U.S. areas. In addition, APHIS has provided technical training
and resources to Mexico, enabling that country to conduct testing for
the presence of citrus greening. A high percentage of ACPs that are
found are being tested for the disease. These efforts allowed Mexico to
confirm its citrus greening infestation in Yucatan State and take
action to prevent its spread. Pest Alerts have been provided to
Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Patrol to heighten
surveillance for ACP and HLB.
Question. What resources are being committed by USDA to treat
citrus greening (HLB)? What are the plans for developing resistant
plants? What is the Department doing currently to research solutions
and what are its plans for future research?
Answer. There is currently no treatment for HLB. There is a
concerted effort on the parts of industry, citrus States, and USDA
(APHIS, the Agricultural Research Service, and the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service) to carry out activities
that range from the development of strategies to suppress Asian citrus
psyllid populations with the intended purpose of reducing disease
pressure on the crop to the development of resistant varieties using
traditional and biotechnology based approaches. Biological control is
being explored in the United States and in Mexico.
Question. Can you assure me that Plant Protection and Quarantine
(PPQ) officers have adequately trained Customs and Border Patrol (CBP)
inspectors to identify both adult and juvenile Asian citrus psyllids
(ACP) on citrus trees as well as ornamental nursery plants such as
Orange Jasmine that potentially host the pest?
Answer. All plants intended for planting that enter the United
States are required to go through one of APHIS' 17 plant inspection
stations where they are inspected by APHIS inspectors. CBP inspectors
do not inspect live plants. However, APHIS has provided pest alerts to
CBP for dissemination to all ports containing photographs of both
juvenile and adult ACPs for use in inspecting shipments of citrus. CBP
is focusing on citrus shipments from Mexico, where ACP is known to
exist. However, citrus from Mexico must go through a commercial
packinghouse to be eligible for import to the United States, and any
psyllids present are generally removed during the washing process that
the fruit goes through in the packinghouse. ACP is also associated with
curry leaves, which are prohibited but sometimes intercepted in
passenger baggage from India and other Asian countries. APHIS and CBP
are working to ensure that such products are not overlooked, and APHIS
will be holding a workshop near the end of calendar year 2009 for CBP
inspectors on inspection processes and techniques aimed at ACP.
california drought assistance
Question. California is facing a multi-year drought. In the San
Joaquin Valley, the most productive agricultural area in the Nation,
over half a million acres of farmland have been fallowed. Unemployment
in these communities is over 40 percent.
I commend you and Secretary Salazar for establishing a joint
Federal Action Team on Drought, and I look forward to working with this
team to assist the San Joaquin Valley and other drought-stricken areas
of the country.
What is the Department doing to assist the farmers and farm workers
of the San Joaquin Valley suffering due to the drought?
Answer. USDA has a number of programs that can provide assistance
during drought situations. These programs include the Federal crop
insurance program, the non-insured crop disaster assistance program,
and the permanent disaster programs which were authorized in the 2008
Farm bill. These programs can provide compensation to producers whose
farming operations are adversely impacted by drought. In addition, USDA
programs have proven that with good planning, good management, and good
information, farms and ranches can reduce the impacts of drought. For
example, the USDA Joint Agricultural Weather Facility and National
Water and Climate Center, along with the U.S. Departments of Commerce
and Interior, and the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) at
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, help people prepare for and deal with
drought. Additionally, we are well aware that drought impacts well
beyond the boundaries of farms and ranches. Programs administered by
our Rural Development agencies are available to assist communities
whose drinking water supplies are impacted and can even provide
assistance for drilling individual wells.
frozen food safety
Question. A New York Times article that appeared on May 15,
entitled ``For Frozen Entrees, `Heat and Eat' Isn't Enough,'' explains
that frozen food, such as pot pies, require additional cooking and
testing on the part of the consumer before they are considered safe to
eat. Labels on these frozen entrees require that the food be cooked to
a uniform temperature of 165 degrees as measured by a meat thermometer.
However, the author of the New York Times article found that this
temperature was unreachable without burning the crust of the pot pie.
I am very concerned that producers of frozen entrees are placing
the burden of food safety on consumers. Consumers of these products
purchase them for convenience and with the belief that they are safe to
eat.
Does the USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) allow frozen
entrees such as pot pies to contain harmful pathogens at the time of
purchase by the consumer? What steps does the FSIS take to make sure
that producers reduce or eliminate the presence of pathogens in frozen
entrees? Does the FSIS currently conduct inspections of food labels for
frozen entrees that contain raw or uncooked ingredients, to ensure that
the labels clearly indicate that the foods may contain pathogens
without proper preparation?
Answer. Frozen entrees such as pot pies currently can be sold to
consumers in either the ready-to-eat (RTE) or not-ready-to-eat (NRTE)
form. RTE forms of these products must be free of detectable pathogens
of public health concern at the time that the products are manufactured
under Federal inspection. Such products may be heated by the consumer,
prior to consumption, but the heating is only for palatability purposes
because no pathogens are expected in the product. NRTE products are
considered the same as a raw product (i.e., presence of microorganism,
including pathogens, is minimized but non-detectable). Such product
bears labeling identifying that the products are NRTE and require a
full lethality treatment by the consumer in order to ensure safety.
Due to illnesses associated with this type of NRTE product, the
industry was informed that the Salmonella hazard needs to be better
controlled and that labeling alone cannot be the control. Labeling of
such product must be truthful and not misleading. Guidance has been
issued to manufacturers of this type of product, reminding them that
the consumer cooking instructions must be validated as accurate and
practical for the intended use.
Another type of NRTE product, i.e., NRTE stuffed poultry that
appears RTE, has been more recently implicated in foodborne illnesses.
Consequently, FSIS has been working with the industry on this matter
and is committed to continuing this collaboration before implementing
action to force more aggressive controls to ensure that detectable
Salmonella is not present in the finished product. There is no specific
timeline; however, the industry will have ample time between being
provided the guidance on addressing and controlling Salmonella in the
production of these products and regulatory action by the agency.
agricultural inspectors at homeland security
Question. Thousands of agricultural products enter California every
day through the largest international airport on the West Coast, the
largest seaport in the country, and the busiest international land port
of entry in the world.
As you know, I have been very concerned about the transfer of
agricultural inspections to the Department of Homeland Security.
APHIS controlled agriculture inspections prior to March 2003. But
the responsibility was transferred to The Department of Homeland
Security's Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) as part of the Homeland
Security Act. Since then, reports indicate that the number and quality
of inspections have dropped dramatically.
Although DHS has made a concerted effort to improve the number and
quality of inspections, I remain concerned that agricultural pest
detection has taken a back seat to the more traditional homeland
security activities of counter-gun, drug, and terrorism efforts.
Are you satisfied with CBP inspections? Will you commit to working
with Secretary Napolitano to improve the number and quality of these
inspections for agricultural products entering our country?
Answer. I am certainly committed to working with Secretary
Napolitano to ensure the agricultural inspection program at ports of
entry is working effectively to protect U.S. agriculture. I am pleased
to report that staffing levels at CBP have never been higher than they
are at this time, and that APHIS and CBP are working together through a
variety of mechanisms to improve the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection
(AQI) program where needed. While the program has overcome many of
challenges it faced just after the 2003 creation of the Department of
Homeland Security (such as the large number of vacancies in the
inspection force), one area that APHIS and CBP have targeted for
improvement is the inspection of international passenger baggage.
Through the Joint CBP-APHIS Task Force, APHIS and CBP managers have
developed an operational action plan focused on passenger baggage
inspections.
Additionally, APHIS is holding workshops for agricultural
inspectors focused on inspection procedures targeting specific pests.
Two have already been held (focused on gypsy moth and Khapra beetle),
and a workshop focusing on the Asian citrus psyllid is planned for the
end of calendar year 2009. APHIS and CBP have also formed a joint task
force on exotic fruit flies in response to the large number of
detections of a variety of fruit fly species (including several not
detected in the United States prior to this summer) in California this
year. The task force will look at pathways the pest may be using and
develop inspection policies and techniques to address them. The two
agencies are also working to increase the number of canine teams
deployed at ports of entry, primarily focusing on recruiting inspectors
for canine teams. I believe these and other cooperative efforts
demonstrate the two agencies' commitment to working together to ensure
an effective AQI program.
downer cattle
Question. I remain concerned about inhumane practices in slaughter
houses and the safety of our food supply. In the fiscal year 2009
Omnibus Appropriations Act, Congress provided funding for 120 full-time
staff dedicated solely to inspections and enforcement related to the
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act.
As of today, how many full-time inspectors does the Food Safety and
Inspection Service have that are dedicated solely to enforcement of the
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act? If you have not yet filled all 120
spots, when will these spots be filled?
Answer. The fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act maintained
the number of full-time positions (FTPs) dedicated to inspections and
enforcement related to the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) to no
fewer than 120. Because HMSA tasks are not performed by a single person
at an establishment, FSIS instead measures in full-time equivalents
(FTEs), which refers to hours spent performing these tasks equivalent
to 80 hours a pay period, projected out to a year. As of June 2, 2009,
FSIS has measured 110 FTEs for fiscal year 2009, and estimates that
there will be at least 140 FTEs by the end of this fiscal year.
country of origin labels
Question. I am concerned about the increasing number of country of
origin labels (COOL) that identify multiple countries of origin on meat
products. I fear that by over-using labels that contain multiple
countries of origin, some producers may be compromising the integrity
of the COOL label.
What oversight does USDA intend to conduct to assure the validity
of these multiple country of origin labels and protect the value of the
label for consumers?
Answer. USDA conducts enforcement reviews at retail facilities and
trace-back audits on individual items observed during the initial
retail reviews to verify the accuracy of the COOL claim. USDA is now
conducting the fourth year of enforcement reviews at retail facilities
nationwide. The first 3 years of enforcement reviews were limited by
statute to fish and shellfish. As of fiscal year 2009, all covered
commodities must comply with the regulatory requirements for COOL.
To ``jump-start'' COOL monitoring of all covered commodities during
2009 and into 2010, USDA and cooperating State agencies will conduct
initial enforcement reviews at nearly 12,000 retail facilities and
perform follow-up reviews at 2,000 retail facilities where significant
non-compliances are found. In addition, USDA will conduct trace-back
audits on 400 individual items observed during the initial retail
reviews. The trace-back audit will track the selected covered commodity
from retail back to the initiator of the COOL claim to verify accuracy.
Whenever non-compliances are found at the retail or supply chain
level, USDA notifies the retailer or supplier in writing and ensures
appropriate corrective measures are implemented. Complaints filed by
consumers are also investigated and, if appropriate, action is taken to
ensure the identified retailer complies with the COOL regulations.
The results of previous year review and audit findings (fish and
shellfish only) are as follows:
Retail Reviews--Conducted by State Cooperators or USDA Reviewers
--Fiscal year 2006--1,159 retail stores reviewed--59 percent in full
compliance;
--Fiscal year 2007--1,657 retail stores reviewed--67.5 percent in
full compliance;
--Fiscal year 2008--2,000 retail stores reviewed--73 percent in full
compliance.
Supplier Audits--Conducted by USDA Auditors
--Fiscal year 2007--47 items audited--82 percent in full compliance;
--Fiscal year 2008--50 items audited--95 percent in full compliance.
USDA conducted extensive outreach prior to and during the
implementation of the COOL regulatory requirements to facilitate
compliance by retailers and their suppliers. For example, during the
past year, USDA officials have participated in 21 industry sponsored
conference calls, 3 webinars and provided formal presentations at 33
trade association meetings and conferences. Additionally, USDA has
resources in place to respond to telephone, e-mail and regular mail
inquiries from producers, retailers, suppliers, consumers, media and
other interested parties concerning the correct labeling of COOL
covered commodities.
all natural labels for poultry
Question. Under current regulations, poultry bearing the USDA
approved ``natural'' label can be pumped full of foreign substances,
such as saline. These birds are weighed after being filled with salt
water, and the consumer ends up paying for more chicken than they
receive. This practice also raises health concerns as consumers end up
eating a product that has a higher salt content than if the poultry had
not been manipulated. Does USDA intend to revisit the ``natural'' label
to rein in such practices? Do you believe that a chicken breast pumped
full of saline is natural?
Answer. As a required feature of labeling, the Department mandates
that any addition of water and saline to poultry be included in the
ingredient statement. Departmental regulations do not prohibit the
addition of these components when truthfully labeled.
Regarding ``natural'' labeling, the Department is charged with
regulating ``natural'' claims in labeling of products under its
regulatory purview. We are taking the necessary time to carefully
consider issues related to the use of ``natural'' claims and to decide
upon the most appropriate course of action. Even though it remains
unclear as to whether or not it will be possible to reach consensus
among stakeholders on what ``natural'' should mean, it is our goal to
make every effort to at least minimize areas of differences by seeking
a discrete set of alternatives. While we decide how to proceed,
companies are still free to submit labels for consideration, and each
label which be judged on a case-by-case basis. The Department plans to
publish a Federal Register advanced notice of proposed rulemaking on
the use of the voluntary claim ``natural'' in the fall of 2009.
milk income loss contract program
Question. As you know, the dairy industry has been exceptionally
hard hit in recent months, and I want to thank you for implementing
both the Milk Income Loss Contract program (MILC) and the Dairy Export
Incentive Program (DEIP) to help Dairymen in California and across the
country. The opening of these programs has been the only bright spot in
what has been a very tough time for the industry.
However, I am concerned that the MILC program favors some regions
of the country over others. In California we have larger farms than in
other regions of the country, an average of roughly 1,000 cows per
farm. These large dairies make our State the top milk producing State
in the country.
But only the first 2.985 million pounds of milk are eligible for
assistance from the MILC program per year. For an average California
Dairy farm, this means that only about 15 percent of their milk output
is eligible for MILC assistance. This puts California dairymen at a
comparative disadvantage with other smaller-farm dairy operations
across the country.
How do you plan to address this disparity?
Answer. The Milk Income Loss Contract program limits on eligible
production are specified by the 2008 Farm bill. Thus, the Department
has no flexibility to address disparity in regional impacts created by
the eligible production limits in the MILC. However, California dairy
farmers, as relatively efficient producers, do clearly and
substantially benefit from the Dairy Product Price Support program and
other measures the Department has taken to support the industry. So
while the Department has little or no flexibility to tailor the
national dairy programs to favor one region over another, California
producers are not disadvantaged aside from the MILC production payment
caps which affect large producers in all regions of the country.
revenue caps vs. income caps
Question. It is my understanding that the President intends to
begin using revenue caps, instead of the traditional income caps, to
determine eligibility for direct farm subsidy payments.
I am concerned that using revenue caps will unfairly disadvantage
farmers of high revenue, low income crops such as rice and cotton.
Can USDA structure a revenue cap to ensure that farmers of high
expense crops will be not be prohibited from receiving direct subsidy
payments?
Answer. The President's budget maintains the three-legged stool of
farm payments, crop insurance, and disaster assistance. However, in
keeping with the President's pledge to target farm payments to those
who need them the most, the budget proposes a hard cap on all program
payments of $250,000 and to reduce crop insurance subsidies to
producers and companies in the delivery of crop insurance. While the
budget includes a proposal to phase out direct payments to the largest
producers, the Department is prepared to work with Congress and
stakeholders as these proposals are considered.
market access program
Question. In recent years, the Market Access Program has provided
California farmers with a vital source of monetary and technical
assistance as they look to sell their products in foreign countries. In
the 2008 Farm bill, Congress authorized $200 million in mandatory
spending for this program; however, the President proposes cutting this
program by 20 percent in his budget. Given this program's proven track
record of success and widespread industry support, why was it singled
out to be cut?
Answer. The President's budget included a series of proposed
program terminations or funding reductions that would help reduce the
size of the Federal deficit, one of which would have reduced funding
for the Market Access Program. Those steps are necessary in order to
restore fiscal discipline and lay the foundation for long-term growth
and prosperity. They also would help to pay for other high priority
initiatives included in the budget, such as healthcare reform,
investments in education, and the development of alternative sources of
energy.
Although annual funding for the Market Access Program would be
reduced, the program would still provide assistance for overseas market
promotion of $160 million per year. In addition, other export promotion
programs, such as the Foreign Market Development Program and the
Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops Program, would continue at
their currently authorized funding levels.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
catfish inspection program
Question. Mr. Secretary, the 2008 Farm bill transferred the
responsibility for inspecting catfish from the Food and Drug
Administration to USDA. In doing so, the legislation requires that
imported catfish come from countries whose inspection standards are
equivalent to U.S. standards. It is my understanding that although
USDA's inspection requirements are still being developed, the
department is nonetheless required by statute to ensure that a foreign
government has equivalent standards on the date when the USDA
inspection regulations are finalized if catfish imports are to continue
from that country. As a result, there is concern among seafood
importers, including one in my State, that there will not be time for
foreign countries to achieve formalized USDA equivalence, since that
process could take years.
With that as background, do you believe that there is sufficient
time to allow foreign governments to establish equivalent inspection
regimes?
Answer. I believe that the legislation should be administered in a
fair and equitable fashion that will best achieve the public health
protection purposes of the legislation. Regardless of how the
department ultimately defines catfish under the 2008 Farm bill
provision, we have made it clear from the start UDSA's willingness to
meet with exporting countries to assist them in initiating the
equivalence process. Further, USDA is establishing its catfish
inspection program in a manner that is consistent with our World Trade
Organization obligations. USDA will notify interested U.S. trading
partners when the proposed regulation is published to ensure that they
have the opportunity to provide comments, just as we have already
provided notification of the changes in the law regarding catfish
inspection. We will also provide our trading partners with regular
updates on the progress of the rulemaking process, as well as all
possible technical and scientific assistance in helping them attain
compliance and equivalence.
Question. Are any major catfish exporting countries seeking to
establish equivalent standards for catfish? If so, will they be able to
establish equivalence concurrent with USDA's new requirements?
Answer. To date, no foreign country has requested equivalency
standards for catfish.
Question. Are you examining any temporary alternatives, such as
direct inspection of foreign seafood operations, which might allow
imports to continue while foreign governments try to achieve equivalent
standards?
Answer. USDA's goals in developing the catfish proposed rule is to
develop a program that maintains, if not improves, the public health
protections of consumers and that is fair and equitable. In the
proposed rule, we will lay out our thinking in this regard and seek
public comment.
Question. Do you believe such measures would be sufficient to
ensure the safety of the food supply?
Answer. The core of USDA's mission is to protect the public health,
and in no case would we take an action that would not be sufficient to
ensure the safety of the food supply.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
cap-and-trade legislation
Question. Mr. Secretary, I want to highlight that agriculture
producers have little ability to negotiate prices for input costs
required to produce the final product. If enacted, cap-and-trade
legislation is likely to result in higher costs for fertilizer and
other inputs. If input costs increase, how do you expect production
agriculture to benefit?
[Clerks Note: The following response is based on information
available after the date of the hearing.]
Answer. USDA's preliminary analysis of costs and benefits on the
agriculture sector uses energy price and other information contained in
EPA's recent analysis of H.R. 2454. In the short term, the economic
benefits to agriculture from cap-and-trade legislation will likely
outweigh the costs. In the long term, the economic benefits from
offsets markets easily trump increased input costs from cap-and-trade
legislation. Let me also note that we believe these figures are
conservative because we are not able to model the types of
technological change that are very likely to help farmers produce more
crops and livestock with fewer inputs. Second, the analysis does not
take into account the higher commodity prices that farmers will very
likely receive as a result of enhanced renewable energy markets and
retirement of environmentally sensitive lands domestically and abroad.
Of course, any economic analysis such as ours has limitations. But,
again, we believe our analysis is conservative, and it is quite
possible farmers will actually do better if the cap-and-trade
legislation is enacted.
Additional information is provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
Looking first at the cost side, increases in fuel prices are
expected to raise overall annual average farm expenses by about $700
million between 2012 and 2018, or about 0.3 percent. Annual net farm
income as a result of these higher energy prices is expected to fall by
about 1 percent. These estimates assume that in the short term farmers
are unable to make changes in input mix in response to higher fuel
prices so they likely overestimate the costs to farmers. Fertilizer
prices will likely show little effect until 2025 because of the H.R.
2454 provision to help energy-intensive, trade exposed industries
mitigate the burden that emissions caps would impose.
The agriculture sector also will benefit directly from allowance
revenues allocated to finance incentives for renewable energy and
agricultural emissions reductions during the first 5 years of the H.R.
2454 cap-and-trade program. Funds for agricultural emissions reductions
are estimated to range from about $75 million to $100 million annually
from 2012-2016.
To evaluate the potential impact on the agricultural sector further
out in time, we first examine a simple case that allows producers to
change the crops they grow but not how they produce them. This approach
is conservative given the observation that energy per unit of output
has drastically declined over the last several decades. Nevertheless,
the estimated impact of the cap-and-trade provision of H.R. 2454
implies a decline of annual net farm income of $2.4 billion, or 3.5
percent, in 2030 and $4.9 billion, or 7.2 percent, in 2048.
These estimates are likely an upper bound on the costs, because
they fail to account for farmer's proven ability to innovate in
response to changes in market conditions. Our analysis is also
conservative because it does not account for revenues to farmers from
biomass production for bioenergy. A number of studies have examined the
effects of higher energy costs with models that allow for expected
changes in production management practices and switching to bioenergy
crops. Based on the analysis of Schneider and McCarl, for example,
allowing for changes in input mix and revenues from biomass
production--but without accounting for income from offsets, it is
estimated that annual net farm income would increase in 2030 by about
$0.6 billion or less than 1 percent. By 2045, annual net farm income is
estimated to increase by more than $2 billion or 2.9 percent.
H.R. 2454's creation of an offset market will create opportunities
for the agriculture sector to generate additional income. In
particular, our analysis indicates that annual net returns to farmers
range from about $1 billion per year in 2015-20 to almost $15-20
billion in 2040-50, not accounting for the costs of implementing offset
practices. EPA has conducted its own analysis of returns from offsets
that takes into account the costs of implementing land management
practices. EPA's analysis projects annual net returns to farmers of
about $1-2 billion per year from 2012-18, rising to $20 billion per
year in 2050. It is important to note that EPA's analysis includes
revenue generated from forest management offsets while USDA's does not.
rhs recovery act implementation
Question. I understand that Rural Housing Service has a backlog of
over $2.4 billion in loan requests. Mississippi has a backlog of
section 502 rural housing home ownership loans totaling $577 million
and over 700 loan requests. This is the 8th highest in the Nation. The
economic recovery act provided an additional $1 billion in loan
authority for section 502. What is the status of implementation of
recovery funds?
Answer. As of May 30, 2009, the Rural Development Single Family
Housing Direct Program obligated $137.1 million of Recovery Act funding
for 1,073 loans; and, the Guaranteed Program obligated $4.314 billion
of Recovery Act funding for 36,093 loans. Rural Development is in the
process of developing and implementing an ``Outreach Initiative'' that
will provide relief and assistance to field offices in processing
single family housing loans. Authorities and funding provided by the
Recovery Act will be utilized to hire temporary employees and deploy
them in geographic regions based on the population living in poverty in
the persistent poverty counties of those regions.
Recovery Act provided an additional $1 billion in funding for the
direct single family loan program. This funding has aided in reducing
the backlog in applications that were maintained by the agency.
However, in light of the first time home buyers tax credit Rural
Development is currently experiencing a significant increase in demand
for the single family direct loan program. The current back log totals
$2.7 billion.
affordable rental housing
Question. For the last several years, Congress has provided funding
for revitalization of rural rental housing projects. At the same time,
there is little in the way of funding for newly constructed rural
rental housing. What is your view of the proper role for Rural Housing
Service in meeting the need for affordable rental housing for families
and seniors in rural America?
Answer. Funding provided by Congress to support revitalization
efforts has helped us to address the processing demands of a large and
rapidly aging Multi-Family Housing (MFH) portfolio financed by the
Rural Housing Service (RHS). We would like to continue and expand those
efforts.
However, there is a very real demand for new affordable rental
housing in rural areas where housing needs are not being addressed by
the market or other affordable housing funding programs. RHS can use
the Section 515 direct lending program, coupled with rental assistance
to assist tenants with the lowest incomes, the Section 538 guaranteed
program, which has no tenant subsidy, to serve low and moderate income
families, and our direct farm labor housing loan and grant program
(Section 514/516) coupled with rental assistance, to serve farm workers
that support our country's agricultural activities. These RHS MFH
programs allow local communities to build affordable rental options
into their housing infrastructure to keep and attract residents.
It is important to note that most new construction activity
generated by RHS MFH programs is supplemented by funding from
affordable housing partners. In many cases, this job creating third
party capital financing would not be attracted to rural areas without
the RHS MFH program to serve as a catalyst. In addition, for any
affordable housing rental program to succeed in reaching those people
or communities most in need, project based rental assistance is often a
critical determinant.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
dairy farmers
Question. Dairy farmers in the northeast are really struggling. I
continue to hear from many of Maine's hard-working family farms who are
barely surviving. Many of these families have been involved in the
dairy industry for generations. The price farmers are receiving for
their milk has plummeted as compared to just a year ago. The USDA has
estimated that the average milk price will be $11.55 per hundredweight
in 2009, as compared to the 2008 average price of $18.32 per
hundredweight. The 2009 average price estimate of $11.55 would be the
lowest average annual price received by dairy farmers since 1978.
I understand that there are a variety of factors affecting the
price of milk and that the USDA has recently made efforts to assist
dairy farmers through existing support programs. I know that you
authorized the transfer of dairy products, purchased under the Dairy
Price Support program, to domestic feeding groups, and that you
activated the Dairy Export Incentive Program. I also am aware that the
USDA began making payments under the Milk Income Loss Contract program
in May.
While the steps you have taken thus far may be helpful in the short
run, I am interested in what actions you are considering as a long-term
solution. Under Section 1509 of the Farm bill, Congress authorized a
blue ribbon commission to study Federal milk pricing system and
recommend changes.
Have you considered long-term solutions to assist the dairy
industry?
Answer. Yes, USDA is considering long-term solutions to the
problems facing our dairy industry. [Clerk's note: The following
response is based on information available after the date of the
hearing.] On August 25, 2009, we announced the establishment of a Dairy
Advisory Committee to analyze the issues facing the dairy sector. More
specifically, the purpose of the Committee is to review the issues of
farm milk price volatility and dairy farmer profitability and to
provide suggestions and ideas to the Secretary on how USDA can best
address these issues to meet the dairy industry's needs.
Question. When will you create the blue ribbon commission to study
Federal milk marketing orders?
Answer. Establishment of the commission is subject to
appropriations that have not been provided.
empowerment zones
Question. In January 2002, USDA Rural Development designated a
large portion of Aroostook County, Maine, as a Round III Empowerment
Zone. This designation, based on Aroostook County's population out-
migration, has helped provide applicants with additional points on
grant applications and funds for economic development projects.
Economic development organizations and private sector companies in
Aroostook have joined together to help stabilize, diversify, and grow
the area's economy. This region's continued designation as an
Empowerment Zone and the adequate funding of this program are critical
for making capital investments, which are prerequisites for business
attraction in distressed communities.
During these challenging economic times, it is particularly
important that the Federal Government continue its commitment to our
most distressed communities.
I was disappointed that the Administration's budget eliminates
funding for Empowerment Zones. Can you explain why this effective
program was cut in the budget?
Answer. The Department of Agriculture supports rural economic
development through community infrastructure, utility, and housing loan
and grant programs. The small Empowerment Zone and Enterprise Community
(EZ/EC) program duplicates those programs. Communities designated as
Rural EZ/ECs are qualified for the regular rural development programs,
such as the Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program, the Self
Help Housing and Development Loans and the Rural Water and Waste
Disposal Programs which, in many cases, have set asides in those
programs. The Budget continues to provide funding to the EZ/EC
communities through set asides from other Rural Development programs,
totaling $27.6 million. These set asides have been included by the
Congress in previous appropriations bills and are expected to continue.
In addition, the authority for the EZ/EC program expires December 31,
2009.
resource conservation and development councils (rc&ds)
Question. Can you explain why this effective program was cut in the
budget?
The USDA's Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) program
provides important resources for many rural communities in Maine and
around the country, advancing valuable local resource conservation and
community development projects. RC&D-sponsored activities have led to
more sustainable communities, better informed land use decisions, and
sound management practices of our natural resources.
Maine's five RC&D councils have proven their effectiveness through
a number of accomplishments. During fiscal year 2007, 56 new RC&D
projects were approved and 40 projects were completed. In October 2008,
the St. John Aroostook RC&D hosted a conference focusing on increasing
energy diversity and independence and growing wind power generation in
Maine. In addition, the Bangor RC&D has provided business development
programs designed to help entrepreneurs create and grow a successful
business.
One of the main benefits of the RC&D program is the promotion of
local economies through the leveraging of Federal dollars. According to
the National Association of RC&D councils, the RC&D program is one of
the Federal Government's success stories with its ability to return
$7.50 for every dollar the Federal Government invests to support
economic development and resource protection in rural areas.
I was disappointed that Administration's budget eliminates funding
for the RC&D program.
Answer. First begun in 1962, the program was intended to build
community leadership skills through the establishment of RC&D councils
that would access Federal, State, and local programs for the
community's benefit. After 47 years, the program has matured to the
point that this goal has been accomplished. RC&D councils should have
developed sufficiently strong State and local ties to secure funding
for their continued operation without Federal assistance.
maine flood assistance
Question. Last spring, as a result of heavy rains and record
melting snow in northern Maine, the St. John and Fish Rivers
overflowed, causing severe flooding in Aroostook County, resulting in
major evacuations, displacement, and damaged housing for many
residents. In May 2008, President Bush declared this region a Federal
disaster after this historic flooding.
I am particularly concerned about funding needed to rebuild an
apartment complex for low-income elderly and disabled residents of Fort
Kent. Funding estimates indicate that rebuilding this critical facility
will cost between $2-$3 million.
I worked to include report language in the fiscal year 2009
Omnibus, which urged USDA to assist with efforts to rebuild multi-
family housing in Fort Kent, Maine, that was destroyed by this severe
flooding.
What efforts has USDA taken to assist the community in its efforts
to rebuild the USDA multi-family housing that was destroyed by the
flood?
Answer. We are pleased to say that funding had been approved for
these critical rehabilitation and replacement efforts during June of
this year. Currently, all parties are involved with development and
construction planning.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Kohl. The subcommittee will stand in recess.
Secretary Vilsack. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your
courtesies, and Senator Brownback, be reassured we will find
out about that Tufts program because the Deputy Secretary comes
from Tufts. I am hopeful she knows all about that, and if she
does not, she is going to find out about it.
Senator Brownback. She better.
Secretary Vilsack. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., Thursday, June 4, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
----------
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
[The following testimonies were received by the
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies for inclusion in the
record. The submitted materials relate to the fiscal year 2010
budget request for programs within the subcommittee's
jurisdiction.]
Prepared Statement of the Ad Hoc Coalition
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, this statement is
respectfully submitted on behalf of the ad hoc coalition composed of
the organizations listed below. The coalition supports sustained
funding for our Nation's food aid programs, including Titles I and II
of Public Law 480, and therefore strongly opposes all proposals to
divert funding away from these important programs.
food aid's unique role
The donation of American commodities as food aid has been the
cornerstone of United States and global foreign assistance programs
since their inception. However, food aid has evolved in important ways
over the years. Food aid began as an outgrowth of American farm policy
that generated sizeable surpluses and American foreign policy
characterized by a Cold War competition for the hearts and minds of
impoverished populations across the globe. Since then, American farm
policy has evolved away from surpluses, and therefore food can no
longer be mischaracterized as ``dumping'' of excess commodities.
Indeed, the United States now purchases commodities for donation on the
open market. In today's economic climate, the need to provide societal
stability, avoid failed States, prevent terrorist breeding grounds, and
bolster America's image abroad has never been more important.
In recent years, debate in the foreign assistance community has at
times questioned the role of food aid. Led by European Union trade
negotiators who have complained about American food aid as a
smokescreen to shield their own protectionist agriculture policies,
some have bemoaned the potential distorting effects that food donations
might have on local agriculture where U.S. food is disbursed. Other
opponents of food aid have suggested that perhaps we would be better
off if we did not donate commodities, but instead relied solely on
agricultural development and local purchases. Like others in the aid
community, we look forward to the day when food aid is no longer
needed, but we are nowhere near that goal today. Our in-kind food aid
programs are needed now more than at any time in their history.
Donated food aid is the most reliable means of introducing food to
needy communities in order to combat hunger and save lives. This is not
to say that other, creative means available under the Foreign
Assistance Act or elsewhere have no role. To the contrary, these are an
important part of the aid ``tool kit'', which can and should be
employed to further developmental goals, including food self-
sufficiency among food aid recipients and to address unforeseeable
breaks in the food aid pipeline. But those that paint food aid as
unnecessary and even harmful exhibit shortsightedness that does a great
disservice to those we all strive to help.
The need for food aid today is stronger than ever. Hunger is a
powerful destabilizing force, and America faces a convergence of
terrorist and other security threats from failed and unstable states
that feed on ill will toward our Nation. The U.N. WFP tells us that in
recent years the food insecure have been hit by a ``perfect stone of
increases in food prices coupled with export restrictions imposed by
traditional regional and local food exporters. Here at home, the
economy has lost 5.1 million jobs since December 2007. U.S. food aid
programs not only further our humanitarian and food security goals by
allowing Americans to contribute to the needy in a tangible way, but
the programs also provide stable jobs for Americans. These programs
help us get more from our aid dollars both here and abroad.
the sharp decline in food aid
Despite the broad, bipartisan support that food aid has long
enjoyed, shipments declined by 71 percent, from 9.1 million tons in
1999 to a low of 2.7 million tons in 2007. These shipment levels are
less than one-third of what they were a decade ago even though the most
fragile communities now find themselves in the grip of an unprecedented
food crisis. Therefore, we respectfully request that this steady
erosion of food aid be reversed, and that funding be at least
maintained at the $2.5 billion level appropriated in fiscal year 2008
to ensure the continued effectiveness and stability of these important
and historically successful programs.
food aid versus cash donations for ``local and regional purchases''
Food for Peace, which provides farm products grown in the United
States to millions overseas in bags marked ``From the American
People,'' is a clear and tangible sign of America's concern and
generosity to its recipients. This same ``in-kind'' composition
generates important economic benefits to our Nation--vital jobs in many
industries, farm income, markets for agriculture processors, and
revenue for American transportation providers and ports. It also
generates Federal, State, and local tax revenues, as well as secondary
economic effects, such as farm equipment purchases and farm family
spending in our broader economy. For these reasons, a strong domestic
constituency for food aid, in good economic times and bad, has
sustained America's food aid programs through decades of competing
funding priorities. As Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack said during the
2009 International Food Aid Conference, ``[O]ur capacity to meet this
extraordinary need [of global hunger] must start with a commitment to
build a strong economy here in the United States. Without that strong
economy, we cannot make a strong commitment to International Food
Aid.''
Furthermore, for decades American agriculture interests have
provided a dependable source of high-quality nutritious food that is
not always reliably available to local or regional markets. Given the
ongoing food crisis for many nations, in terms of price, availability,
and quality, and considering the recent actions by some food-exporting
nations to halt food exports when domestic shortages occur, the amount
and dependability of U.S.-produced food aid in Public Law 480 is
crucial to our humanitarian assistance effort.
Using American taxpayer dollars to purchase foreign agricultural
commodities would forego the unique benefits of U.S. food aid, such as
predictable food aid supply and good American jobs, when our country
and food-deficit areas need them most. Nevertheless, additional
resources have already been directed to so-called ``local and regional
purchases'': USAID was recently provided new funding of $125 million
under the Foreign Assistance Act through the International Disaster and
Famine Assistance Account and Congress also established a $60 million
CCC-funded USDA pilot program in the 2008 Farm Bill to examine the
potential dangers and benefits of this approach before considering
further expansion of its use in conjunction with a strong in-kind food
aid program centered around American commodities.
restoration of title i/food for progress
Recent focus has been upon Title II emergency food aid, but the
Title I concessional sales food aid program is also an important tool
in the aid ``toolbox''. In order to ensure that countries with the most
dire need have sufficient donated food aid, the coalition recommends
that USDA offer the Title I concessional sales program to countries
that can afford it. Title I allows us to leverage our aid dollars,
helping more people in need with our limited budget resources.
To the extent that the Title I funding truly cannot be used for
concessional sales, it may be converted to donations on full grant
terms through the Food for Progress (``FFP'') program. There is strong
demand for Title I funding channeled through FFP: For fiscal year 2007,
100 proposals were submitted by PVOs and 16 by governments, but only 11
new proposals were approved.
conclusions and recommendations
Mr. Chairman, the coalition is committed to maintaining the funding
for America's food aid programs to meet humanitarian needs, enhance the
potential for economic growth in recipient countries, and stimulate the
economy here at home. Our recommendation is to increase, over time,
annual food assistance with a blend of programs supported by direct
appropriations and CCC program authorities. Specifically, the coalition
respectfully recommends the following:
--Full funding of Title II at the $2.5 billion authorized by law,
which is consistent with the fiscal year 2008 appropriation
level.
--Title I/Food for Progress program levels should be restored to
responsible levels so that the unique efficiencies of the
program are not lost and more people can be fed.
--In committee report language, the Committee should reiterate its
fiscal year 2003 directive to the administration to make
greater use of existing CCC authorities to expand food aid to
regions in critical need.
Public Law 480 Food for Peace is the world's most successful
foreign assistance program, and has saved countless lives. Its
straightforward delivery of American food to the hungry fills a clear
and immediate need overseas, and its unique architecture has made it a
successful program here at home that has endured for over fifty years.
While we support creative efforts to address the root causes of hunger,
we cannot emphasize enough that now, more than ever, the world needs
Public Law 480 food aid.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
America Cargo Transport Corp.
American Maritime Congress
American Maritime Officers
American Maritime Officers'
Service American Peanut Council
American Soybean Association
Global Food and Nutrition Inc.
International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots
Liberty Maritime Corporation
Maersk Line, Ltd.
Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association
Maritime Institute for Research and Industrial Development
National Association of Wheat Growers
National Corn Growers Association
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
National Oilseed Processors Association
National Potato Council
Seafarers International Union
Sealift, Inc.
Tosi Maritime Consultants, LLC
Transportation Institute
United Maritime Group, LLC
U.S. Dry Bean Council
U.S. Dry Pea & Lentil Council
U.S. Wheat Associates, Inc.
USA Rice Federation
______
Prepared Statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation
The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) has identified five
general areas for increased emphasis and funding for United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs in the fiscal year 2010
agriculture spending bill. They are:
--Programs that strengthen rural communities;
--Programs that improve USDA efficiency;
--Programs that enhance and improve food safety and protection;
--Programs that expand export markets for agriculture; and
--Programs that insure the availability of crop protection tools for
food production.
Within these categories, we would like to call your attention to
specific programs deserving of your support.
Programs that Strengthen Rural Communities
The lack of high-speed, modern telecommunications systems in rural
America hinders its residents' access to educational, medical and
business opportunities, and therefore the economic growth of rural
America. We support $1.3 billion for loans and grants administered by
the Rural Utilities Service to increase rural broadband capacity and
telecommunications services and to fund the Distance Learning and
Telemedicine Program.
Rural entrepreneurs often lack access to the capital and technical
assistance necessary to start new businesses. These new ventures are
needed for rural communities to sustain themselves and contribute to
our national economy. AFBF supports funding for USDA Rural Development
(RD) programs that foster new business development in rural
communities. These programs include Value-Added Agricultural Production
Grants, Business and Industry Direct and Guaranteed Loans, and the
Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program.
Many rural communities lack access to the tax base necessary to
provide modern community facilities like fire stations. We support
funding for RD's Community Facility Direct and Guaranteed Loans, which
finance the construction, enlargement or improvement of essential
community facilities in rural areas and towns with populations of less
than 20,000.
Renewable energy production holds great promise as a means to help
America's farmers and rural communities contribute to our national
economy and enhance our national security. We support increasing
funding for the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Program (REEP)
by $250 million. REEP offers grants, guaranteed loans and combination
grant/guaranteed loans to help agricultural producers and rural small
businesses purchase and install renewable energy systems and make
energy efficiency improvements in rural areas.
The Revolving Fund (RFP) Grant Program helps communities acquire
safe drinking water and sanitary, environmentally sound waste disposal
facilities. With dependable water facilities, rural communities can
attract families and businesses that will invest in the community and
improve the quality of life for all residents. We support funding for
this important program.
AFBF supports funding for and opposes any effort to eliminate the
Resource Conservation and Development program. This vital program
supports economic development and resource protection. This program, in
cooperation with rural development councils, helps local volunteers
create new businesses, form cooperatives, develop marketing and agri-
tourism activities, improve water quality and flood control, improve
leadership and other business skills and implement renewable energy
projects.
We support full funding for Agriculture in the Classroom, a
national grassroots program coordinated by the USDA. This worthy
program helps students gain a greater awareness of the role of
agriculture in the economy and society, so that they may become
citizens who support wise agricultural policies.
Programs that Improve USDA Efficiency
Farm Bureau strongly supports providing an additional $250 million
to USDA to improve computer technology in the Farm Service Agency
(FSA). FSA currently operates on the oldest technology system within
USDA and one of the oldest systems in the entire Federal Government.
These outdated systems create enormous inefficiencies throughout the
department, and it is unclear how long these antiquated systems can
continue to support increasingly complex farm programs. Systems across
agencies under USDA jurisdiction cannot communicate with each other,
which could lead to improper payments and often requires duplicative
paperwork and additional labor hours. Upgrading FSA computer technology
now will lead to greater efficiencies down the road and could prevent a
future system failure.
Programs that Enhance and Improve Food Safety and Protection
Americans spend more than $1 trillion annually on food--nearly half
of it in restaurants, schools and other places outside the home.
Consumers have a reasonable expectation that the food products they buy
are safe. The continued safety of food is crucial to consumers, as well
as production agriculture and the food industry. AFBF believes that
sufficient, reliable Federal funding for the government's food and feed
safety and protection functions is vital to this effort.
Therefore, we recommend that funding be increased for food
protection at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and at the Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and directed to:
--Increased education and training of inspectors;
--Additional science-based inspection, targeted according to risk;
--Research and development of scientifically based rapid testing
procedures and tools;
--Accurate and timely responses to outbreaks that identify
contaminated products, remove them from the market and minimize
disruption to producers; and
--Indemnification for producers who suffer marketing losses due to
inaccurate government-advised recalls or warnings.
We also support authorized funding of $2.5 million for the Food
Animal Residue Avoidance Databank (FARAD). FARAD aids veterinarians in
establishing science-based recommendations for drug withdrawal
intervals, critical for both food safety and animal health. No other
government program provides or duplicates the food safety information
FARAD provides to the public. Without the critical FARAD program,
producers may be forced to euthanize animals or dispose of meat, milk
and eggs due to the lack of withdrawal information.
Programs that Expand Export Markets for Agriculture
AFBF supports funding at authorized levels for:
--Public Law 480 programs which serve as the primary means by which
the United States provides needed foreign food assistance
through the purchase of U.S. commodities. In addition to
providing short-term humanitarian assistance, the program helps
to develop long-term commercial export markets.
--The International Food for Education Program which is an effective
platform for delivering severely needed food aid and
educational assistance.
The Market Access Program, the Foreign Market Development Program,
the Emerging Markets Program and the Technical Assistance for Specialty
Crops program are effective export development and expansion programs.
These programs have resulted in record increases in demand for U.S.
agriculture and food products abroad and should be fully funded.
As trade increases between countries, so too does the threat of new
invasive and noxious pests that can destroy America's agricultural and
natural resources. Therefore, we support full funding for the following
Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) programs:
--The APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine personnel and facilities,
especially the plant inspection stations, are necessary to
protect U.S. agriculture from costly pest problems that enter
the United States from foreign lands.
--APHIS trade issues resolution and management activities are
essential for an effective response when other countries raise
pest and disease concerns (i.e., sanitary and phytosanitary
measures) to prohibit the entry of American products. APHIS
must be active at U.S. ports and in overseas locations to
monitor pest and disease conditions, negotiate trading
protocols and to intervene when foreign officials wrongfully
prevent the entry of American imports.
--APHIS Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS) play an important
role in overseeing the permit, notification and deregulation
process for products of biotechnology. BRS personnel and
activities are essential to ensure public confidence and
international acceptance of biotechnology products.
Full funding for the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) is urgently
needed to maintain services in an agency that has been significantly
depleted in recent years. We urge continued support for the Office of
the Secretary for cross-cutting trade negotiations and biotechnology
resources.
The U.S. Codex Office is essential to developing harmonized
international standards for food and food products. Codex standards
provide uniformity in food rules and regulations by allowing countries
to adopt similar levels of safety protection for consumers while
concurrently facilitating transparency in food trade.
Programs that Insure the Availability of Information on Crop Protection
Tools Used for Food Production
Farmers need access to reliable and affordable crop protection
chemicals. Farm Bureau supports $8.4 million be provided to the
National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS), specifically for the
continuation of agricultural chemical-use surveys for fruits,
vegetables, floriculture and nursery crops. NASS surveys provide
current and relevant data about the use of agricultural chemicals
involved in the production of food, fiber and various horticultural
products. The information collected helps USDA to conduct reliable
analysis of product use and EPA to characterize the potential
theoretical risks associated with agricultural chemical products. Only
with reliable data can USDA and EPA accurately access the economic
benefits of agricultural chemicals and make responsible decisions about
product registration.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Honey Producers Association, Inc.
Chairman Kohl and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Kenneth
Haff, and I currently serve as President of the American Honey
Producers Association (``AHPA''). I am pleased today to submit the
following statement on behalf of the AHPA, a national organization of
commercial beekeepers actively engaged in honey production and crop
pollination throughout the country. The purpose of this statement is to
bring to your attention the continued threats faced by American
beekeepers and the billions of dollars in U.S. agriculture that rely
upon honeybee pollination services. With those threats in mind, we
respectfully request an appropriation of at least $20 million to combat
CCD and to conduct other essential honeybee research through the ARS
and other agencies at the Department of Agriculture, as provided for in
the 2008 Farm Bill.
As I speak to you today, U.S. beekeepers are facing the most
extraordinary of challenges. Colony Collapse Disorder (``CCD'') has
continued to ravage bee colonies across the United States, moving from
one hive to another in unpredictable patterns. The result has been the
death of up to 90 percent of the bee colonies in affected apiaries. In
early 2007, the National Research Council at the National Academy of
Sciences characterized the beekeeping industry as being in ``crisis
mode''--a point echoed and re-emphasized in last year's USDA action
plan regarding honeybee threats. Hundreds of news articles and many in-
depth media reports have continued to chronicle the looming disaster
facing American beekeepers and the producers of over 90 fruit,
vegetable and fiber crops that rely on honeybee pollination. However,
despite extensive and coordinated work by experts from government,
academia and the private sector, the definitive causes of and solutions
for CCD have yet to be identified.
The emergence of CCD shines a bright light on the inadequacies of
current honeybee research, particularly on the lack of capacity to
address new challenges and to take long-term steps to assure honeybee
health. In saying this, we do not mean to diminish the vital, ongoing
work of ARS and other honeybee scientists. They do their job and they
do it very well. In recent years, however, honeybee research has become
largely confined to four ARS laboratories that provide the first line
of defense against exotic parasitic mites, Africanized bees, viruses,
brood diseases, pests, pathogens and other conditions. Universities and
the private sector have substantially scaled back their efforts due to
a lack of available funds. Moreover, ARS laboratories lack sufficient
resources even for current honeybee research priorities. For example,
we understand that ARS currently lacks funds even to test high priority
CCD samples that ARS scientists have already collected.
In past fiscal years, this Subcommittee has supported the
beekeeping industry through funding for agricultural research
activities. As you know, in the fiscal year 2003 cycle, the
Subcommittee rejected a proposal that would have resulted in the
elimination of three ARS laboratories that are indispensable to the
survival of our industry. Again, in the fiscal year 2009 omnibus
appropriations bill, Congress preserved funding for the Weslaco, Texas
ARS research facility despite a recommendation in President Bush's
fiscal year 2009 budget proposal to close that facility. Those were
wise decisions. Without these labs, the American honeybee may not have
survived the various above-mentioned threats, and the infrastructure
would not exist today upon which an aggressive research campaign may
continue to be built.
For fiscal year 2009, Congress appropriated an additional $800,000
in research funding specifically designated to combat CCD. We
appreciate and support the increased funding for CCD research, and we
sincerely thank this Subcommittee for its diligent attention to the
crises before us. However, we believe strongly that an increase in
$800,000 does not come close to meeting the growing demands imposed by
CCD and other threats to honeybee health. Instead, to meet the needs of
the American beekeeper and to stave off a pending agricultural crisis
for growers and consumers, we respectfully urge the Subcommittee to
appropriate $20 million in new research funds dedicated toward CCD and
other honeybee health research projects. As you know, the 2008 Farm
Bill included an authorization of $100 million over five years for such
initiatives. A $20 million appropriation in fiscal year 20010 would
reflect that authorization, and would provide government, academic and
private sector researchers with the vital resources needed to combat
CCD and other emerging threats and assure long-term honeybee health.
Such funding would be a prudent investment in the U.S. farm
infrastructure, which, along with U.S. consumers, derives tens of
billions of dollars of benefit directly from honeybee pollination.
Finally, in addition to the new and significant additional funding
proposed for CCD research needs, we specifically suggest increased
funding in the amount of at least $250,000 for promising honeybee
genome research at the ARS laboratory in Baton Rouge. Genome research
is likely to be central to resolving mysterious threats such as CCD and
to ensuring bee health and productivity for generations to come.
the importance of honeybees to u.s. agriculture
Honeybees are an irreplaceable part of the U.S. agricultural
infrastructure. Honeybee pollination is critical in the production of
more than 90 food, fiber, and seed crops and directly results in more
than $15 billion in U.S. farm output. The role of pollination is also
vital to the health of all Americans given the dietary importance of
fruit, vegetables and nuts, most of which are dependent on pollination.
Honeybees are necessary for the production of such diverse crops as
almonds, apples, oranges, melons, blueberries, broccoli, tangerines,
cranberries, strawberries, vegetables, alfalfa, soybeans, sunflower,
and cotton, among others. In fact, honeybees pollinate about one-third
of the human diet.
The importance of this pollination to contemporary agriculture
cannot be understated. In fact, the value of such pollination is vastly
greater than the total value of honey and wax produced by honeybees.
More than 140 billion honeybees, representing 2 million colonies, are
transported by U.S. beekeepers across the country every year to
pollinate crops.
The importance of honeybees--and the U.S. honey industry which
supplies the honeybees for pollination--is illustrated by the
pollination of California's almond crop. California grows 100 percent
of the Nation's almond crop and supplies 80 percent of the world's
almonds. Honeybees are transported from all over the Nation to
pollinate California almonds, which are the largest single crop
requiring honeybee pollination. More than one million honeybee hives
are needed to pollinate the 600,000 acres of almond groves that line
California's Central Valley. Thus, nearly half of the managed honey-
producing colonies in the United States are involved in pollinating
California almonds in February and March.
Many other U.S. agriculture producers require extensive honeybee
pollination for their crops, including blueberry, avocado, and cotton
growers. Cattle and farm-raised catfish industries also benefit from
honeybee pollination, as pollination is important for growing alfalfa,
which is fodder for cattle and farm-raised fish. As OnEarth magazine
has noted, the fate of California's almond crop rests ``on the slender
back of the embattled honeybee.''
threats to u.s. honeybees
Since 1984, the survival of the honeybee has been threatened by
continuing infestations of mites, pests and other conditions for which
appropriate controls must continually be developed by scientists at the
four ARS laboratories and other highly qualified research institutions.
These longstanding and worsening infestations have caused great strain
on the American honeybee to the point where some U.S. honey producers
have felt the need--for the first time in over 80 years--to import bees
from New Zealand and Australia for pollination. Ironically, scientists
and industry leaders have since concluded that there is likely a
correlation between the introduction of foreign bees and the emergence
of CCD, the newest and greatest challenge to the survival of American
honeybees.
However, the specific cause of CCD and treatments for it remain
elusive to both beekeepers and scientists. The research is complex, as
there are a wide range of factors that--either alone or in
combination--may be causes of this serious condition. Areas for
research include the stress from the movement of bees to different
parts of the country for extensive commercial pollination, the
additional stress of pollinating crops, such as almonds, that provide
little honey to the bees, and the impact of certain crop pesticides and
genetic plants with altered pollination characteristics. Continuing
infestations of the highly destructive Varroa mite, combined with other
pests and mites, are also thought to compromise the immune systems of
bees and may leave them more vulnerable to CCD. At the same time,
researchers will need to focus on the many reported instances in which
otherwise healthy, pest-free, stationary bee colonies are also
suffering collapse or problems with reproduction.
While researchers continue in their exhaustive effort to isolate
the specific causes of CCD, the AHPA strongly urges the Congress to
work with the Department of Agriculture to ensure that exotic bees and
the threats they pose are restricted from importation into the United
States. Under current law, the Department of Agriculture has the duty
to refuse a shipment's entry into the United States where the export
certificate identifies a bee disease or parasite of concern to the
United States or an undesirable species or subspecies of honeybee,
including the Oriental honeybee or ``Apis cerana'' (7 CFR 322.6(a)(2)
(2004)). In the case of Australian honeybees, officials in that country
have detected the presence of the Apis cerana honeybee throughout their
country, a species known to harbor parasitic mites and possibly viruses
that do not currently exist in the United States. At the time of
discovery, officials tracked a large number of Apis cerana bees,
indicating that the species had been in Australia for some time without
detection. While Australian officials claim to have quarantined these
bees and destroyed hives known to contain them, we have heard reports
that new discoveries have taken place since such claims by Australian
officials, indicating an insufficient capacity by Australian officials
to accurately assess risks. AHPA believes that this development allows
no other conclusion but for the Department to suspend entry of
Australian honeybees.
ongoing and new critical research
AHPA, other industry officials, and leading scientists believe that
an important contributing factor in the current CCD crisis is the
longstanding, substantial under funding of U.S. bee research. In recent
years, the Federal Government has spent very modest amounts at each ARS
Honeybee Research Laboratory--for a sector that directly contributes
$15 billion per year to the U.S. farm economy. Worse still, funding
amounts have not been increased to account for growing bee health
concerns. USDA honeybee researchers remain under funded. As noted
above, current funding shortages have caused important CCD-related bee
samples to go untested. Additionally, despite their ability to provide
significant and innovative new research on emerging bee threats,
researchers in the academic and private sectors also lack the necessary
financial resources for these vital tasks. With the emergence of CCD,
there is a serious gap between the threats faced by U.S. honeybees and
the capacity of our researchers to respond. Closing this gap will
require significant new resources. It is estimated that each new
scientist, technician and the support materials that they need will
cost an additional $500,000 per year.
To address these challenges, the AHPA respectfully requests an
appropriation of at least $20 million to combat CCD and conduct other
essential honeybee research. These funds should be allocated in
accordance with authorizations provided in the 2008 Farm Bill.
Specifically, the funds should be divided among the following
Department of Agriculture agencies and programs: (1) the four ARS Bee
Research Laboratories for new personnel, facility improvement, and
additional research; (2) the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
to conduct a nation-wide honeybee pest and pathogen surveillance
program; (3) the ARS Area Wide CCD Research Program divided evenly
between the Beltsville, MD and the Tucson, Arizona research
laboratories to identify causes and solutions for CCD in affected
States; (4) the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service at the Department of Agriculture to fund extension and research
grants to investigate the following: honey bee biology, immunology, and
ecology; honey bee genomics; native bee crop pollination and habitat
conservation; native bee taxonomy and ecology; pollination biology;
sub-lethal effects of insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides on honey
bees, native pollinators, and other beneficial insects; the effects of
genetically-modified crops, including the interaction of genetically-
modified crops with honey bees and other native pollinators; honey,
bumble, and other native bee parasites and pathogens effects on other
native pollinators; and (5) the additional ARS research facilities in
New York, Florida, California, Utah, and Texas for research on honey
and native bee physiology, insect pathology, insect chemical ecology,
and honey and native bee toxicology.
Since the beekeeping industry is too small to support the cost of
needed research, publicly-funded honeybee research by the four ARS bee
laboratories is absolutely key to the survival of the U.S. honey and
pollination industry. For example, the pinhead-sized Varroa mite is
systematically destroying bee colonies and prior to CCD was considered
the most serious threat to honeybees. Tracheal mites are another
contributing factor to the loss of honeybees. Tracheal mites infest the
breathing tubes of adult honeybees and also feed on the bees' blood.
The mites essentially clog the bees' breathing tubes, blocking the flow
of oxygen and eventually killing the infested bees.
The industry is also plagued by a honeybee bacterial disease that
has become resistant to antibiotics designed to control it, and a
honeybee fungal disease for which there is no known treatment. These
pests and diseases, especially Varroa mites and the bacterium causing
American foulbrood, are now resistant to chemical controls in many
regions of the country. Further, we have seen that these pests are
building resistance to newly-developed chemicals more quickly than in
the past, thereby limiting the longevity of chemical controls.
As previously mentioned, the cause or causes of CCD are unknown.
Thus, pest, viral and bacterial disease research takes on added
significance. First, pest, viral and bacterial disease research may
itself provide insight into the discovery of CCD's root causes. Second,
whether pests and bacterial diseases are directly a factor in CCD or
not, they nonetheless continue to threaten bee population health and
vitality. Given CCD's particularly devastating impact on bee
populations, even greater emphasis must be placed on mitigating known
threats in order to achieve the overall goal of ensuring adequate honey
production and pollination capacity.
In addition to pest and bacterial disease research, the sequencing
of the honeybee genome in 2006 at Baylor University has opened the door
to creating highly effective solutions to bee health and population
problems via marker-assisted breeding. Marker-assisted breeding would
permit the rapid screening of potential breeders for specific DNA
sequences that underlie specific desirable honeybee traits. The
sequenced honeybee genome is the necessary key that will allow
scientists to discover the important DNA sequences. Additional funding
for the ARS research laboratory at Baton Rouge will assure that this
critically important work goes forward.
Because of the sequenced honeybee genome, it is now possible to
apply molecular biological studies to the development of marker-
assisted breeding of honeybees. Marker-facilitated selection offers the
first real opportunity to transform the beekeeping industry from one
that has been dependent upon a growing number of expensive pesticides
and antibiotics into an industry that is free of chemical inputs and
that is economically viable in today's competitive global marketplace.
Additionally, this new sequencing capacity may prove central to
identifying both the causes of and solutions to CCD. New pathogens have
recently been identified in the United States that are thought to be
associated with CCD. Genetic research can be utilized to determine
whether a comparative susceptibility to such pathogens exists among
various bee populations, and if so, can serve to facilitate breeding
with enhanced resistance.
The four ARS Honeybee Research Laboratories work together to
provide research solutions to problems facing businesses dependent on
the health and vitality of honeybees. The key findings of these
laboratories are used by honey producers to protect their producing
colonies and by farmers and agribusinesses to ensure the efficient
pollination of crops. Each of the four ARS Honeybee Research
Laboratories (which are different in function from the ARS Wild Bee
Research Laboratory at Logan, Utah) focuses on different problems
facing the U.S. honey industry and undertakes research that is vital to
sustaining honey production and assuring essential pollination services
in this country. Furthermore, each of the four ARS Honeybee Research
Laboratories has unique strengths and each is situated and equipped to
support independent research programs which would be difficult, and in
many cases impossible, to conduct elsewhere. Given the multi-factor
research capacity needed to address the scourge of CCD, it is important
that each research laboratory is permitted to continue and expand upon
its unique strengths.
And while to date the four ARS Research Laboratories have been the
backbone of American Honeybee research, we do not believe that those
four facilities alone--even when fully funded--will have the capacity
to meet today's research needs. This is why last year, after analyzing
the new and serious threats to U.S. honeybees, Congress,
representatives of the farm sector and leading researchers developed
the research priorities that were incorporated into both the House and
Senate versions of the Farm Bill and in separate House and Senate
pollination legislation. In addition to increased resources for ARS
research, these experts pressed for new funding, through CSREES, for
government, academic and private sector research. They also urged new
bee surveillance programs through the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service to address the alarming lack of accurate information
about the condition of U.S. bee colonies.
One particularly effective way of adding needed capacity and
innovative expertise in the effort to ensure honeybee health would be
to reinvigorate private sector and university bee research initiatives.
For many years, these sectors played a vital role in honeybee research,
and many leading universities have significant bee research
capabilities. In recent years, non-federal agency research has
substantially declined due to a lack of support for such initiatives.
Funding the 2008 Farm Bill authorization of $10.26 million for the
Department of Agriculture's Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Services (CSREES) would go a long way toward achieving this
goal.
CSREES is tasked with advancing knowledge for agriculture by
supporting research, education, and extension programs. Funds may be
channeled through the Department to researchers at land-grant
institutions, other institutions of higher learning, Federal agencies,
or the private sector. The requested funding for CSREES would provide
important flexibility in allocating badly needed Federal dollars among
government, private sector and university researchers. The recipients
would provide more widespread research on honeybee biology, immunology,
ecology, and genomics, pollination biology, and investigations into the
effects on honeybees of potentially harmful chemicals, pests, other
outside influences, and genetically modified crops. The result of such
funds would be to ensure flexible financing with a comprehensive plan
for battling CCD, pests, and other ongoing and future honeybee threats.
Additionally, the same coalition of experts identified a need for a
honeybee pest and pathogen surveillance program. Although significant
data exists on American honey production, comparably less and lower
quality data exists on beekeepers and bees. Providing $2.31 million
under the 2008 Farm Bill authorizations to the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service at the Department of Agriculture would allow the
Department to utilize such data to better respond to pest and disease
outbreaks, and to compile data that may better enable prediction of new
threats. Given the roughly $15 billion added to the U.S. farm economy
each year by honeybees, this is certainly a worthwhile investment in
the honeybee and pollinator industry.
industry workforce vulnerabilities
Beekeeping is a highly skilled trade that requires extensive
training before workers are able to handle, monitor, and treat bees.
For nearly ten years, American beekeepers have relied heavily on
Nicaraguan workers hired through the H-2A visa program to staff complex
honey production and pollination operations.
Commercial beekeeping has become increasingly challenging in recent
years with the emergence of new diseases and pests that threaten bee
health, including American foul brood, tracheal and varroa mites,
chalkbrood, and most recently, Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD).
Nicaraguan H-2A beneficiaries are trained to identify these threats and
to treat the bees skillfully and appropriately. Additionally,
commercial beekeepers place hives on farms and ranches in hundreds of
locations throughout multiple towns and counties, often in hard-to-find
back road areas. Training new workers to find these hives and to comply
with the requirements of landowners can alone take months. Finally,
Nicaraguan workers are trained on a wide variety of equipment necessary
to the industry, including honey extractors, forklifts, and large
trucks used to haul equipment and bees to and from warehouses and
apiaries.
Unfortunately, on December 18, 2008, the Department of Homeland
Security published a final rule that changed existing law so that H-2A
visa ``petitions may only be approved for nationals of countries that
the Secretary of Homeland Security has designated as participating
countries.'' The list, published without advance warning names 28
``participating countries'', including Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras. Absent from the list is Nicaragua. And
although the rule provides the Secretary of Homeland Security with
discretionary authority to approve nationals from non-participating
countries if it is ``in the U.S. interest'', this discretion has yet to
be exercised with respect to beekeeper petitions. Without sufficient
guidance on the ``U.S. Interest'' test, the effect will be to ensure
that no Nicaraguan worker petitions are approved in 2009, forcing some
beekeepers to close down operations.
The AHPA does not wish to question broader national security or
immigration policy rationales for restricting the participating country
list. However, in this instance, Nicaraguan workers have provided an
invaluable service to America's honey production and pollination
industries for nearly ten years. In all cases, the workers have
returned to their home country at the end of the pollination season and
the beekeepers who employ them have taken great strides to ensure that
they comply with immigration and labor laws in petitioning the
government for H-2A visas. Refusing approval this year will seriously
limit America's pollination capacity, directly threatening $15 billion
in U.S. agricultural interests.
conclusion
In conclusion, we wish to thank you again for your past support of
honeybee research and for your understanding of the critical importance
of these ARS laboratories. By way of summary, in fiscal year 2010, the
American Honey Producers Association strongly encourages at least $20
million in new funding for CCD and other honeybee research spread among
the four ARS Honeybee Research Laboratories, other ARS research
facilities across the country, the Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service at the Department of Agriculture, and
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. AHPA also opposes
importation of Australian honeybees and unnecessary denial of H-2A
workers from Nicaragua. Only through critical research can we have a
viable U.S. beekeeping industry and continue to provide stable and
affordable supplies of bee-pollinated crops, which make up fully one-
third of the U.S. diet. I would be pleased to provide answers to any
questions that you or your colleagues may have.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) and the 32 Tribal
Colleges and Universities (TCUs) that compose the list of 1994 Land
Grant Institutions, thank you for this opportunity to share our funding
requests for fiscal year 2010.
This statement is presented in three parts: (a) a summary of our
fiscal year 2010 funding recommendations, (b) a brief background on
Tribal Colleges and Universities, and (c) an outline of the 1994 Tribal
College Land Grant Institutions' plan for using our land grant programs
to fulfill the agricultural potential of American Indian communities,
and to ensure that American Indians have the skills and support needed
to maximize the economic potential of their resources.
summary of requests
We respectfully request the following funding levels for fiscal
year 2010 for our land grant programs established within the USDA
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)
and the Rural Development mission area. In CSREES, we specifically
request: $5.0 million for the 1994 Institutions' competitive extension
grants program; $3.0 million for the 1994 Institutions' competitive
research grants program; $3.342 million for the higher education equity
grants; $12 million payment into the Native American endowment fund;
and in the Rural Development--Rural Community Advancement Program
(RCAP), that $5.0 million be provided for each of the next 5 fiscal
years for the TCU Essential Community Facilities Grants Program. The
grants help to address the critical facilities and infrastructure needs
at the colleges to increase our capacity to participate fully as land
grant partners.
background on tribal colleges and universities
The first Morrill Act was enacted in 1862 specifically to bring
education to the people and to serve their fundamental needs. Today,
147 years after enactment of the first land grant legislation, the 1994
Land Grant Institutions, as much as any other higher education
institutions, exemplify the original intent of the land grant
legislation, as they are truly community-based institutions.
The Tribal College Movement was launched in the past 40 years with
the establishment of Navajo Community College, now Dine College,
serving the Navajo Nation. Rapid growth of the TCU Movement soon
followed, primarily in the Northern Plains region. In 1972, six
tribally controlled colleges established the American Indian Higher
Education Consortium to provide a support network for member
institutions. Today, AIHEC represents 37 Tribal Colleges and
Universities--32 of which compose the current list of 1994 Land Grant
Institutions located in 12 States. Our institutions were created
specifically to serve the higher education needs of American Indian
students in Indian Country. They serve many thousands of Indian full-
and part-time students and community members from over 250 federally
recognized tribes.
The 1994 Land Grant Institutions are accredited by independent,
regional accreditation agencies and like all institutions of higher
education, must undergo stringent performance reviews to retain their
accreditation status. TCUs serve as community centers by providing
libraries, tribal archives, career centers, economic development and
business centers, public meeting places, and child and elder care
centers. Despite their many obligations, functions, and notable
achievements, TCUs remain the most poorly funded institutions of higher
education in this country. The vast majority of the 1994 Land Grant
Institutions is located on Federal trust territory. Therefore, states
have no obligation, and in most cases, provide no funding to TCUs. In
fact, most States do not even provide funds to our institutions for the
non-Indian state residents attending our colleges, leaving the TCUs to
assume the per student operational costs for non-Indian students
enrolled in our institutions, accounting for approximately 20 percent
of our student population. This is a significant financial commitment
on the part of TCUs, as they are small, developing institutions and
cannot, unlike their state land grant partners, benefit from economies
of scale--where the cost per student to operate an institution is
reduced by the comparatively large size of the student body.
As a result of 200 years of Federal Indian policy--including
policies of termination, assimilation and relocation--many reservation
residents live in conditions of poverty comparable to those found in
Third World nations. Through the efforts of Tribal Colleges and
Universities, American Indian communities are availing themselves of
resources needed to foster responsible, productive, and self-reliant
citizens. It is essential that we continue to invest in the human
resources that will help open new avenues to economic development,
specifically through enhancing the 1994 Institutions' land grant
programs, and securing adequate access to information technology.
1994 land grant programs--ambitious efforts to reach economic potential
In the past, due to lack of expertise and training, millions of
acres on our reservations lie fallow, under-used, or have been
developed through methods that have caused irreparable damage. The
Equity in Educational Land Grant Status Act of 1994 is addressing this
situation and is our hope for future advancement.
Our current land grant programs remain small, yet very important to
us. It is essential that American Indians explore and adopt new and
evolving technologies for managing our lands. With increased capacity
and program funding, we will become even more significant contributors
to the agricultural base of the nation and the world.
Competitive Extension Grants Programs.--That The 1994 Institutions'
extension programs strengthen communities through outreach programs
designed to bolster economic development; community resources; family
and youth development; natural resources development; agriculture; as
well as health and nutrition education and awareness.
In fiscal year 2009, $3,321,000 was appropriated for the 1994
Institutions' competitive extension grants. The 1994 Institutions'
ability to maintain existing programs and to respond to emerging issues
such as food safety and homeland security, especially on border
reservations, is severely limited without adequate funding. Increased
funding is needed to support these vital programs designed to address
the inadequate extension services that have been provided to Indian
reservations by their respective state programs. It is important to
note that the 1994 extension program does not duplicate the Federally
Recognized Tribes Extension Program, formerly the Indian Reservation
Extension Agent program. 1994 Tribal College Land Grant programs are
very modestly funded. The 1994 Tribal College Land Grant Institutions
have applied their ingenuity for making the most of every dollar they
have at their disposal by leveraging funds to maximize their programs
whenever possible. Some examples of 1994 extension programs include:
Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa Community College in Wisconsin is
strengthening the household economies of local reservation communities
by offering financial education curriculum in managing budgets, saving
for the future, and understanding the credit basics. Sitting Bull
College, which serves reservation communities in both North and South
Dakota, offers an equine extension program to help youth learn about
the historical role of horses in American Indian Tribal life, while
teaching them important leadership skills necessary to succeed in
today's world. These are just two examples of the innovative programs
being conducted at 1994 Institutions. To continue and expand these
successful programs, we request that the subcommittee support this
competitive program by appropriating $5.0 million to sustain the growth
and further success of these essential community-based extension
programs.
1994 Competitive Research Program.--As the 1994 Tribal College Land
Grant Institutions enter into partnerships with 1862/1890 land grant
institutions through collaborative research projects, impressive
efforts to address economic development through natural resource
management have emerged. The 1994 Research Program illustrates an ideal
combination of Federal resources and tribal college-state institutional
expertise, with the overall impact being far greater than the sum of
its parts. We recognize the severe budget constraints under which
Congress is currently functioning. However, the $1,610,000 appropriated
in fiscal year 2009 is grossly inadequate to develop capacity and
conduct necessary research at our institutions. The 1994 Research
Program is vital to ensuring that TCUs may finally be recognized as
full partners in the Nation's land grant system. Many of our
institutions are currently conducting applied research, yet finding the
resources to conduct this research to meet their communities' needs is
a continual challenge. This research authority opens the door to new
funding opportunities to maintain and expand the research projects
begun at the 1994 Institutions, but only if adequate funds are secured
and sustained. A total research budget of $1,610,000, for which all 32
of the 1994 Institutions compete for research dollars, is clearly
insufficient. Priority issue areas currently being studied at the 1994
Institutions include: sustainable agriculture and forestry;
biotechnology and bioprocessing; agribusiness management and marketing;
plant propagation, including native plant preservation for medicinal
and economic purposes; animal breeding; aquaculture; human nutrition
(including health, obesity, and diabetes); and family, community, and
rural development. The College of Menominee Nation in Wisconsin is
collecting and analyzing data concerning forest health and
sustainability that will help its tribal forest managers meet the
growing demand for forest products while protecting the woodlands
environment for future generations. Turtle Mountain Community College
in North Dakota is studying the spread of West Nile virus, which causes
serious diseases in animals and people. Results of the study will
assist tribal efforts in the surveillance, prevention, and control of
the mosquito-borne virus. These are just two examples of 1994 Research
projects. We strongly urge the subcommittee to fund this program at a
minimum of $3.0 million to enable our institutions to develop and
strengthen their research capacity.
1994 Institutions' Educational Equity Grant Program.--This program
is designed to assist 1994 Tribal College Land Grant Institutions with
academic programs. Through the modest appropriations first made
available in fiscal year 2001, the TCU Land Grant Institutions have
begun to support courses and to conduct planning activities
specifically targeting the unique educational needs of their respective
communities.
The 1994 Institutions have developed and implemented courses and
programs in natural resource management; environmental sciences;
horticulture; forestry; and food science and nutrition. This last
category is helping to address the epidemic rates of diabetes and
cardiovascular disease that plague American Indian reservations. We
request that the subcommittee appropriate a minimum of $3,342,000 to
allow the 1994 Tribal College Land Grant Institutions to build upon
their course offerings and successful activities that have been
launched.
Native American Endowment Fund.--Endowment installments that are
paid into the 1994 Tribal College Land Grant Institutions' account
remain with the U.S. Treasury. Only the annual interest yield, less the
USDA's administrative fee, is distributed to the institutions. The
latest gross annual interest yield for the 1994 Institutions Endowment
was $3,929,412 and after the USDA takes its standard four-percent
administrative fee, $3,772,236 should be available for distribution to
the eligible 1994 Tribal College Land Grant Institutions by statutory
formula. While the Department has not yet shared the breakdown of funds
to be distributed to each of the 1994 Institutions for this year, last
year the USDA administrative fee was larger than the amount paid to all
but nine of the 1994 Tribal College Land Grant Institutions or in other
words the USDA claims a fee that is higher than 70 percent of the 1994
Institutions' payments. Once the distribution amounts are determined
for this year's disbursement, we fully expect similar results.
Just as other land grant institutions historically received large
grants of land or endowments in lieu of land, this endowment assists
1994 Tribal College Land Grant Institutions in establishing and
strengthening their academic programs in such areas as curriculum
development, faculty preparation, instruction delivery, and to help
address critical facilities and infrastructure issues. Many of the
colleges have used the endowment in conjunction with the Education
Equity Grant funds to develop and implement their academic programs. As
earlier stated, TCUs often serve as primary community centers and
although conditions at some have improved substantially, many of the
colleges still operate under less than satisfactory conditions. In
fact, most of the TCUs continue to cite improved facilities as one of
their highest priorities. Several of the colleges have indicated the
need for immediate new construction and substantial renovations to
replace buildings that have long exceeded their effective life spans
and to upgrade existing facilities to address accessibility and safety
concerns.
Endowment payments increase the size of the corpus held by the U.S.
Treasury and thereby increase the annual interest yield disbursed to
the 1994 Tribal College Land Grant Institutions. These additional funds
would continue to support faculty and staff positions and program needs
within 1994 agriculture and natural resources departments, as well as
to help address the critical and very expensive facilities needs at
these institutions. Currently, the amount that each college receives
from this endowment is not adequate to address both curriculum
development and instruction delivery, and completely insufficient to
address the necessary facilities and infrastructure projects at these
institutions. In order for the 1994 Tribal College Land Grant
Institutions to become full partners in this Nation's great land grant
system, we need and, through numerous treaty obligations, are due the
facilities and infrastructure necessary to fully engage in education
and research programs vital to the future health and well being of our
reservation communities. We respectfully request the subcommittee fund
the fiscal year 2010 endowment payment at $12.0 million--returning the
payment amount to the pre across-the-board rescission level imposed
each year on nondefense appropriated funding. We also request that the
subcommittee review the USDA's administrative fee and consider reducing
it for the Native American Endowment so that more of these already
limited funds can be utilized by the 1994 Tribal College Land Grant
Institutions to conduct vital community based programs.
Tribal College Essential Community Facilities Program (Rural
Development).--In fiscal year 2009, $3,972,000 of the Rural Development
Advancement Program (RCAP) funds appropriated for loans and grants to
benefit federally recognized American Indian tribes was targeted for
essential community facility grants at Tribal College Land Grant
Institutions. This level of funding is a decrease of about half of a
million dollars from fiscal year 2007, when the program was
appropriated $4.5 million--reduced to $4,419,000 by the across the
board cut. We urge the subcommittee to designate $5.0 million each year
of the next five fiscal years to afford the 1994 Institutions the means
to aggressively address critical facilities needs, thereby allowing
them to better serve their students and respective communities.
conclusion
The 1994 Land Grant Institutions have proven to be efficient and
effective vehicles for bringing educational opportunities to American
Indians and the promise of self-sufficiency to some of this Nation's
poorest and most underserved regions. The modest federal investment in
the 1994 Tribal College Land Grant Institutions has already paid great
dividends in terms of increased employment, access to higher education,
and economic development. Continuation of this investment makes sound
moral and fiscal sense. American Indian reservation communities are
second to none in their potential for benefiting from effective land
grant programs and, as earlier stated, no institutions better exemplify
the original intent of the land grant concept than the 1994 Land Grant
Institutions.
We appreciate your support of the 1994 Tribal College Land Grant
Institutions and recognition of their role in the Nation's land grant
system. We ask you to renew your commitment to help move our students
and communities toward self-sufficiency. We look forward to continuing
our partnership with you, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the
other members of the Nation's great land grant system--a partnership
with the potential to bring equitable educational, agricultural, and
economic opportunities to Indian Country.
Thank you for this opportunity to present our funding proposals to
the subcommittee. We respectfully request your continued support and
full consideration of our fiscal year 2010 appropriations
recommendations.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association
The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the national
service organization representing the interests of over 2,000 municipal
and other state and locally owned utilities throughout the United
States (all but Hawaii). Collectively, public power utilities deliver
electricity to one of every seven electricity consumers (approximately
45 million people), serving some of the nation's largest cities.
However, the vast majority of APPA's members serve communities with
populations of 10,000 people or less.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement outlining
our fiscal year 2010 funding priorities within the jurisdiction of the
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and
Related Agencies Subcommittee.
Department of Agriculture: Rural Utility Service Rural Broadband Grants
and Loans
APPA was pleased with the funding level of $2.5 billion in the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for ``grants, loans and loan
guarantees, for broadband infrastructure in any area of the United
States.'' APPA urges the Subcommittee to fully fund the Rural Utilities
Service's (RUS) rural grant and loan programs at or above the stimulus
levels.
APPA believes it is important to provide incentives for the
deployment of broadband to rural communities, many of which lack
broadband service. Increasingly, access to advanced communications
services is considered vital to a community's economic and educational
development. In addition, the availability of broadband service enables
rural communities to provide advanced health care through telemedicine
and to promote regional competitiveness and other benefits that
contribute to a high quality of life. Approximately one-fourth of
APPA's members are currently providing broadband service in their
communities. Several APPA members are planning to apply for RUS
broadband loans to help them finance their broadband projects.
Department of Agriculture: Title IX Programs
APPA supports full funding of programs authorized in Title IX of
the 2008 Farm Bill for energy efficiency, renewable energy and
biofuels. APPA requests the full fiscal year 2010 funding level of $60
million for the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), $5 million for
the Rural Energy Self-Sufficiency program, and $5 million for the
Community Wood Energy Program.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) is pleased to submit
the following testimony on the fiscal year 2010 appropriation for the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) research and regulatory programs.
The ASM is the largest single life science organization in the world
with about 42,000 members. The ASM mission is to enhance the science of
microbiology, to gain a better understanding of life processes, and to
promote the application of this knowledge for improved health and
environmental well-being. The ASM recommends an appropriation of $2.25
billion for the FDA in fiscal year 2010, a $386 million increase over
the fiscal year 2009 budget.
The FDA is responsible for the evaluation of domestic and foreign
foods and consumer products to protect the public health and safety.
Funding levels for sometime have significantly fallen below amounts
needed to enable the FDA to fulfill its growing oversight for nearly
one-quarter of the U.S. Gross National Product. The ASM appreciates the
estimated $1 billion for food safety anticipated in the President's
proposed fiscal year 2010 budget. However, serious budget shortfalls in
the past have diluted FDA's ability to respond to escalating, often
unmet demands on its personnel and resources not only in food safety,
but also across the agency. Each year, the Nation spends nearly $1.5
trillion on FDA regulated goods. It is essential that FDA have state-
of-the-art scientific capabilities and a fully staffed contingent of
scientists if the United States is to maintain its economic
competitiveness. FDA's mission is not only to ensure product safety but
to also stimulate and facilitate innovation.
Since January, the FDA has approved new drugs for diabetes and
malaria, a rapid diagnostic test to detect the avian influenza H5N1
virus in minutes rather than hours, and the first approved drug made
with materials from genetically engineered animals. Threats to public
health persist, including sporadic food borne illnesses linked to
everyday foods like tomatoes, peanuts, and recently, alfalfa sprouts.
FDA's regulatory responsibilities cover the bulk of U.S. domestic and
imported foods, plus medical devices, drugs, food additives, blood and
vaccine products, and cosmetics. Since 2001, its mission has also
expanded to counterterrorism and homeland security. Several external
reviews of FDA performance have confirmed in recent years that
inadequate funding for the agency has undermined efforts to protect
public health in the United States.
a safe and secure u.s. food supply depends on fda excellence
Regulating food in the United States is an enormous task. Food
expenditures exceed $1.1 trillion annually. In the past 5 years, the
volume of imported products has doubled, with 60 percent categorized as
food or food-related products, and is predicted to triple by 2015. Yet
the FDA examined less than 1 percent of the 7.6 million fresh produce
lines imported from fiscal years 2002 to 2007. This year, the Nation
will import agricultural products worth an estimated $81 billion,
continuing the steady trend of rising U.S. consumption of imported
food. The number of identified food borne disease outbreaks has tripled
since the early 1990s. Each year, about 76 million people contract a
food borne illness in the United States, about 325,000 require
hospitalization, and about 5,000 die. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) estimates medical costs and lost wages associated
with just five of the major food borne illnesses reach $6.9 billion
annually, and total costs are likely much higher. The Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has enumerated more than 250
different food borne diseases and more causative agents continue to be
found. FDA actions thus far this year have included the current recall
of Salmonella-contaminated pistachio products; a consumer warning about
certain cheeses that could contain Listeria monocytogenes, bacteria
that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections; and advisories
to food preparers about possible norovirus in some domestic oysters.
As food moves from farm to table it encounters innumerable points
for possible contamination, either accidental or deliberate. To
mitigate failures in our highly complex food supply, the FDA's ongoing
Protecting America's Food Supply initiative integrates food safety and
food defense. In November 2007, the FDA launched its Food Protection
Plan with a three-pronged strategy of expanded prevention, improved
intervention, and more rapid response to events like disease outbreaks.
The FDA also participates in the multiagency Action Plan for Import
Safety, publishing in March its final rule on required prior notice of
foreign food shipments arriving at U.S. ports. Unfortunately, these and
other FDA food safety programs have been consistently underfunded to
the detriment of public health.
The following are examples of FDA's enormous responsibilities:
--The FDA regulates about 80 percent of the U.S. food supply,
responsible for $417 billion worth of domestic food and $49
billion in imported food annually.
--In the United States, the agency oversees more than 136,000
registered domestic food facilities (over 44,000 food
manufacturers and processors, plus roughly 113,000 warehouses
that include storage tanks and grain elevators).
--FDA personnel collaborate with staff at other Federal agencies and
State and local authorities to regulate more than 2 million
farms, 935,000 restaurants and institutional food facilities,
and 114,000 supermarkets, grocery stores, and other food
outlets.
--Over 300 U.S. ports receive products from more than 150 countries/
territories. In the last decade, the number of food entry lines
has tripled, shipped from approximately 200,000 FDA registered
foreign facilities that manufacture, process, pack, or store
food consumed in the United States.
In 2008, the CDC concluded that the incidence of the most common
food borne illnesses had changed very little in the previous 3 years, a
grim plateau in preventing diseases caused by Salmonella, Escherichia
coli and other food borne pathogens. The disturbing report joined other
official reports, expert committee reviews, and publicized disease
investigations that abundantly demonstrate the importance of improving
food safety in the United States. In November 2007, FDA's own Science
Advisory Board published a highly critical report concerning the state
of science at FDA and the ability to undertake its massive mission.
Last September, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) published its
negative review of the FDA's oversight of domestic and imported fresh
produce, citing funding shortages and too few FDA inspectors as
contributing factors.
Nationwide outbreaks of food-related illness grab headlines, exact
high costs for the food industry, and force health officials to
scramble to conduct the scientific detective work and implement
preventive strategies to contain the problem. These outbreaks absorb
significant FDA resources and personnel, like the far-reaching fallout
from Salmonella-contaminated peanut products that is still rippling
through the U.S. food industry. Health officials have reported more
than 600 cases of disease tied to consumption of the suspect products,
leading to the voluntary recall of more than 2,100 products in 17
categories by more than 200 companies, and the list continues to grow.
In January, the FDA expanded the recall list to include pet food
products that contain peanut paste made by the company, which has
declared bankruptcy. The large number of products and brands, magnified
by the large quantities of some products, makes this one of the most
complex food recalls in U.S. history.
fda oversight of drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics protects u.s.
consumers
Just as FDA's responsibilities in food safety have increased
enormously over the past decade, so has its responsibility in other
areas, especially drug safety, including adverse events as well as
contamination both from microbial and chemical sources. We share the
concerns detailed in the 2006 Report on Drug Safety and the Science
Board Report.
The steady release of new therapeutic drugs, vaccines, and
diagnostic tests by the U.S. private sector helps protect the Nation
from infectious and other types of diseases. Several divisions within
the FDA focus on evaluating both new and on-the-market products,
assuring product safety and efficacy on behalf of health care
providers, their patients, and the general public. Limited FDA budgets
in recent years have not fully met the massive volume of
responsibilities involved in this wide-ranging oversight, which
includes detailed science-based lab analyses of new and established
products, data assessment of incident reports, guidance statements and
product alerts to the public and to health care providers, recall of
unsafe products, and more.
Recent shortages of vaccines commonly used against rabies and
Haemophilus influenza type b (Hib) have underscored the importance of
FDA-approved vaccines regulated by the agency's Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research (CBER). Before development of Hib conjugate
vaccines, about 20,000 U.S. children had Hib infections each year,
including 12,000 cases of bacterial meningitis of which about 5 percent
died. Since the Nation's Hib immunization program began in the early
1990s, incidence has decreased 99 percent. In developing countries, Hib
remains a major cause of respiratory infections in infants and
children. Unfortunately, a voluntary recall of Hib vaccine by a U.S.
manufacturer in December 2007 resulted in shortages that have since
been implicated in small Hib outbreaks in Minnesota and Pennsylvania.
In June 2008, a French supplier of rabies vaccine temporarily halted
production to upgrade its facilities, prompting U.S. officials to issue
alerts regarding priority use of limited vaccine supplies. To maintain
adequate immunization coverage, the FDA not only monitors already
approved vaccines, but also evaluates the latest vaccine technologies.
This March, the agency approved a vaccine to prevent Japanese
encephalitis (JE) that was developed using cell culture technology,
making it the only JE vaccine available in the United States. Found
mainly in Asia, the viral disease affects about 30,000 to 50,000 people
each year, resulting in 10,000 to 15,000 deaths. It is rarely seen in
the United States, but there have been cases among those traveling to
Asia.
FDA scientists who evaluate new products must be able to assess
leading-edge product development methodologies. For example, CBER
researchers just completed a ``proof-of-concept'' study of a test using
nanotechnology to detect quickly the smallest amount of anthrax toxin.
Based on research at the Center for Devices and Radiological Health
(CDRH), the FDA approved in March the first DNA test that identifies
the two types of human papillomavirus (HPV) responsible for the
majority of cervical cancers among U.S. women. HPV is the most common
sexually transmitted infection in the United States, causing more than
6 million new cases each year. The Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research (CDER) assures that all prescription and over-the-counter
drugs are safe and effective, overseeing a regulatory portfolio of many
thousands of products. In 2007 alone, CDER approved nearly 80 drugs and
biologics, a laborious process that demands singular scientific
capabilities.
The FDA also plays a key role in addressing the issue of
antimicrobial resistance through its initiatives on monitoring and
surveillance of antimicrobial resistance, facilitating the appropriate
use of products and tests for infectious diseases, educating the public
and health professionals about safe and effective use of
antimicrobials, and assuring accurate product labeling.
science at fda needs more resources, trained personnel
The ASM is very concerned about the perceived weaknesses in FDA
science and the possible negative impacts on the Nation's health. The
2007 Science Board report conducted a thorough external review of
science and technology across the agency. It identified several problem
areas within the agency where FDA science was not keeping pace with the
private sector, for example, the expertise necessary to evaluate
products related to nanotechnology, robotics, systems biology, and
especially genomics. The report also indicted inadequate computing
capabilities used for surveillance and incident reporting, and a
dwindling workforce of those trained in science-based investigation and
research. In the 2008 GAO report on FDA's oversight of fresh produce,
the agency acknowledged that it lacks resources for funding crucial
extramural or internal research to understand produce contamination by
pathogens such as E. coli O157:H7 or Salmonella. The FDA remains the
Nation's foremost regulatory agency, but optimal oversight of
increasingly complex products and systems requires fully equipped FDA
laboratories with leading-edge capabilities. This is of particular
concern with regard to tissue based products and screening for
adventitious infectious agents.
Research programs within the FDA focus on supporting the agency's
regulatory role with the necessary science and technology tools.
Understanding the latest advances in multiple scientific disciplines is
essential for FDA regulators, evidenced by the agency's conclusion last
year that meat and milk from clones of cattle, swine and goats are safe
to eat, based on years of FDA study and analysis. The Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) conducts food, cosmetic, and color
additive safety research to protect the public from illnesses,
contaminants, or other threats from consumer goods. Its scientists
study the emergence or re-emergence of food borne microbial pathogens
and evaluate or develop new lab methods needed to investigate
outbreaks. The Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) also funds research
activities to inform policy and regulation, plus contributing to the
Nation's food defense efforts. ORA-supported research includes
validation of detection methods for potential bioterrorism agents like
Clostridium botulinum neurotoxin. The FDA has identified critical areas
of needed research that include rapid test kit development,
confirmatory methods, virology, biotechnology, in-vitro testing, and
laboratory enhancement. To remedy these technological gaps, increased
funding for FDA research is needed. As detailed in the 2007 Science
Board Report, the continued underfunding of the Critical Path
Initiative to bring FDA science into the 21st Century is a particular
problem.
Last year, additional funding in the fiscal year 2009 budget did
add more than 1,300 new skilled employees. The second hiring phase,
with a target of 1,400 additional staff, is underway, including
chemists, microbiologists, and medical officers. However, critical
personnel needs still remain, especially in the filed of genomics,
information technology, and risk communication. The agency also
leverages resources through partnering with other stakeholders, for
example, the National Center for Food Safety and Technology, a research
consortium whose members investigate new molecular tools to study
antimicrobial resistance among pathogens and other emerging food safety
issues. In September, the FDA awarded $5.2 million in grants to various
State and local agencies to enhance food and feed safety including the
first Rapid Response Team cooperative agreements with six U.S. States
to create RRT teams able to respond to all food hazard incidents in the
farm-to-table continuum. Also included were grants to upgrade chemistry
labs to better analyze food samples collected by the FDA or other
agencies, part of the ongoing effort to boost the surge capacity of
State health department laboratories. However, this level of research
funding is woefully inadequate given the cost of this type of research
and the unfunded research priorities across the agency.
asm recommends a substantial increase in fda funding
The ASM urges Congress to support the irreplaceable role of the
Food and Drug Administration in protecting public health and safety.
Repeated cautionary reports have warned of besieged and deteriorating
FDA capabilities in the face of soaring imports, new product lines, and
issues about drug safety. The ASM recommends $2.25 billion for the FDA
appropriation in fiscal year 2010.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) is pleased to submit
the following testimony on the fiscal year 2010 appropriation for the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) research and education programs.
The ASM is the largest single life science organization in the world
with more than 40,000 members. The ASM mission is to enhance the
science of microbiology, to gain a better understanding of life
processes, and to promote the application of this knowledge for
improved health and environmental well-being.
The science based missions of the USDA, fueled by its research and
education programs, are essential to human, environmental and animal
health. The ASM strongly urges Congress to appropriate at least $1.24
billion for the Agriculture Research Service in fiscal year 2010, $1.24
billion for the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension
Service, and to provide $300 million for the Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative (AFRI). Agriculture research plays an important
role in the improvement of food safety, the environment, and animal and
plant health but also contributes to the economic well-being of the
nation. In a September 2007 report entitled: ``Economic Returns to
Public Agriculture Research,'' the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS)
found that the average rate of return from public investment in
agriculture research is an impressive 45 percent on the dollar. In
reviewing more than thirty-five economic studies on the social rate of
return, the ERS also found that such a high rate of return is shared by
all levels of the agricultural continuum, from the producer to the
consumer.
the agriculture research service (ars)
The core research arm of the USDA, the ARS is divided into four
National Programs that focus on critically important areas of
agricultural research:
--Nutrition, Food Safety/Quality
--Animal Production and Protection
--Natural Resources and Sustainable Agricultural Systems
--Crop Production and Protection
Agricultural research is critically important to human and animal
health. The ARS has funded a number of cooperative research projects
related to zoonotic viruses including a study evaluating influenza
vaccines in pigs and the establishment of a pig model from the 1930
H1N1 swine influenza. The ARS works to understand the biology of animal
pathogens including the H1N1 swine virus to combat such outbreaks at
the animal level and reduce the risk to humans. The USDA's Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) also works extensively with
zoonotic virus monitoring which contributes to the knowledge base of
the ARS.
The ASM urges Congress to fund the ARS with $1.24 billion in fiscal
year 2010, a 4 percent increase from the fiscal year 2008 level.
Food Safety
The ASM supports the Administration's pledge to increase funding
for food safety. The first step to ensuring a safe and plentiful
national food source is to maintain a successful research platform.
Despite advances, food safety remains a serious and complex issue.
Recent outbreaks of Salmonella Saintpaul demonstrate how quickly and
severely pathogens can spread through the population. Understanding the
cause of foodborne illness is an important step towards a better
understanding of the ways to treat and prevent future outbreaks.
According to the CDC, in the United States there are an estimated 76
million cases of foodborne illness each year, resulting in 325,000
hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths. Agricultural research is an
irreplaceable tool in the fight against foodborne illness as
researchers supported by the USDA work to understand and prevent the
transference of some types of bacteria from the food supply.
Recently, the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report stated
that: ``None of the Healthy People 2010 targets for reduction of
foodborne pathogens were reached in 2008. The lack of recent progress
points to gaps in the current food safety system and the need to
continue to develop and evaluate food safety practices as food moves
from the farm to the table.'' Increased funding for the ARS is critical
to the prevention, treatment and understanding of foodborne illness,
both current and future outbreaks.
Antimicrobial Resistance
The prevalence of antimicrobial resistance remains a threat to
human and animal health as foodborne and other bacterial pathogens are
increasingly changing and evolving to adapt to new antimicrobial
agents. The USDA has supported a number of important research projects
that bring together basic and applied research to combat this very real
threat. Adequate funding for the USDA is vital to ensure such research
continues as the occurrence of antimicrobial resistance increases.
Climate Change
The ARS supports projects that work to ensure the effects of global
change on agriculture are understood and ways to mitigate risks are
developed. The impact of global climate change and global warming
trends on agricultural yields could be severe. Without adequate funding
for the ARS, the impact of climate change on food production and plant
health could be neglected, with disastrous results. Current research
projects related to climate change include:
--Crop and Weed Responses to Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
--Evaluating Effects of Nitrogen Deposition and Ambient Ozone on an
Invasive Plant in the National Capitol Region
--Soil Carbon in Urban Environments
The ARS's Global Change National Program conducted a 5 year cycle
of study from 2002--2007 to explore the effects of Global Change in
depth. The programs' accomplishment report, conducted by non-ARS
scientists, released in 2008 stated: ``The ARS is poised as a leader in
the field of global change research to help understand the impacts of
global change on agriculture, enable agriculture to adapt to global
change and reduce the impact of agriculture on factors affecting global
change.'' The report also emphasized the need for continued and future
research to combat the evolving and complex problems that arise with
climate change. Continued and sustainable funding for the ARS will help
to ensure that other such crucial research can be completed to further
the understanding of climate change.
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES)
Soon to become the National Institute of Food and Agriculture
(NIFA), CSREES works with land-grant universities, public and private
organizations and supports research that increases understanding and
knowledge of the unique link between the environment, agriculture and
human health. Supporting research at the local and state level allows
the CSREES to fund programs that impact not only scientific research,
but local economies as well. The ASM urges Congress to appropriate at
least $1.24 billion for the CSREES in fiscal year 2010, a 4 percent
increase from the fiscal year 2008 level.
CSREES supports a number of important areas of interest categorized
as National Emphasis Areas:
--Agricultural Systems
--Animals
--Biotechnology & Genomics
--Economics & Community Development
--Education
--Families, Youth & Communities
--Food, Nutrition & Health
--International
--Natural Resources & Environment
--Pest Management
--Plants
--Technology & Engineering
Climate Change
The effects of climate change are almost guaranteed to impact all
life forms, and the research funded by the CSREES works to ensure that
the best science is presented to offset such impacts. Supporting
universities as well as public and private organizations lends
opportunity for the best science and research to become a part of the
larger solution.
The buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere has caused
considerable concern as the negative effects of climate change are
studied and understood. The Consortium for Agricultural Soils
Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases, funded by the CSREES, is working to
develop the technologies and strategies to successfully implement soil
carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such
initiatives are at the forefront of the race to find ways to combat the
negative effects of global climate change. The CSREES support of such
successful programs sends the message that climate change is an issue
that needs collaboration from all science concentrations, especially
from agricultural research.
Biofuels
Proven to be the most resourceful and sustainable alternative to
fossil fuels, biofuels bring the promise of a cleaner and more
efficient source of energy. Much like fossil fuels however, biofuels
create a substantial amount of waste called Glycerin that is difficult
to break down. The creation of waste has slowed the implementation of
biofuels as a mainstream, alternative to traditional fossil fuels. A
project funded by the CSREES however, has developed a fermentation
technology that combines E. coli with glycerin to create a high value
chemical reducing the existence of waste, as the chemical created can
be used as a commodity on the domestic market. Such projects, as
supported by the CSREES, are providing real-life solutions to problems
once considered too daunting to tackle.
The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI)
AFRI was established in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 as a competitive grants program aimed to support research,
education and the extension of our nation's food and agricultural
systems. Formerly operating as the National Research Initiative program
(NRI), AFRI is the foundation of competitive grants within the USDA,
supporting a focus on six core areas within the food and agricultural
sciences:
--Plant Heath and Production
--Animal Health
--Food Safety, Nutrition and Health
--Renewable Energy, Natural Resources and Environment
--Agriculture Systems and technology
--Agriculture Economics and Rural Communities
AFRI moves the work of scientists past research and into
development, implementation, education, and extension. Investments by
the NRI in this type of research have resulted in a number of advances
in critical issue areas such as, food safety, food security,
sustainable fuel production and ecosystem health services. The
importance of these programs on the overall health of the Nation cannot
be underestimated. AFRI supports essential research with far reaching
impacts into human, environmental and plant health, the basis of life.
Currently authorized at $700 million per year, the ASM strongly
urges Congress to fund AFRI with at least $300 million for fiscal year
2010.
Education and Workforce
Investing in research at the USDA ensures that coming generations
of researchers, educators and students have the opportunity to stay
within the agricultural sciences and keep the Nation competitive on a
global scale. Reduced or stagnant funding sends the detrimental message
to the Nation's students and research scientists that agricultural and
biological research is not a worthwhile field to pursue. This risks a
very real and problematic ``brain drain'' compromising the status of
the United States as a world leader in cutting edge scientific
research. Ensuring funding for competitive grants programs and basic
research will help to send the positive message that investing in
agricultural and biological sciences is worthwhile.
Conclusion
The ASM urges Congress to increase research and education funding
in the USDA budget, and provide at least $1.24 billion for the ARS,
$1.24 billion for the Cooperative State Research, Education and
Extension Service, and $300 million for AFRI in fiscal year 2010.
Research in the agricultural and biological sciences is imperative to
combat current and future threats to human, environmental, plant and
animal health. The research supported by the USDA should be a priority
that deserves steady, predictable and sustainable funding by the
Federal Government. The future of our agricultural systems, a basis for
human health, relies on it.
The ASM appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony
and would be pleased to assist the Subcommittee as it considers the
fiscal year 2010 appropriation for the USDA.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Nutrition (ASN)
The American Society for Nutrition (ASN) appreciates this
opportunity to submit testimony regarding fiscal year 2010
appropriations for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and
specifically, its research programs. ASN is the professional scientific
society dedicated to bringing together the world's top researchers,
clinical nutritionists and industry to advance our knowledge and
application of nutrition to promote human and animal health. Our focus
ranges from the most critical details of research to very broad
societal applications. ASN respectfully requests $1.377 billion for
ARS, with $120 million of the total allocated to the Human Nutrition
Research program. We request $300 million for the Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative in fiscal year 2010.
Basic and applied research on nutrition, food production, nutrient
composition, food processing and nutrition monitoring is critical to
American health and the U.S. economy. Awareness of the growing epidemic
of obesity and the contribution of chronic illness to burgeoning health
care costs has highlighted the need for improved information on dietary
intake and improved strategies for dietary change. Demand for a safer
and more nutritious food supply continues to increase. Preventable
chronic diseases related to diet and physical activity cost the economy
over $117 billion annually, and this cost is predicted to rise to $1.7
trillion in the next 10 years. Nevertheless, funding for food and
nutrition research at USDA has not increased in real dollars since
1983! This decline in our national investment in agricultural research
seriously threatens our ability to sustain the vitality of food,
nutrition and agricultural research programs and in turn, threatens the
future of our economy and the health of our Nation.
USDA historically has been identified as the lead nutrition agency
and the most important Federal agency influencing U.S. dietary
patterns. Through the nutrition and food assistance programs, which
form roughly 60 percent of its budget, USDA has a direct influence on
the dietary intake (and ultimately the health) of millions of
Americans. It is important to better understand the impact of these
programs on the food choices, dietary intake, and nutritional status of
those vulnerable populations which they serve. Research is the key to
achieving this understanding, and it is the foundation upon which U.S.
nutrition policy is built.
USDA is in full or in part responsible for the development and
translation of Federal dietary guidance, implementation of nutrition
and food assistance programs and nutrition education; and, national
nutrition monitoring. The USDA Human Nutrition Research programs ensure
nutrition policies are evidence-based, ensure we have accurate and
valid research methods and databases, and promote new understanding of
nutritional needs for optimal health.
ARS Human Nutrition Research Program
USDA has built a program of human nutrition research, housed in six
centers (HNRCs) \1\ geographically disperse across the Nation and
affiliated with the ARS, which links producer and consumer interests
and forms the core of our knowledge about food and nutrition. These
unique centers are working closely with a wide variety of stakeholders
to determine just how specific foods, food components, and physical
activity can act together during specific life-stages (e.g. prior to
conception, in childhood, in older adult years) to promote health and
prevent disease. The HNRCs are a critical link between basic food
production and processing and health, including food safety issues. The
center structure adds value by fully integrating a multitude of
nutritional science disciplines that cross both traditional university
department boundaries and the functional compartmentalization of
conventional funding mechanisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Of the six HNRCs, three are fully administered by ARS and are
located in Davis, CA, Beltsville, MD, and Grand Forks, ND. The other
three are administered through cooperative agreements with Baylor
University Medical Center in Houston, TX; Tufts University in Boston,
MA; and, the University of Arkansas in Little Rock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An important basic premise of research in the HNRCs is that many
chronic diseases, such as diabetes and obesity, can be prevented by
lifestyle issues, the most important of which are: consuming
appropriate amounts of a well-balanced, healthful diet; and regularly
engaging in adequate levels of physical activity. Using state-of-the-
art facilities and a concentration of critical scientific teams, the
HNRCs are conducting the highest quality translational research. Also
of importance are the long-term experiments involving the derivation of
dietary reference intake values and nutrient requirements of
individuals. Often compared to the intramural program at the National
Institutes for Health, these centers tackle projects that are unlikely
to be funded through other means, such as through competitive grants or
by industry.
The flat-funding of ARS in fiscal year 2009, coupled with flat-
funding of the Human Nutrition Research program for over 6 years,
seriously jeopardizes the future of the centers, their important
research projects, and the critical infrastructure provided by the USDA
from which the HNRCs and scientists benefit. An estimated $10 million
in additional funds is needed across the six HNRCs to ensure they can
continue current research projects and to restore purchasing power lost
to inflation over years of flat budgets.
Another example of the unique nutrition research at ARS is the
nutrition monitoring program, ``What We Eat in America'' (WWEIA). This
program allows us to know not only what foods Americans are eating, but
also how their diets directly affect their health. Information from the
survey guides policies on food safety, food labeling, food assistance,
military rations, pesticide exposure and dietary guidance. In addition
to having an impact on billions of dollars in Federal expenditures, the
survey data leverages billions of private sector dollars allocated to
nutrition labeling, food product development and production. Despite
this, WWEIA has been flat-funded at $11.5 million for over 13 years.
The USDA budget for WWEIA must be increased two-fold to $23 million.
Otherwise, we risk losing this national treasure if we do not restore
lost funding and strengthen it for the future.
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 established the
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), a new competitive
grants program authorized at $700 million annually, for research,
extension, and education in support of our nation's food and
agricultural systems within the soon-to-be-established National
Institute of Food and Agriculture at USDA. This unique program, the
successor to USDA's National Research Initiative (NRI) and the
Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS), takes
research and innovation beyond the development phase, into
implementation through contemporary education and extension programs.
AFRI now includes programs aimed to improve the Nation's nutrition
and health which were previously funded by other mechanisms. The
nutrition- and health-related research focuses on two objectives: (1)
improving human health by better understanding an individual's nutrient
requirements and the nutritional value of foods; and (2) promoting
research on healthier food choices and lifestyles. For example, USDA-
funded projects funded by the Human Nutrition and Obesity program have
led to a better understanding of the behavioral and environmental
factors that influence obesity, and to the development and evaluation
of effective interventions. Specifically, USDA competitive grants have
funded nutrition education interventions focusing on the reduction of
childhood obesity in low-income families.
While ASN believes the program should be funded at its full
authorization level of $700 million, we understand that in the current
fiscal climate, that is unlikely. However, with the Nation and world
facing unprecedented health, food security and nutrition challenges,
now is the time to renew investment in our Nation's agricultural
research enterprise. A strong commitment to AFRI of $300 million in
fiscal year 2010 (exclusive of any funding identified for the former
Section 406 programs), with a goal of $500 million in total funding by
fiscal year 2015, will provide America's agriculture, food and
nutrition scientists, land managers and farmers with the tools
necessary to solve problems and keep the country competitive, while
also protecting the natural resource base and environment, enhancing
human nutrition and fostering vibrant rural communities.
The AFRI and the Human Nutrition Research Program under ARS are
symbiotic programs that provide the infrastructure and generation of
new knowledge that allow for rapid progress towards meeting national
dietary needs. These programs allow USDA to make the connection between
what we grow and what we eat. And through strategic nutrition
monitoring, we learn more about how dietary intake affects our health.
ASN thanks your Committee for its support of the ARS and the AFRI
Competitive Grants Program. If we can provide any additional
information, please contact Mary Lee Watts, ASN Director of Science and
Public Affairs, at (301) 634-7112 or [email protected].
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Plant Biologists
On behalf of the American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB) we
submit this statement for the official record in support of increased
funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National
Institute of Food and Agriculture, specifically funding the Agriculture
and Food Research Initiative at $300 million. This testimony highlights
the importance of biology, particularly plant biology, as the Nation
seeks to address vital issues including a sustainable food supply,
climate change and energy security. We would like to thank the
Subcommittee for its consideration of this testimony.
The American Society of Plant Biologists is an organization of more
than 5,000 professional plant biologists, educators, graduate students,
and postdoctoral scientists. A strong voice for the global plant
science community, our mission--which is achieved through engagement in
the research, education, and public policy realms--is to promote the
growth and development of plant biology and plant biologists and to
foster and communicate research in plant biology. The Society publishes
the highly cited and respected journals Plant Physiology and The Plant
Cell, and it has produced and supported a range of materials intended
to demonstrate fundamental biological principles that can be easily and
inexpensively taught in school and university classrooms by using
plants.
food, fuel, climate change, and health: plant biology research and
america's future
Plants are vital to our very existence. They harvest sunlight,
converting it to chemical energy for food and feed; they take up carbon
dioxide and produce oxygen; and they are almost always the primary
producers in the Earth's ecosystems. Indeed, basic plant biology
research is making many fundamental contributions in the areas of fuel
security and environmental stewardship; the continued and sustainable
development of better foods, fabrics, and building materials; and in
the understanding of basic biological principles that underpin
improvements in the health and nutrition of all Americans. To go
further, plant biology research can help the Nation both predict and
prepare for the impacts of climate change on American agriculture, and
it can make major contributions to our Nation's efforts to combat
global warming.
In particular, plant biology is at the center of numerous
scientific breakthroughs in the increasingly interdisciplinary world of
alternative energy research. For example, interfaces among plant
biology, engineering, chemistry, and physics represent critical
frontiers in both basic biofuels research and bioenergy production.
Similarly, with the increase in plant genome sequencing and functional
genomics, the interface of plant biology and computer science is
essential to our understanding of complex biological systems ranging
from single cells to entire ecosystems.
Plant biology also has much to offer to our basic understanding of
biology. Many common biological problems can best be addressed using
plants. For example, plants cells are totipotent and, unlike animal
cells, can be regenerated to whole plants. Many genetic studies are
best done in plants due to the ability to analyze large numbers of
individuals. Fundamental biological discoveries (e.g., the discovery of
gene silencing) derive from initial studies in plants.
Despite the fact that plant biology research--the kind of research
funded by USDA--underpins so many vital practical considerations for
our country, the amount invested in understanding the basic function
and mechanisms of plants is relatively small when compared with the
impact it has on multibillion dollar sectors of the economy like
energy, agriculture, health and nutrition.
recommendations
ASPB, as a spokesperson for the plant science community, is in an
excellent position to articulate the Nation's plant science priorities
as they relate to agriculture. Our recommendations, in no particular
order, are as follows:
--With the new Farm Bill and a new research structure, it is ASPB's
hope that USDA will have an elevated role to play as part of
the expanding Federal research landscape. USDA already funds
research that is intended to provide a foundation for creating
sustainable food and new energy supplies; however, much higher
investment in competitive funding is needed if the Nation is to
continue to make ground-breaking discoveries. ASPB strongly
encourages the appropriation of at least $300 million in fiscal
year 2010 for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
(AFRI). ASPB encourages the full funding of $700 million to
AFRI within 5 years. AFRI, authorized at $700 million, will
play a vital role in maintaining America's food and energy
security through funding innovative research.
--Climate change is real and will have significant impacts on
agriculture and our way of life for the foreseeable future.
There are significant questions that must be answered as to how
climate change will impact food production and the environment.
There are also clear opportunities to use biological systems to
ameliorate and respond to climate change, such as through
carbon sequestration or modification of plants to resist
environmental stress. Therefore, ASPB calls for additional
funding focused on studies of the effect of climate change on
agricultural cropping systems, basic studies of its effects on
plant growth and development, and targeted research focused on
modification of plants to resist climate change and for use in
carbon sequestration.
--Current estimates predict a significant shortfall in the needed
scientific and engineering workforce as the demographics of the
U.S. workforce changes. For example, there is a clear need for
additional scientists in the area of energy research and, also,
plant breeding. USDA has not traditionally been a major funding
agency for education and training, other than that which occurs
through the funding of individual investigator and center
grants. Given the expected need for additional scientists and
engineers who are well-grounded in agriculture research and
development activities, ASPB calls for funding of specific
programs (e.g., training grants) that are targeted to provide
this needed workforce over the next 10 years and to adequately
prepare these individuals for careers in the agricultural
research of the future.
--Considerable research interest is now being paid to the use of
plant biomass for energy production. Progress in this area has
been strongly affected by the ``fuel vs. food'' debate, which
arose from the current emphasis on the use of corn for ethanol
production. A response to this debate has been to switch the
focus to plant species that can be grown exclusively for
biomass (e.g., switchgrass, miscanthus, etc). However, if these
crops are to be used to their full potential, considerable
effort must be expended to improve our understanding of their
basic biology and development, as well as their agronomic
performance. These novel crops have not benefitted from many
years of improvements in crop management and breeding that have
been bestowed upon our current major crops (e.g., soybean,
corn)--improvements that, among other things, have vastly
increased yield and agronomic efficiency. Although efforts to
improve targeted bioenergy crops are just beginning, very
aggressive goals have been established for the use of these
crops to meet the Nation's fuel needs. Therefore, ASPB calls
for additional funding that would be targeted to efforts to
increase the utility and agronomic performance of bioenergy
crops.
--Although USDA has done some quality work with private foundations
and other federal agencies such as the Department of Energy,
more can be done. Earlier this year the National Science
Foundation announced a partnership with the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation on ``Basic Research to Enable Agricultural
Development (BREAD),'' which will support basic research
relevant to problems of agriculture in developing countries.
Because USDA should be at the forefront of agricultural discovery,
ASPB would like to see USDA create similar programs and be a part of
similar endeavors with either private foundations or other research
agencies in the future.
Thank you for your consideration of our testimony on behalf of the
American Society of Plant Biologists. Please do not hesitate to contact
the American Society of Plant Biologists if we can be of any assistance
in the future. For more information about the American Society of Plant
Biologists, please see www.aspb.org.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science
Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America
The American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of
America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) are pleased
to submit the following funding recommendations for fiscal year 2010.
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA understand the challenges the Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies faces with the tight budget for fiscal year 2010. We
also recognize that the Agriculture Appropriations bill has many
valuable and necessary components. We applaud the subcommittee's
efforts to fund mission-oriented, critical research through the USDA-
Cooperative State, Research, Education and Extension Service, its
intramural research portfolio funded through the Agricultural Research
Service as well as the conservation programs supported through the
Natural Resources Conservation Service.
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA are particularly grateful to the subcommittee
for funding the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), the
new competitive grants program for research, extension, and education
within USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service at $201.5 million in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus
Appropriations bill. In fiscal year 2010, at a time when our Nation
needs to respond rapidly to challenges which threaten our ability to
safely produce and distribute food, feed, fuel, and fiber, we believe
it is essential to continue to build our competitive research programs.
For this reason, we recommend funding AFRI at $300 million in the
fiscal year 2010 agriculture appropriations bill. We believe that
funding AFRI at this level would be a strong step in support of these
important systems, enabling effective development and distribution of
information which will achieve the goals of agricultural production
(thereby maximizing the benefits of agroecosystem processes) and
environmental stewardship.
For the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), ASA, CSSA, and SSSA
thank Congress for providing the agency with the much-needed investment
of $176 million for buildings and facilities in the 2009 economic
stimulus bill (Public Law 111-5). For fiscal year 2010, we recommend a
funding level of $1,268 million or a 7 percent increase over the fiscal
year 2009 enacted funding level. The ARS ensures that our Nation has a
safe, reliable, and adequate supply of high quality food, feed, fiber
and fuel.
For the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service
(CSREES), ASA, CSSA, and SSSA recommend a funding level of $1,444
million for fiscal year 2010, roughly an 18 percent increase over
fiscal year 2009. Within CSREES we recommend an fiscal year 2010
funding level of $300 million for AFRI.
For fiscal year 2010, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support a 7 percent or
$75.5 million increase over fiscal year 2009 enacted funding level of
$1,036 million for the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),
which would bring total funding for NRCS to $1,108 million.
With more than 25,000 members and certified professionals, ASA,
CSSA, and SSSA are the largest life science professional societies in
the United States dedicated to the agronomic, crop and soil sciences.
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA play a major role in promoting progress in these
sciences through the publication of quality journals and books,
convening meetings and workshops, developing educational, training, and
public information programs, providing scientific advice to inform
public policy, and promoting ethical conduct among practitioners of
agronomy and crop and soil sciences. ASA and SSSA certified
professionals--Certified Crop Advisers (CCA), Agronomists (CPAg) and
Soil Scientists (CPSS)--are specialists who work in the field with
farmers, providing technical advice about the agronomic practices--
types and rates of fertilizer application, plant hybrid and variety
selection, soil conservation, nutrient management, and integrated pest
management--most appropriate to optimize crop yield and minimize
environmental impact.
Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA applaud the Agricultural Research Service's
(ARS) ability to respond quickly to rapidly changing national needs.
ARS's 2,100 scientists located at 100 research locations accomplish
scientific discoveries that help solve problems in crop and livestock
production and protection and human nutrition, and ensure a sustainable
interaction of agriculture and the environment. ARS National Programs
focus on the importance, impact, and quality of ARS research in (1)
Nutrition, Food Safety/Quality, (2) Animal Production and Protection,
(3) Natural Resources and Sustainable Agricultural Systems, and (4)
Crop Production and Protection. Increasingly, ARS through Cooperative
Research and Development Agreements (CRADA) between Federal
laboratories and businesses forms partnerships that help move new
technologies to the marketplace. These partnerships are especially
important to leverage during a time when our Nation's economy remains
vulnerable and Federal funding is constrained. Such cooperative
research and development helps foster American businesses and enhances
the position of the United States as a global leader in food, feed,
fiber, and fuel production.
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA find that research and technology transfer
resulting from ARS programs ensures high-quality, safe food and other
agricultural products; assesses the nutritional needs of Americans;
helps to sustain a competitive agricultural economy; enhances the
natural resource base and the environment; and provides economic
opportunities for rural citizens, communities, and society as a whole.
Again, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA recommend an ARS funding level of $1,268
million for fiscal year 2010, a 7 percent increase above the fiscal
year 2009 enacted.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)
ASA, CSSA, and SSSA find that the need has never been greater to
enhance investment in Hatch and McIntire-Stennis formula funding.
Therefore, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA recommend that both Hatch and McIntire-
Stennis receive a 10 percent increase over the fiscal year 2009 enacted
level of funding, bringing the combined funding level to $258 million
for fiscal year 2010. If we are to maintain the research capacity at
our Nation's Land Grant Universities and Colleges of Agriculture
necessary to keep American agriculture and forestry competitive, while
recognizing the potential of our managed systems to provide beneficial
ecosystem services, we need concerted investment in capacity building
at our institutions.
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI).--ASA, CSSA, and
SSSA strongly endorse a 49 percent increase in funding for the
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative. The AFRI, established in the
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (FCEA), is the successor to
USDA's National Research Initiative (NRI) and the Initiative for Future
Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS). ASA, CSSA, and SSSA find that
funding AFRI at $300 million in the fiscal year 2010 agriculture
appropriations bill (exclusive of any funding identified for Section
406 programs) will show a strong commitment to America's farmers and
rural entrepreneurs.
Bioenergy Feedstock Research.--ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support funding
of the Agricultural Bioenergy Feedstock and Energy Efficiency Research
and Extension Initiative (Section 7207) of the Food, Conservation and
Energy Act of 2008 (FCEA) at $25 million for fiscal year 2010. Section
7207 is a new program which closes the critical research gap between
fundamental biological discovery and the reliable expression of new
traits in the field. The research and extension projects under Section
7207 are critical to the future of the United States, and will improve
agricultural biomass production using field observations. This is a
nearly priceless step in translation of basic research. Furthermore, we
applaud Congress for including $118 million in mandatory funding during
the life of the FCEA for the Biomass Research and Development
Initiative (BRDI). We are excited about the mandatory funding of the
USDA portion of BRDI at $28 million for fiscal year 2010 and suggest
that an additional $10 million in discretionary funding (it is
authorized at $35 million) be placed towards this critical program for
fiscal year 2010.
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Programs.--ASA,
CSSA, and SSSA find the SARE Professional Development Program to be an
effective program and support funding for the program at $4.92 million
for fiscal year 2010. Additionally, we urge the Subcommittee to
consider an increase in SARE core funding to bring total funding to
$15.7 million for fiscal year 2010.
Higher Education.--ASA, CSSA, and SSSA urge the Subcommittee to
fund the Institution Challenge Grants at $6.22 million for fiscal year
2010. We strongly support a fiscal year 2010 level of $4.24 million in
funding for the Graduate Fellowships Grants; these grants enable us to
train the next generation of scientific innovators.
Cooperative Extension Service.--Extension forms a critical part of
research, education and extension program integration, a feature unique
to CSREES. Unfortunately, recently the Smith Lever 3(b) and 3(c)
account has been flat-funded (in constant dollars this account has seen
a gradual erosion in funding). ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support $309 million
in appropriations for fiscal year 2010, a $20 million increase over
fiscal year 2009 enacted, for the continuing education and outreach
activities supported by Smith-Lever 3(b) & (c) formula funds.
New Technologies for Ag Extension (NTAE).--eXtension is a national
web-based information and education delivery system that provides
direct public access to science-based educational resources. ASA, CSSA,
and SSSA find that internet-facilitated outreach through extension and
other New Technologies for Ag Extension (NTAE) programs provide
invaluable consolidation and streamlining of information. These
communication technologies help to highlight appropriate management,
expediting the voluntary adoption of the best practices. ASA, CSSA, and
SSSA recommend a 10 percent increase in appropriation for fiscal year
2010 for this program, bringing funding to $1.65 million.
Integrated Research, Education, and Extension Competitive Grants
Program.--Section 406 was initially authorized in the Agricultural
Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998. Since its
inception this program has proven to be an indispensible part of water
and pest management and numerous other issues. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA
support a funding increase of 7 percent for programs under Section 406,
which would bring total funding to $44.92 million. Furthermore, we
strongly suggest that the International Science and Education (ISE)
Grants Program also receive a 7 percent increase, bringing ISE funding
to $3.21 million for fiscal year 2010, and increasing the funding of
total integrated activities to $60 million for fiscal year 2010.
Organic Farming Transition Program.--ASA, CSSA, and SSSA urge the
Subcommittee to fund the Organic Farming Transition Program at $1.97
million in fiscal year 2010, an increase over fiscal year 2009 of 7
percent.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
For fiscal year 2010, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support a 7 percent
increase over the fiscal year 2009 enacted funding level of $1,036
million for the Natural Resources Conservation Service. This would
bring total NRCS funding to $1,108 million.
Conservation Security Program.--The Conservation Security Program
provides financial and technical assistance to producers who advance
the conservation and improvement of soil, water, air, energy, plant and
animal life, and other conservation purposes on Tribal and private
working lands. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA applaud Congress for passing the
FCEA which keeps this important working lands conservation program as
an uncapped mandatory program. Further, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA encourage
the Subcommittee not to cap appropriations for this program.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program.--The Environmental
Quality Incentives Program provides technical assistance to eligible
farmers and ranchers to address soil, water, air, and related natural
resource concerns on their lands in an environmentally beneficial and
cost-effective manner. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support funding of this
essential program at $1,337 million for fiscal year 2010.
In Summary
A balance of funding mechanisms for research, including intramural,
competitive and formula funding, is essential to maintain the capacity
of the United States to conduct both basic and applied agricultural
research to improve crop and livestock quality, and deliver safe and
nutritious food products, while protecting and enhancing the Nation's
environment and natural resource base. In order to address these
challenges and maintain our position in an increasingly competitive
world, we must continue to support research, education and extension
programs funded through the Agricultural Research Service and
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, and
conservation programs supported by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service. Congress must enhance funding for these programs to ensure
that Americans have access to a safe and nutritious food supply and to
provide for the next generation of research scientists, extension
agents and educators. According to the USDA Economic Research Service
(Agricultural Economic Report Number 735), publicly funded agricultural
research has earned an annual rate of return of 35 percent. This rate
of return suggests that additional allocation of funds to support
research in the food and agricultural sciences would be highly
beneficial to the U.S. economy. Finally, we must ensure support for
CSREES-funded extension programs to guarantee that these important new
tools and technologies reach and are utilized by producers and other
stakeholders.
As you lead the Congress in deliberation on funding levels for
agricultural research, extension, education and conservation programs,
please consider American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of
America, and Soil Science Society of America as supportive resources.
We hope you will call on our membership and scientific expertise
whenever the need arises. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration
of our requests. For additional information or to learn more about the
American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America and Soil
Science Society of America (ASA-CSSA-SSSA), please visit
www.agronomy.org, www.crops.org or www.soils.org or contact ASA-CSSA-
SSSA Director of Science Policy Karl Glasener ([email protected],
[email protected], or [email protected]) or 202-408-5382.
______
Prepared Statement of the Animal Welfare Institute
USDA/APHIS/Animal Care (AC)/Animal Welfare Act (AWA) Enforcement
AWI Request: $22,275,270 (near-level funding)
Over the past decade, the subcommittee has responded to the urgent
need for increased funding for Animal Care to improve its inspections
of nearly 16,000 sites, including animal dealers, commercial breeders,
laboratories, zoos, circuses, and airlines, to ensure compliance with
Animal Welfare Act standards. AC now has 111 inspectors (with 5
vacancies in the process of being filled), versus 64 inspectors at the
end of the 1990s. During fiscal year 2008, they conducted 15,600
inspections, including required annual visits to all research
facilities that alone house over 1 million animals covered by the act.
Moreover, AC inspectors engaged in extended, time-consuming follow-up
with licensees/registrants regarded as problems because of the nature
and frequency of their violations.
It is important to sustain the progress that has been made. This
budget request of $22,275,270 provides a minimal increase over fiscal
year 2009 to cover pay costs as well as the added responsibilities
associated both with the growing number of licensed/registered
facilities, and with enforcing the new Congressional ban on imports
from foreign puppy mills.
APHIS/Emergency Management Systems/Disaster Planning for Animals
AWI Request: $1,001,000 (level funding)
In addition to their AWA inspections, Animal Care personnel help
plan and coordinate disaster response efforts for companion and service
animals. In 2008, they assisted with pet evacuation and recovery during
Hurricanes Gustav and Ike and the California wildfires. These efforts
are required by law--laws enacted in recognition of the implications
for disaster response, as learned during Hurricane Katrina, when people
refuse to evacuate because no plans have been made for their companion
animals. This is an important effort, and the additional funding is
needed so that it does not come at the expense of AC's other programs.
Agricultural Research Service/National Agricultural Library (NAL)/
Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC)
AWI Request: $1, 978,400
We very much appreciate the Subcommittee's strong support for the
Animal Welfare Information Center, including placing it within the
NAL's budget as a line item. AWIC's services are integral to the
Nation's biomedical research enterprise, as well as to other regulated
entities, because they facilitate compliance with Federal animal
welfare regulations and policies governing animal-related research. The
AWIC helps to improve the conduct of research, including the care
provided to the animals who are used, thereby ensuring a reduction in
variables that can skew the research. Better science is the end result.
Congress established AWIC under the Improved Standards for
Laboratory Animals Act (the 1985 amendment to the Animal Welfare Act)
to serve as a clearinghouse, training center, and educational resource
for institutions using animals in research, testing, and teaching. The
Center is the single most important resource for helping personnel at
more than 1,200 United States research facilities meet their
responsibilities under the AWA. Supported by a modest funding level,
its services are available to everyone at these institutions, including
animal technicians, research investigators, attending veterinarians,
IACUC representatives, and the Institutional Official, as well as to
other industries and regulated entities, USDA inspectors, and the
general public.
AWIC provides data on the following: alleviating or reducing pain
and distress in experimental animals (including anesthetic and
analgesic procedures); reducing the number of animals used for research
where possible; identifying alternatives to the use of animals for
specific research projects; and preventing the unintended duplication
of animal experiments. The Center collects, updates, and disseminates
material on humane animal housing and husbandry, the responsibilities
of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs), animal
behavior, improved methodologies, psychological well-being of primates,
and exercise for dogs. Through the resources it provides to the
research community and other animal industries, such as zoos, AWIC
contributes significantly to science-based decision-making in animal
care.
AWIC's website (http://awic.nal.usda.gov/) is one of the most
accessed sites at the NAL, with an average of over 340,000 page-views
per month in fiscal year 2008, a 12 percent increase over fiscal year
2007. It provides valuable information on issues of importance not only
to the science community but also to the agriculture and public health
communities, including BSE and avian influenza, two of the top areas of
inquiry for visitors to its website. In fiscal year 2008, in addition
to hundreds of millions of kbytes of information downloaded from the
website, more than 82,000 hard copies (paper and CD) were distributed,
an increase of 17 percent over fiscal year 2007. This includes the
distribution of the AWIC Bulletin to over 7,000 requestors. AWIC staff
provided over 2,000 personal reference services; conducted 7 sessions
of its workshop ``Meeting the Information Requirements of the Animal
Welfare Act'' at universities, pharmaceutical/research firms, and NAL
itself; and conducted 22 exhibitions and/or presentations at various
professional and scientific meetings, as well as for several visiting
delegations at NAL.
AWIC expertise is also needed to address continuing deficiencies in
IACUC oversight within research institutions. First identified some
years ago in an OIG audit, USDA found IACUC-related violations 45 times
in fiscal year 2007, and the primate abuse documented at the New Iberia
Research Facility in 2008 provides fresh evidence of these problems.
AWIC needs the funds to conduct more of its workshops, and to achieve a
long-sought objective of holding a symposium on AWA requirements for
IACUC nonaffiliated members (i.e., members from the community charged
with representing the communities' concerns for the animals).
Likewise, increased funding is necessitated by the expansion of
AWIC's mandate to serve the broader industry regulated under the AWA:
animal dealers, carriers and handlers, zoos and other exhibitors.
Animal Care's veterinary medical officers and animal care inspectors
are able to utilize the full range of AWIC's services to better fulfill
their responsibilities. The AWIC works closely with Animal Care and
with Emergency Veterinary Services on emerging crises such as the
highly pathogenic avian influenza, and it also quickly responded to the
current health emergency by adding a variety of information resources
on the H1N1 virus to its website, its blog, and through Twitter.
Among other endeavors, the $1.978 million would be used as follows:
The addition of two much-needed specialists to expand the content of
the Center's database and make it more user-friendly and searchable;
development of web-based training modules to provide online delivery of
training opportunities; workshops, in conjunction with Animal Care, to
assist licensees and registrants frequently cited for AWA violations;
acquisition of, including electronic access to, data, including certain
veterinary publications (the receipt of which was discontinued due to
budget shortfalls); restoration of a grants program that could be used
to update essential publications and manuals and translate them into
Spanish for the growing number of Spanish-speaking animal care
personnel in labs and zoos; and the overhead that must be provided to
the Agricultural Research Service and the National Agricultural
Library. (It should be noted that, after salaries and benefits, the
largest single expense AWIC has is its overhead costs to ARS and NAL,
which comprise over 13 percent of this funding request. This large
expense substantially reduces the funds available for AWIC to conduct
programs and provide services.)
AWIC's indispensability not only in assisting with compliance with
the AWA but also in providing up-to-date information on a range of
issues, from BSE to primate enrichment to the H1N1 virus, that are
critical to the scientific and agricultural communities and the general
public, justifies this modest proposed increase in its budget to enable
it to meet growing demand for its expertise on multiple fronts.
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)/Humane Methods of Slaughter
Act (HMSA) Enforcement
AWI Request: Sufficient Funds to Ensure Strengthened
Enforcement of HMSA
We greatly appreciate Congress' past efforts to address USDA's
egregious failure to enforce the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act.
Despite these efforts, USDA has made no improvement in this area. This
failure jeopardizes both animal welfare and consumer welfare.
Since 2001, Congress has provided millions in additional funds for
humane slaughter enforcement, in part to be used to hire new in-plant
employees to work full-time on HMSA enforcement only. However, to date,
none have been hired solely to handle this responsibility.
An AWI report found that enforcement of humane slaughter law is a
low priority within USDA. (Crimes without Consequences: The Enforcement
of Humane Slaughter Laws in the United States. www.awionline.org/farm/
pdf/SlaughterReport.pdf) Not much has changed since 2004, when the
Government Accountability Office issued a report citing widespread
animal welfare issues under USDA's watch. It appears that the agency
ignored the report.
Between 2002 and 2005, only 42 enforcement actions beyond
deficiency reports for noncompliance with humane slaughter laws were
taken in the United States. But whistleblower accounts and undercover
videotape documentation from inside slaughterhouses reviewed in the
report suggest that the current low level of humane enforcement is not
due to a lack of violations. Instead, crimes are either not observed or
recognized by inspection personnel, not reported through the proper
channels, or the appropriate remedial measures are not taken.
In 2008, undercover video obtained by an investigator from an
animal protection group revealed abhorrent acts of cruelty to livestock
at the Westland/Hallmark Meat Packing Company in Chino, Calif., raising
both ethical and food safety issues.
In the wake of this case, suggestions have been made regarding the
installation of video cameras as a deterrent. AWI urges Congress to
reject any attempt by the department to use cameras in lieu of
inspectors.
Inspectors must be able to observe animals from the time the truck
arrives and animals are unloaded and moved, through the stunning and
slaughter process, until the last animal on the vehicle is killed.
Under the law, when an inspector sees an apparent violation, he/she is
authorized to stop the line on the spot.
AWI is concerned with USDA's lack of commitment to enforcement.
Congress must provide enough funding to allow FSIS to assign as many
inspectors as needed to fully enforce the HMSA at all slaughter plants,
but then it must exercise its oversight power to make sure that those
inspectors are in fact tasked only with HMSA enforcement, are
adequately trained, and that they understand their mission: To enforce
the law and to ensure the humane and safe treatment of animals killed
for human consumption, as mandated by the HMSA.
Office of Inspector General (OIG)/Animal Fighting Enforcement
AWI Request: $87,910,150 (near-level funding)
In 2007, violations of the AWA's animal fighting provisions, as
well as the possession of related implements, became felonies. AWI
supports funding OIG sufficiently to allow it to pursue animal fighting
cases vigorously. Animal fighting is often associated with other
violent crimes, thus posing a threat to the welfare of both animals and
our communities. This level of funding is also needed to enable OIG to
carry out audits and investigations to improve compliance with the
Animal Welfare Act, the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, the Horse
Protection Act, and the downed animal rules.
APHIS/Animal Care/Horse Protection Act (HPA) Enforcement
AWI Request: $1 million
The goal of the Horse Protection Act, passed in 1970, is to end the
cruel practice of soring, by which unscrupulous owners and/or trainers
primarily of Tennessee Walking Horses intentionally inflict pain on the
legs and hooves of horses, through the application of chemical and
mechanical irritants, to produce an exaggerated gait. In 2008, the
American Association of Equine Practitioners condemned soring as ``one
of the most significant welfare issues faced by the equine industry.''
Three Girl Scouts bravely documented the brutality of this crime in
their video ``See it through my eyes.'' (Available at www.youtube.com/
watch?v=kqFeYu1CrjU)
Throughout its history, however, the law has been openly flouted
and inadequate funding has hampered enforcement. Through a separate,
joint statement with the Humane Society of the United States and
others, we support a request for $1 million for HPA enforcement. This
sum would allow government oversight at many more horse shows and
greater investment in technologies (gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry and thermography) that improve detection of sored horses.
It should be noted that in fiscal year 2007, the use of GC/MS, which
detects foreign substances used to sore horses, resulted in positive
findings in 50 percent of the animals tested.
APHIS/Investigative and Enforcement Services (IES)
AWI Request: $14,036,350 (near-level funding)
The Investigative and Enforcement Services division of APHIS is
essential to meaningful enforcement of the AWA and HPA. Among other
things, it investigates alleged violations of the AWA and undertakes
appropriate enforcement action. It handles more animal welfare cases as
new facilities become licensed and registered and Animal Care conducts
more inspections. Moreover, IES has seen an increase in its workload
involving HPA-related activities.
______
Prepared Statement of the Animal Welfare Institute
Re: Request of $1,978,400 for the Animal Welfare Information Center
Dear Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Cochran: Thank you for your
interest in and efforts on behalf of the Animal Welfare Information
Center (AWIC) at the National Agricultural Library (NAL). Previous
efforts to eliminate AWIC have failed as a result of Congress'
appreciation of the agency's value to the research community and it
support for its programs.
The AWIC was established in 1986 in response to a mandate in the
Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals amendment to the Animal
Welfare Act (AWA). The Center serves as a clearinghouse, training
center, and education resource for those involved in the use of animals
for research, testing, and teaching (as well as other entities covered
by the AWA), and the need and demand for its services continue to
outstrip its resources. AWIC provides training and compiles,
distributes, and posts on its website information resources from the
scientific literature to assist researchers who use animals. The
subjects covered include husbandry, handling, and care of animals;
personnel training; animal behavior; alternatives; improved
methodologies; environmental enrichment of non-human primates; and pain
control via anesthesia and analgesia. It also serves as a resource for
the wider scientific and agricultural communities by providing access
to material on zoonotic diseases such as avian influenza, transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies, tuberculosis, and now the H1N1 virus. Its
activities contribute significantly to science-based decision-making in
animal care.
In fiscal year 2008, staff conducted seven sessions of AWIC's
workshop, ``Meeting the Information Requirements of the Animal Welfare
Act'' (evaluations of which are overwhelmingly positive, with
participants indicating a high degree of new information acquisition),
and presented 22 exhibitions and presentations. The AWIC website
(http://awic.nal.usda.gov/) is one of the most accessed sites at NAL,
with an average of over 340,000 page-views each month in fiscal year
2008, a 12 percent increase over fiscal year 2007. Many improvements to
the website have been made in the past year, and more information on
more subjects through more outlets is available.
Today we write in support of an appropriation of $1,978,400, which
is urgently needed to fund, in addition to salaries and other expenses,
AWIC's services and its ongoing efforts to improve their delivery:
--$50,000--Develop web-based training modules, including interactive
modules, in order to provide online delivery of training
opportunities.
--$36,000--Present workshops in cooperation with Animal Care to
assist licensees/registrants frequently cited for AWA
violations.
--$20,500--Internet services
--$13,900--AWIC staff training
--$200,000--Resume acquisition of veterinary publications that NAL
discontinued 5 years ago, and increase the pace of indexing all
such publications.
--$270,000--Overhead to ARS and NAL
--$50,000--Meet Congressional mandate to digitize more materials; in
particular, scanning AWA-related documents going back to 1966
--$50,000--Restore a grants program that could be used to update
Essentials for Animals in Research, as well as certain animal
care manuals, and then translate them into Spanish; develop
training DVDs, etc. In the past, this program yielded useful
products, including the original Essentials for Animal
Research: A Primer for Research Personnel (which was also
translated into Spanish and is still among the top ten
downloaded documents); a video on normal animal behaviors; and
a training video on using animals in research. It also provided
support for the first World Congress on Animal Use in the Life
Sciences, and for the proceedings of conferences for the
Scientists Center for Animal Welfare.
--$10,000--Convene a stakeholders meeting to assess AWIC's services
and recommend steps for the future.
--$5,000--Translate the AWA and its regulations, and other documents,
into Spanish.
The growing numbers of Spanish-speaking animal-care personnel in
U.S. research facilities and zoos, as well as increasing interest on
the part of scientific communities in Central and South America, have
made the availability of Spanish-language materials a priority.
We hope that the new Administration recognizes how vitally
important the AWIC's services are to the nation's biomedical research
enterprise, and how essential it is to have a budget sufficient to
support these services and technological improvements in their
delivery. AWIC facilitates compliance with specific requirements of
federal animal welfare regulations and policies governing animal-
related research. In addition, it provides extensive research services
for us, thereby greatly benefiting our work on animal research issues.
We appreciate and look forward to a continued working relationship with
the Animal Welfare Information Center and hope you will support our
modest request for appropriations.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
The Congress concluded that the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Program (Program) should be implemented in the most cost-
effective way. The Program is funded by EQIP, the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation's (BOR) Basinwide Program, and a cost share for both of
these programs provided by the Basin States. Realizing that
agricultural on-farm strategies were some of the most cost-effective
strategies, the Congress authorized a program for the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) through amendment of the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Act (Act) in 1984. With the enactment of
the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIRA), the
Congress directed that the Program should continue to be implemented as
one of the components of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP). Since the enactment of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act (FSRIA) in 2002, there have been, for the first time in a number of
years, opportunities to adequately fund the Program within the EQIP. In
2008, Congress passed the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act (FCEA).
The FCEA addresses the cost sharing required from the Basin Funds. In
so doing, the FCEA named the cost sharing requirement as the Basin
States Program (BSP). The BSP will provide 30 percent of the total
amount that will be spent each year by the combined EQIP and BSP
effort.
The Program, as set forth in the act, is to benefit Lower Basin
water users hundreds of miles downstream from salt sources in the Upper
Basin as the salinity of Colorado River water increases as the water
flows downstream. There are very significant economic damages caused by
high salt levels in this water source. Agriculturalists in the Upper
Basin where the salt must be controlled, however, don't first look to
downstream water quality standards but look for local benefits. These
local benefits are in the form of enhanced beneficial use and improved
crop yields. They submit cost-effective proposals to the State
Conservationists in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado and offer to cost share
in the acquisition of new irrigation equipment. It is the act that
provides that the seven Colorado River Basin States will also cost
share with the Federal funds for this effort. This has brought together
a remarkable partnership.
After longstanding urgings from the States and directives from the
Congress, the USDA has concluded that this program is different than
small watershed enhancement efforts common to the EQIP. In the case of
the Colorado River salinity control effort, the watershed to be
considered stretches more than 1,200 miles from the river's headwater
in the Rocky Mountains to the river's terminus in the Gulf of
California in Mexico and receives water from numerous tributaries. The
USDA has determined that this effort should receive a special funding
designation and has appointed a coordinator for this multi-state
effort.
In recent fiscal years, the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) has directed that about $19 million of EQIP funds be used for
the Program. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum)
appreciates the efforts of the NRCS leadership and the support of this
subcommittee. The plan for water quality control of the Colorado River
was prepared by the Forum, adopted by the States, and approved by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council has taken the position that the
funding for the salinity control program should not be below $20
million per year. Over the last 3 fiscal years, for the first time,
funding almost reached the needed level. State and local cost-sharing
is triggered by the Federal appropriation. In fiscal year 2009, it is
anticipated that the States will cost share with about $8 million and
local agriculture producers will add more than $7 million. Hence, it is
anticipated that in fiscal year 2009 the State and local contributions
will be about 45 percent of the total program cost.
Over the past few years, the NRCS has designated that about 2.5
percent of the EQIP funds be allocated to the Colorado River salinity
control program. The Forum believes this is the appropriate future
level of funding as long as the total EQIP funding nationwide is more
than $1 billion. Funding above this level assists in offsetting pre-
fiscal year 2003 funding below this level. The Basin States have cost
sharing dollars available to participate in funding on-farm salinity
control efforts. The agricultural producers in the Upper Basin are
waiting for their applications to be considered so that they might
improve their irrigation equipment and also cost share in the Program.
Overview
The Program was authorized by the Congress in 1974. The Title I
portion of the act responded to commitments that the United States
made, through a Minute of the International Boundary and Water
Commission, to Mexico specific 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-
enacted Clean Water Act. 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 act needed to be amended. The Congress
agreed and made a major revision to the act in 1984. That revision,
while keeping the Department of the Interior as lead coordinator for
Colorado River Basin salinity control efforts, also gave new salinity
control responsibilities to the USDA. The Congress has charged the
Administration with implementing the most cost-effective program
practicable (measured in dollars per ton of salt controlled). It has
been determined that the agricultural efforts are some of the most
cost-effective opportunities.
Since Congressional mandates of more than three decades ago, much
has been learned about the impact of salts in the Colorado River
system. The BOR has conducted studies on the economic impact of these
salts. The BOR recognizes that the damages to United States' water
users alone are hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
The Forum is composed of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona,
California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum
has become the seven-State coordinating body for interfacing with
Federal agencies and the Congress in support of the implementation of
the Salinity Control Program. In close cooperation with the EPA and
pursuant to requirements of the Clean Water Act, every 3 years the
Forum prepares a formal report evaluating the salinity of the Colorado
River, its anticipated future salinity, and the program elements
necessary to keep the salinity concentrations (measured in Total
Dissolved Solids--TDS) at or below the levels measured in the river
system in 1972 at Imperial Dam, and below Parker and Hoover Dams.
In setting water quality standards for the Colorado River system,
the salinity concentrations at these three locations in 1972 have been
identified as the numeric criteria. The plan necessary for controlling
salinity and reducing downstream damages has been captioned the ``Plan
of Implementation.'' The 2008 Review of water quality standards
includes an updated Plan of Implementation. In order to eliminate the
shortfall in salinity control resulting from inadequate Federal funding
for a number of years from the USDA, the Forum has determined that
implementation of the Program needs to be accelerated. The level of
appropriation requested in this testimony is in keeping with the agreed
upon plan. If adequate funds are not appropriated, significant damages
from the higher salt concentrations in the water will be more
widespread in the United States and Mexico.
Concentrations of salts in the river cause well over $300 million
in quantified damages and significantly more in unquantified damages in
the United States and result in poorer quality water being delivered by
the United States to Mexico. Damages occur from:
--a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use for leaching in the agricultural sector,
--a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector,
--an increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector,
--an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector,
--a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector,
--difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins, and
--increased use of imported water for leaching and cost of
desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
State Cost Sharing and Technical Assistance
The authorized cost sharing by the Basin States, as provided by
FAIRA, was at first difficult to implement as attorneys for the USDA
concluded that the Basin States were authorized to cost share in the
effort, but the Congress had not given the 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 Reclamation, State officials in Utah, Colorado and
Wyoming and with NRCS State Conservationists in Utah, Colorado and
Wyoming, agreed upon a program parallel to the salinity control
activities provided by the EQIP wherein the States' cost sharing funds
are being contributed and used. We now have several years of experience
with that program and with the passage of FCEA we now have a clear
authority for this program that is now known as the BSP.
The act designates that the Secretary of the Interior provide the
coordination for the Federal agencies involved in the salinity control
program. That responsibility has been delegated to the BOR. The BOR
administers the Basin States cost sharing funds that have been used in
the Parallel Program. The BOR requested that there be enacted clearer
authority for the use of these funds.
With respect to the use of Basin States' cost sharing funds in the
past, the Basin States felt that it was most essential that a portion
of the Program be associated with technical assistance (TA) and
education activities in the field. Without this necessary support,
there is no advanced planning, proposals are not well prepared,
assertions in the proposals cannot be verified, implementation of
contracts cannot be observed, and valuable partnering and education
efforts cannot occur. Recognizing these values, the BSP designates 40
percent of the funds available on these needed TA activities made
possible by contracts with the NRCS.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California
This testimony is in support of funding for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) with respect to its on-farm Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program for fiscal year 2010. This program has been
carried out through the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act
(Public Law 93-320), since it was enacted by Congress in 1974. With the
enactment of the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act
(FAIRA) in 1996 (Public Law 104-127), specific funding for salinity
control projects in the Colorado River Basin were eliminated from the
Federal budget and aggregated into the Department of Agriculture's
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) as one of its program
components. With that action, Congress concluded that the salinity
control program could be more effectively implemented as one of the
components of the EQIP.
The Program, as set forth in the act, benefits both the Upper Basin
water users through more efficient water management and the Lower Basin
water users, hundreds of miles downstream from salt sources in the
Upper Basin, through reduced salinity concentration of Colorado River
water. California's Colorado River water users are presently suffering
economic damages in the hundreds of million of dollars per year due to
the River's salinity.
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 six Colorado River
Basin states through the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
(Forum), the interstate organization responsible for coordinating the
Basin States' salinity control efforts, established numeric criteria in
June 1975 for salinity concentrations in the River. These criteria were
established to lessen the future damages in the Lower Basin States of
Arizona, California, and Nevada, 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 resources development in the Colorado River
Basin after 1972 as each state develops its Colorado River Compact
apportionments. In close cooperation with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and pursuant to requirements of the Clean Water
Act (Public Law 92-500), every 3 years the Forum prepares a formal
report analyzing the salinity of the Colorado River, anticipated future
salinity, and the program elements necessary to keep the salinity
concentrations (measured in Total Dissolved Solids--TDS) at or below
the levels measured in the Colorado River system in 1972 at Imperial
Dam, and below Parker and Hoover Dams. The latest report was prepared
in 2008 titled: 2008 Review, Water Quality Standards for Salinity,
Colorado River System (2008 Review). The plan necessary for controlling
salinity and reducing downstream damages has been captioned the ``Plan
of Implementation.'' The 2008 Review includes an updated Plan of
Implementation.
Concentrations of salts in the River annually cause about $376
million in quantified damage in the United States (there are
significant un-quantified damages as well). For example, damages occur
from:
--A reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use for leaching in the agricultural sector;
--A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector;
--An increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector;
--An increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;
--A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector;
--Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling due to
groundwater quality deterioration; and
--Increased use of imported water for leaching and the cost of
desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
For every 30 milligram per liter increase in salinity
concentrations, there are $75 million in additional damages in the
United States. Although the Program, thus far, has been able to
implement salinity control measures that comply with the approved plan,
recent drought years have caused salinity levels to rise in the River.
Predictions are that this will be the trend for the next several years.
This places an added urgency for acceleration of the implementation of
the Program.
Enactment of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
provided an opportunity to adequately fund the Salinity Program within
EQIP. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council has
taken the position that the USDA portion of the effort be funded at 2.5
percent of the EQIP funding but at least $20 million annually. Over the
past few years, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has
designated 2.5 percent of EQIP funds be allocated to the Colorado River
Salinity Control program. The Forum suggests that this is an
appropriate level of funding as long as it does not drop below $20
million. The Colorado River Board supports the recommendation of the
Forum and urges this Subcommittee to support funding for the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Program for 2010 at this level.
These Federal dollars will be augmented by the State cost sharing
of 30 percent with an additional 25 percent provided by the
agricultural producers with whom USDA contracts for implementation of
salinity control measures. Over the past years, the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control program has proven to be a very cost effective
approach to help mitigate the impacts of increased salinity in the
Colorado River. Continued Federal funding of this important Basin-wide
program is essential.
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 quality water to Mexico. In order for those commitments to
continue to be honored, it is essential that in fiscal year 2010, and
in future fiscal years, that Congress continues to provide funds to
USDA to allow it to provide needed technical support to agricultural
producers for addressing salinity control in the Basin.
The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
water resource to the 18 million residents of southern California as
well as throughout the Colorado River Basin. As stated earlier,
preservation and improvement of the Colorado River water quality
through an effective salinity control program will avoid the additional
economic damages to users of Colorado River water in California,
Arizona, and Nevada.
______
Prepared Statement of the Environmental Service Research Institute
a proposal for national economic recovery--an investment in geospatial
information infrastructure building a national gis \1\
Summary
We respectfully request the Subcommittee's support for a multi-
year, government-wide effort to build a national Geospatial Information
System (GIS), led by the Secretary of Interior through his role as
chairman of the Federal Geographic Data Committee under OMB circular A-
16, and the United States Geological Survey. The total cost of the
program, as detailed below, is expected to be approximately $1.2
billion spread over 3 years. For fiscal 2010, we urge the Subcommittee
to provide $40.1 million for the portions of this project within your
jurisdiction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A vision for a National Geographic Information System, by Jack
Dangermond and Anne Hale Miglarese.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal
The Stimulus Plan recently approved by Congress and the incoming
Obama Administration is an enormous undertaking to revive the American
economy. Potentially, it will involve thousands of infrastructure and
other projects intended to create jobs and restart economic growth
while producing things of lasting value to American taxpayers. The
challenge to properly manage and execute this effort will be daunting,
requiring unprecedented access to data and information at all levels of
government and the private sector.
This is the moment for America to build a national Geographic
Information System (GIS), that is, a unified, up-to-date, publicly-
accessible national digital map, enriched with data from all available
sources, and supported by GIS technology. This system can be built
quickly, immediately creating high tech jobs, and will serve as a
public resource for project planners to support transportation
infrastructure, alternative energy research, and project siting. It
will also provide a foundation for monitoring the U.S. economic
recovery across our communities, allowing activities to get underway as
soon as possible and leaving a legacy for the future.
The benefits of a national GIS are universal. The Western
Governor's Association declared GIS a key component of our national
critical infrastructure. The National Geospatial Advisory Committee
(NGAC) adopted a set of transition recommendations that represent a
broad consensus among the key public and private stakeholders in the
geospatial technology field and form a principal basis for this
proposal.
Why a National GIS Should be Completed
Agencies have been laying the foundation for national GIS for
years. It falls within umbrella names like Imagery for the Nation, The
National Map, the National Spatial Data Infrastructure, and the
pioneering work of by the U.S. Geological Survey, the Department of
Commerce Census Bureau and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the Departments of Homeland Security, Agriculture,
and Interior, among others. It is supported by technical studies from
the National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC), the National
Research Council, the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), and the
National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC). Now is the time
to pull them together.
GIS technology is uniquely capable of providing unity both to the
complex new Stimulus Plan as well as other ongoing initiatives. GIS can
integrate data from agencies across all levels of government, providing
decision makers a powerful tool to marshal knowledge on items as
diverse as personnel, finance, economics, infrastructure, and
resources, all organized within maps or images showing geographic
basics such as topography, roads, parcels, buildings, utility networks,
landmarks, soil types, and political and physical land divisions. It
brings together all key national datasets to support action--which is
why it is considered a must for emergency response organizations across
the country. A national GIS will place at our fingertips a
comprehensive description of our nation's assets, resources and
operations, all linked geographically. Once completed, it will be a
priceless national resource and an indispensable tool for planners and
business alike.
A national GIS can be built immediately, engaging hundreds of
private firms. It will speed the start of job-rich infrastructure
projects. Its biggest impact will be on projects critical to energy
development, homeland security, defense, climate change, health care
delivery, telecommunications, transportation, and the environment.
Without national GIS as a management tool, efforts will be haphazard
and project planners will be hamstrung. A National GIS must be a
cornerstone program funded by the Stimulus Plan, a fulcrum to wring the
greatest result for each dollar spent.
Technical fundamentals of a National GIS
A GIS system integrates information from many sources and authors
using standardized protocols so that information can be harmonized and
incorporated into a consistent framework to support multiple missions
at all levels of government and private business. It can be built and
maintained largely using on-going business processes such as The
National Map initiative of Interior Department's Geological Survey
(USGS), and it can rely heavily on existing software, hardware, and
networks, integrated by a lead organization setting standards and
protocols. Existing modern GIS server technology, together with open
standards and Services Oriented Architecture (SOA), can provide
enabling components for a national GIS immediately. This architecture
maximizes collaboration among government and private entities.
Guarantees of privacy, confidentiality, protection of proprietary
financial data, and similar concerns can be built in at the foundation
and at every level. This national system will result in the following:
--A series of standard geographic datasets (framework layers
described below);
--A series of workflows that transactionally maintain (update) these
datasets;
--A system for data management responsibility (FGDC governance);
--A suite of tailored applications;
--A designated Federal entity to oversee the effort;
--The necessary technology to support a National GIS system.
Leadership and cost for a National GIS
Both the National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC) and the
Department of Interior have developed detailed recommendations on how
to build a National GIS. A key first step is to implement fully the
Imagery for the Nation initiative, an intergovernmental plan to create
a full Federal-level GIS based on nationwide aerial imaging and
mapping, participation by agencies across the Federal landscape, and
technological consistency.
Next, a comprehensive national updating of mapping and
topographical information is essential to create a complete current
portrait of America--what is referred to as The National Map. This
step, along with outreach to incorporate key additional databases
maintained by State and local governments and the private sector, and
elements such as Parcels, Transportation, Hydro, Elevation, Critical
Habitat and Boundaries, will be needed to make the system most
effective for project decision-makers and infrastructure planners. We
anticipate the total cost to be approximately $1.2 billion, spread over
3 years. We can provide detailed cost breakdowns upon request.
In order to create a national GIS it is necessary to update and
integrate the many currently-existing individual agency map layers into
a consistent, integrated whole. USGS would lead this effort and combine
information into a consistent geospatial foundation. This component
will, over the next 3 years, require an additional $200 million spread
over a variety of Federal Departments and Agencies.
Interagency plans, contracts, and management systems are already in
place today to implement this initiative. Overall management could be
provided by the Secretary of the Interior, who chairs the Federal
Geographic Data Committee, with significant involvement from USDA, DOC
and DHS/FEMA. In addition, program funding can be leveraged through
cooperative efforts with partners in State and local government and the
private sector. The National Geospatial Advisory Committee can provide
ongoing strategic and recommendations program design and
implementation.
A National GIS: Key Framework Data and System Technology
We propose focusing on the development of five key digital layers
or initiatives as initial steps toward a National GIS: Imagery, Parcel
Data, Elevation, and Wildlife Habitat, and Recovery.gov.
--Imagery.--Imagery for the Nation (IFTN) is an intergovernmental
initiative to address the Nation's basic business needs for
aerial images. Imagery is used for countless applications in
all levels of government and the private sector, embraced by
the public through online tools such as Google Earth and
Microsoft Virtual Earth. Partnerships between levels of
government to acquire imagery data have lowered costs, reduced
duplication, and allowed greater data standardization. IFTN
will maximize the impact of taxpayer investments through a
coordinated national acquisition program. The IFTN initiative
was originated by the National States Geographic Information
Council, been endorsed by the FGDC and the NGAC, and involves a
heavy investment from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The
approximate 3-year total cost for this activity is $140
million, equally split between the Departments of the Interior
and Agriculture. For fiscal year 2010, we urge the subcommittee
to provide $23.4 million for Agriculture's component.
--A GIS-based Recovery.Gov.--President Obama has insisted that
Stimulus spending be subject to maximum transparency and
accountability, enabling citizens to understand how their funds
are being spent and how their communities will be affected.
Recovery.gov, the web-based tool being launched by OMB for this
purpose, must provide complete, understandable, authoritative
and actionable information and analysis to elected and
appointed officials, and to ordinary citizens. We propose that
Recovery.gov be equipped with interactive maps and geospatial
analytic tools that will substantially improve understanding
and effectiveness of Recovery Act execution. An interactive map
provides an intuitive foundation to understand, integrate, and
interrogate this disparate and overwhelming amount of
information, and to support better and timelier analysis and
decisions. The application of GIS technology would allow public
users to access and view Recovery Act spending patterns against
established goals and underlying local and national conditions.
In this way, it will allow the public to evaluate whether the
government is making the right choices on where money is spent,
and whether spending is yielding the right results. The
approximate 3-year total cost for this activity is $250 million
across the Departments of the Interior ($100 million),
Agriculture ($50 million), Commerce ($50 million), and Homeland
Security ($50 million). For fiscal year 2010, we urge the
subcommittee to provide $16.7 million for Agriculture's
component.
--Parcel Data.--Based on the National Academies of Science, National
Research Council (NRC) recent report ``National Land Parcel
Data: A Vision for the Future,'' the land parcel data layer
(also known as cadastral data) is used by governments to make
decisions on land development, business activities, regulatory
compliance, emergency response, and law enforcement. The NRC
report concludes that nationally-integrated land parcel data is
necessary, feasible, and affordable. Development of a national
land parcel system would also provide an invaluable analytical
tool to help manage the mortgage crisis. The NGAC endorsed the
recommendations in the NRC report in October. The approximate
3-year total cost for this activity is $200 million for the
Department of the Interior.
--Elevation.--Today, high density digital elevation models are
produced by a technology called LiDAR and IfSAR, an aerial
mapping technology that provides highly accurate mapping of
ground elevations. FEMA currently uses LiDAR data for flood
mapping whenever such data are available. LiDAR data are also
being utilized extensively in natural resource management, and
new uses are being demonstrated for emergency response and
homeland security purposes. An investment in a national
Elevation initiative would produce consistent elevation dataset
encompassing the entire country. The approximate 3-year total
cost for this activity is $300 million, equally split between
the Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
--Wildlife Corridor/Crucial Habitat.--The pressure for rapid economic
development and increased energy production threatens our
natural resources. The Western Governors' Association has
recommended a Wildlife Corridor and Crucial Habitat Decision
Support System. This system will support informed decisions on
community growth, alternative energy expansion, biodiversity
preservation, and resolving water resource issues. This effort
will produce a consistent nationwide wildlife map and GIS
management system. The approximate 3-year total cost for this
activity is $110 million for the Department of the Interior.
Conclusion
The key step is to get it done now. America's financial crisis
today, the worst since the end of World War II, will force difficult
actions and decisions. Large expenditures of taxpayer money must be
designed to yield products of long-term benefit to the country. America
has an information economy, and a robust geospatial infrastructure
(system of digital maps and tools) is just as vital to its continued
development as was the physical infrastructure to the industrial
economy. A National GIS, properly designed and effectively implemented,
providing public access and using best technologies, will speed
economic recovery by producing jobs and putting shovels in the ground
more quickly. It will also leave the country with a public utility, a
modern geospatial information system, that itself can become a
foundation for new generations of industries and technologies in the
future.
______
Prepared Statement of Florida State University
Florida State University is requesting $5,000,000 in fiscal year
2010 for the Risk Reduction for Agricultural Crops Program from the
Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service/Research and
Education Activities/Federal Admin. Account.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the Members of the
Subcommittee for this opportunity to present testimony before this
Committee. I would like to take a moment to briefly acquaint you with
Florida State University.
Located in Tallahassee, Florida's capitol, FSU is a comprehensive
Research university with a rapidly growing research base. The
University serves as a center for advanced graduate and professional
studies, exemplary research, and top-quality undergraduate programs.
Faculty members at FSU maintain a strong commitment to quality in
teaching, to performance of research and creative activities, and have
a strong commitment to public service. Among the current or former
faculty are numerous recipients of national and international honors
including Nobel laureates, Pulitzer Prize winners, and several members
of the National Academy of Sciences. Our scientists and engineers do
excellent research, have strong interdisciplinary interests, and often
work closely with industrial partners in the commercialization of the
results of their research. Florida State University had over $200
million this past year in sponsored research awards.
Florida State University attracts students from every State in the
Nation and more than 100 foreign countries. The University is committed
to high admission standards that ensure quality in its student body,
which currently includes National Merit and National Achievement
Scholars, Rhodes and Goldwater Scholars, as well as students with
superior creative talent. Since 2005, FSU students have won more than
30 nationally competitive scholarships and fellowships including 3
Rhodes Scholarships, 2 Truman Scholarships, Goldwater, and 18 Fulbright
Fellowships.
At Florida State University, we are very proud of our successes as
well as our emerging reputation as one of the Nation's top public
research universities.
Mr. Chairman, let me summarize our primary interest today. The
current drought in the southeastern USA, the worst in recent history,
has had significant impacts on the water resources. It has reemphasized
the vulnerability of the citizens to climate variability and climate
extremes. The Federal Government can reduce these risks by using modern
technologies such as climate models, which can predict future climate,
and decision support tools to help mitigate some of these uncertainties
and provide adaptation strategies for the agricultural and
environmental sectors. The Southeast Climate Consortium (SECC), which
includes Florida State University, the University of Florida, the
University of Miami, the University of Georgia, Auburn University, the
University of Alabama at Huntsville, North Carolina State University
and Clemson University, has been at the forefront of research and
extension for the application of climate predictions to risk reduction
for agriculture and natural resources. With support from USDA and NOAA,
the SECC has developed new methods to predict the consequences of
climate variability for agricultural crops, forests, and water
resources in the southeastern USA. In recent real-life tests, these
methods have been applied to the problems that farmers raising
specialty crops face arising from variable rainfall, temperature, and
wild fires. This program has strong support of extension in all States.
The new tasks that can be accomplished with the funds requested are to
develop improved methods to forecast droughts and other extreme climate
events. These forecasts will be incorporated into decision support
systems to help agricultural, forest, and natural resource managers to
reduce risks of losses and environmental damage. The SECC will develop
new partnerships and methods for incorporating climate forecasts into
agricultural and water policy decisions and will continue the
development of a decision support system to provide seasonal and multi-
year projections to water resources managers, especially for
agricultural water use. Lastly, the SECC will initiate research to
determine risks and appropriate agricultural responses to longer term
trends in climate. We are requesting $5,000,000 for this project.
Mr. Chairman, this project will have a great impact on our country
and I appreciate your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Friends of Agricultural Research--Beltsville,
Inc.
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to present our statement regarding funding for the
Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and
especially for the Agency's flagship research facility, the Henry A.
Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC), in Maryland.
Our organization--Friends of Agricultural Research--Beltsville--
promotes the Center's current and long-term agricultural research,
outreach, and educational missions.
Before going to the heart of our testimony, please allow us to note
for the record that during fiscal year 2010 the Beltsville Agricultural
Research Center will mark a great historical milestone, a milestone to
celebrate the many great and small accomplishments that BARC research
has contributed to the Nation's agricultural bounty and to the overall
march of scientific progress. A full century will have passed since
1910, the year research in Beltsville began with the assembly of a
dairy cattle herd for research purposes. The ensuing BARC story is by
all rights a national story--a story of world-class accomplishment.
BARC Director Joseph Spence and his staff are planning a series of
worthy events to commemorate the centennial year.
The Friends of Agricultural Research-Beltsville (FAR-B) is honored
to be both a participant in the centennial planning process and a
contributor to coming events. We would be pleased, Mr. Chairman, to
answer any questions, to collect any information or citations the
Subcommittee might wish regarding the centennial or our testimony.
We now turn to the specifics of our testimony for fiscal year 2010:
Under-Funded Salary Growth.--$1,700,000
First, we appreciate the restoration of items that were recommended
for termination in the president's proposed budget for fiscal year
2009. We would hope that the fiscal year 2010 budget does not identify
additional program terminations at BARC, and we would hope that there
will be much needed funding increases. In the fiscal year 2009 budget,
there was only about half of the needed funding for salary increases
that went into effect at the beginning of the year. An unfortunate
result of recent annual increases in Federal salaries--without
offsetting funding increases--is a negative growth in funding available
for discretionary spending on research. This situation has continued
for several years now, and it has had a significant negative impact on
ARS research.
FAR-B strongly recommends funding adjustments to offset the almost
yearly decline of net research funding resulting from under-funded
salary increases.
Research Initiatives
While it is unclear at this time if the fiscal year 2010 budget
includes funding for additional research at BARC, it is important to
point out that BARC conducts many areas of research and that the
research is of the highest national priority. BARC research presents
many compelling opportunities to reward agriculture, the environment,
and the consumer.
Food Safety--$500,000.--The Beltsville Area recently established
the largest single food safety unit in ARS. This research unit will
focus on a number of issues, including safety of fruits and vegetables
and food safety issues related to organic agriculture. The ability
exists at BARC to raise crops and animals under farm conditions, and
then to process, store, and package the resulting products. A unique
feature of the food safety research program at BARC is the ability to
propose and test interventions that greatly reduce pathogen exposure in
foods, and ultimately in people.
Genomic Prediction--$1,500,000.--The promise of understanding the
genome of plants and animals is being fully exploited at Beltsville. In
groundbreaking research conducted here, scientists have been able to
quickly and accurately identify dairy bulls that will produce daughters
capable of producing the most milk. Now a simple test at birth can
predict at twice the accuracy and at a cost of about $250 the potential
of a bull to sire high producing cows. Traditionally, bull prediction
methods have required farmers to obtain production records of 50 to 100
daughters per bull to determine his genetic merit, at a cost up to
$50,000 per bull. The potential for developing and expanding this
breakout technology is huge and at great savings to dairy farmers and
consumers alike.
Climate Change--$1,500,000.--BARC has truly unique growth chambers
that can measure and observe plant growth at every stage from root to
stem, and under every conceivable atmospheric condition. BARC is using
these chambers to measure the effects of increasing atmospheric
CO2 and changes in environmental temperatures. Studies are
underway not only on agronomically important crops, but also on
invasive weeds. Research shows that environmental changes may enhance
the rapid growth of invasive plants, thus threatening to exacerbate
already costly problems for American agriculture.
Obesity Prevention--$500,000.--Obesity negatively impacts the
health and productivity of the American public. Moreover, obesity comes
with greatly increased risk of chronic diseases that dramatically add
to the economic costs of health care. The Beltsville Human Nutrition
Research Center (BHNRC) is researching barriers and facilitators to
help the American public follow Federal dietary guidelines. A major
research emphasis is to prevent obesity through a better understanding
of why people make the food choices they do. This research also will
help USDA design and implement more effective food assistance programs.
Waste Utilization--$1,000,000.--Because it is a working farm and
has research scientists who have expertise in animal science,
conversion technologies, and environmental science, BARC is an ideal
place to study the utilization of farm-generated waste products. Farm-
generated waste products can be environmentally harmful, have little or
no value to the farmer, and disposal can be costly. Work at Beltsville
has led to the effective development of technologies and products that
take waste by-products and convert them to valuable new products.
Examples include biofuels and plastics made without petroleum.
Trade Enhancement and Global Competitiveness--$2,000,000.--BARC
maintains and expands the Federal Government's unique collections of
materials and organisms that are of utmost importance in identifying
pests and for ensuring that unwanted pests are prevented from entering
the United States and producing destruction of animals and plants of
economic importance. These unique and irreplaceable collections include
the Germplasm Resource Information Network, and invaluable reference
collections of insects, nematodes, parasites, and fungi. These world-
class collections attract leading experts from around the world who
study and use them for their own purposes. The collections are
absolutely critical to identifying and preventing exotic pest problems
from entering the United States through imports or by international
travelers as well as demonstrating that our exports are safe. The
continued availability of research in this general area of systematics
is essential for trade, for homeland security, and for the protection
of American agriculture.
Chesapeake Bay Improvement--$500,000.--BARC scientists are working
with farmers on Maryland's Eastern Shore to learn how to improve on-
farm conservation practices that will improve water quality in the
Chesapeake Bay. The research goals--targeting the entire range of
Eastern Shore farming practices--include reducing fertilizer and
pesticide usage. A central goal is to create agronomic and animal waste
management practices that will reduce fertilizer usage and control
pollution runoff. Biocontrol studies are searching out ways to minimize
the need for pesticides. Scientists also are using advanced remote
sensing and hydrological technologies to protect the health of the
Chesapeake watershed.
FAR-B strongly recommends continued funding for these high-value,
critically needed research initiatives.
Facilities.--$30 Million
Ongoing facility needs at BARC are a reflection of the age of many
of the buildings and infrastructure at BARC. As the program and the
number of employees has decreased over time due to lack of funding, the
burden of maintaining a large research facility has taken its toll in
terms of routine and ongoing maintenance. It is essential that
additional funding be provided for general facility maintenance and
that plans for facility consolidation move forward.
With talk of greatly increased expenditures of the Federal
Government for facilities projects that are ``shovel-ready'', it is our
hope that the Beltsville Area will be the recipient of a significant
amount of those funds. Several projects at BARC are fully designed and
ready for construction to begin almost immediately. These include the
final phase of construction of the Beltsville Human Nutrition Research
Center (BHNRC), in which existing building 307 will be gutted and
rebuilt. This will allow BARC to relocate the entire BHNRC-now spread
out at three separate locations--to one location and also free up space
for other needed research activities. The completion of this important
building renovation is urgently needed at BARC because many of the
proposed space consolidations, which will greatly reduce the operating
costs at the Center, are dependent on this project.
Other projects that are fully designed and ready to go include
three projects at the U.S. National Arboretum (USNA). The relocation of
the USNA entrances from R Street and New York Avenue to Bladensburg
Road is a major project that needs to move forward and will greatly
improve public access while relieving traffic congestion on New York
Avenue. Finally, the trash abatement project for the cleanup of Hickey
Run needs to move forward. Rain runoff produces a great volume of trash
as the result of inadequate storm water control by the District of
Columbia. This trash accumulates on the property of the USNA. This
project is urgently needed to prevent trash from washing onto the
arboretum grounds, which now occurs with almost any significant
rainfall. This project is also critically importance environmentally
and for helping clean up the Anacostia River. The project has been
completely designed and, while funds have been appropriated to the D.C.
government and to ARS for this project, funding is not adequate to
start construction on this project.
FAR-B strongly recommends funding to complete these long delayed,
urgently needed facility improvements.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes our statement. We again thank you for
the opportunity to present our testimony and for your interest and
support.
______
Prepared Statement of the Izaak Walton League of America
The Izaak Walton League of America appreciates the opportunity to
submit testimony concerning appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for
various agencies and programs under the jurisdiction of the
Subcommittee. The League is a national, nonprofit organization founded
in 1922. We have more than 36,000 members and nearly 300 chapters and
state divisions nationwide. Our members are committed to advancing
common sense policies that safeguard wildlife and habitat, support
community-based conservation, and address pressing environmental
issues. The League has been a partner with farmers and a participant in
forming agriculture policy since the 1930s. The following pertains to
conservation programs administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act (FCEA) of 2008 was enacted
with a prominent commitment to increased mandatory conservation
spending. We urge the Subcommittee to maintain the mandatory spending
levels for conservation programs as provided in the act. The fiscal
year 2010 budget is important to carrying out the changes in the 2008
bill and implementing new initiatives. These conservation programs are
critical to working with farmers, ranchers and forest landowners to
undertake or improve conservation practices. These programs benefit
producers through improved soil quality and productivity of their land,
and the broader community through cleaner air and water and healthy
habitat.
Previous Farm Bills have included increased conservation
authorizations that the League supported and fought hard to achieve.
That pattern was certainly repeated with the new law, which contains a
$25 billion investment in conservation programs overall. Although the
authorization is important, the country will only realize the true
benefit of conservation policies if appropriations match the authorized
levels. As documented in our research on prior Farm Bill funding: \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Redlin, Gupta, and Wiegand. 2007. The 2007 Farm Bill:
Stewardship, Prosperity, and Fairness. Izaak Walton League of America.
http://www.iwla.org/publications/agriculture/Farm_Bill_2007_WEB.pdf.
``Congress has also cut the funding committed to conservation
programs in the previous [2002] Farm Bill. More than $5 billion
promised to conservation has been withheld. This despite the fact that
as many as three-fourths of the eligible farmers and ranchers seeking
conservation programs are turned away due to lack of funds. No similar
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
caps have been applied to the unlimited crop payment programs.''
We are disappointed that the President's budget continues the
unfortunate pattern of cutting conservation programs below mandatory
levels established in the Farm Bill. The League is especially concerned
about proposed cuts to the Wetland Reserve Program and Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program. Demand for participation in both far outstrips
available funding, and this proposal will only exacerbate that problem
as well as undermine conservation on-the-ground. It is critical that
authorized levels for vital programs are met and maintained in fiscal
year 2010 and all subsequent budget cycles for the life of the
legislation. Specifically, the League believes achieving the following
mandatory levels is essential:
--Meeting the Wetland Reserve Program's full 3.041 million acre, $1.2
billion allocation over the life of FCEA will require $473
million in fiscal year 2010 according to the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) March 2009 baseline. The President has
proposed only $391 million and reduced the program acreage by
139,000 acres.
--Adding 1.22 million acres to the Grassland Reserve Program by 2012,
scored at $300 million for the life of FCEA, with a CBO
baseline of $78 million for fiscal year 2010. The
Administration believes $54 million will fully fund the Farm
Bill authorization for fiscal year 2010.
--Maintaining the 32 million acre enrollment in the Conservation
Reserve Program, scored at $9.8 billion over the life of FCEA,
and $1.944 billion for fiscal year 2010. The Administration's
budget proposes full funding for CRP.
--Achieving $85 million annually for the Wildlife Habitat Incentives
Program. The budget proposed by the President cuts the program
by more than half in fiscal year 2010 to $42 million.
Additionally, the League worked to expand the Conservation
Stewardship Program. Accompanying the positive revisions to better
focus the program on higher environmental standards was an increase in
authorized funding to support enrollment of approximately 13 million
acres per year. The March 2009 CBO baseline places fiscal year 2010
mandatory funding at $752 million. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has scored funding full authorization at $681 million. With the
numerous environmental challenges facing U.S. agriculture, including
climate change, soil quality deficiencies, declining pollinator health,
and huge water quality and quantity issues, we strongly urge the
Subcommittee to provide the full baseline amount in its bill.
Furthermore, effective implementation of Farm Bill conservation
programs depends upon adequate technical resources to work with
landowners in addressing their unique environmental concerns. Although
conservation programs are available, under-investment in technical
assistance limits agency support to assist farmers and ranchers in
selecting and optimizing appropriate programs for their operations.
Resource concerns and conservation practices vary throughout the
country, and the technical assistance provided to program participants
is necessary to address specific environmental concerns. The technical
expertise of the Natural Resource Conservation Service and partners
that assist in the delivery of programs and technical assistance
directly to landowners is necessary for the adoption and maintenance of
conservation practices. We request that the subcommittee support the
mandatory levels of conservation program funding as provided in FCEA to
enable robust technical resources to implement those programs
successfully.
Finally, the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE)
program is a very successful competitive grant program that funds
farmer-driven research, education, and extension initiatives. SARE
projects, and its unique regional approach, have a long record of
building economic prosperity, innovation and opportunity in rural
America--all integrally aligned with natural resource conservation.
Demand for SARE is growing, however, most years it has been able to
fund less than 10 percent of the proposals submitted. Forty million
dollars are authorized for SARE's research and education program and
$20 million for its extension education and professional development
program. However, appropriations for both programs have never topped
$19 million. The League requests a minimum fiscal year 2010
appropriation for SARE of $30 million, with $25 million allocated to
research and education and $5 million to extension and professional
development.
We appreciate the opportunity to testify in strong support of
fully-funding agricultural conservation programs.
______
Prepared Statement of Goodwill Industries International
Dear Chair and Ranking Member: On Behalf of Goodwill Industries
International (Goodwill) and its 160 local Goodwill agencies in the
United States, I wanted to thank you for your inclusion of funding in
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act targeted to low income
workers and people with disabilities struggling in the midst of the
recession.
I am writing today to urge you to provide adequate funding in
fiscal year 2010 for a critical program that supports local Goodwill
agencies' efforts to help your constituents through the dignity of
work. Especially during such trying economic times, Goodwill
understands the difficult challenge that appropriators face as they
struggle to stretch limited resources to support an ever-increasing
list of national priorities. We stand committed to working with you
toward implementing solutions that will restore economic stability by
empowering disadvantaged populations
While our agencies utilize a variety of Federal funding streams,
AgrAbility is one of our highest priority programs.
Goodwill has a long history in meeting the employment and training
needs of people with disabilities who live and work in rural
communities, including agriculture workers who have suffered disabling
injuries. Agriculture consistently ranks as one of the nation's most
dangerous occupations. Each year, 90,000 agricultural workers sustain
disabling injuries in work-related accidents.
AgrAbility is a small $5 million program that consists of one
National AgrAbility Project and more than 20 State/Regional AgrAbility
Projects. These projects must involve a collaborative partnership
between a land-grant university and one or more nonprofit
organizations.
State AgrAbility projects provide free on-farm consultations during
which they assess abilities and needs, make recommendations for farm
site or task modifications and assistive technology, then develop an
action plan that allows program participants to continue to lead
successful careers in production agriculture and farming or in another
chosen field. In addition, the National AgrAbility Project (lead by
Purdue University in partnership with Goodwill Industries
International) provides technical assistance and professional training
for State AgrAbility Projects, produces resource materials, and
disseminates information related to the project. This project is the
cornerstone of Goodwill's efforts with rural communities.
GOODWILL urges Congress to provide adequate funding for full
implementation of AgrAbility Programs in all 50 States thereby ensuring
that assistance is available in all 50 States to farmers, ranchers,
other agricultural workers, and family members impacted by disability.
Thanks for considering this request. Should you have questions,
please feel free to contact Seth Turner, Director of Government Affairs
and Public Policy, at [email protected] or (240) 333-5508.
______
Prepared Statement of the Minor Crop Farmer Alliance
The Minor Crop Farmer Alliance is an alliance of national and
regional organizations and individuals representing growers, shippers,
packers, handlers, and processors of various agricultural commodities,
including food, fiber, nursery, and horticultural products, and
organizations involved with public health pesticides. Our members are
extremely interested in the development of pest management tools and
techniques that are environmentally sound. While our commodities are
often called ``minor crops,'' they are vitally important components in
the diets (fruits and vegetables) of all Americans and they contribute
to safe and aesthetic surroundings for our homes, schools and places of
business (turf, ornamental and nursery crops). Specialty crop
agriculture in the United States is valued at more than $55 billion
annually and accounts for more than 20 percent of the value of
agricultural products grown in this country.
We request that $8.4 million be provided to the National
Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS) in fiscal year 2010
specifically for the continuation of agricultural chemical use surveys
for fruits, vegetables, floriculture and nursery crops.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Agricultural
Statistics Service (NASS) discontinued its Chemical Use Surveys for
these commodities and has stated that it needs $8.4 million in funding
to continue the survey program.
The chemical usage surveys are the only source of publicly
available data on agricultural pesticide and fertilizer use. The
surveys are used by the USDA Office of Pest Management Policy and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct risk assessments
and make pesticide policy decisions. Farmers, commodity organizations
and the public utilize the data to monitor pesticide and fertilizer use
and it is essential data for use in public policy discussions and
participation in rulemaking.
Proprietary data are available to verify NASS data in EPA risk
assessments, but it cannot be used as the sole source of data because
EPA cannot share the data with the public without violating the terms
of its proprietary purchasing agreement. This proprietary data is not
always gathered using appropriate sampling schemes, leaving gaps in the
information even for specialty crops that are widely grown.
EPA relies on the NASS surveys to conduct pesticide risk
assessments. Without the NASS survey data, EPA plans to default to 100
percent crop treated in future risk assessments. This could result in
the cancellation of important crop protection tools for farmers. EPA
has contacted USDA to communicate its strong support for the survey
program.
The Congress included language in the fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Bill
that provided $2,450,000 to carry out the ``Fruit Chemical Use Data
Study.'' While we welcome these additional funds for NASS, we hope that
in fiscal year 2010 the Congress will provide the full amount needed to
continue all of these critical surveys for fruits, vegetables, nursery
and floricultural crops.
Your consideration of this request is appreciated.
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Nursery & Landscape Association
California Specialty Crops Council
California Almond Board
California Avocado Commission
California Citrus Quality Council
California Fig Advisory Board
California Grape & Tree Fruit League
California Processed Onion and Garlic Research Committee
California Dried Plum Board
California Strawberry Commission
California Tree Fruit Agreement
Cherry Marketing Institute, Inc.
Cranberry Institute
Del Monte Foods
Florida Citrus Mutual
Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association
Florida Tomato Exchange
Food Products Association
Idaho Potato Commission
Michigan State Horticultural Society
Michigan Vegetable Council Inc.
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
National Onion Association
National Potato Council
North Central Washington Fieldman's Association
Northwest Horticultural Council
Produce Marketing Association
Society of American Florists
United Fresh Produce Association
USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council, Inc.
U.S. Apple Association
U.S. Hop Industry Plant Protection Committee
Washington Association of Wine and Grape Growers
Washington Hops Commission
Washington State Potato Commission
Western Growers Association
Western Pistachio Association
Wild Blueberry Commission of Maine
______
Prepared Statement of the National Coalition for Food and Agricultural
Research
Dear Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Brownback: The National
Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research (National C-FAR) urges the
Subcommittee and Committee to increase Federal investment in food and
agricultural research, extension and education (RE&E) as a critical
component of Federal appropriations for fiscal year 2010, including at
least $300 million for the new Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
(AFRI).
President Obama has acknowledged the need for a major investment in
research, saying at the annual meeting of the National Academy of
Sciences that the United States will ``devote more than 3 percent of
our GDP to research and development.'' We support President Obama's
goal, and advise you that food and agriculture research must be a part
of his vision.
The potential payoff is enormous for both Americans' health and the
nation's economy. Federal investments in food and agricultural RE&E
have brought profitability to production agriculture, found solutions
for difficult conservation and environmental challenges, addressed the
many issues of food safety, and provided the baseline for our whole
knowledge of human nutrition.
Now, RE&E must seek solutions for feeding growing populations,
dealing with climate change, developing sustainable fuel production,
maintaining ecosystem health, and assuring all people food security and
proper nutrition. Now is the time to grow investment in our nation's
agricultural research enterprise and build on the successes of the past
by increasing funding for a variety of food and agricultural research,
extension and education efforts, and in particular the new National
Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and AFRI.
National C-FAR urges the Subcommittee to increase funding for AFRI
to at least $300 million in fiscal year 2010 with a goal of funding
AFRI at the fully authorized level as soon as practicable, and by
fiscal year 2013 at the latest. AFRI, the successor to USDA's National
Research Initiative (NRI) and the Initiative for Future Agriculture and
Food Systems (IFAFS), is an integrated approach that takes research and
innovation beyond the development phase, into implementation through
contemporary education and extension programs. National C-FAR opposes
taking funds from other RE&E programs in USDA to fund AFRI.
NIFA, AFRI and other recent reforms offer a new opportunity to
transform USDA's RE&E mission. AFRI will support research on key
problems of national and regional importance in biological,
environmental, physical, and social sciences relevant to agriculture,
food, and the environment on a peer-reviewed, competitive basis.
Additionally, AFRI should enable USDA to continue leveraging a portion
of its RE&E funds fostering the development of partnerships with other
Federal agencies that advance agricultural science.
National C-FAR also supports the administration's fiscal year 2010
requests for other parts of USDA's RE&E mission, including: the
remainder of the Cooperative State, Research, Education and Extension
Service (CSREES) beyond AFRI, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS),
Economic Research Service (ERS) and Forest Service (FS).
The Research Title of the Farm Bill represents the nation's
signature Federal investment in the future of the food and agricultural
sector. Other Farm Bill titles depend heavily upon the Research Title
for tools to help achieve their stated objectives. Public investment in
food and agricultural research, extension and education today and in
the future must simultaneously satisfy needs for food quality and
quantity, resource preservation, producer profitability and social
acceptability.
Tools provided through RE&E are needed to help achieve safer, more
nutritious, convenient and affordable foods delivered to sustain a well
nourished, healthy population; more efficient and environmentally
friendly food, fiber and forest production; improved water quality,
land conservation, wildlife and other environmental conditions; less
dependence on non-renewable sources of energy; expanded global markets
and improved balance of trade; and more jobs and sustainable rural
economic development. Societal demands and expectations placed upon the
food and agricultural system are ever-changing and growing.
Multiple examples, such as those highlighted below, serve to
illustrate current and future needs that arguably merit enhanced public
investment in research, extension and education so that the food and
agricultural system can respond to these challenges on a sustainable
basis:
--Strengthened bio-security is a pressing national priority. There is
a compelling need for improved biosecurity and bio-safety tools
and policies to protect against bio-terrorism and dreaded
problems such as foot-and-mouth and ``mad cow'' diseases and
other exotic plant and animal pests, and protection of range
lands from invasive species.
--Food-linked health costs are high. Some $100 billion of annual U.S.
health costs are linked to poor diets, obesity, food borne
pathogens and allergens. Opportunities exist to create
healthier diets through improvements in the food supply and in
consumer knowledge and implementation of dietary guidance.
--Research, extension and education are key to providing to solutions
to environment and conservation challenges related to global
warming, limited water resources, enhanced wildlife habitat,
and competing demands for land and other agricultural
resources. Rural water conservation and development of drought-
resistant crops have evolved from a good idea to a necessity.
--It is a highly competitive world for food and agriculture and rural
America. There was considerable debate during the last Farm
Bill reauthorization about how expanded food and agricultural
research, extension and education could enhance farm income and
rural revitalization by improving competitiveness and value-
added opportunities.
--Energy costs are escalating, dependence on petroleum imports is
growing and concerns about greenhouse gases are rising.
Research, extension and education can enhance agriculture's
ability to provide renewable sources of energy and cleaner
burning fuels, sequester carbon, and provide other
environmental benefits to help address these challenges, and
indeed generate value-added income for producers and stimulate
rural economic development.
--Population and income growth are expanding the world demand for
food and natural fiber and improved diets. World food demand is
projected to double in 25 years. Most of this growth will occur
in the developing nations where yields are low, land is scarce,
and diets are inadequate. Without a vigorous response, demand
will only be met at a great global ecological cost.
--Regardless of one's views about biotechnology and genetic
resources, an effective publicly funded research role is needed
for oversight and to ensure public benefits.
Publicly financed RE&E is a necessary complement to private sector
research, focusing in areas where the private sector does not have an
incentive to invest, when (1) the pay-off is over a long term; (2) the
potential market is more speculative; (3) the effort is during the pre-
technology stage; and (4) where the benefits are widely diffused.
Public research, extension and education help provide oversight and
measure long-term progress. Public research, extension and education
also act as a means to detect and resolve problems in an early stage,
thus saving American taxpayer dollars in remedial and corrective
actions.
The USDA, ERS September 2007 Economic Brief titled, ``Economic
Returns of Public Agricultural Research,'' shows the average social
rate of return to public investment in agricultural research is nearly
50 percent. However, Federal funding for food and agricultural
research, extension and education has been essentially flat for over 20
years, while support for other Federal research has increased
substantially. Public funding of agricultural research in the rest of
the world during the same time period has outpaced investment in the
United States, leading to competitive concerns. There also are vast
areas where the public will trust only U.S. Federal investments in
research--a case in point is human nutrition research.
By any measure, Federal funding for food and agricultural research,
extension and education--which has declined about one-fourth since
fiscal year 2003--has failed to keep pace with identified priority
needs. Allowing this decline to continue is likely to irrevocably harm
our responses to human needs and competitive forces. It is imperative
to lay the groundwork now to respond to the many challenges and
promising opportunities ahead through Federal policies and programs
needed to promote the long-term health and vitality of food and
agriculture for the benefit of both consumers and producers. Stronger
public investment in food and agricultural RE&E is essential in
producing research outcomes needed to help deliver beneficial and
timely solutions on a sustainable basis.
National C-FAR serves as a forum and a unified voice in support of
sustaining and increasing public investment at the national level in
food and agricultural research, extension and education. National C-FAR
is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, consensus-based and customer-led coalition
established in 2001 that brings food, agriculture, nutrition,
conservation and natural resource organizations together with the food
and agriculture research and extension community.
We agree with President Obama that, ``Science is more essential for
our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment, and our
quality of life than it has ever been.''
______
Prepared Statement of National Coalition for Food and Agricultural
Research
Dear Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Brownback: The undersigned
organizations and individuals urge the Subcommittee and Committee to
increase funding for the new Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
(AFRI) to at least $300 million in fiscal year 2010 (exclusive of any
funding identified for the former Section 406 programs) as a first step
toward funding AFRI at the fully authorized level of $700 million
annually. AFRI, the successor to USDA's National Research Initiative
(NRI) and the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems
(IFAFS), is an integrated approach that takes research and innovation
beyond the development phase, into implementation through contemporary
education and extension programs.
The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 established the
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), a new competitive
grants program authorized at $700 million annually, for research,
extension, and education in support of our Nation's food and
agricultural systems within USDA's National Institute of Food and
Agriculture.
We support full funding of AFRI at the authorized level of $700
million annually, and urge the Subcommittee to fully fund AFRI as soon
as practicable, by fiscal year 2013 at the latest. This is consistent
with President Obama's commitment to return our Nation to sound
science. With the Nation and world seeking solutions for climate
change, sustainable fuel production, ecosystem health, food security
and nutrition challenges, now is the time to grow investment in our
Nation's food and agricultural research.
Thank you for your leadership action in investing in America's food
and agriculture system.
American Dietetic Association
American Feed Industry Association
American Malting Barley Association
American Phytopathological Society
American Society for Nutrition
American Soybean Association
American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA)
Aquatic Plant Management Society (APMS)
Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges
Biotechnology Industry Organization
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology
Donald Danforth Plant Science Center
Institute of Food Technologists
National Association of Wheat Growers
National Barley Growers Association
National Barley Improvement Committee
National Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research
National Farmers Union
National Oat Improvement Committee
National Sunflower Association
National Wheat Improvement Committee
North American Millers' Association
North Central Weed Science Society (NCWSS)
Northeastern Weed Science Society (NEWSS)
Southern Weed Science Society (SWSS)
Dr. Steven G. Pueppke, National Agricultural Biotechnology Council
The Council on Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics (C-FARE)
The Peanut Foundation
Professor Robert L. Thompson, Gardner Endowed Chair in Agricultural
Policy Agricultural & Consumer Economics Dept., University of Illinois
U.S. Canola Association
USA Dry Pea & Lentil Council
Weed Science Society of America (WSSA)
Western Society of Weed Science (WSWS)
______
Prepared Statement of the National Commodity Supplemental Food Program
Association
Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee Members, thank you for this
opportunity to present information regarding the USDA/FNS Commodity
Supplemental Food Program (CSFP).
The National Commodity Supplemental Food Program Association
(NCSFPA) requests the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee
fund CSFP for fiscal year 2010 at $203 million and include language
directing the Department to utilize all available resources to
supplement the CSFP food package and meet the rising demand for
nutritional assistance among our vulnerable senior population.
This first effort at national food assistance began in 1969 with
monthly packages designed to supplement protein, calcium, iron,
vitamins A and C for low-income mothers and children (preceding WIC);
nutrients shown to be lacking in the diets of low-income households.
Low-income seniors added in 1983 now comprise 93 percent of all CSFP
participants.
CSFP is a unique program that brings together federal and state
agencies, along with public and private entities, The USDA purchases
specific nutrient-rich foods at wholesale prices. State agencies
providing oversight, contract with community and faith based
organizations to warehouse and distribute food, certify eligibility and
educate participants. The local organizations build broad collaboration
among non-profits, health units, and area agencies on aging for simple,
fast access to the supplemental foods (canned fruits and vegetables,
juices, meats, fish, peanut butter, cereals, grain products, cheese and
dairy products from American farmers) and nutrition education to
improve their health and quality of life. This partnership reaches even
homebound seniors in both rural and urban settings with vital nutrition
and remains an important ``market'' for commodities supported under
various farm programs.
In fiscal year 2008, the CSFP provided services through 150 non-
profit community and faith-based organizations at 1,800 sites located
in 32 States, the District of Columbia, and two Indian Tribal
Organizations (Red Lake, Minnesota and Oglala Sioux, South Dakota). On
behalf of those organizations NCSFPA would like to express our
gratitude for the increased fiscal year 2009 funding. However, we are
disappointed that the increase in funding did not result in more
seniors receiving food.
CSFP's 40 years of service is a testimony to the power of community
partnerships of faith-based organizations, farmers, 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 nutritionally
vulnerable populations: young children and low-income seniors--
many of whom will not qualify for other nutrition assistance
programs.
--The CSFP provides a monthly selection of food packages tailored to
specific nutritional needs. Eligible participants are
guaranteed [by law] a certain level of nutritional assistance,
nutrition education, and food preparation guidance each month.
--The CSFP purchases foods at wholesale prices, directly supporting
American farmers. The average food package cost is estimated at
$23.01 and the retail value is $50.00-$60.00.
--The CSFP involves the entire community. Thousands of volunteers and
private companies donate money, equipment, and most importantly
time and effort to deliver food to needy and homebound seniors.
These volunteers not only bring food but companionship and
other assistance to seniors who might have limited support
systems. (See Attachment 1)
In a recent CSFP survey, more than half of seniors living alone
reported an income of less than $750 per month. One-half of respondents
from two-person households reported an income under $1,000 per month.
25 percent were enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) and 50 percent said they ran out of food during the
month. 70 percent of senior respondents said they choose between
medicine and food.
The Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee has consistently
supported CSFP, acknowledging it as a cost-effective way of providing
nutritious supplemental foods. Last year this subcommittee and all of
Congress provided funding for CSFP in direct opposition to its proposed
elimination. Your support is again needed to provide adequate resources
for the 473,473 mothers, children and seniors current participants;
37,500 low-income participants waiting in six new States, and 110,374
seniors waiting in current states for this vital nutrition program.
CSFP and other nutrition programs such as SNAP, are only
supplemental programs by design. Together they cover a shortfall that
many seniors face each month. These programs must have support to meet
the increasing need as part of the ``safety net''.
``The Managers fully support continued operation of this program
and recognize the need for a substantial expansion of CSFP. the
Managers encourage the Secretary to approve all remaining states for
expansion and to expand caseload in all participating states.'' Joint
Statement of Managers, H.R. 2419, the Food, Conservation and Energy Act
of 2008.
``CSFP has charms worth considering in designing human service
programs the program's trademarks were its simplicity and accessibility
. . . CSFP in particular represents a guaranteed source of high quality
food, delivered in a balanced package.'' The Role of CSFP in
Nutritional Assistance to Mothers, Infants, Children and Seniors. The
Urban Institute, August 2008.
The National Commodity Supplemental Food Program Association
requests the following:
To continue serving the 473,473 needy seniors (93 percent of
participants), women, infants and children (7 percent of participants)
currently enrolled in CSFP--$164 Million.
To meet USDA's commodity procurement expenses--$0.8 Million.
To respond to the needs of 37,500 eligible seniors in the 6 States
with USDA approved plans: Arkansas (5,000), Delaware (2,500), Oklahoma
(5,000), New Jersey (5,000), Utah (3,000) and Georgia (10,000)--$9.3
Million.
To meet the increased demand/need of an additional 110,374 at risk
seniors in 32 States per requests turned into USDA by current CSF
programs nationwide--$28.6 Million.
Appropriation needed to maximize this program's effectiveness in
serving 621,347 seniors, women, infants and young children challenged
by hunger and malnutrition in our Nation--$203 Million.
A 1997 report by the National Policy and Resource Center on
Nutrition and Aging at Florida International University, Miami--Elder
Insecurities: Poverty, Hunger, and Malnutrition indicated that
malnourished elderly patients experience 2 to 20 times more medical
complications, have up to 100 percent longer hospital stays, and incur
hospital costs $2,000 to $10,000 higher per stay. Proper nutrition
promotes health, treats chronic disease, decreases hospital length of
stay and saves health care dollars. America is aging. CSFP must be an
integral part of Senior Nutrition Policy and plans to support the
productivity, health, independence and quality of life for America's
seniors, many of whom now need to continue working at least part-time
beyond retirement age to afford basics.
The National CSFP Association recommends the following:
--Support and expand the program in those states that have a need and
interest in the CSFP, including the 6 States that already have
USDA-approved plans to operate CSFP (Arkansas, Delaware, New
Jersey, Oklahoma, Utah and Georgia) and states demonstrating a
willingness to expand current CSFP services to meet rising
demand.
-- Provide language encouraging the U.S. Department of Agriculture to
utilize all available resources to meet the rising demand for
this nutritional support.
--The CSFP is committed grassroots operators and dedicated volunteers
with a mission to provide quality nutrition assistance
economically, efficiently, and responsibly always keeping the
needs and dignity of our participants first. We commend the
Food Distribution Division of Food and Nutrition Service of the
Department of Agriculture for their continued innovations to
strengthen the quality of the food package and streamline
administration.
FISCAL YEAR 2008 NATIONAL CSFP ASSOCIATION ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE/VALUE SURVEY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goods & Extra Goods
USDA Not Reimbursed CSFP Services Volunteer Annual Total Percent Paid donated to
Programs Reimbursed by USDA Cash Expenditures donated to Labor Hours Program Value by USDA CSFP
Cash Cash agency Value Value participants
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire................................................... $461,361 .............. $461,361 .............. $61,121 $522,482 88 $16,097
New York........................................................ 1,947,032 $2,500,000 4,447,032 $20,700 3,984 4,471,716 44 6,500
Vermont FB...................................................... 233,132 .............. 233,132 .............. .............. 233,132 100 ..............
Washington, DC.................................................. 434,945 1,600,000 2,034,945 800,000 173,632 3,008,577 14 ..............
Pennsylvania.................................................... 912,209 18,637 930,846 32,169 48,259 1,011,274 90 100,000
Kentucky........................................................ 980,911 64,645 1,045,556 .............. 24,577 1,070,133 92 624,093
Mississippi..................................................... 437,969 .............. 437,969 30,520 199,906 668,395 66 7,104
North Carolina.................................................. 75,126 .............. 75,126 .............. .............. 75,126 100 ..............
South Carolina.................................................. 232,192 .............. 232,192 .............. 1,342 233,534 99 22,500
Tennessee \1\................................................... 840,812 .............. 840,812 .............. .............. 840,812 100 ..............
Illinois........................................................ 869,405 .............. 869,405 .............. 25,643 895,048 97 ..............
Indiana......................................................... 269,732 25,000 294,732 25,000 68,502 388,234 69 32,189
Michigan........................................................ 4,861,625 314,317 5,175,942 310,168 1,722,543 7,208,653 67 4,637,316
Minnesota....................................................... 881,829 319,848 1,201,677 2,213 449,733 1,653,623 53 864,844
Red Lake, MN \1\................................................ 6,204 .............. 6,204 .............. .............. 6,204 100 ..............
Ohio............................................................ 978,890 198,896 1,177,786 65,770 328,264 1,571,820 62 85,774
Wisconsin....................................................... 316,547 50,000 366,547 .............. 275,406 641,953 49 54,610
Louisiana....................................................... 4,089,578 .............. 4,089,578 330,000 1,104,420 5,523,998 74 ..............
New Mexico...................................................... 1,032,128 129,911 1,162,039 248,791 233,955 1,644,785 63 479,843
Texas........................................................... 997,895 157,200 1,155,095 .............. 297,774 1,452,869 69 ..............
Colorado........................................................ 1,104,198 67,533 1,171,731 57,449 119,319 1,348,499 82 1,343,961
Iowa............................................................ 216,086 353,367 569,453 .............. 13,463 582,916 37 ..............
Kansas.......................................................... 328,548 7,200 335,748 10,000 83,642 429,390 77 89,519
Missouri........................................................ 583,040 .............. 583,040 .............. 16,608 599,648 97 ..............
Montana \1\..................................................... 425,091 .............. 425,091 .............. .............. 425,091 100 ..............
Nebraska........................................................ 820,898 75,529 896,427 40,470 301,447 1,238,344 66 70,479
North Dakota \1\................................................ 175,413 .............. 175,413 .............. .............. 175,413 100 ..............
South Dakota.................................................... 176,228 8,416 184,644 .............. 26,464 211,108 83 ..............
Ogala Sioux, SD \1\............................................. 40,360 .............. 40,360 .............. .............. 40,360 100 ..............
Alaska.......................................................... 134,803 63,000 197,803 1,015,000 104,235 1,317,038 10 ..............
Arizona......................................................... 940,739 252,000 1,192,739 2,000 184,312 1,379,051 68 2,000,000
California...................................................... 3,373,339 580,027 3,953,366 35,400 1,248,232 5,236,998 64 379,140
Nevada.......................................................... 371,461 174,278 545,739 .............. 24,960 570,699 65 179,400
Oregon.......................................................... 84,166 96,573 180,739 4,436 44,317 229,492 37 5,200
Washington...................................................... 228,871 7,500 236,371 208,000 90,076 534,447 43 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total............................................... 29,862,763 7,063,877 36,926,640 3,238,086 7,276,137 47,440,863 63 11,306,319
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No information provided Feb. 24, 2009 Client Extras incl.: flu shots, fresh produce, clothing, books, toys, health screenings, personal care items, energy efficient items, dairy, baked
goods, eye exams, etc.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Cooperative Business Association
The National Cooperative Business Association, which represents all
types of cooperatives, appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony
on the request for a funding level of $8.25 million for the Rural
Cooperative Development Grant (RCDG) program in the Rural Development
Agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This request includes
funds to work in areas of high national priority including helping to
create worker owned enterprises, e.g., worker ownership succession of
existing rural businesses; health care; renewable energy and energy
efficiency; and affordable housing.
Background.--The RCDG program is a competitive grants program,
administered by USDA's Rural Development, Rural Business--Cooperative
Services Program. RCDG provides matching grant funding to nonprofits or
institutions of higher education that operate cooperative development
centers primarily serving farmers and groups seeking to form
cooperatively owned businesses in rural areas.
Cooperative development centers use the grants to fund critical
technical assistance for economic development, such as legal and
accounting assistance, feasibility studies, business planning, board
education, and other services that help ensure the success of these
businesses. The centers have helped start or expand more than 400
cooperative businesses that have created over 5,800 new rural jobs in
virtually every sector of the economy. Investment in these cooperatives
exceeds $900 million.
President Obama recognized the critical nature of the RCDG program
in his budget outline. He included rural cooperative development grants
among the five Rural Development programs needed ``to spur the
development of small business and value-added agriculture in rural
America.''
The program, begun in 1993, is authorized at $50 million, but has
never been appropriated at more than $6.5 annually despite the demand
and cost effectiveness of the program. USDA typically receives 40-50
applications for funding annually, but historically has only been able
to fund 20-25 centers. In fiscal year 2008, approximately $4.6 million
was available for RCDG grants, with a maximum grant award of $200,000
per center. Another $500,000 was appropriated in this section for
research on the impact of cooperative businesses, and $1.2 million for
grants to minority-owned cooperatives, for a total appropriation of
approximately $6.4 million.
This program leverages a small amount of funding into much larger
amounts while it promotes ownership and entrepreneurship. While the
program requires a 25 percent match, centers have been leveraging
dollar for dollar this funding with non-federal funding sources. The
RCDG program is the only dedicated source of federal funding supporting
the cooperative development centers.
The Need for Assistance From Centers.--The Centers play a critical
role in identifying and assisting new businesses to gain access to
public funding, especially USDA loan and grant programs. Congress
recognized the need when it developed the program and stated that ``the
Committee hopes to link cooperatives from different communities and
different sectors of the economy to strengthen the cooperative movement
as a whole.'' (emphasis added) Federal Agriculture Improvement and
Reform Act of 1996, Conf.Rep., p. 432.
One of the ways Congress tried ``to strengthen the cooperative
movement as a whole'' with the program was to ``emphasiz[e] job
creation in rural areas through the development of rural cooperatives,
value added processing, and rural businesses.'' (Conf.Rep., p. 431).
At a time when rural America is in desperate need of jobs, the
centers are well-situated to assist in an efficient and effective
disbursement of economic stimulus and other funds to rural areas in
need. But in order to do this, Congress needs to increase the maximum
grant for centers back closer to historic levels. Under current
funding, the maximum grant request for RCDG has been reduced from
$300,000 in fiscal year 2005 to $200,000 currently, resulting in a
significant reduction in support for core center operations, compounded
by the effect of inflation. To bring funding up to an adequate level,
we urge this subcommittee to provide $8.25 million for the RCDG program
in this year's appropriations bill.
The Fiscal Year 2010 Request.--The request this year is for $8.25
million, which includes the following:
--$4.6 million for general rural cooperative development grants to
centers proposing to work in any area of rural cooperative
development;
--$2.0 million to be awarded to those successful RCDG applicants who
have both a demonstrated track record and that propose to
conduct rural cooperative development in the following areas of
high national priority: creation of worker owned enterprises,
including worker or community ownership succession of existing
rural businesses; health care; renewable energy and energy
efficiency, and affordable housing. Such applicants may request
up to $75,000 in supplemental grant awards to fund work in
these areas of national priority. Funds not used for these
purposes may be used by USDA to fund additional RCDG grants.
--$450,000 for research on the economic impact of all types of
cooperatives.
--$1.2 million for grants to minority-owned cooperatives.
This request would allow USDA to competitively award $200,000 each
to approximately 23-25 centers. Of these awardees, centers with both a
track record and a proposal to work in one or more of the specified
areas of national priority would be able to request an additional
$75,000, for a total award of $275,000. Funding for minority-owned
cooperatives would be funded at the same level, and funding for
research would be reduced by $50,000 from fiscal year 2008 levels.
Addressing High Priority Rural Economic Needs.--This request
addresses high priority needs by providing increased support for work
in areas that are critical to retaining and creating employment,
improving health care, creating affordable housing, and reducing
dependence on fossil fuels. Successful cooperative solutions have been
demonstrated in each of these critical areas in various places
throughout the country. Technical assistance is required to replicate
and broadly extend those successful models.
Rural America is populated with a number of profitable companies
where rural jobs are at risk of loss due to a failure of succession
planning, where aging or retiring owners do not have heirs that are
interested or capable of taking over the business. Transfer to employee
or community ownership is a good option in these cases, as these jobs
then are retained in communities instead of being outsourced to urban
or foreign buyers. But there must be business assistance infrastructure
available before the owner is ready to retire or the business closes.
Cooperative development centers can provide this assistance.
Health care delivery is a major issue affecting rural areas, where
most of America's aging population resides. Demonstrated opportunities
for cooperative development include worker-owned home health care
cooperatives, purchasing or shared services cooperatives for rural
hospitals, and others. Harvard's Kennedy School of Government
highlighted worker-owned home health care businesses as an award
winning solution to providing jobs and benefits to rural workers while
increasing the quality of care that allow aging rural residents to stay
in their homes.
Creation of affordable rural housing is an on-going need, made even
more urgent by the nation's housing and foreclosure crisis. Substantial
cooperative successes have been achieved by the conversion of
manufactured home parks on rented lots to resident-owned communities.
These co-ops have stabilized the availability of housing, and created
greater long-term security for residents.
Successful cooperative development can also be seen in response to
both the need for renewable energy production (such as through ethanol
and biodiesel cooperatives), and through consumer-owned energy
cooperatives aimed at energy conservation and efficiency.
The 2008 farm bill made changes to the program including allowing
the award of grants on a multi-year basis and a provision for USDA to
conduct ongoing research on the economic impact of cooperatives. The
changes are designed to make more effective and efficient use of the
ongoing capacity and expertise developed by co-op development centers
around the country.
Ongoing Research on Cooperatives.--The request includes $450,000
for a cooperative research agreement between USDA and a qualified
academic institution to continue research on the national economic
impact of cooperatives. The research money is needed to continue
tracking information on the number, type and economic impact of
cooperatives across America and to assess the effectiveness of the RCDG
program.
In April, the first results of the federally supported research on
the economic impact of cooperatives were released, showing significant
contribution of the co-op sector to the U.S. economy--73,000 firms own
more than $3 trillion in assets, generate over $650 billion in revenues
and pay more than $75 billion in wages for 2 million jobs.
While these results are a start, the 2008 farm bill requires USDA
to conduct ongoing research on the economic impact of all types of
cooperatives. This research can be used to track performance of
cooperatives, how much capital is recycled into local economies, the
success of Federal funds targeted at cooperative development, and
determining other economic as well as social benefits of cooperatives.
The fiscal year 2010 RCDG appropriation should include funding for this
critical research.
Funding History.--The program has received funding since 1993.
Previous funding levels (including RCDG grant funding, research
funding, and grant funding to minority-owned co-ops): Fiscal year 2009
$6.18 million; fiscal year 2008 $6.423 million; fiscal year 2007 $6.4
million; \1\ fiscal year 2006 $6.4 million; fiscal year 2005 $6
million; fiscal year 2004 $6.5 million; fiscal year 2003 $6.5 million;
fiscal year 2002 $5.25 million; fiscal year 2001 $4.5 million; fiscal
year 2000 $4 million; fiscal year 1999 $1.75 million; fiscal year 1998
$1.7 million; fiscal year 1997 $1.7 million; fiscal year 1996 $1.33
million; fiscal year 1995 $1 million; fiscal year 1994 $750,000; and
fiscal year 1993 $700,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ $900,000 that was appropriated to program for fiscal year 2007
in the Continuing Resolution was taken out of program to fund another
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion.--We appreciate this opportunity to provide information
about the request for $8.25 million for the Rural Cooperative
Development Grant Program. We urge the Subcommittee to support the
request.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Cotton Council
The National Cotton Council welcomes the opportunity to provide the
following recommendations and requests for fiscal year 2010
appropriations funding for selected programs under the jurisdiction of
the subcommittee which make important contributions to our industry's
ability to compete and prosper in a world market.
We are requesting $23.39 million for APHIS for the Joint Cotton
Pests Account and sufficient funding to continue the Farm Service
Agency's authority to make up to $100 million in loans to eligible
Foundations to be used in conducting activities related to the boll
weevil and pink bollworm eradication programs. The industry requests an
additional $700,000 above current funding ($1.54 million) be made
available to ARS to be used to add a research position at the ARS Gin
Lab located at Lubbock, TX. Adequate cost-share funding and loan
authority to facilitate the successful completion of the boll weevil
and the pink bollworm eradication programs; continued development of
new technology through research; sufficient financial resources,
personnel and computer equipment for FSA and FAS to successfully carry-
out their respective missions; and, funding for demand building export
programs including MAP, FMD and GSM export credit guarantees are all
essential to the cotton industry. The National Cotton Council also
strongly supports the provisions of the 2008 farm law.
The National Cotton Council of America (NCC) is the central
organization of the U.S. cotton industry representing growers, ginners,
warehousemen, cottonseed interests, merchants, cooperatives and
manufacturers whose primary business operations are located in 18
cotton producing States. Cotton Council International (CCI) is the
overseas promotion arm of the cotton industry. NCC represents producers
who cultivate between 10 and 14 million acres of cotton. Annual cotton
production averaging approximately 20 million 480-lb bales is valued at
more than $5 billion at the farm gate. While a majority of the industry
is concentrated in the 18 cotton-producing States, the down-stream
manufacturers of cotton apparel and home-furnishings are located in
virtually every State. The industry and its suppliers, together with
the cotton product manufacturers, account for more than 230,000 jobs in
the United States. In addition to the cotton fiber, cottonseed products
are used for livestock feed, and cottonseed oil is used for food
products ranging from margarine to salad dressing. Taken collectively,
the annual economic activity generated by cotton and its products in
the U.S. economy is estimated to be in excess of $120 billion.
funding priorities
Joint Cotton Pests (APHIS).--The National Cotton Council requests
$23.39 million for APHIS to provide a Federal Cost Share for Boll
Weevil Eradication and Pink Bollworm Eradication programs which were
combined in fiscal year 2008 into a joint cotton pest account. As these
programs near completion, the cost share funding for APHIS is even more
critical to insure the complete eradication of these cotton pests for
the benefit of those in post eradication maintenance areas. Additional
details for the Boll Weevil Eradication Program and the Pink Bollworm
Eradication Program are provided below as separate programs.
Boll Weevil Eradication (APHIS--Cotton Pests).--The National Cotton
Council requests $15.1 million for APHIS to provide a Federal cost
share of approximately 30 percent to active boll weevil eradication
programs underway in Texas. Cotton in the active eradication zones of
Texas will require program activity in 2010 to continue progress toward
full eradication. A large portion of this area is in habitats favorable
to the boll weevil, primarily in the Southeast third of the State. For
example, in central and south Texas, the boll weevil is especially
adapted to the milder winter temperatures, longer growing seasons, and
more humid summertime conditions. The lack of ``killing frost'' permits
escape cotton plants (plants growing in non-cotton field habitats like
ditch, fence row, etc.) to thrive year long, thus providing a source
for sustained life and reproduction of boll weevils. Extra efforts have
been employed to locate and remove these escape plants. Additionally,
several zones in Texas have encountered significant costs because of
weevils migrating out of the zones with high weevil populations into
adjacent zones with near eradication levels of weevils. Studies have
indicated this movement has been enhanced by hurricane winds. Even with
these significant challenges, progress toward full eradication
continues to be made.
The program continues to produce documented economic and
environmental benefits. Cotton in the United States was produced in
2007 with an average of only 2.78 sprays per acre for all insects. This
compares to 15 to 20 applications per acre prior to adoption of Bt
cotton for worm control and implementation of boll weevil eradication.
Nationally, USDA estimates that 94 percent of the U.S. cotton
acreage is now free of boll weevils. Additionally, Mexico continues
eradication programs in cotton areas along the U.S./Mexico border.
Adequate Federal cost-share funds are critical to timely
completion, especially since eradication is within sight. APHIS should
be directed to make every effort to minimize overhead and
administrative expenses for boll weevil eradication to ensure maximum
funding reaches field operations.
The fiscal year 2010 boll weevil request is less than fiscal year
2009 and continues the annual reduction in keeping with our commitment
to reduce Federal cost-share funding as the program moves toward
completion.
Boll Weevil Eradication (FSA).--The National Cotton Council
requests sufficient funding to allow FSA to make at least $100 million
in loans to eligible Boll Weevil Eradication Foundations. The Council
also strongly supports providing FSA with continued authority to make
loans for activities associated with the pink bollworm eradication
program as previously provided in the fiscal year 2005 appropriations
legislation.
Pink Bollworm Programs (APHIS--Cotton Pests).--The National Cotton
Council requests $8.29 million for the APHIS pink bollworm program.
This will provide $2.14 million for indirect and direct costs to APHIS
and the residual $6.15 million ``Net to Field'' will be for program
operations. The Pink Bollworm Eradication Program originally was
planned for a three phase expansion over several years. Insufficient
funding resulted in Phase III being divided into Phase III(a) and Phase
III(b) to allow partial expansion in fiscal year 2007. However, data
revealed mass late season migration spilled into areas in eradication
from outside eradication. Fiscal year 2008 marked the first year to
expand into the last remaining areas of infestation. The fiscal year
2010 request is less than the fiscal year 2009 request as a result of a
reduction in sterile moth releases needed in some areas.
The Pink Bollworm Eradication Program is based predominately on the
mass release of sterile insects generated by a rearing facility located
in Phoenix, AZ. Although this technique is favored over conventional
insecticide spray application, the rearing costs include items related
to fuel to maintain facility temperature most favorable to the insect
and to soybean meal, a major diet ingredient. Soybean meal has almost
doubled in cost (2007 vs. 2008). Insect rearing costs alone account for
over $4 million of the budget. The shipping and mass release of these
sterile insects via airplane over areas of California, Arizona, New
Mexico, and Texas has increased due to fuel price increases. Costs have
also greatly increased for the plastic raw material used to manufacture
the trays that contain the insects during rearing.
The Bi-National Pink bollworm eradication program has been
implemented in three phases, with the final expansion started in 2008,
to eliminate pink bollworm as a cotton pest in Texas, New Mexico,
Arizona, California and adjacent cotton areas in Northern Mexico. It
was expected that fiscal year 2009 would be the peak request for the
program. Subsequent years are expected to require less support due to
successful eradication in the earliest phases of the program. It is
anticipated that fiscal year 2010 needs will meet that expectation.
Mexico remains a partner in the eradication effort and continues to
expand eradication programs along the border in conjunction with the
United States.
The funds requested for fiscal year 2010 will enable the Phoenix
Pink Bollworm Rearing Facility to rear and release up to 20 million
sterile pink bollworm moths per day to supply program needs. The
Phoenix Pink Bollworm Rearing Facility (PBRF) is a partnership between
the California growers and APHIS. The cost share for pink bollworm is
essential to provide APHIS expertise and operational coordination in
mass rearing and daily area-wide aerial releases of millions of moths.
Market Access Program (MAP).--The National Cotton Council strongly
supports funding levels authorized in 2008 farm law. Cotton Council
International (CCI) actively promotes exports of U.S. cotton and cotton
products in Asia, Europe, Africa, and Central and South America.
Activities carried out using MAP (and FMD) have been responsible for
increased export sales of cotton fiber and value-added cotton products.
The value of U.S. cotton fiber exports exceeds $4 billion, and exports
of value-added cotton products contribute an additional $6 billion to
the overall value of cotton exports. For every $1 in MAP and FMD funds,
CCI has generated matching contributions of over $4.00.
Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS).--The industry supports
sufficient funding to ensure FAS is adequately staffed to carry out
important market development and trade enhancing functions in
headquarters and abroad.
Foreign Market Development (FMD).--The FMD program is used to
encourage and support U.S. commodity groups to undertake long-term
market development and trade servicing. FMD is currently funded at
$34.5 million and requires at least a dollar-for-dollar industry match.
The industry requests that funding be continued at the same level as
provided for fiscal year 2009.
Farm Service Agency (FSA).--Provide adequate funding so the agency
can continue to deliver essential farm and conservation programs and
services.
Agricultural Research Service (ARS).--The industry is concerned
with current support provided to this agency. The agency has faced a
flat budget for most of the recent past fiscal years since 2001 and
when not flat, its budget has suffered cuts. We respectfully request
that this agency be considered for increased overall funding to allow
the valuable research conducted on behalf of all agriculture to
continue at sustainable levels. We specifically urge the subcommittee
to provide increased base funding for the following research facility:
Lubbock, TX Cotton Production and Processing Research Unit (Ginning
Lab) of the Cropping Systems Research Laboratory (ARS)--$2.27
million.--The request for $2.27 million in annual operating budget
represents an increase of $700,000 from the funding levels provided in
fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009. This cotton ginning research
facility is specifically equipped for research into the stripper
harvested cotton production systems on the Texas High Plains, the
largest contiguous production region in the United States. This unit is
the only research unit within the ARS system that has a cotton
harvesting research component of any type and while, historically, the
unit's focus has been on stripper harvesting, the region's producers
have in recent years been able to utilize new cultivars of upland
cottons, adapted for their region, with vastly improved qualities that
are best preserved if harvested by a machine picker rather than by a
machine stripper. Research into best possible harvest alternatives is
vital for this region's production to take advantage of international
market preferences for longer, stronger cotton fiber and provide for
continued profit improvements for the growers of this region.
Historically this unit has been staffed with four full time
scientists (4-SY's). In recent years, however, the lab has been
operating with only 3-SY's, with the harvest focused position vacant
due to retirement. Currently, harvest research is being conducted by a
talented post-doctoral fellow with supplemental funds provided by
industry through a grant from Cotton Incorporated, which is necessary
to cover his direct salary and support functions. While this is a much
appreciated stop gap approach, it is imperative for the long term
viability of the unit for a fourth full time scientist position to be
restored with appropriate support. ARS administrators indicate that
this requested funding level will support a fourth scientist, long
term, as well as provide for the necessary indirect support necessary
for a viable 4-SY unit.
Also included in this request is funding of critical cotton ginning
particulate matter emissions research impacting all production regions
which is conducted at this location. The development of this first
class particulate emissions laboratory has become a valuable resource
for determining and characterizing particulate emissions for many
agricultural operations in addition to cotton ginning. In addition,
this laboratory cooperates in research to improve Grain Sorghum Cold
Tolerance, thus improving production of this valuable feed grain on the
High Plains. Grain Sorghum is an important ingredient in animal feeds
and as a feedstock for ethanol production.
All of these activities are in addition to the basic ginning
research necessary for support of the Texas and Southwest Region's
cotton production industry.
Thank you for your consideration of the cotton industry's
recommendations for funding for programs under the subcommittee's
jurisdiction for fiscal year 2010.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Environmental Service Center
Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony to the
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration and Related Agencies. We request $1.5 million for the
National Drinking Water Clearinghouse (NDWC), a program that provides
water infrastructure services for small communities and rural areas
nationwide.
Introduction
My name is Gerald Iwan. I serve as executive director of the
National Environmental Services Center (NESC), located at West Virginia
University in Morgantown, West Virginia. Previously, I was for 20 years
the drinking water administrator for the State of Connecticut
Department of Public Health, during which time I oversaw the
implementation of all regulatory aspects of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA). In my present assignment with NESC, I manage a unique program
with nationally recognized expertise in drinking water, wastewater, and
small community infrastructure security and emergency preparedness.
NESC provides specialized technical assistance and training services
and is an in-depth repository of information to small and rural
communities nationwide.
Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Challenges
Approximately 42,000 small and rural communities across the country
with populations of 3,300 or fewer people receive their drinking water
from small, community-operated water systems (EPA, 2009). These systems
are mandated to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act in providing
reliable and safe water services. The system operators typically have
limited financial, human and equipment resources. These systems account
for the majority of SDWA violations. The USDA's Water and Wastewater
Grants and Loans program may be the only option small system operators
have to obtain funding to address necessary system improvements.
Organizations such as the NDWC can provide reliable technical
assistance in advising the system operators and in helping them to
overcome the many challenges they face in complying with local, State
and Federal regulations.
Recognizing these challenges, the USDA makes funds available
through the ``Rural Water and Wastewater Technical Assistance and
Training (RWTA) Programs'' under authorization provided in the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (the Farm Bill). The
National Drinking Water Clearinghouse is one RWTA program. We have been
funded by USDA for 18 years to help communities and rural areas
identify and evaluate solutions to water or wastewater problems,
improve facility operation and maintenance, and prepare funding
applications for water or wastewater treatment facility construction
projects.
Deliverables Provided by the NDWC
The NDWC serves local officials, utility managers, system operators
and RWTA professionals in small and rural communities. Congressional
support would enable us to provide the following deliverables to our
stakeholders. Telephone callers would obtain toll-free drinking water
technical assistance from our staff of certified operators, engineers,
and scientists. Our quarterly publication ``On Tap,'' a magazine for
small drinking water systems, provides information about water
treatment, financing, and management options and would be distributed
free of charge to 26,000 subscribers. A comprehensive Web site
www.NESC.wvu.edu and databases with thousands of entries will be
maintained to provide ``round the clock'' access to contemporary
information for small water systems. Training sessions customized for
small and rural areas, teleconferences, and more than 600 free and low-
cost educational products would be provided to give people the
instruction and tools they need to address their most pressing drinking
water issues. Our staff of experts will be available to visit small
communities, if invited, to offer in-the-field assessments and advice
to the host communities.
We anticipate an even greater need for NDWC services in 2010 due to
the current recession and the federal effort to stimulate the economy
through infrastructure projects. Stimulus funding in the water sector
has been so far predominately directed to construction, with little or
no funding directed to support water and wastewater facility operation
and maintenance, or for technical assistance programs such as provided
by the NDWC. Small and ruralcommunities will need increased support
from units such as ours to plan for and protect their current and
future utility assets. The NDWC has accordingly expanded its scope of
deliverables for fiscal year 2010 to provide additional services. It is
imperative that the NDWC continues to receive funding from the
Technical Assistance and Training Grants (TAT) account to assist small
communities with their drinking water systems and associated concerns
related to protecting drinking water supplies from contamination.
Request
In order to provide services to meet this national need, we request
a congressionally directed appropriation of $1.5 million to continue
and increase the NDWC program services through the Technical Assistance
and Training (TAT) Grants account. Thank you for considering our
request.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Organic Coalition
My name is Steven Etka. I am submitting this testimony on behalf of
the National Organic Coalition (NOC) to detail our requests for fiscal
year 2010 funding for several USDA marketing, research, and
conservation programs of importance to organic agriculture.
The National Organic Coalition (NOC) is a national alliance of
organizations working to provide a voice for farmers, ranchers,
environmentalists, consumers, cooperative retailers and others involved
in organic agriculture. The current members of NOC are the Beyond
Pesticides, Center for Food Safety, Equal Exchange, Food and Water
Watch, Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, Midwest Organic
and Sustainable Education Service, National Cooperative Grocers
Association, Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, Northeast
Organic Farming Association-Interstate Policy Council, Rural
Advancement Foundation International--USA, and the Union of Concerned
Scientists.
We urge the Subcommittee's strong consideration of the following
funding requests for various USDA programs of importance to organic
farmers, marketers and consumers:
USDA/Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
National Organic Program--Request: $8 million
In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, funding of $2.026 was appropriated
for the National Organic Program within the AMS budget. For fiscal year
2008, in keeping with the President's budget request for the program,
$3.18 million was appropriated for the National Organic Program. The
NOP appropriation grew again in fiscal year 2009 to a funding level of
$3.867 million.
Sales of organic food and beverages continue to grow at an average
rate of 20 percent per year in this country. While funding levels for
USDA's National Organic Program (NOP) have grown in recent years, the
growth in resources for this regulatory agency has not kept pace with
the market growth of the organic sector.
For NOP to be a credible regulator and enforcer of the USDA organic
label, resources must increase significantly, and long overdue policies
must be established within NOP to ensure consistency in the standards,
transparency in the standards setting process, and proper enforcement.
If the funding for this program does not expand significantly to meet
the growing needs, we fear that the important work of the NOP will
suffer, the integrity of the organic standards will be jeopardized, and
public confidence in the USDA organic label will be eroded.
Specifically, the Members of the National Organic Coalition urge
the Committee to funding the National Organic Program at $8 million for
fiscal year 2010, as authorized by Section 10303 of the Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, and to include language directing
NOP to undertake the following critical activities, as established by
the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990.
--Establish a Peer Review Panel, as called for in Section 2117 of the
Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990, and Section
205.509 of USDA's own organic regulations; to provide oversight
of USDA's accreditation process for organic certifying agents.
--Reinstate funding for independent, scientific reviews of substances
proposed for use in organic agriculture, as required by OFPA.
Historically, the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) has
had the benefit of independent scientific reviews, called
Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) reviews, of any substance
proposed for use in organic agriculture, to make sure that its
use is compatible with the purposes of OFPA. However, in recent
years, USDA has denied funding for these independent TAP
reviews, leaving the NOSB with little information on which to
base these important decisions.
--Make the NOP budget fully transparent and accountable to the
public, by publishing the details of the budget on the NOP
website.
--Finalize the pending pasture rule for organic livestock, and
initiate rulemaking to address the issue of the origin of
livestock.
USDA
Organic Data Initiatives
Authorized by Section 7407 of the 2002 Farm Bill, the Organic
Production and Marketing Data Initiative States that the ``Secretary
shall ensure that segregated data on the production and marketing of
organic agricultural products is included in the ongoing baseline of
data collection regarding agricultural production and marketing.''
Section 10302 of the Farm, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 amends
the provision further to provide mandatory funding, and to provide
further authorization for $5 million annually in discretionary funds
for this effort.
As the organic industry matures and grows at a rapid rate, the lack
of national data for the production, pricing, and marketing of organic
products has been an impediment to further development of the industry
and to the effective functioning of many organic programs within USDA.
The organic data collection and analysis effort at USDA has made
significant strides in recent years, but remains in its infancy.
Because of the multi-agency nature of data collection within USDA,
organic data collection and analysis must also be undertaken by several
different agencies within the Department: We are requesting the full $5
million to be appropriated for this initiative, to be divided between
the three main data collection sub-agencies as follows:
Economic Research Service (ERS).--Collection and Analysis of
Organic Economic Data--Request: $1.5 million
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS).--Collection and Analysis of
Organic Economic Data--Request: $3 million
National Agricultural Statistic Service (NASS).--Organic Production
Data--Request: $500,000
USDA/CSREES
Organic Transitions Program--Request: $5 million
The Organic Transition Program, authorized by Section 406 of the
Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Reform Act (AREERA) for
Integrated Research Programs, is a research grant program that helps
farmers surmount some of the challenges of organic production and
marketing. As the organic industry grows, the demand for research on
topics related to organic agriculture is experiencing significant
growth as well. The benefits of this research are far-reaching, with
broad applications to all sectors of U.S. agriculture, even beyond the
organic sector. Yet funding for organic research is minuscule in
relation to the relative economic importance of organic agriculture and
marketing in this nation. Starting in fiscal year 2009, the program has
been administered in combination with the CSREES Water Quality
integrated research program, to study the watershed impacts of organic
systems.
The Organic Transition Program was funded at $2.1 million in fiscal
year 2003, $1.9 million in fiscal year 2004, $1.88 million for both
fiscal year 2005 and 2006, $1.855 million for fiscal year 2007 and
2008, and 1.842 million in fiscal year 2009. Given the rapid increase
in demand for organic foods and other products, and the growing
importance of organic agriculture, this important research program
should be growing instead of contracting. Therefore, we are requesting
that the program be funded at $5 million in fiscal year 2010.
USDA/CSREES/Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI)
Request: Report language on Conventional/Classical Plant
and Animal Breeding
In recent decades, public resources for classical plant and animal
breeding have dwindled, while resources have shifted toward genomics
and biotechnology, with a focus on a limited set of major crops and
breeds. This problem has been particularly acute for organic and
sustainable farmers, who seek access to germplasm well suited to their
unique cropping systems and their local environment.
Ever year since fiscal year 2005, the Senate Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee has included report language raising
concerns about this problem, and urging CSREES to give greater
consideration to research needs related to classical plant and animal
breeding, when setting priorities within the National Research
Initiative. Despite this report language, research proposals for
classical plant and animal breeding that have sought NRI funding in the
recent years have been consistently declined.
In Section 7406 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008,
the National Research Initiative was merged with the Initiative for
Future Agriculture and Food Systems to become the Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative (AFRI). Congress included language within the AFRI
to make ``conventional'' plant and animal breeding a priority for AFRI
research grants, consistent with the concerns expressed by
Appropriations Committee in the three preceding appropriations cycles.
When CSREES released its AFRI Program Announcement in December of
2008, it invited research proposals on conventional/classical plant and
animal breeding. However, when researchers submitted their initial
letters of intent spelling out their research topics in the arena, they
were nearly all rejected in the pre-proposal stage. Therefore, we are
requesting that report language be added to the CSREES/AFRI section of
the report, stating the following:
``While the Committee is pleased that the new AFRI program language
is now encouraging classical or conventional plant and animal breeding
initiatives, we are concerned by the lack of progress in funding of
actual projects in this research arena. The Committee urges USDA to
make further progress by creating a clear, separate and on-going
category of research funding for conventional/classical plant and
animal breeding within AFRI, with adequate funding allocations to meet
this critical and growing need.''
USDA/CSREES
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE)
Request: $25 Million (Research and Education
Grants) and Education (SARE) and $5 Million
(Professional Development Grants)
The SARE program has been very successful in funding on-farm
research on environmentally sound and profitable practices and systems,
including organic production. The reliable information developed and
distributed through SARE grants have been invaluable to organic
farmers. For fiscal year 2010, we are requesting $25 million for
research and education grants and $5 million for professional
development grants.
USDA/Rural Business Cooperative Service
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA)--
Request: $3 million
ATTRA, authorized by Section 6016 on the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008, is a national sustainable agriculture information
service, which provides practical information and technical assistance
to farmers, ranchers, Extension agents, educators and others interested
and active in sustainable agriculture. ATTRA interacts with the public,
not only through its call-in service and website, but also provides
numerous excellent publications written to help address some of the
most frequently asked questions of farmers and educators. Much of the
real-world information provided by ATTRA is extremely helpful to both
the conventional and organic communities, and is available nowhere
else. As a result, the growth in demand for ATTRA services has
increased significantly, both through the website-based information
services and through the growing requests for workshops. We are
requesting $3 million for ATTRA for fiscal year 2010.
USDA/ARS
Organic Agricultural Systems Research--Request: Devote
``Fair Share'' of ARS Research Dollars,
Commensurate With Organic's Retail Market Share
(Approximately $33 Million), to Direct Organic
Research.
USDA research programs have not kept pace with the growth of
organic agriculture in the marketplace. Although organic currently
represents nearly 4 percent of total U.S. food retail market, the share
of USDA research targeted to organic agriculture and marketing is
significantly less. With regard to ARS specifically, efforts have been
made to devote greater resources to organic research. The current total
funding for direct organic projects within ARS is about $14 million,
about 1.5 percent of the ARS budget. Despite this progress, much more
needs to be done in this area. We are requesting that a ``fair share''
of ARS expenditures (approximately $33 million annually) be devoted to
direct organic projects, using organic's retail market share as a basis
of comparison to the conventional sector. This should include the
establishment of a clearinghouse for disseminating organic research
information through the National Agricultural Library, Alternative
Farming Systems Information Center (NAL-AFSIC).
USDA/NRCS
Conservation Stewardship Program--Request: No Funding
Limitation
USDA/Rural Business Cooperative Service
Value-Added Producer Grants--Request: $40 million
The Conservation Security Program (authorized by Section 2001 of
the 2002 farm bill) and the Value-Added Producer Grant (authorized by
Section 6401 of the 2002 farm bill) have great potential to benefit
organic and conventional producers in their efforts to conserve natural
resources and to explore new, value-added enterprises as part of their
operations. Unfortunately, while these programs were authorized to
operate with mandatory funding, their usefulness has been limited by
funding restrictions imposed through the annual appropriations process.
We are urging that the Conservation Security Program be permitted to
operate with unrestricted mandatory funding, and that the Value-Added
Producer Grant Program receive an appropriation of $40 million for
fiscal year 2009.
Food and Nutrition Service/WIC Program
Report Language: Removing Barriers of Access to Organic
Foods for WIC recipients
Despite the scientifically documented nutritional and health
benefits of organic food, particularly for pregnant mothers and small
children, many States have greatly limited or prohibited access to
organic foods as part of the WIC program. Some of the barriers are
explicit, whereby WIC recipient are expressly prohibited in some States
from using their WIC certificates or vouchers for organic versions of
WIC foods. Others barriers are indirect, such as rules that make it
difficult for retail stores that carry organic foods from participating
in the program. Therefore, we are requesting that report language be
included in the Food and Nutrition Service section of the fiscal year
2010 Appropriations report, such as:
``The Committee is concerned about the number of States the have
set up barriers within the WIC program to hinder or prohibit WIC
recipients from purchasing organic food. The Committee strongly urges
FNS to actively encourage States to remove barriers to the purchase of
organic foods as part of the basic food instrument, and to understand
the nutritional and health benefits of organic foods for the vulnerable
populations served by this program.''
______
Prepared Statement of the National Potato Council
My name is Justin Dagen. I am a potato farmer from Karlstad,
Minnesota and current Vice President, Legislative/Government Affairs
for the National Potato Council (NPC). On behalf of the NPC, we thank
you for your attention to the needs of our potato growers.
The NPC 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 is
estimated at 437,888,000 cwt. with a farm value of $3.2 billion. Total
value is substantially increased through processing. The potato crop
clearly has a positive impact on the U.S. economy.
The National Potato Council (NPC) urges the Congress to continue to
fund programs critical to potato growers and to oppose any attempts to
eliminate and/or curtail various critical research and other projects.
For example, interruptions in CSREES funded projects will result in
significant disruption or cancellation of valuable breeding research
and the loss of varieties resulting from years of previous research.
Much of this potato research is conducted jointly using potato industry
and university funding. Similarly, ARS potato research is critical to
the potato industry.
The NPC'S fiscal year 2010 Appropriations Priorities are as
follows:
potato research
Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service (CSREES)
The NPC urges the Congress not to support any attempt to eliminate
the CSREES Special Grant Program for potatoes. This program supports
and fine-tunes important university research work that helps our
growers remain competitive in today's domestic and world marketplace.
The NPC supports an appropriation of $1,800,000 for the Special
Potato Grant program for fiscal year 2010. The Congress appropriated
$1,482,000 in fiscal year 2006 and recommended the same amount in
fiscal year 2007. However, the program only received $1,112,000 in
fiscal year 2008 which was further reduced by the across-the-board cut
and $1,037,000 in fiscal year 2009. This has been a highly successful
program, and the number of funding requests from various potato-
producing regions is increasing.
The NPC also urges that the Congress include Committee report
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
after review by the Potato Industry Working Group.''
agricultural research service (ars)
The NPC urges that the Congress to continue the Congressional
increases for research projects.
The Congress provided funds for a number of important ARS projects
and, due to previous direction by the Congress, the ARS continues to
work with the NPC on how overall research funds can best be utilized
for grower priorities.
The NPC urges that $3 million per site be provided for the
construction and/or the expansion of nematode research facilities at
Cornell University in New York and in Idaho. The Potato Cyst Nematode
Laboratory (PCNL) at Cornell University is structurally deficient and
may lose its Federal license to operate as a quarantine facility. Its
demise would put New York agriculture and the United States potato
industries at risk. Equally important is the risk to the Western United
States from the Idaho and Alberta outbreaks. A coordinated National
Program is critical if export markets are to be maintained and this
quarantined pest is to be contained. The Western facility could be
constructed on University of Idaho land where an existing nematologist
is present and a core ARS presence already exists. If PCN expands into
other States, the entire U.S. potato industry will be affected, not
only from direct damage by the pest (up to 80 percent yield loss), but
more importantly, by embargoes disrupting interstate and international
trade
foreign market development
Market Access Program (MAP)
The NPC also urges that the Congress maintain the spending level
for the Market Access Program (MAP) at its authorized level of $200
million annually.
Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS)
The NPC supports a minimum of $279 million for salaries and
expenses of the USDA Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS). This level is
the minimum necessary for the Agency given the multitude of trade
negotiations and discussions currently underway. The Agency has had to
absorb pay cost increases, as well as higher operating costs for its
overseas offices, such as increased payments to the Department of State
for services provided at overseas posts. However, this minimal budget
request does not allow for expanded enforcement activities to assure
that various trade agreements are being properly implemented. The
Congress should consider increasing the budget request to allow for
more FAS trade enforcement activities.
food aid programs
McGovern-Dole
The NPC supports a level of at least $108 million for the McGovern-
Dole International Food Aid Program. The Program has included potato
products.
pest and disease management
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
Given the transfer of Agriculture Quarantine Inspection (AQI)
personnel at U.S. ports to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
it is important that certain USDA-APHIS programs be adequately funded
to ensure progress on export petitions and protection of the U.S.
potato growers from invasive, harmful pests and diseases. Even though
DHS staffing has increased, agriculture priorities have not yet been
adequately addressed.
Golden Nematode Quarantine.--The NPC supports an appropriation of
$1,266,000 for this quarantine which is what is believed to be
necessary for USDA and the State of New York to assure official control
of this pest. Failure to do so could adversely impact potato exports.
Emerging Plant Pests.--The NPC supports at least $145 million with
$9.5 million going to the potato cyst nematode regulatory, control and
survey activity. The recent discovery of Golden Nematode in seed fields
in Alberta, and possibly linked to production fields in the United
States, has increased the scope and cost of the national survey being
conducted by USDA. In addition, the costs of the eradication program
have increased due to rising input costs and some expansion of target
acres.
Pest Detection.--The NPC supports $45 million. This is essential
for the Plant Protection and Quarantine Service's (PPQ) efforts against
potato pests and diseases, such as Ralstonia and the potato cyst
nematode, and funds many cooperative pest and disease programs.
Trade Issues Resolution Management.--The NPC supports $19 million
but ONLY if any increase is specifically for plant protection and
quarantine activities. These activities are of increased importance as
new trade agreements are negotiated, the Agency must have the necessary
staff and technology to work on plant related import/export issues and
to resolve phytosanitary trade issues in a timely manner.
agricultural statistics
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
The NPC supports an addition of $8.4 million and report language to
assure that the potato objective yield and grade and size surveys and
vegetable pesticide use surveys are continued. These surveys provide
valuable data to the growers and the EPA for use in registration and
reregistration decisions for key chemical tools. NASS has discontinued
these chemical use surveys for fruits and vegetables.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony regarding fiscal year 2010 funding for
the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (Foundation). We appreciate
the Subcommittee's past support and respectfully request your approval
of $5 million through the Natural Resources Conservation Service's
(NRCS) Conservation Operations appropriation in fiscal year 2010. This
funding request is authorized and would allow the Foundation to expand
our historical partnership with NRCS.
In 2009, the Foundation is celebrating its 25th Anniversary and a
remarkable history of bringing private partners together to leverage
Federal funds to conserve fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats.
The Foundation is required by law to match each federally-
appropriated dollar with a minimum of one non-Federal dollar. We
consistently exceed this requirement by leveraging Federal funds at a
3:1 ratio while providing thought leadership and emphasizing
accountability, measurable results, and sustainable conservation
outcomes. Funds appropriated by this subcommittee are fully dedicated
to project grants and do not cover any overhead expenses of the
Foundation.
As of fiscal year 2008, the Foundation has awarded over 10,000
grants to more than 3,500 national and community-based organizations
through successful partnerships with NRCS and other Federal agencies,
including the USDA Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
other Department of Interior agencies, Environmental Protection Agency,
and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This effective
model brings together multiple Federal agencies with State and local
government and private organizations to implement conservation
strategies on private lands that directly benefit diverse habitats and
a wide range of fish and wildlife species.
During fiscal year 2000-2006, the Foundation received an average
appropriation of $3 million annually to further the mission of NRCS
through a matching grant program focused on private lands conservation.
Together, NRCS and the Foundation have supported nearly 500 grants to
conservation districts, universities, Resource Conservation and
Development Councils, and non-profit organizations who partner with
farmers, ranchers, and foresters to support conservation efforts on
private land. Through these efforts, the Foundation leveraged $21
million in NRCS funds into more than $85 million to conserve fish and
wildlife habitat, reduce agricultural runoff, and remove invasive
species in 50 States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Islands. We ask
that the subcommittee restore the NRCS appropriation for the Foundation
in fiscal year 2010.
This subcommittee's support is critical to our success in
attracting additional funding for agricultural conservation through
corporate and foundation contributions, legal settlements, and direct
gifts. As a neutral convener, the Foundation is in a unique position to
work with the Federal agencies, State and local government,
corporations, foundations, conservation organizations and others to
build strategic partnerships to address the most significant threats to
fish and wildlife populations and their habitats. Currently, the
Foundation has active partnerships with more than 30 corporations and
foundations and 17 Federal agencies. The Foundation is successfully
building bridges between the government and private sector to benefit
NRCS's mission. Examples of those benefiting agricultural conservation
include:
--ArcelorMittal, the world's largest steel company, established a
$2.5 million partnership with the Foundation in 2008 to restore
wildlife habitat in the Great Lakes.
--The Kellogg Foundation contributed $750,000 of NRCS-matching funds
through to support innovative and sustainable conservation
activities on agricultural lands.
--Strong partnerships with Anheuser-Busch, Southern Company, and the
McKnight Foundation, all of whom have a special interest in
conserving habitat on private agricultural lands. New
opportunities in 2009 for agriculture-focused partnerships
include Syngenta and Perdue.
implementation of strategic conservation initiatives
It is widely known that climate change will endanger some wildlife
populations and ecosystems more than others. In fiscal year 2008, the
Foundation initiated grant-making through new keystone initiatives,
which focus on select species of birds, fish and sensitive habitats.
With support from the subcommittee in fiscal year 2010, we will
accelerate implementation of these strategic initiatives, many of which
seek to address the affects of climate change through wildlife and
natural resource adaptation. To ensure success in these investments, we
are incorporating monitoring and evaluation into the entire lifecycle
of our strategic initiatives in order to measure progress, promote
adaptive management, demonstrate results, and continuously learn from
our grant-making. With our partners, the Foundation has identified
several species and ecosystems in need of immediate conservation
action, a few of which are described below.
Southeastern Grasslands.--Loss of native grasslands in the
Southeast has dramatically reduced populations of grassland birds, such
as the Northern Bobwhite and Loggerhead Shrike. Despite intensive
efforts to improve habitat for these species, efforts have been
disjointed and ineffective at recovering species. The Foundation will
work with NRCS, other Federal agencies, and corporate partners to
facilitate ongoing and new efforts toward effective and results-
oriented grassland bird conservation. Fiscal year 2010 funding would
support grassland restoration and management on private agricultural
lands in the Southeast and, in turn, positively benefit wildlife
conservation and associated recreation, erosion control and water
quality.
Northeastern Early Successional Forests.--The state fish and
wildlife agencies in the Northeast have identified habitats that depend
on disturbance as a top priority for their investments. Fiscal year
2010 funds will strengthen the Foundation's partnership with NRCS to
work with the States, farmers, family foresters and other landowners to
create incentives to manage working lands that can support healthy
wetland and forest wildlife. This includes controlling invasive
species, using grazing as a win-win management tool, and other
proactive efforts to keep declining species off the endangered species
list.
The Green River Basin of Wyoming.--Sublette County and other areas
in the southwest corner of the State--are a major area for U.S. natural
gas production and provide some of the highest quality sagebrush,
riparian habitats and forest for wildlife in the west. The area also
supports one of the strongest sage grouse populations, as well as mule
deer, pronghorn and elk populations. Energy development impacts on
wildlife movement and habitat are being addressed by energy companies,
BLM and other government agencies. Our goal is to work with public and
private partners to accelerate these efforts through several key
strategies which include modifying fences and other barriers that
obstruct wildlife movement, reducing road mortality along important
migratory pathways, and protecting key parcels of private ranchland
from development and subdivision with conservation easements.
Sierra Nevada Alpine Wetlands.--We recognize that climate change
will greatly exacerbate two existing water supply problems which impact
wildlife and the public--too little water and the seasonality of
freshwater supplies. The Foundation is working proactively with
Federal, State and local partners to expand voluntary water transaction
programs for private landowners and launching new initiatives to
increase natural water storage. These efforts will benefit a diversity
of wildlife species while improving water flows year-round for human
use. For example, Sierra Nevada alpine wetlands, or ``wet meadows'',
are hotspots within the Sierra Nevada ecosystem for wildlife diversity.
Federal agencies manage about 40 percent of the area of these mountain
ranges, but wet meadow habitat along valley bottoms is primarily
private land. The Foundation will invest in partnerships that provide
incentives to private landowners to conserve springs and wet meadows
and provide artificial water sources to protect stream habitats.
Klamath Basin.--The Foundation will be focusing on spring systems
in the Klamath either by acquisition, easement, or voluntarily
modifying agricultural practices as it is the soundest strategy for
recovery of both endangered Suckers and Coho salmon. This strategy will
provide these species and other fishes the ability to withstand climate
change (resilience) much longer into this century. Similarly, an
investment strategy of protecting and restoring spring systems in the
Shenandoah River Basin will allow for the return of Eastern Brook Trout
and 18-24 additional native species. In the Upper Colorado River Basin,
locating areas at the warmwater-coldwater interface which contain
Colorado Cutthroat trout and native suckers and chubs is providing the
framework to sustain these fishes into the next century, on both public
and private lands.
Restored funding through NRCS in fiscal year 2010 will also support
the Foundation's ongoing conservation grant programs including the
Great Lakes Watershed Restoration Fund, Long Island Sound Futures Fund,
and Chesapeake Bay Stewardship Fund. These grant programs, which
effectively leverage funds from multiple Federal agencies and corporate
partners, continued positive results in 2009 with priority project
requests far exceeding available funds.
efficiency, performance measures and accountability
As you know, the Foundation has taken important strides to
strengthen our performance measures and accountability. For example,
the Foundation is working with scientists and other experts to develop
species-specific metrics for each of our keystone initiatives that we
will use to measure our progress in achieving our conservation
outcomes. Our grant review and contracting processes have been improved
to ensure we maximize efficiency while maintaining strict financial and
evaluation-based requirements. We have enhanced our website with
interactive tools such as webinars and a grants library to enhance the
transparency of our grant-making, and instituted a new paperless
application and grant administration system. In 2009, we will continue
our efforts improve communication between and among our stakeholders
and streamlining of our grant-making process.
The Foundation's grant-making involves a thorough internal and
external review process. Peer reviews involve Federal and State
agencies, affected industry, non-profit organizations, and academics.
Grants are also reviewed by the Foundation's issue experts, as well as
evaluation staff, before being recommended to the Board of Directors
for approval. In addition, according to our Congressional Charter, the
Foundation provides a 30-day notification to the Members of Congress
for the congressional district and state in which a grant will be
funded, prior to making a funding decision.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, we greatly appreciate your continued
support and hope the subcommittee will approve funding for the
Foundation in fiscal year 2010.
______
Prepared Statement of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission
Summary
This statement is submitted in support of appropriations for the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP) and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.
Prior to the enactment of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
(FSRIA) in 2002, the salinity control program had not been funded at
the level necessary to control salinity with respect to water quality
standards since the enactment of the Federal Agriculture Improvement
and Reform Act (FAIRA) of 1996. Inadequate funding of the salinity
control program also negatively impacts the quality of water delivered
to Mexico pursuant to Minute 242 of the International Boundary and
Water Commission. Adequate funding for EQIP, from which the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) funds the salinity program, is needed
to implement salinity control measures. I request that the Subcommittee
designate 2.5 percent, but no less than $20 million, of the EQIP
appropriation for the Colorado River Basin salinity control program. I
request that adequate funds be appropriated for technical assistance
and education activities directed to salinity control program
participants.
Statement
The seven Colorado River Basin States, in response to the salinity
issues addressed by Clean Water Act of 1972, formed the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum). Comprised of gubernatorial
appointees from the seven Basin States, the Forum was created to
provide for interstate cooperation in response to the Clean Water Act,
and to provide the States with information to comply with Sections
303(a) and (b) of the act. The Forum has become the primary means for
the seven Basin States to coordinate with Federal agencies and Congress
to support the implementation of the Salinity control program.
Congress authorized the Colorado River Basin salinity control
program in the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974.
Congress amended the act in 1984 to give new responsibilities to the
USDA. While retaining the Department of the Interior as the lead
coordinator for the salinity control program, the amended act
recognized the importance of the USDA operating under its authorities
to meet the objectives of the salinity control program. Many of the
most cost-effective projects undertaken by the salinity control program
to date have occurred since implementation of the USDA's authorization
for the program. Now, Congress is considering enactment of a new Farm
Bill to further define how the Colorado River Basin States can cost-
share in a newly designated salinity control program known as the
``Basin States Program.''
Bureau of Reclamation studies show that quantified damages from the
Colorado River to United States water users are about $350,000,000 per
year. Unquantified damages are significantly greater. Damages are
estimated at $75,000,000 per year for every additional increase of 30
milligrams per liter in salinity of the Colorado River. It is essential
to the cost-effectiveness of the salinity control program that USDA
salinity control projects be funded for timely implementation to
protect the quality of Colorado River Basin water delivered to the
Lower Basin States and Mexico.
Congress concluded, with the enactment FAIRA in 1996, that the
salinity control program could be most effectively implemented as a
component of EQIP. However, until 2004, the salinity control program
since the enactment of FAIRA was not funded at an adequate level to
protect the Basin State-adopted and Environmental Protection Agency
approved water quality standards for salinity in the Colorado River.
Appropriations for EQIP prior to 2004 were insufficient to adequately
control salinity impacts from water delivered to the downstream States,
and hampered the required quality of water delivered to Mexico pursuant
to Minute No. 242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission,
United States and Mexico.
EQIP subsumed the salinity control program without giving adequate
recognition to the responsibilities of the USDA to implement salinity
control measures per Section 202(c) of the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act. The EQIP evaluation and project ranking criteria
target small watershed improvements which do not recognize that water
users hundreds of miles downstream are significant beneficiaries of the
salinity control program. Proposals for EQIP funding are ranked in the
States of Utah, Wyoming and Colorado under the direction of the
respective State Conservationists without consideration of those
downstream, particularly out-of-state, benefits.
Following recommendations of the Basin States to address the
funding problem, the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) designated the Colorado River Basin an ``area of special
interest'' including earmarked funds for the salinity control program.
The NRCS concluded that the salinity control program is different from
the small watershed approach of EQIP. The watershed for the salinity
control program stretches almost 1200 miles from the headwaters of the
river through the salt-laden soils of the Upper Basin to the river's
termination at the Gulf of California in Mexico. NRCS is to be
commended for its efforts to comply with the USDA's responsibilities
under the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, as amended.
Irrigated agriculture in the Upper Basin realizes significant local
benefits of improved irrigation practices, and agricultural producers
have succeeded in submitting cost-effective proposals to NRCS.
Years of inadequate Federal funding for EQIP since the 1996
enactment of FAIRA and prior to 2004 resulted in the Forum finding that
the salinity control program needs acceleration to maintain the water
quality criteria of the Colorado River Water Quality Standards for
Salinity. Since the enactment of FSRIA in 2002, an opportunity to
adequately fund the salinity control program now exists. The requested
funding of 2.5 percent, but no less than $20 million, of the EQIP
funding will continue to be needed each year for at least the next few
fiscal years.
State and local cost-sharing is triggered by and indexed to the
Federal appropriation. Federal funding for the NRCS salinity control
program of about $18 million for fiscal year 2009 has generated about
$13.8 million in cost-sharing from the Colorado River Basin States and
agricultural producers, or more than a 75 percent match of the Federal
funds appropriated for the fiscal year.
USDA salinity control projects have proven to be a most cost-
effective component of the salinity control program. USDA has indicated
that a more adequately funded EQIP program would result in more funds
being allocated to the salinity program. The Basin States have cost-
sharing dollars available to participate in on-farm salinity control
efforts. The agricultural producers in the Upper Basin are willing to
cost-share their portion and are awaiting funding for their
applications to be considered.
The Basin States expend 40 percent of the State funds allocated for
the program for essential NRCS technical assistance and education
activities. Previously, the Federal part of the salinity control
program funded through EQIP failed to adequately fund NRCS for these
activities, which has been shown to be a severe impediment to
accomplishing successful implementation of the salinity control
program. Recent acknowledgement by the administration that technical
assistance and education activities must be better funded has
encouraged the Basin States and local producers that cost-share with
the EQIP funding for implementation of the essential salinity control
work. I request that adequate funds be appropriated to NRCS technical
assistance and education activities directed to the salinity control
program participants (producers).
I urge the Congress to appropriate at least $1 billion in fiscal
year 2010 for EQIP. Also, I request that Congress designate 2.5
percent, but no less than $20 million, of the EQIP appropriation for
the Colorado River Basin salinity control program.
______
Prepared Statement of the Organic Farming Research Foundation
The Organic Farming Research Foundation's funding requests for the
fiscal year 2010 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill are to protect
mandatory funding and to allocate $54.7 million in discretionary funds,
divided among agencies and programs in the following manner:
--USDA--Cooperative State Research, Extension, and Education Service
--Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative
Fiscal year 2009 actual: $18 million
USDA fiscal year 2010 request: protect mandatory funding
OFRF fiscal year 2010 request: protect mandatory funding plus
$5 million discretionary
--``Organic Transitions'' Integrated Research
Fiscal year 2009 actual: $1.8 million
USDA fiscal year 2010 request: $1.8 million
OFRF fiscal year 2010 request: $5 million
--USDA--Agricultural Research Service
--Direct Organic Projects
Fiscal year 2009 actual: $16.9 million
USDA fiscal year 2010: N/A
OFRF fiscal year 2010 request: $33 million
--Includes ``Organic Research Clearinghouse,'' National
Agricultural Library: $250,000
--USDA--Agricultural Marketing Service/Economic Research Service/
National Agricultural Statistics Service
--Organic Production and Market Data Initiatives
Fiscal year 2009 actual: $500,000 appropriated and $5 million
one-time mandatory from 2008 Farm Bill
USDA fiscal year 2010 request: $0
OFRF fiscal year 2010 request: $5 million
--USDA--Agricultural Marketing Service
--National Organic Program
Fiscal year 2009 actual: $3.8 million
USDA fiscal year 2010 request: $6.7 million
OFRF fiscal yea 2010 request: $6.7 million
Details and further information on these programs is provided
below.
The Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF) appreciates the
opportunity to present our funding requests for the fiscal year 2010
Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill. OFRF is a grower-directed, non-profit foundation
working to foster the improvement and widespread adoption of organic
farming systems. Organic agriculture plays an important and growing
role in U.S. agriculture. Relatively modest investments in organic
research and education can significantly increase the economic benefits
and environmental services provided by organic farming systems and the
organic products sector. As a result, we urge the Subcommittee to
provide additional resources for organic agriculture in fiscal year
2010.
The Organic Farming Research Foundation appropriations requests for
fiscal year 2010 reflect a coordinated set of activities that will
strategically build upon the growth of organic agriculture and leverage
the sector's role in addressing the Nation's economic, climate, and
energy challenges. Organic agriculture continues to be a growing sector
in U.S. agriculture, despite the economic recession. The organic
products sector provides jobs on- and off-farm, provides increased
marketing opportunities for farmers and processors, and meets
widespread consumer demand for more food grown in an environmentally-
sound manner. Emerging research is showing that organic agricultural
systems provide a comprehensive strategy for mitigating the effects of
climate change and facilitating the adaptation to climate change.
Organic agriculture also reduces the use of non-renewable sources of
energy such as fossil fuels. The multiple benefits of organic
production systems make organic agriculture an effective vehicle for
achieving national economic and environmental goals. This growth has
been facilitated by the Subcommittee and was supported by the 2008 Farm
Bill.
OFRF's recommendations emphasize research, data collection, and
information dissemination. In our view, these are the most limiting
factors for the growth and improvement of organic agriculture. Within
the USDA--REE Mission Area, the support of the Subcommittee and the
Department has been usefully tracked by the ``fair-share''
comparison.\1\ Currently, organic product sales are approaching 4
percent of the domestic retail market, yet USDA-REE expenditures
directed explicitly to research and information programs for organic
agriculture have only just reached 2 percent of the REE Mission Area
funding.\2\ This discrepancy is detrimental to an industry that relies
intensively on management and information for its success. By providing
modest increases as outlined below, the Subcommittee can help meet the
``fair-share'' benchmark for organic research and promote the multiple
public benefits that organic farming can provide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The fair-share benchmark compares the U.S. retail market share
of organic products to the percentage of USDA-REE spending on
activities explicitly directed towards organic farming and food.
\2\ OFRF estimates total fiscal year 2009 organic REE spending at
$48 million, out of approximately $2.4 billion for the REE Mission
Area. This includes: OREI ($18 million), ORG ($1.8 million), ARS
direct-organic ($16.9 million), ODI ($5 million), other CSREES grants
($6 million).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
usda--cooperative state research, extension, and education service
Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) \3\
OFRF Fiscal Year 2010 Request: $25 million (protect
mandatory funding plus $5 million discretionary)
OREI is USDA's premier competitive research and education grant
program specifically dedicated to the investigation of organic
agriculture. Due to its success with very modest funding, the program
received an increase in mandatory funding in the 2008 Farm Bill.
Despite this increase, the program remains heavily oversubscribed. For
the fiscal year 2009 allocation of $18 million, the program received
applications totaling over $98 million. Increasing organic research
capacities within the land grant university system and elsewhere are
reflected in this trend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative
(OREI) is authorized by Section 1672B of the Food, Agriculture,
Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5925b) as amended by
Section 7206 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2008 Farm Bill allocates mandatory funding of $20 million to
OREI for fiscal year 2010. The legislation also recognizes the need for
further increases to reach the full potential of this program and
authorizes discretionary funding of up to $25 million annually. In
addition to protecting the full mandatory allocation, OFRF recommends
appropriating $5 million of the discretionary authority in fiscal year
2010. This modest additional increase would continue making progress
towards the fair-share benchmark of USDA research and education for
organic agriculture and respond to the strong demand and increased
capacity for the program's outcomes.
``Organic Transitions'' Integrated Research (ORG) \4\
OFRF Fiscal Year 2010 Request: $5 million
ORG is the older and smaller of two USDA competitive grant programs
dedicated to organic research and education. From 2003 to 2008, it was
administered together with OREI. Starting in fiscal year 2009, USDA-
CSREES is instead combining the program with the 406 Integrated Water
Quality research program. The newly combined program will fund multi-
year projects that examine the effects of organic production systems on
water quality. This approach provides a ``specialized'' complement to
the general purposes of OREI, and OFRF supports this move by the
agency. At current funding levels,\5\ this program can only fund a
small number of serious investigations. Our request of $5 million for
fiscal year 2010 seeks to enable a higher level of program performance
and help reach the overall organic fair-share benchmark.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Organic Transitions'' Integrated Research (ORG) is
authorized by Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and
Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA) (7 U.S.C. 7626).
\5\ $1,8 million for fiscal year 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
usda--agricultural research service
Direct Organic Projects
OFRF Fiscal Year 2010 Request: $33 million (``fair share''
for ARS organic research)
USDA--Agricultural Research Service has an organic research
portfolio and a strategic plan for further organic research activities.
The current funding for direct organic projects is $16.9 million, about
1.5 percent of the total ARS budget.\6\ We are urging growth of the
agency's direct organic activity to reach an ARS fair-share objective
of $33 million. The increase should be pointed towards full
implementation of the ARS Organic Research Action Plan.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Communications from ARS national program staff, April 29, 2009.
A larger total is reported to Congress, combining ``direct organic''
projects with ``indirect organic'' projects, as determined by ARS
staff.
\7\ Organic Research Action Plan: http://www.ars.usda.gov/
SP2UserFiles/Program/216/OrganicResearchActPlan.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We ask that $250,000 be directed at funding the National
Agricultural Library's Alternative Farming Systems Information Center
(NAL-AFSIC). As organic results proliferate, dissemination of
information becomes a critical limiting factor for the overall goals of
widespread adoption. The NAL-AFSIC program is well positioned to lead
the dissemination function within USDA. OFRF estimates that maintenance
and outreach for a national ``clearinghouse'' for organic agriculture,
``enthusiastically'' supported by USDA's National Research Advisory
Board,\8\ will require an ongoing annual budget allocation of $250,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Report and Recommendations from a Focus Session on Organic
Agriculture Conducted at the Advisory Board Meeting held in Washington,
D.C. on October 29-31, 2007.'' Page 4. National Agricultural Research,
Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board. Transmitted to the
Secretary of Agriculture and the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, and Agriculture, March 5, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
usda--agricultural marketing service/economic research service/national
agricultural statistics service
Organic Production and Market Data Initiatives (ODI) \9\
OFRF Fiscal Year 2010 Request: $5 million ($3 million for
AMS, $1.5 million for ERS, and $0.5 million for
NASS)
Data on prices, yields, and markets are vital to farmers for
production planning, market development, risk management, and obtaining
financial credit. The organic sector is still without vital
comprehensive data on par with what USDA provides for conventional
agriculture, putting organic farmers at a significant disadvantage. The
absence of marketing and production data specific to organic
agriculture inhibits organic producers and handlers, and limits the
effectiveness of policies enacted to facilitate the public benefits of
organic agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Organic Market and Production Data Initiatives is
authorized by Section 7407 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002 as amended by Section 10302 of the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Subcommittee has supported the initial 2002 authorization with
$500,000 from 2004 through 2009. These appropriations enabled a minimal
baseline effort for general measurements of the organic sector. The
2008 Farm Bill provided $5 million in mandatory funds to jumpstart the
combined data collection initiatives at AMS, ERS, and NASS. Those funds
have already been spent on a variety of efforts at each of the
agencies,\11\ including the development of a first-ever survey of
organic agriculture by NASS to be released in early May 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ For an update on the use of the funds, see ``U.S. Department
of Agriculture Report to Congress: Status of Organic Production and
Market Data Activities As Required by the 2008 Farm Bill.'' December
2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activities of AMS, ERS, and NASS require continued full support to
build upon the previous investments. AMS has planned further
enhancement of organic reporting and the development of additional
organic market information tools. NASS is releasing its first-ever
organic agriculture production survey in May, and will need funds to
continue its data collection efforts. ERS will use additional targeted
funds to continue expanding the agency's overall program of research
and analysis of organic agriculture, and will work jointly with NASS to
analyze the data from the organic production survey.
The 2008 Farm Bill provided additional authority up to $5 million
annually for ODI. We are asking the Subcommittee to exercise its full
authority and allocate $5 million for fiscal year 2010 to organic data
collection, distributed among the three agencies leading this
initiative. We anticipate that the President's budget will recommend a
similar allocation and agency distribution.
USDA--Agricultural Marketing Service
National Organic Program (NOP)
OFRF Fiscal Year 2010 Request: $6.7 million
NOP (including the National Organic Standards Board, organic
standards setting, certifier accreditation and enforcement) received an
increased authorization for appropriations in the 2008 Farm Bill. $8
million is the authorization level for fiscal year 2010. NOP has a
large and growing number of important backlogged tasks. We support the
President's fiscal year 2010 request for $6.7 million.
The Organic Farming Research Foundation thanks the Subcommittee for
the opportunity to submit our requests. We ask the Subcommittee to
provide funds to close the gap in research and education funding for
organic agriculture, for the continued improvement and expansion of
organic farming systems.
Disclosure.--Organic Farming Research Foundation was a
subcontractor for a grant awarded by the USDA-CSREES Integrated Organic
Program. Grant# 2207-01384. ``Midwest Organic Research Symposium.''
______
Prepared Statement of the Society for Women's Health Research
On the behalf of the Society for Women's Health Research and the
Women's Health Research Coalition, we are pleased to submit testimony
in support of increased funding for the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), and more specifically for the Office of Women's Health (OWH), a
critical focal point on women's health within the Agency.
The Society for Women's Health Research is the Nation's only non-
profit organization whose mission is to improve the health of all women
through advocacy, research, and education. Founded in 1990, the Society
brought to national attention the need for the appropriate inclusion of
women in major medical research studies and the need for more
information about conditions affecting women exclusively,
disproportionately, or differently than men. The Society advocates
increased funding for research on women's health; encourages the study
of sex differences that may affect the prevention, diagnosis and
treatment of disease; promotes the inclusion of women in medical
research studies; and informs women, providers, policy makers and media
about contemporary women's health issues.
In 1999, the Women's Health Research Coalition was established by
the Society to give a voice to scientists and researchers from across
the country that are concerned and committed to improving women's
health research. The Coalition now has more than 650 members, including
leaders within the scientific community and medical researchers from
many of the country's leading universities and medical centers, as well
as leading voluntary health associations, and pharmaceutical and
biotechnology companies.
The Society and the Coalition are committed to advancing the health
status of women through the discovery of new and useful scientific
knowledge. We strongly believe that appropriate funding of the FDA by
Congress is critical for the Agency to function and to assure the
American public of the safety of its food and drugs. However, as has
been well documented, currently the FDA is endeavoring to catch up
after years of flat funding to meet the needs of scientific growth,
innovation and development, and adequate food and drug protection.
Further, FDA is struggling to catch up to present-day needs in the area
of information technology (IT).
Last year the FDA was awarded a $325 million increase to assist in
revamping the Agency, as well as a one time investment of $150 million
in supplemental funding. This influx of funds was meant to address
years of chronic under-funding; however, the Agency needs a continuous
stream of funding to address the myriad of infrastructure, resources
and IT issues resulting from the budget shortages it has faced in the
past decade.
The Society urges Congress to provide the FDA with an increase of
$386 million, bringing the FDA's fiscal year 2010 budget to $2.425
billion. This funding increase will allow the FDA to continue
rebuilding its infrastructure and addressing the shortage of resources
was well as install IT systems that match the needs of the industries
it is regulating and expectations of the American public.
Another important investment that must be taken into account at the
FDA is the Office of Women's Health (OWH). OWH's women's health
programs, often conducted with the Agency centers, are vital to
maintaining focus on women's health within the FDA. They are critical
to improved care and increased awareness of disease-specific impacts to
women. For example, OWH ensures that sex and gender differences in the
efficacy of drugs (such as metabolism rates), devices (sizes and
functionality) and diagnostics are taken into consideration in reviews.
To address OWH's growing list of priorities, the Society recommends
that Congress support a $7 million budget for OWH for fiscal year 2010
within the budget for the FDA. In addition, we further recommend that
the current budget levels not only increase in the future, but should
never be less than the $6 million that the office currently receives.
fda information technology systems
The FDA is tasked with guarding the safety, efficacy, and security
of human drugs, biological products, and medical devices. However, as
was stated by the Science Board Report, requested by former
Commissioner von Eschenbach, FDA's IT systems were inefficient and
incapable of handling the current demands placed on the Agency, thus
preventing the FDA from fulfilling its mission. Equipment is outdated,
often unsupported by maintenance, and regularly breaks down. FDA's IT
system, a system which needs to function 24/7, simply cannot keep up
with current scientific data and market trends. This will only continue
to worsen as servers' age beyond usefulness, and serviceability and
email networks fail multiple times per day.
Additionally, the new Obama Administration is seeking to pass an
overhaul of the Nation's healthcare system. This reform is likely to
include further advances to electronic health records and other IT
innovations which will place an even greater burden on the FDA, among
other agencies, to function within those advanced IT systems and
networks.
The antiquated nature of the IT systems also makes the agency
unable to conduct safety analyses for product marketing applications,
track the natural history and disease models for rare disorders, and
access huge amounts of clinical data. The creation of a central
database must happen to provide for a system query to a centralized
repository for all relevant facts about a certain product including
where, when and how the product was made. Such a uniform centralized
database will be relevant for all information stored across agencies,
so as to maximize functionality not only of FDA's data but of expected
research and analysis needed by the American public.
Currently, the FDA receives large volumes of information in
applications from drug manufacturers for review and evaluation. FDA
reviewers must manually comb through the submitted drug trial reports
and digital data in as many as twelve formats to evaluate a new drug's
safety and effectiveness. Frequently reviewers must handpick data
manually from stacks of paper reports and craft their own data
comparisons. This process is time consuming, makes the review process
less efficient, and is error-prone and delays access to important
information. Scientific and medical advances are occurring rapidly and
the public needs and deserves access to the most recent and accurate
information regarding their health. It is time Congress recognize that
the Agency must utilize up-to-date information technology and that it
sorely needs the resources to maintain them.
The Society believes that the Agency and/or the FDA's Office of
Women's Health should be able to track women or men and other
subpopulations in all clinical trials before them and they are
currently not able to do so. The FDA should be able to know how many
women are in studies (both by recruitment and retention rates). This
should be an immediate goal of any new IT system upgrade at the Agency
in conjunction with the adoption of uniform data standards from which
to pull the data and as part of the shift to an automated, electronic
filing system.
Estimations have shown that it would take $200 million ($40
million/year) over the course of 5 years to begin the process of
improving the IT system. Congress must address past shortfalls to FDA
and provide it a $386 million increase to begin IT transformation and
many other improvements.
office of women's health
OWH at the FDA, established in 1994, plays a critical role in
women's health, both within and outside the Agency, supporting sex- and
gender-based research, areas in which the Society has long been a
proponent. OWH provides scientific and policy expertise on sex and
gender sensitive regulatory and oversight issues; endeavors to correct
sex and gender disparities in the areas for which the FDA is
responsible--drugs, devices, and biologics; and monitors women's health
priorities, providing both leadership and an integrated approach across
the FDA. Despite inadequate funding, OWH provides all women with
invaluable tools for their health.
Each year OWH, with little difficulty, exhausts its tiny budget.
OWH's pamphlets are the most requested of any documents at the
government printing facility in New Mexico. Last year more than 5.6
million pamphlets are distributed to women across the Nation including
target populations such as Hispanic communities, seniors and low-income
citizens. Further, the Office attends over 125 meetings per year to
exhibit, to present scientific posters and oral presentations, and to
chair sessions. Despite its $1 million increase the office received
last year, additional funding is needed so OWH may continue its present
work on current projects, but expand and develop future projects.
It is absolutely critical for Congress to take action now to help
preserve the vital functions of OWH and to ensure that its small budget
is dedicated to the resource needs of the office and to the projects
and programs and research it funds.
Since its beginning, OWH has funded high quality scientific
research to serve as the foundation for Agency activities that improve
women's health. To date, OWH has funded over 100 research projects with
approximately $19.9 million intramural grants, supporting projects
within the FDA that address knowledge gaps or set new directions for
sex and gender research. Extramural contracts leverage a wealth of
expertise and other resources outside the FDA to provide insight on
regulatory questions pertinent to women's health. All contracts and
grants are awarded through a competitive process. A large number of
these studies are published and appear in peer reviewed journals.
As part of its educational outreach efforts to consumers, OWH works
closely with women's advocacy and health professional organizations to
provide clarity on the results of the Women's Health Initiative. Due to
OWH efforts, an informational fact sheet about menopause and hormones
and a purse-sized questionnaire to review with the doctor were
distributed to national and local print, radio, and Internet
advertisements. OWH's website, to date, has received over 3 million
hits to download campaign materials.
Further, OWH's website serves as a vital tool for consumers and is
constantly updated to include new and important health information. The
website provides free, downloadable fact sheets on over 40 different
illnesses, diseases, and health related issues. Recently OWH has
completed medication charts on seven chronic diseases, which are unique
within the Agency. These charts list all the medications that are
prescribed and available for each disease. This information is ideal
for women to use in talking to their doctors, pharmacists or nurses
about their treatment options.
OWH continues to improve the health of women through new research
initiatives. Most recently, they have collaborated with Pharmacy
Choice, Inc. to create a web portal solely dedicated to FDA consumer
health education materials, providing access to fact sheets and
medication guides.
OWH and Sex Differences Research
Scientists have long known of the anatomical differences between
men and women, but only within the past decade have they begun to
uncover significant biological and physiological differences. Sex
differences have been found everywhere from the composition of bone
matter and the experience of pain, to the metabolism of certain drugs
and the rate of neurotransmitter synthesis in the brain. Sex-based
biology, the study of biological and physiological differences between
men and women, has revolutionized the way that the scientific community
views the sexes, with even more information is forthcoming as a result
of the sequencing of the X chromosome. The evidence is overwhelming,
and as researchers continue to find more and complex biological
differences, they gain a greater understanding of the biological and
physiological composition of both sexes.
Much of what is known about sex differences is the result of
observational studies, or is descriptive evidence from studies that
were not designed to obtain a careful comparison between females and
males. The Society has long recognized that the inclusion of women in
study populations by itself was insufficient to address the inequities
in our knowledge of human biology and medicine, and that only by the
careful study of sex differences at all levels, from genes to behavior,
would science achieve the goal of optimal health care for both men and
women. Many sex differences are already present at birth, whereas
others develop later in life. These differences play an important role
in disease susceptibility, prevalence, time of onset and severity and
are evident in cancer, obesity, heart disease, immune dysfunction,
mental health disorders, and other illnesses. Physiological and
hormonal fluctuations may also play a role in the rate of drug
metabolism and effectiveness of response in females and males. This
research is supported and encouraged by the Office of Women's Health
within the Agency. OWH directly works with the various centers to
advance the science in this area, collaborating on programs, projects,
and research.
Building upon sex differences research, the Society encourages the
establishment of drug-labeling requirements that ensure labels include
language about differences experienced by women and men. Furthermore,
we advocate for research on the comparative effectiveness of drugs with
specific emphasis on data analysis by sex. When available, this
information should be on labels.
Our country's drug development process has succeeded in delivering
new and better medications to ensure the health of both women and men.
However, the requirement that the data acquired during research of a
new drug's safety and effectiveness be analyzed as a function of sex or
that information about the ways drugs may differ in various populations
(e.g., women requiring a lower dosage because of different rates of
absorption or chemical breakdown) be included in prescription drug
labels and other patient educational and instructional materials is
generally not enforced.
The Society believes the opportunity to present this information to
consumers is now. Sex differences data discovered from clinical trials
can be directly related to the medical community and to consumers
through drug labeling and packaging inserts and other forms of alerts.
As part of advancing the need to analyze and report sex differences,
the Society encourages the FDA to continue adequately addressing the
need for accurate drug labeling in order to identify important sex and
gender differences, as well as to ensure that appropriate data analysis
of post-market surveillance reporting for these differences is placed
in the hands of physicians and ultimately the patient.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we thank you and this Committee for
its strong record of support for the FDA and women's health and your
commitment to OWH. We recommend that you increase the overall fiscal
year 2010 budget for the FDA by $386 million, so that it may
dramatically improve upon current operations while also rebuilding its
IT infrastructure. Secondly, we urge you to allocate $7 million for the
Office of Women's Health for fiscal year 2010, and to ensure that
future budget appropriations for the OWH are never below current
funding levels. We look forward to continuing to work with you to build
a stronger and healthier future for all Americans.
______
Prepared Statement of The Humane Society of the United States
As the largest animal protection organization in the country, we
appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to your subcommittee on
fiscal year 2010 items of great importance to The Humane Society of the
United States (HSUS) and its 11 million supporters nationwide. In this
testimony, we request the following amounts for the following USDA
accounts:
--FSIS/Humane Methods of Slaughter Act Enforcement--funding and
language to improve enforcement (defer to subcommittee
expertise for specific funding level)
--FSIS/Horse Slaughter--language mirroring fiscal year 2009 omnibus
provision
--APHIS/Horse Protection Act Enforcement--at least $1 million
--APHIS/Animal Welfare Act Enforcement--$22,275,270
--APHIS/Investigative and Enforcement Services--$14,036,350
--OIG/including Animal Fighting Enforcement--$87,910,150
--CSREES/Veterinary Student Loan Forgiveness--$5,000,000
--APHIS/Emergency Management Systems/Disaster Planning for Animals--
$1,001,000
--NAL/Animal Welfare Information Center--$1,978,400
enforcement of animal welfare laws
We thank you for your outstanding support during recent years for
improved enforcement by USDA of key animal welfare laws and we urge you
to sustain this effort in fiscal year 2010. Your leadership is making a
great difference in helping to protect the welfare of millions of
animals across the country. As you know, better enforcement will also
benefit people by helping to prevent: (1) food safety risks to
consumers from sick animals who can transmit illness, and injuries to
slaughterhouse workers from suffering animals; (2) orchestrated
dogfights and cockfights that often involve illegal gambling, drug
trafficking, and human violence, and can contribute to the spread of
costly illnesses such as bird flu; (3) the sale of unhealthy pets by
commercial breeders, commonly referred to as ``puppy mills''; (4)
laboratory conditions that may impair the scientific integrity of
animal-based research; (5) risks of disease transmission from, and
dangerous encounters with, wild animals in or during public exhibition;
and (6) injuries and deaths of pets on commercial airline flights due
to mishandling and exposure to adverse environmental conditions. In
order to continue the important work made possible by the Committee's
prior support, we request the following for fiscal year 2010:
food safety and inspection service/humane methods of slaughter act
enforcement
We Request Funding and Language to Ensure Strengthened HMSA
Enforcement.--We greatly appreciated the Committee's inclusion of
language calling on USDA to immediately close the downed cattle
loophole, language that was indeed effective, as President Obama
announced USDA's new no-downed cattle rule just three days after he
signed the omnibus into law. We also greatly appreciated the
Committee's inclusion of a $2 million increase in fiscal year 2009 to
begin to address severe shortfalls in the agency's oversight of humane
handling rules for animals at slaughter facilities, oversight that is
important not only for animal welfare but also for food safety. This
problem came sharply into focus last year when egregious abuse of
cattle was revealed from a 6-week hidden camera investigation of a
plant--which happened to be the #2 beef supplier to the National School
Lunch Program and had been honored by USDA as ``Supplier of the Year''
for the 2004-2005 academic year--leading to the nation's largest meat
recall in history. In that case, the blatant and recurrent violations
of food safety and humane rules were not reported by 5 USDA inspection
personnel at the plant. Subsequent undercover investigations showed the
mistreatment was not an isolated case, and a USDA Inspector General's
audit identified several serious, continuing weaknesses in the
inspection regime. We request funding and language to ensure that
inspectors are continually observing live animals as they arrive and
are offloaded and handled in pens, chutes, and stunning areas, and that
USDA officials are taking strong action to avert violations of the
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act and the ban on slaughter of cattle too
sick or injured to stand and walk. We urge the Committee to make this a
high priority in order to better protect consumers and animals.
Specifically, we recommend a combination of measures to ensure
meaningful compliance. More inspectors observing live animals are
needed, and all inspectors should be trained and directed to monitor
the treatment of live animals to ensure that they are handled humanely.
Inspectors must understand that their oversight responsibilities begin
at the moment animals arrive at slaughter premises, including when the
animals are on trucks at slaughter facilities. An inspector should meet
each truck when it arrives on the premises and should order the
immediate humane euthanasia and condemnation of any cattle who are non-
ambulatory. Egregious conduct such as forcefully striking an animal
with an object, dragging an animal, ramming or otherwise attempting to
move an animal with heavy machinery, or using electric shock, water
pressure, or other extreme methods should be explicitly prohibited and
those policies established in a formal rule to take effect immediately.
Inspections should be unannounced and not on a predictable schedule.
Oversight could be enhanced with video surveillance, accessible for
viewing by independent third parties, but this should complement, not
be a substitute for, improved inspections. Inspectors must be
encouraged to report violations, rather than being discouraged from and
even reprimanded for doing so by their superiors. Egregious humane
handling violations must be noted through Noncompliance Reports and not
just through Memoranda of Interview, so that documentation of these
serious violations will be accessible through the PBIS system to other
inspectors, USDA's Office of Food Safety, Congress, and the public.
Penalties should be more meaningful, particularly for repeat or
egregious violations of humane handling standards. It would be helpful
to rotate inspectors to ensure that they do not become too close with
plant personnel, and undercover investigations by USDA personnel, under
the OIG or otherwise, would bolster deterrence.
horse slaughter
We Request Inclusion of Language Barring USDA From the Expenditure
of Funds for Horse Slaughter Inspection.--Such language has been
included in past years and has been vital to prevent renewed horse
slaughter activity in this country.
aphis/horse protection act enforcement
We Request at Least $1 Million for Strengthened Enforcement of the
Horse Protection Act.--Congress enacted the Horse Protection Act (HPA)
in 1970 to end the cruelty and abuse of ``soring''--a practice in which
unscrupulous trainers use a variety of methods to inflict pain on
sensitive areas of Tennessee Walking Horses' feet and legs in an effort
to exaggerate their high-stepping gait and gain an unfair competitive
advantage at industry horse shows. For example, caustic chemicals--such
as mustard oil, diesel fuel, kerosene, and industrial cleaners--are
painted on the lower front legs of a horse. Then, the horse's legs are
wrapped in plastic wrap and tight bandages to ``cook'' the chemicals
deep into the horse's flesh. Sored horses are often left standing in
their stalls for days with their legs coated and wrapped. This makes
the horse's legs extremely painful and sensitive, and can result in
permanent damage or even death in some cases. It is not uncommon to see
sored horses lying down in their stalls, moaning in pain. When ridden,
the horse is fitted with chains that slide up and down the horse's sore
legs, forcing him to produce an exaggerated, high-stepping gait in the
show ring. In addition, other chemicals such as salicylic acid are used
to slough off the scarred tissue and granulomas in an attempt to
disguise the sored areas, a practice that is equally painful and cruel
to these horses. When shown, some Tennessee Walking horses are fitted
with heavy stacked shoes. Another particularly egregious form of
soring--known as pressure shoeing--involves cutting a horse's hoof
almost to the quick, paring it down to the sensitive live tissue and
causing an extreme amount of pain every time the horse bears weight on
the hoof. To further increase the pain in the horse's feet, foreign
objects such as metal screws or acrylic are often inserted between the
stacks and the horse's hoof.
Though soring has been illegal for almost 40 years, this cruel
practice continues unabated by the well-intentioned but seriously
understaffed APHIS inspection program. The most effective way to meet
the goal of the Horse Protection Act is to have Animal Care inspectors
present at the shows. Exhibitors who sore their horses go to great
lengths to avoid detection, including fleeing a show when USDA
inspectors arrive. Unfortunately, given an enforcement budget that has
remained static at around $500,000 since 1976, Animal Care is able to
attend only about 6 percent of the more than 500 Tennessee Walking
Horse shows held annually. Funding of at least $1 million in fiscal
year 2010 will begin to address the need for additional inspectors,
training, security (to address threats of violence against inspectors),
and advanced detection equipment (thermography and gas chromatography/
mass spectrometry machines) to give agency officials the tools they
need to meaningfully enforce this law as Congress intended.
aphis/animal welfare act enforcement
We Request $22,275,270 (Near Level Funding) for AWA Enforcement
Under the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).--We
commend the Committee for responding in recent years to the urgent need
for increased funding for the Animal Care division to improve its
inspections of almost 16,000 sites, including commercial breeding
facilities, laboratories, zoos, circuses, and airlines, to ensure
compliance with AWA standards. As part of the 2008 Farm Bill, Congress
established a new responsibility for this division--to enforce a ban on
imports from foreign puppy mills where puppies are mass produced under
inhumane conditions and then forced to endure harsh long-distance
transport, so that many arrive ill or dead or die soon after being sold
to an American family. Animal Care currently has 111 inspectors (with 5
vacancies in the process of being filled), compared to 64 inspectors at
the end of the 1990s. An appropriation at the requested level would
maintain fiscal year 2009 funding with a modest increase to cover pay
costs and additional responsibilities associated with the new import
ban and the increasing number of licensed/registered facilities.
aphis/investigative and enforcement services
We Request $14,036,350 (Near Level Funding) for APHIS Investigative
and Enforcement Services (IES).--We appreciate the Committee's
consistent support for this division, which handles many important
responsibilities, including the investigation of alleged violations of
Federal animal welfare laws and the initiation of appropriate
enforcement actions. The volume of animal welfare cases is rising
significantly as new facilities become licensed and registered. An
appropriation at the requested level would maintain fiscal year 2009
funding with a modest increase to cover pay costs.
office of inspector general/animal fighting enforcement
We Request $87,910,150 (Near Level Funding) for the Office of
Inspector General (OIG) to Maintain Staff, Improve Effectiveness, and
Allow Investigations in Various Areas, Including Enforcement of Animal
Fighting Laws.--We appreciate the Committee's inclusion of funding and
language in recent years for USDA's OIG to focus on animal fighting
cases. Congress first prohibited most interstate and foreign commerce
of animals for fighting in 1976, tightened loopholes in the law in
2002, established felony penalties in 2007, and further strengthened
the law as part of the 2008 Farm Bill, in the wake of the high-profile
Michael Vick dogfighting case. We are pleased that USDA is taking
seriously its responsibility to enforce this law, working with State
and local agencies to complement their efforts and address these
barbaric practices, in which animals are drugged to heighten their
aggression and forced to keep fighting even after they've suffered
grievous injuries. Dogs bred and trained to fight endanger public
safety, and some dogfighters steal pets to use as bait for training
their dogs. Cockfighting was linked to an outbreak of Exotic Newcastle
Disease in 2002-2003 that cost taxpayers more than $200 million to
contain. It's also been linked to the death of a number of people in
Asia reportedly exposed through cockfighting activity to bird flu.
Given the potential for further costly disease transmission, as well as
the animal cruelty involved, we believe it is a sound investment for
the Federal government to increase its efforts to combat illegal animal
fighting activity. We also support the OIG's auditing and investigative
work to improve compliance with the humane slaughter law and downed
animal rules and the Horse Protection Act.
cooperative state research, education, and extension service/veterinary
student loan forgiveness
We Request $5,000,000 to Continue the Implementation of the
National Veterinary Medical Service Act (Public Law 108-161),
Specifically Authorized in 2003.--This program received $2,950,000 in
fiscal year 2009, and was projected to need $5,000,000 in its third
year under the CBO score accompanying authorization. We appreciate that
Congress is working to address the critical shortage of veterinarians
practicing in rural and inner-city areas, as well as in government
positions at FSIS and APHIS. A 2009 Government Accountability Office
report enumerating the challenges facing veterinary medicine identified
that an inadequate number of veterinarians to meet national needs is
among the foremost challenges. A 2006 study demonstrated the acute and
worsening shortage of veterinarians working in rural farm animal
practice, while domestic pets in both rural and urban areas are often
left without necessary medical care. Having adequate veterinary care is
a core animal welfare concern. To ensure adequate oversight of humane
handling and food safety rules, FSIS must be able to fill vacancies in
inspector positions. Veterinarians also support our nation's defense
against bioterrorism (the Centers for Disease Control estimate that 75
percent of potential bioterrorism agents are zoonotic--transmitted from
animals to humans). They are also on the front lines addressing public
health problems such as those associated with pet overpopulation,
parasites, rabies, chronic wasting disease, and bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (``mad cow'' disease). Veterinary school graduates face
a crushing debt burden of $120,000 on average, with an average starting
salary of $61,000. For those who choose employment in underserved rural
or inner-city areas or public health practice, the National Veterinary
Medical Service Act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to forgive
student debt. It also authorizes financial assistance for those who
provide services during Federal emergency situations such as disease
outbreaks.
aphis/emergency management systems /disaster planning for animals
We Request $1,001,000 (Level Funding) for Animal Care Under APHIS'
Emergency Management Systems Line Item.--Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
demonstrated that many people refuse to evacuate if they are forced to
leave their pets behind. The Animal Care division has been asked to
develop infrastructure to help prepare for and respond to animal issues
in a disaster and incorporate lessons learned from previous disasters.
These funds will be used for staff time and resources to support State
and local governments' and humane organizations' efforts to plan for
protection of people with animals. The additional resources will enable
the agency to participate, in partnership with FEMA, in the National
Response Plan without jeopardizing other Animal Care programs.
animal welfare information center
We Request $1,978,400 for AWIC.--These funds will enable AWIC to
improve its services as a clearinghouse, training center, and
educational resource to help institutions using animals in research,
testing and teaching comply with the requirements of the Animal Welfare
Act, including consideration of alternatives to minimize or eliminate
the use of animals in specific research protocols.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to share our views and
priorities for the Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA, and Related
Agencies Appropriation Act of fiscal year 2010. We are grateful for the
Committee's past support, and hope you will be able to accommodate
these modest requests to address some very pressing problems affecting
millions of animals in the United States. Thank you for your
consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of WhiteWave Foods
My name is Kelly Shea, and I thank you for the opportunity to
testify on behalf of WhiteWave Foods regarding the growth of the
organic industry and our support for the U.S. Department of Agriculture
National Organic Program. Specifically, we support providing the
Program with $8 million as authorized by Congress.
Headquartered in Broomfield, Colorado, WhiteWave Foods, a growing
subsidiary of Dean Foods, is the home of several pioneer organic
brands, including Horizon Organic, The Organic Cow, and Silk Soymilk.
As the organic industry evolves, we continue to lead with insight,
integrity, and an unwavering commitment to organic principles. With
this in mind, we are strongly supportive of efforts to ensure the
continued growth of the organic sector by providing additional funding
for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Organic Program.
The National Organic Program (NOP) is rapidly outgrowing its
present resource capacity. With retail sales at $24 billion and
continuing to grow, certified operations in excess of 26,000, and 98
accredited certifying agents operating globally, the current NOP budget
continually struggles to keep up with growing demands.
Consumer confidence is the key to growth in the organic market.
Ensuring continued consumer confidence requires consistent and adequate
enforcement of the organic rule to ensure the integrity of the USDA
organic seal. Therefore, adequate funding is required to enable the NOP
to hire additional staff and continue to do a credible job of re-
accreditation and investigating non-compliances. Additional resources
are needed for both addressing gaps in the regulations and increasing
compliance and enforcement activity. The long run objective is to
maintain the integrity of the USDA organic seal for consumers who are
willing to purchase organic products, produced according to a set of
sustainable practices voluntarily subscribed to by producers and
processors, based on legislation and regulations they initiated nearly
two decades ago.
The baseline for the NOP for the 2009 fiscal year is approximately
$3 million. However, a portion of the budget is, and has been, a
``pass-through'' for funding of the Federal-State Marketing Improvement
Program (FSMIP). FSMIP provides matching funds to State Departments of
Agriculture and other appropriate State agencies to assist in exploring
new market opportunities for U.S. food and agricultural products, and
to encourage research and innovation aimed at improving the efficiency
and performance of the U.S. marketing system.
To facilitate the continued expansion of the organic industry, we
support fully funding the operations of the NOP at the $8 million level
authorized by Congress.\1\ We are strongly supportive of an increase in
funding that could be allocated towards strengthening the accreditation
process (training, education, audit, review, and compliance) for
domestic and foreign certifying agents who are certifying to the NOP;
international standards recognition and conformity assessment;
standards development (new standards needed and continuing to improve
existing standards as the industry develops); and enforcement through
audits, investigative compliance and review (the NOP receives over 100
complaints per year).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Section 10303:
National Organic Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We appreciate your consideration of our requests; we believe that
this increased funding will be critical to the continued growth of the
organic sector. We thank you for the opportunity to testify today and
look forward to working with you in the future.
______
Prepared Statement of The Wildlife Society
The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to submit
testimony concerning the fiscal year 2010 budgets for the Animal Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Cooperative State Research,
Education and Extension Services (CSREES), and Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). The Wildlife Society represents over 8,000
professional wildlife biologists and managers dedicated to sound
wildlife stewardship through science and education. The Wildlife
Society is committed to strengthening all Federal programs that benefit
wildlife and their habitats on agricultural and other private land.
animal and plant health inspection service
Wildlife Services (WS), a unit of APHIS, is responsible for
controlling wildlife damage to agriculture, aquaculture, forest, range,
and other natural resources, wildlife-borne diseases, and wildlife at
airports. Its activities are based on the principles of wildlife
management and integrated damage management, and are carried out
cooperatively with state fish and wildlife agencies. The President's
budget would allocate $345 million to this program. The Wildlife
Society recommends that Congress increase funding for this important
program in fiscal year 2010, to at least the fiscal year 2009 level of
$351 million.
cooperative state research, education, and extension service
The Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA) provides an expanded,
comprehensive extension program for forest and rangeland renewable
resources. The RREA funds, which are apportioned to State Extension
Services, effectively leverage cooperative partnerships at an average
of four to one, with a focus on private landowners. The need for RREA
educational programs is greater than ever today because of continuing
fragmentation of ownership, urbanization, the diversity of landowners
needing assistance, and increasing societal concerns about land use and
the impact on natural resources including soil, water, air, wildlife
and other environmental factors. The Wildlife Society recommends that
the Renewable Resources Extension Act be funded at $30 million, as
authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill.
The McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Program is essential to
the future of resource management on non-industrial private
forestlands, as forest products are produced while conserving natural
resources, including fish and wildlife. As demand for forest products
grow, privately held forests will increasingly be needed to supplement
supplies, but trees suitable for harvest take decades to produce. In
the absence of long-term and on-going research, such as provided
through McIntire-Stennis, the nation could be unable to meet future
forest-product needs. We appreciate the over $27 million in funding
allocated in the fiscal year 2009 omnibus and recommended in the fiscal
year 2010 proposal, and encourage a further increase in fiscal year
2010.
natural resources conservation service
The Farm Bill conservation programs are more important than ever
given huge backlogs of qualified applicants for these programs,
increased pressure on farmland from the biofuels boom, sprawling
development, and the ongoing declines in wildlife habitat and water
quality. We are very concerned by the proposed decreases in the Farm
Bill conservation programs in fiscal year 2010. The Wildlife Society
recommends that the Farm Bill conservation programs be funded at the
levels mandated in the 2008 Farm Bill. In particular, we encourage full
funding of the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program at $85 million. In
addition, we note that 4 million acres of Conservation Reserve Program
contracts are expiring. CRP should be funded at a level that allows for
full enrollment of authorized CRP acres.
farm service agency
The Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program was
authorized by the 2008 Farm Bill, to encourage farmers and ranchers to
allow public access on their lands. We support funding at $16.67
million per year for the period 2010-2012, as recommended by the
President.
Thank you for considering the views of wildlife professionals. We
look forward to working with you and your staff to ensure adequate
funding for wildlife conservation.
______
Prepared Statement of The Humane Society of the United States
On behalf of the undersigned animal welfare and horse industry
organizations, with combined supporters exceeding 12 million, we submit
the following testimony seeking an increase in funding for the USDA/
APHIS Horse Protection Program to at least $1 million for fiscal year
2010. This funding is urgently needed to begin to fulfill the intent of
the Horse Protection Act--to eliminate the cruel practice of soring--by
allowing the USDA to strengthen its enforcement capabilities for this
law.
In 1970, Congress passed the Horse Protection Act to end soring,
the intentional infliction of pain to the hooves and legs of a horse to
produce an exaggerated gait, practiced primarily in the Tennessee
Walking Horse show industry. The Act authorizes the USDA to inspect
Tennessee Walking Horses and Racking Horses--in transport to and at
shows, exhibits, auctions and sales--for signs of soring, and to pursue
penalties against violators. Unfortunately, since its inception,
enforcement of the act has been plagued by underfunding. As a result,
the USDA has never been able to adequately enforce the act, allowing
this extreme and deliberate cruelty to persist on a widespread basis.
The most effective way to eliminate soring and meet the goals of
the Horse Protection Act is to have USDA officials present at more
shows. Current funding levels allow USDA officials to attend only about
6 percent of more than 500 Tennessee Walking Horse shows held annually.
As a result, the agency opted to institute an industry-run system of
certified Horse Industry Organizations (HIO) inspection programs, which
are charged with inspecting horses for signs of soring at the majority
of shows. These groups license examiners known as Designated Qualified
Persons (DQPs) to conduct inspections. To perform this function, they
often hire industry insiders who have an obvious stake in preserving
the status quo.
Statistics clearly show that when USDA inspectors are in attendance
to oversee shows, the numbers of noted violations are many times higher
than at shows where industry inspectors alone are conducting the
inspections. And when USDA inspectors do arrive at shows, many
exhibitors load up and leave to avoid being caught with sored horses.
Agency officials have stated that inspectors are wary of going outside
of their designated inspection area to examine horses on trailers as
they leave the show grounds or in the barn areas, for fear of
harassment and physical violence from exhibitors. Recently, armed
security has been utilized to allow such inspections, at additional
expense to this program. The fact that exhibitors feel they can
intimidate government officials without penalty is a testament to the
inherent shortcomings of the current system. By all measures, the
overall DQP program has been a failure--the only remedy is to abolish
it or greatly reduce dependence on this conflicted industry-run program
of self-regulation and give USDA the resources it needs to adequately
enforce the act.
Lack of a consistent presence by USDA officials at Tennessee
Walking Horse shows, sales, exhibits and auctions has fostered a
cavalier attitude among industry insiders, who have not stopped their
abuse, but have only become more clandestine in their soring methods.
The continued use of soring to gain an advantage in the show ring has
tainted the Tennessee Walking Horse industry as a whole, and creates an
unfair advantage for those who are willing to break the law in pursuit
of victory.
Besides the indefensible suffering of the animals themselves, the
continued acceptance of sored horses in the show ring prevents those
with sound horses from competing fairly for prizes, breeding fees and
other financial incentives, while those horse owners whose horses are
sored may unwittingly suffer property damage and be duped into
believing that their now abused, damaged horses are naturally superior.
Currently, the means of inspection involves a physical palpation by
the inspector. New technologies, such as thermography and ``sniffer''
devices (gas chromatography/mass spectrometry machines), have been
developed, which can help inspectors identify soring more effectively
and objectively. However, USDA has been unable to purchase and put
enough of this equipment in use in the field, allowing for industry
insiders to continually evade detection. With increased funding, the
USDA could purchase this equipment and train more inspectors to use it
properly, greatly increasing its ability to enforce the Horse
Protection Act (HPA).
The egregious cruelty of soring is not only a concern for animal
protection and horse industry organizations, but also for
veterinarians. Last year, the American Association of Equine
Practitioners (AAEP) issued a white paper condemning soring, calling it
``one of the most significant welfare issues faced by the equine
industry.'' It called for the abolition of the DQP Program, saying
``the acknowledged conflicts of interest which involve many of them
cannot be reasonably resolved, and these individuals should be excluded
from the regulatory process.'' The AAEP further stated, ``The failure
of the HPA to eliminate the practice of soring can be traced to the
woefully inadequate annual budget of $500,000 allocated to the USDA to
enforce these rules and regulations.''
It is unacceptable that nearly 40 years after passage of the Horse
Protection Act, the USDA still lacks the resources needed to end this
extreme form of abuse. It is time for Congress to give our public
servants charged with enforcing this Act the support and resources they
want and need to fulfill their duty to protect these horses as
effectively and safely as possible.
We appreciate the opportunity to share our views about this serious
problem, and thank you for your consideration of our request.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Acheson, Dr. David, Associate Commissioner for Foods, Food and
Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services... 1
Ad Hoc Coalition, Prepared Statement of the...................... 113
American:
Farm Bureau Federation, Prepared Statement of the............ 115
Honey Producers Association, Inc., Prepared Statement of the. 117
Indian Higher Education Consortium, Prepared Statement of the 122
Public Power Association, Prepared Statement of the.......... 126
Society for:
Microbiology, Prepared Statements of the...............126, 130
Nutrition (ASN), Prepared Statement of the............... 133
Society of:
Agronomy, Prepared Statement of the...................... 136
Plant Biologists, Prepared Statement of the.............. 135
Animal Welfare Institute, Prepared Statements of the...........139, 142
Bennett, Senator Robert F., U.S. Senator From Utah, Statement of. 3
Bond, Senator Christopher S., U.S. Senator From Missouri,
Statement of................................................... 51
Brownback, Senator Sam, U.S. Senator From Kansas:
Questions Submitted by....................................... 37
Statements of................................................ 2, 48
Cochran, Norris, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Budget,
Department of Health and Human Services........................ 1
Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 50
Questions Submitted by....................................... 109
Collins, Senator Susan, U.S. Senator From Maine:
Questions Submitted by....................................... 111
Statement of................................................. 51
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum, Prepared Statement
of the......................................................... 143
Colorado River Board of California, Prepared Statement of the.... 146
Crop Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of the....... 136
Durbin, Senator Richard J., U.S. Senator From Illinois, Question
Submitted by................................................... 37
Environmental Service Research Institute, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 147
Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California,
Questions Submitted by........................................33, 103
Florida State University, Prepared Statement of.................. 150
Friends of Agricultural Research--Beltsville, Inc., Prepared
Statement of................................................... 151
Glauber, Dr. Joseph, Chief Economist, U.S. Department of
Agriculture.................................................... 47
Goodwill Industries International, Prepared Statement of......... 155
Harkin, Senator Tom, U.S. Senator From Iowa:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 79
Questions Submitted by....................................... 101
Statement of................................................. 79
Izaak Walton League of America, Prepared Statement of the........ 153
Johnson, Senator Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 51
Statement of................................................. 50
Kohl, Senator Herb, U.S. Senator From Wisconsin:
Opening Statements of........................................ 1, 47
Questions Submitted by.......................................26, 90
McGarey, Patrick, Director, Office of Budget Formulation and
Presentation, Food and Drug Administration, Department of
Health and Human Services...................................... 1
Merrigan, Dr. Kathleen, Deputy Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Department of Agriculture........................... 47
Minor Crop Farmer Alliance, Prepared Statement of the............ 155
National:
Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research, Prepared
Statements of the........................................156, 158
Commodity Supplemental Food Program Association, Prepared
Statement of the........................................... 159
Cooperative Business Association, Prepared Statement of the.. 164
Cotton Council, Prepared Statement of the.................... 166
Environmental Service Center, Prepared Statement of the...... 168
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Prepared Statement of the...... 175
Organic Coalition, Prepared Statement of the................. 170
Potato Council, Prepared Statement of the.................... 173
New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, Prepared Statement of
the............................................................ 177
Organic Farming Research Foundation, Prepared Statement of the... 179
Reed, Senator Jack, U.S. Senator From Rhode Island, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 108
Sharfstein, Dr. Joshua M., Acting Commissioner, Food and Drug
Administration, Department of Health and Human Services........ 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 9
Statement of................................................. 4
Society for Women's Health Research, Prepared Statement of the... 182
Soil Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of the....... 136
Steele, Dr. Scott, Budget Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture 47
The Humane Society of the United States, Prepared Statements of185, 190
The Wildlife Society, Prepared Statement of...................... 189
Vilsack, Thomas, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Department
of Agriculture................................................. 47
Statement of................................................. 52
Prepared Statement of........................................ 54
WhiteWave Foods, Prepared Statement of........................... 189
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of the Secretary
Page
Acre Program Implementation and Training......................... 101
Additional Committee Questions................................... 90
Advanced Biofuels................................................ 101
Affordable Rental Housing........................................ 110
Agricultural Inspectors at Homeland Security..................... 105
Agroforestry Research............................................ 72
All Natural Labels for Poultry................................... 107
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds..................... 62
Animal:
Antibiotics.................................................. 98
Identification............................................... 95
Improvement Laboratory....................................... 100
Asian Citrus Psyllid............................................. 103
Broadband........................................................ 90
California Drought Assistance.................................... 104
Cap-and-Trade Legislation........................................ 109
Catfish Inspection Program....................................... 108
Childhood Obesity................................................ 71
Civil Rights..................................................... 90
Corn-soy Blend................................................... 87
Country of Origin Labeling..................................70, 76, 106
Dairy............................................................ 92
Farmers...................................................... 111
Price Support Program........................................ 99
Direct Farm Payments Limitation Cap......................66, 68, 71, 74
Downer Cattle.................................................... 106
Empowerment Zones................................................ 111
FSA Computers.................................................... 102
Food Safety:
Assessments.................................................. 97
Infrastructure............................................... 98
Frozen Food Safety............................................... 105
Global Food Security............................................. 84
Humanitarian Food Aid Dollars.................................... 64
Improving Financial Integrity.................................... 54
Local Foods--Business and Industry Loan and Grant Program........ 101
Low Milk Prices.................................................. 84
Maine Flood Assistance........................................... 112
Market Access Program............................................ 108
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education Program........... 92
Micro-enterprise Program......................................... 95
Milk Income Loss Contract Program................................ 107
National:
Animal Identification System................................. 69
Bio and Agro-defense Facility................................ 63
Drought Mitigation Center.................................... 74
Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)..................... 91
Education Request........................................ 92
Philadelphia School Lunch Program................................ 82
Poultry Imports From China....................................... 66
RHS Recovery Act Implementation.................................. 110
Recovery Act..................................................... 54
Broadband Program............................................73, 75
Business and Industry Loans.................................. 81
Watershed Projects in Rhode Island........................... 77
Renewable Energy................................................. 94
Program Direction............................................ 88
Research......................................................... 98
Funding at Land Grant Universities........................... 67
Resource Conservation and Development Councils (RC&Ds)..........93, 112
Revenue Caps vs. Income Caps..................................... 108
Rural Community Forums........................................... 85
Supplemental Revenue Assistance Program.......................... 69
The New Homestead Act............................................ 86
2008 Farm Bill Provisions........................................ 68
USDA and DOE Collaboration....................................... 102
WIC.............................................................. 93
Funding...................................................... 88
WRP 2008 Farm Bill Program....................................... 80
Watershed Flood Prevention Operations Program Status............. 96
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program.............................. 77
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
Access Act....................................................... 16
Additional:
Committee Questions.......................................... 26
Staff........................................................ 25
Requested in the Budget/Pay Costs........................ 28
Adulterated Pomegranate Juice.................................... 29
Animal Biotech Products.......................................... 7
Antibiotic Resistance............................................ 29
Antiviral Team................................................... 8
Blood Team....................................................... 8
Budget Request................................................... 5
Consumer Protective Team......................................... 8
Cosmetic Safety.................................................. 33
Cost of:
Drug Development............................................. 24
Inspections.................................................. 31
Critical Path....................................................21, 32
Initiative/Modernize Drug Development........................ 44
Demonstration Grants for Improving Pediatric Device Availability. 31
Details of the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget........................... 10
Diagnostic Team.................................................. 8
Drug Importation................................................. 20
Expermental Drugs................................................ 17
FDA:
New Plan for Food Safety and States' Role.................... 26
Regulation of Tobacco........................................ 29
2009-H1N1 Flu Virus Response................................. 13
2010 Budget Request.......................................... 9
Fern Labs........................................................ 32
Fiscal Year 2009 Supplemental Funding............................ 43
Food Safety, White House Working Group........................... 40
Foreign Offices.................................................. 43
GAO.............................................................. 37
Generic Drugs.................................................... 28
H1N1 Flu Virus................................................... 7
Hiring and IT.................................................... 15
Human Resources/Hiring Issues.................................... 42
Legislative Initiatives.......................................... 7
Med Guides....................................................... 24
Methicillin-Resistance Staphylococcus Aereua--MRSA............... 30
National Antimicrobial:
Monitoring System............................................ 29
Resistance Monitoring System................................. 41
NCTR............................................................. 18
New Authorities Requested in the Budget.......................... 28
Office of Cosmetics and Colors................................... 30
Office of Generic Drugs.......................................... 44
Performance Results.............................................. 39
Personalized Medicine............................................ 41
Policy Proposals: Drug Importation and Generic Biologics......... 38
Public Health Outcomes........................................... 4
Rapid Response................................................... 26
Teams........................................................ 27
Recent Funding Increases......................................... 9
Safe:
Drug:
Usage.................................................... 23
Use...................................................... 6
Foods........................................................ 5
Safer Medical Products........................................... 6
Shortage Team.................................................... 8
Strategic Framework.............................................. 15
Supplemental Funds............................................... 15
Tobacco.......................................................... 22
Regulation................................................... 39
Tuberculosis: Drug Resistant TB and Diagnostic Tests for Children 37
Use of Antibiotics in Animals.................................... 40
Vaccine Team..................................................... 8
Warning Letters.................................................. 20
-